Alarming news on global coal consumption, a mysterious update on OSHA’s I2P2 program, EPA’s soot regulations and more on EHS This Week

What? More whistleblower news? You guessed it. Kind of a trend recently on EHS This Week, the only weekly podcast to round up the top stories in EHS news around the world. 

This week we’ve got a ton of great (and not so great) news. We discuss the emerging OSHA whistleblower committee, strange news on OSHA’s upcoming (or is it?) injury and illness prevention program, and new EPA regulations on soot. 

Take a listen and don’t forget to send your comments and suggestions to paul@ehsthisweek.com.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

More whistleblower news, signs of EPA and Texas climate progress, deaths in fertilizer blasts and more on EHS This Week

This week Kristy and I discuss another whistleblower case, EPA’s work with Texas on a clean air plan, blasts at a Mississippi fertilizer plant, Mexico’s climate legislation and more.

Got an idea for an EHS story? Care to come on our program? Just write us at paul@ehsthisweek.com and we’ll make it happen.

Enjoy the show!

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Big Branch mine settlement, OSHA whistleblower protection and more on EHS This Week

Head on over to Podbean or use the player below to check out the most recent podcast of EHS This Week.

This week, Kristy Sadler and I discuss top stories from the world of environment, health and safety news, including a big OSHA whistleblower suit, the Big Branch mine disaster settlement, Durban climate talks, and more.

Check back on a weekly basis for a quick rundown of the week’s top EHS Stories.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Milk ain’t oil: EPA sides with common sense

Yes, the line’s been used a hundred times in the past few days, but warrants repeating: U.S. dairy farmers needn’t cry over spilled milk any longer.

Beneath the sound and fury of political arguments over the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) right (nay, duty) to regulate greenhouse gases, the agency quietly sided last week with milk producers and finally exempted milk from oil spill control regulations.

The EPA has long required shippers of oil tanks and containers to develop spill control and prevention plans. Problem was, this included dairy farmers, since milk is defined as oil under the Clean Water Act because it contains animal fat (an oil). The regulations were originally designed for Big Oil, not farmers, but it has taken a few years for the agency to exempt dairy from the Act’s requirements. With the final ruling, milk, milk product containers, and milk production equipment are exempt from Clean Water Act shipping and container requirements, effective immediately.

Some estimates peg the savings from the move at nearly $150 million for U.S. milk and dairy farmers.

Unfortunately, critics of the EPA have used the episode to underscore the perceived futility of the organization, apparently forgetting that it is keeping them safe from irradiated food products, among other things.

 

U.S. Senate poised to tackle EPA’s emissions authority

The next few days are critical for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The organization declared late last year it would expand its mandate and regulate greenhouse gas emissions from plants and refineries, a move that has not been popular with Republicans and a handful of Democrats.

The Senate will vote in the coming days – potentially as early as Wednesday – on three amendments to a small business bill that could potentially limit the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, an ability that is provided by both the Clean Air Act and a 2007 Supreme Court decision on the agency’s scope. By regulating the emissions of U.S. plants and refineries, the EPA would be able to regulate emissions from sources that represent more than 40 per cent of nationwide greenhouse gas emissions.

However, it must overcome the many legislative roadblocks that, to varying degrees, would prevent it from regulating emissions from stationary sources, including:

  • An amendment sponsored by Democratic Senator Max Baucus that would exclude some farms and businesses (that emit under 75,000 tons of carbon) from the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation purview. This is considered the most moderate of the proposed amendments.
  • An amendment by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller that would postpone adoption of new EPA rules by at least two years.
  • A drastic proposal by Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to permanently prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses from plants and refineries.

Republicans argue the U.S. economy cannot sustain the costs associated with expanded pollution controls. They need the support of a number of Democrats to pass McConnell’s amendment in a vote that may occur as early as Wednesday, and have indicated they have the support of at least 50 senators in the Democrat-led Senate. Most of the Democrats who have signaled support for the Republican amendment represent states where coal constitutes a large part of the economy.

Though the EPA’s announcement, delivered right after the 111th Congress adjourned in late December, came as a shock to some, the White House has long maintained the EPA would work to restrict emissions in accordance with its legal mandate, whether or not climate legislation was passed.

If any of the proposed amendments fail to gain the 60 necessary Senate votes for passage, the EPA would be poised to expand its authority to regulate emissions, sooner rather than later – unless Republicans in the GOP-dominated House of Representatives are successful at pushing through their own legislation designed to cripple the EPA’s greenhouse gas-regulating authority.

Start preparing for new OSHA fall protection requirements now

A Roof

In an effort to curb the startling statistic that 40 workers are killed in the U.S. every year as a result of falls from residential roofs, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has set a deadline for implementation of new fall safety requirements for June 16, 2011.

The directive will require any residential builder, coast to coast, engaged in construction projects more than six feet from the ground (or lower levels, on low-slope roofs, steep roofs, etc.) to comply with 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13). The requirement basically calls for conventional fall protection, such as guardrail systems, safety net systems, professional fall arrest systems, or other fall protection measured spelled out in 1926.501(b).

The new rules replace the 1995 Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction, guidelines that allowed many residential builders to ignore fall safety requirements.

Three of OSHA’s Top 10 most frequently cited standards in 2010 pertained to height concerns, including scaffolding (#1), fall protection (#2) and ladders (#3), making fall-releated issues cumulatively one of the most cited hazards for workplaces and work sites across America.

However, there is limited flexibility. As the notice of the new fall protection rules explains, “if an employer can demonstrate that such fall protection is infeasible or presents a greater hazard, it may implement a written fall protection plan meeting the requirements of Sec.  1926.502(k).”

Since the deadline for these new requirements occurs in less than three months, now is the time for residential builders to implement streamlined safety management systems to ensure they meet all the new rules.