Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

It’s exceedingly difficult to predict workplace violence, and there is no easy solution to stop it altogether, however, reference checking is a preventative step that employers can take to reduce the risk. I would add that, in my professional opinion, many workplace violence incidents could be prevented if employers took the necessary precautions before an incident actually unfolded.

In 1989 OSHA issued “Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines” (S&H Guidelines), recommending activities employers should undertake to ensure their employees’ safety and health. The S&H Program Guidelines encourage employers to institute and maintain an “effective occupational safety and health program.” Some state occupational safety and health regulators have used these (voluntary) guidelines as the basis for mandatory employer programs – including California’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) requirement and Washington’s Accident Prevention Program (APP) requirement. OSHA proposed a national rule in 2012, but after several delays has designated it a “long term action.”

It takes time to stand in the bookstore and figure out which books will make suitable gifts for the little people in your life. Some book covers masquerade as educational and enriching, but when you open them up, they are vapid and do not offer any challenging material, nor new thoughts to open up a child’s mind. If you are looking for books that introduce environmental themes and get kids thinking and asking the questions that matter, here is what I can recommend:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted massive changes to its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS or Hazcom) effective May 25, 2012, updating chemical information, labeling and training requirements that had been in place since the 1980s. These revised requirements conform U.S. requirements to international guidelines under the U.N.-sponsored Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Recognizing the extent of these changes, OSHA provided multi-year compliance phase-ins for employers whose workers manufacture, distribute or use chemicals (I’ve previously blogged about the changes here, here and here). The next such deadline is December 1, 2015, when distributors must only ship containers that meet the latest labeling requirements – so if you work for an employer that’s an end user of chemicals, all containers entering your facility must meet these requirements rather than the pre-2012 requirements.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers a Worker Protection Standard (WPS) designed to protect workers exposed to agricultural pesticides. WPS is patterned after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA's) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) for workers in most other industrial and commercial settings. EPA adopted the WPS in 1992, and just adopted its first revisions late in September 2015. Some of these changes incorporate revisions to HCS adopted by OSHA in 2012 (see here), while others catch up on two decades of industrial hygiene and worker safety practices. The revisions will appear in the Federal Register (probably in November) and become effective 60 days later. Compliance deadlines extend for up to 2 years for the various changes.

I summarized longstanding WPS requirements when I blogged last year about EPA’s proposed revisions (click here ). To further summarize my summary, WPS requires employers whose employees work with or around pesticides to provide the following:

• Pesticide safety training

• Labeling information

• Specific information including pesticide-specific training within 5 days after beginning work (“grace period”), supplementing immediate emergency information and a pesticide safety poster

• Requirements to keep workers out of areas being treated with pesticides, within nurseries and greenhouses (“buffer”)

• Requirements to keep workers out of areas during a restricted-entry interval (REI) set for each pesticide

• Protect early-entry workers doing permitted tasks in pesticide-treated areas during an REI, including special instructions and personal protective equipment (PPE)

• Required warning to nearby workers about pesticide-treated areas (oral and/or warning signs, depending on the chemical)

• Monitor handlers using highly toxic pesticides, at least every 2 hours

• Provide required PPE to handlers (e.g., clothing, respirators)

• Provide decontamination supplies

• Provide for emergency assistance.

Some requirements apply on behalf of all agricultural workers who may be exposed, plus additional requirements for pesticide handlers who work with regulated pesticides.

What Changes is EPA Adopting?

EPA has adopted a wide variety of revisions, including provisions that have changed significantly from last year’s proposal. Revisions include:

• Training (compliance deadline delayed for 2 years):

In Kent v. Postmedia Network Inc. (2015 ABQB 461), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted a summary judgment application by Paul Godfrey and Gordon Fisher, two directors of Postmedia Network Inc., and dismissed the defamation claims against them by the plaintiff, Arthur Kent. Kent claimed he had been defamed in a 2008 article written by Don Martin and published in the Calgary Herald and National Post and continuing to be available on various websites maintained by Postmedia. The article at issue was published while Kent was a candidate in the Alberta provincial election and he claimed it contained false and defamatory statements that were intended to have readers infer that Kent’s career as an international correspondent was insubstantial, he was unworthy of public trust and confidence, his election campaign was incompetent and he lacked support from both his campaign team and political party. In the course of the litigation leading up to the motion for summary judgment, Kent had both Fisher and Godfrey served with a Notice of Intention to bring an Action setting out the basis for his claim of defamation and seeking removal of the article from websites. Neither Fisher nor Godfrey sought the removal of the article from those websites.

If your organization manages pharmaceuticals, do you know if any of its waste pharmaceuticals are regulated as “hazardous waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)? And do you know which ones, and why or why not?

For more than 25 years, I’ve taught one of the core required courses in the Hazardous Materials Management Certificate program offered by University of California Santa Cruz Extension (UCSC-Ex). The program is intended to provide professionals with a solid foundation in the principles, regulations, and technologies required to manage hazardous materials and hazardous waste. In my course–the Regulatory Framework for Toxic and Hazardous Materials–I provide overviews of:

A manager reports to you that one of your workers, Joe, has admitted to a problem with alcohol. Or perhaps there’s an accident in the workplace and the ensuing investigation reveals that Jane is a regular drug user. Or John arrives at the office, once again unfit to do his job because he’s “under the influence.”

This information will be updated shortly

The collective experience of 54 environmental, health, and safety (EHS) audit directors and managers from some of the world’s leading multinational companies provides valuable insights for companies of all sizes and audit-maturity levels in guiding EHS auditing activities. With the goal of promoting continuous improvement in EHS auditing effectiveness and practices, AECOM’s International Audit Practicef Consortium (IAPC) has published its Seventh Biennial Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Practices Survey Report--a 123-page report presenting the results, analysis, and lessons learned from its membership in critical EHS areas of: Audit Scope versus Depth; Auditor Independence, Competency, and Training; Compliance Point versus Control Failures; Audit Program Metrics and Evaluations; and Stakeholder Value.