2016 OSHA Silica Rule Upheld By Federal Court

On December 22 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the OSHA crystalline silica rule, rejecting all objections raised by industry groups. In 2016, OSHA published a final rule regulating workplace exposure to silica, Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (29 CFR 1910, 1915 and 1926).

The industry groups had petitioned for review of several issues:

• Whether substantial evidence supports OSHA’s finding that limiting workers’ silica exposure to the level set by the rule reduces a significant risk of material health impairment.
• Whether substantial evidence supports OSHA’s finding that the rule is technologically and economically feasible
• Whether OSHA had complied with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating the rule, and
• Whether substantial evidence supports two provisions of the rule, which allow workers who undergo medical examinations to keep the results confidential from their employers and prohibiting employers from using dry cleaning methods unless doing so is infeasible.

Unions had requested review of parts of the rule requiring that medical surveillance for construction workers be provided only if the employee has to wear a respirator for 30 days for one employer in a one-year period and the absence of medical removal protections (MRP).

The Court rejected the unions’ challenge to the construction standard’s 30-day trigger for medical surveillance, however the Court did find that OSHA was arbitrary and capricious in declining to require MRP for some period when a medical professional recommends permanent removal, when a medical professional recommends temporary removal to alleviate COPD symptoms, and when a medical professional recommends temporary removal pending a specialist’s determination. The Court concluded that OSHA failed to adequately explain its decision to omit medical removal protections from the rule and remanded that portion of the rule back to OSHA for further consideration.

Business Related Environmental Risks Compared To Real Estate Risks

Benefits of Social Media Presence For Environmental & Safety Professionals

Value of Social Media Presence for EHS Professional from Loren Larson, CHMM, CPEA

Presentation to Alliance of Hazardous Material Managers on value of social media presence for both EH&S professionals and for professional organizations.

Rules On Disposal Of Aerosols, Antifreeze, Paint Wastes In Ohio

The Ohio EPA adopted Ohio-specific universal waste rules allowing hazardous non-empty aerosol containers, hazardous antifreeze, hazardous paint and hazardous paint-related wastes to be classified and managed as a universal waste in Ohio. The rules will be effective on December 21, 2017. These rules will eventually be moved to Ohio Administrative Code chapter 3745-273.

This action designating waste that would otherwise be classified as hazardous waste as a universal waste promotes proper handling, recycling or disposal of the waste by streamlining the applicable regulations. The new Ohio-specific universal wastes will be subject to specific requirements detailed in the rule to address the risks the wastes may pose. The requirements include:

• labeling,
• tank and container standards,
• limited treatment provisions,
• accumulation time limits,
• employee training requirements,
• emergency response requirements and
• transportation according to U.S. Department of Transportation rules.

Universal wastes do not count towards a generator’s monthly hazardous waste accumulation rate and they are not required to manifested as a hazardous waste in Ohio EPA or reported on the generator’s hazardous waste biennial report.

Click here to review other regulatory updates for Ohio

EHS Auditors To Supplement Audit Teams Or Fill Subject Matter Expert Roles

Caltha LLP has environmental and safety compliance and management system auditors available for short-term assignments to supplement audit teams or to provide Subject Matter Experts for auditing projects. Click here to review recent audit project examples.

Caltha staff have experience conducting EH&S audits in most US States and Canada. Caltha also has performed media or regulatory specific audits, including:

• Product stewardship audits
• Product responsibility audits
• Waste - hazardous waste audits
• TSCA audits
• Air permit compliance audits
• Wastewater compliance audits
• Tank compliance audits
• Risk Management Plan audits

For more information on the availability of short-term auditors to supplement audit teams or to full specific SME roles, contact Caltha at info@calthacompany.com

WI Rules Protecting CHMM, CSP, CIH Credentials

Wisconsin Senate Bill 132 was signed prohibiting the unauthorized use of certain professional credentials, including Certified Hazardous Material Manager, or CHMM. Unless a person is certified by the Institute of Hazardous Materials Management (IHMM), the law prohibits that person from using the title of Certified Dangerous Goods Professional (CDGP), Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM), or Certified Hazardous Materials Practitioner (CHMP). The new Wisconsin law also provides protections for those certified by the American Board of Health Physics, the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, the Board of Certified Safety Professionals, and the National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists.

The new law also prohibits a business from representing that services provided are furnished by one of these certified professionals unless those services are provided by a certified person. A person is also prohibited from misleading or deceiving another person by the unauthorized use of a certification mark awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The Wisconsin law considers a violation of these prohibitions an unfair method of competition in business or an unfair trade practice, and allows a person who suffers a monetary loss because of a violation to sue for twice the amount of the monetary loss and reasonable attorney fees. The law allows the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to bring a court action for an injunction to restrain a violation of these prohibitions.

Caltha LLP provides services performed by Certified Hazardous Material Manager certified by the Institute of Hazardous Materials Management.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

MinnesotaToxic Pollution Prevention Plan Update Due January 1, 2018

The Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act (TPPA) requires facilities that report toxic chemical releases under EPCRA 313 to prepare a Pollution Prevention Plan (P2 Plan) for chemicals reported on EPA Form R. In addition to submitting their EPA Form R to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Program, TRI reporting sites must prepare a Pollution Prevention Plan and to submit annual Pollution Prevention Progress Reports based on those plans to the Minnesota EPCRA Program.

There are two reoccurring P2 requirements for TRI reporting sites in Minnesota:

• Annual P2 Progress Report - due with TRI report on July 1, and
• Biennial Update to Pollution Prevention  (P2) Plan - due by Jan 1 for each odd-numbered year (update required in 2017 must be completed by January 1, 2018)

The Pollution Prevention Plan and Progress Report do not apply to chemicals that are not required to be reported on EPA Form R, are reported on EPA Form A, or are reported on EPA Form R but have no on-site release or off-site transfer amounts.

Click here for more information and regulatory updates on EPCRA reporting.