Crazy 8's

EMERGENCY RESPONSE HAZMAT TEAMS 

DO NOT NEED 8 HOURS OF ANNUAL TRAINING

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s 1910.120 Hazwoper Emergency Response Hazmat Team Training Regulation is the first and most misunderstood training requirement I have encountered. So, let’s cut to the chase, annual training yes, but 8 hours of it, not necessarily unless they work at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites under 1910.120 (b) though (o) or a RCRA Permitted Treatment, Storage Disposal Facilities (TSDF), under 1910.120(p). It all can be found in the March 6, 1989 final rule in the Federal register starting on page 9309.

The 1910.120(q) Emergency response requirements cover emergency response situations that occur at locations other than Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites and RCRA TSDFs. The typical site covered by 1910.120(q), would be a transportation accident where hazardous substances are being or have the potential for being released into the environment, or chemical storage and manufacturing facility releases such that occurred in Bhopal India and Institute, West Virginia.

These emergency responses are the types of accidents that would usually include first responders (i.e.plant workers, police, employees on a train), HAZMAT teams, State Fire Marshals, Coast Guard or Federal E.P.A, the National Response Teams and the clean-up crews who are initial response employees of the site owner that clean-up the release. Employees of outside clean-up contractors would be covered by uncontrolled hazardous waste site requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o), as post emergency response clean-ups, require different levels of training and protective equipment than Hazmat teams in paragraph (q).

Post-emergency responses can be performed by two basic groups of employees: on site employees, or employees from off of the site. Post- emergency clean-up begins when the individual in charge of the initial emergency response declares the site is under control and ready for clean-up. According to paragraph (q)(11) Post emergency response, (which would include the 40 hours of initial training and an 8 hour update annually), would apply to those employees who come from other employers' sites, located off-of-the-site to perform the post-emergency clean-up. Employees of the employer at the site where the release occurred, and who perform post emergency clean-up, are considered to be part of the initial emergency response.

The difference is that employees at the site are familiar with the types of emergencies that may occur and the types of clean-up operations that may have to take place. The potential for unknown exposure to employees can occur when outside contractors or other off-site employees are brought into an unfamiliar environment and are expected to clean- up the residue from a release.

The 1910.120(q) training requirement is clear under subparagraph (8), that Hazmat Team employees who are trained in accordance with paragraph (q)(6) only require “annual refresher training of sufficient content and duration to maintain their competencies, or shall demonstrate competency in those areas at least yearly”.

The reason I started training was because of Hazwoper and the misunderstanding that most companies had because they refused to actually read it. This was back when I was still Dad’s seminar driver and in charge of the coffee breaks. When during an in house seminar an attendee asked me about it as he was having trouble moving forward under their multiple consultant’s different interpretations. Sometimes it’s best to ask the stupidest person in the room a question as they are the ones that actually have to look it up (which is a whole other blog).

Many companies relied on trainer  “recommendations” to meet their training requirements, which is their first mistake. Surgeons don’t make money on physical therapy, they make money on surgeries.

 So, unless your state has proposed, adopted and published a more stringent training requirements than the feds, focus your Hazmat Teams annual refresher emergency response training under paragraph (q) on their competency and not your wristwatch.

Be Safe!

Robert J Keegan
Publisher and President
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company
Transportation Skills Programs Inc.
Hazmat.tsp@gmail.com

DON’T BE MIS-LEAD

WHY LEAD IS AND IS NOT
A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

When is Lead regulated as a Hazardous Material?

To find out, check the Department of Transportation 49 CFR 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, for pure “Lead” and not, for example; “Lead dross” which is listed as Class 8 corrosive. Since pure Lead is not listed in the 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, then check Appendix A to 172.101, The Hazardous Substance and Reportable Quantities List, in which Lead with a ¢ is listed with a 10 lb “RQ”. (note; the ¢ means the RQ for these hazardous substances is limited to those pieces of the metal having a diameter smaller than 100 micrometers, or 0.004 \ inches). 

Then reference the definition in 171.8 for Hazardous substance, which means a material, including mixtures and solutions, that is listed in the appendix A to §172.101 of this subchapter and is in a quantity, in one package, which equals or exceeds the reportable quantity (RQ) listed in the appendix A to 172.101.

If it is regulated as a “RQ” Hazardous Substance

Ship as “RQ, UN 3077, Environmentally Hazardous Substance, Solid, N.O.S, 9, PG III, (Lead)”, because 172.203(c) Hazardous Substances states that if the proper shipping name for a material that is a hazardous substance does not identify the hazardous substance by name, the name of the hazardous substance or waste code must be entered in parentheses in association with the basic description. If the material contains two or more hazardous substances, at least two hazardous substances or waste codes, with the lowest reportable quantities (RQs), must be identified and the letters “RQ” must be entered on the shipping paper either before or after the basic description. For example: “RQ, UN 3077, Environmentally hazardous substances, solid, n.o.s., 9, III, (Adipic acid)”.

In Conclusion

The question to ask yourself when shipping pure Lead would be whether or not each container contained over 10 pounds of Lead particles less than 100 micrometers or 0.004 \ inches. If not, then it would not be considered a 49 CFR hazardous substance (ie; hazardous material).

This is why you can’t trust OSHA Safety Data Sheets (SDS), they are not for shipping materials they are for protecting workers, (see transportation information in the links in title). If you are not sure of when your chemical is a hazardous material, substance or waste under DOT, EPA or OSHA email me or better yet, sign up for our next seminar now!

Robert J Keegan
Publisher and President 
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company 
Transportation Skills Programs 
hazmat.tsp@gmail.com

ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD

It is well known that one of the first major challenges that the newly formed State of California faced in the mid 1800’s was environmental damage from hydraulic gold mining  creating water quality, deforestation and navigational problems. Then, in the 1900’s it was agricultural concerns and finally in the 20th century the drilling of oil, and the growth of industries, including electronics and aerospace, that made many Californians realize they needed to take firm action to protect the state's pristine environment from these hazardous materials and wastes.

Those well intentioned efforts eventually spond the formation of 1300 state and local agencies, leading to confusion and overlap. So, in 1993 California passed regulations to implement and enforce these laws, with its first California Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), being certified in 1996. These CUPA’s are local agencies certified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), to implement, inspect and enforce six state hazardous waste and hazardous materials regulatory management programs.

Unfortunately, this program is not without its own problems, namely compliance issues among the state’s many stakeholders. So, we have tried to present an outline of each of these responsibilities and the regulating agencies with additional informational links to make it easier to understand and to which hopefully comply.

CUPA AGENCIES AND COMPLIANCE RESOURCES 

CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY 

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) administers the Unified Program and certifies the Unified Program Agencies. 

CUPA Hazardous materials and waste guidebook

Cal EPA CUPA homepage 

Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs 

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides technical assistance and evaluation for the hazardous waste generator program including above ground petroleum storage tanks and onsite treatment tiered permitting.

DTSC CUPA Hazardous waste inspection checklist

CUPA Hazardous waste generator homepage

 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) 

DTSC Aboveground tank homepage

Sacramento County Above ground tank checklist

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories Business Plans

The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for providing technical assistance and evaluation of the Hazardous Material Release Response Plan (Business Plan) Program and the California Accidental Release Response Plan (CalARP) Programs.

San Diego County Hazmat business response and inventory plan

OES Homepage

California Accidental Release Prevention Program

DTSC ARP Homepage

Sacramento CalARP plan 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) provides technical assistance and evaluation for the underground storage tank program in addition to handling the oversight and enforcement for the aboveground storage tank program

California Water boards UST homepage

EPA UST Guidebook and checklists

 California Fire Code

Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Hazardous Material Management Plans and the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement Programs. These programs tie in closely with the Business Plan Program

ICC California fire code

Living in a state that puts well being and the environment forefront can make it harder to run economically feasible endeavors, but is certainly worth the effort to guarantee the protection of the state’s natural resources through the 21st century and beyond.

Please sign up for one of our live online Pacific Time Zone Hazardous Materials, Substance and Waste Management Compliance Seminars coming up shortly in May. Don’t miss this golden opportunity to meet your responsibilities for training and testing under the CUPA requirements before your next inspection .

Robert J Keegan

Publisher and President 

Hazardous Materials Publishing Company 

Transportation Skills Program once

Hazmat.tsp@gmail.com

FEAR AND LOATHING IN BALLROOM B

When I first started running my father’s hazardous materials, substances and waste compliance seminars and for many years there after I was terrified by attendee’s questions. This was fueled by low self-esteem and lack of a traditional education. I would make the classic novice instructor mistake of becoming irritated and angry when confronted with a question or even the slightest clarification, as many long time attendees will attest, and which, for some unknown reason l have many. 

I wish I had some humorous or insightful situation in which I can remember when it changed. I do not. But, today it’s not the question that I know the answer to that I revel in, but the question I do not. 

Recently after running an in-house zoom seminar for them, a long time customer called me to ask if it would be alright to ship sulfuric acid in a 98% solution in a steel Intermediate bulk container, (IBC). My first reaction was fear and loathing as I am neither a chemical or industrial engineer, and because upon consulting the 49 CFR Department of Transportation, (DOT) regulations, it seemed that, 31A steel IBC containers, in addition to plastic 31H containers were listed in Special provision IB2 for this Class 8 corrosive.

The first thing you need to know about shipping hazardous materials and waste is that DOT does not authorize containers. They only require that a container be properly tested by manufacturers and then whichever DOT recommended container a shipper selects, is appropriate for that hazardous material.

Under the DOT hazardous material regulations in Section 173.136 corrosives are defined two ways. The first is testing up to 2 weeks on mammal membrane, using rabbits, and the second is severe corrosion rate on steel. The 40 CFR Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) regulations in 40 CFR 261.22  picks up severe corrosion rate on steel but use the waste material’s PH in lieu of animal testing.

Numerous calls to the Department of Transportation Hotline, (800)-467-4922, to this corrosive chemical container conundrum, led to nothing that condoned or concluded that steel single containers would be appropriate at this concentration. 

Unfortunately, all of my regulatory research did not leave me or my customer with a confident conclusion. I felt defeated, until later that night when I decided to Google it, and found this link, that stated;

“When carbon steel comes into contact with concentrated sulfuric acid, there is an immediate acid attack with the formation of hydrogen gas and ferrous ions which, in turn, forms a protective layer of FeSO4 on the metallic surface. The durability of the tanks and pipes made of carbon steel will depend on the preservation of this protective layer“.

I am not a consultant, only a lowly instructor, who makes himself available to anyone burdened with hazardous materials, substances and waste responsibilities. I cannot tell you what they decided to do, as I don’t know and it is none of my business in the end. It seemed like a pretty gutsy move, I myself might have opted for one of the recommended plastic totes, if available. But I can tell you this, I’ll be more comfortable and confident if this question arises again, and for that I thank them.

Robert J Keegan
Publisher and President 
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company 
Transportation Skills Programs Inc.
hazmat.tsp@gmail.com

SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE

SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE

If you have professional or even personal issues with the present 1910.1200 Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA), Global Harmonization Standard (GHS), Hazard Communication requirements then, you should check out the February 16, 2021 proposed rule and it’s comment period. It’s being updated to ensure the standard reflects lessons learned from past industrial experiences, the current state of scientific knowledge and other international and federal agency input. You now have a chance to be heard.

 Download: The February 16, 2021 Proposed rule and Preamble 

OSHA first established the 29 CFR 1910.1200, “Right to Know'' requirements back in 1983, then in 2012 harmonized it with with the United Nations, Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), to provide workers with the tools and training to recognize health hazards encountered in the workplace, with the goal of identifying, understanding, and communicating the hazards of the chemicals that they come in to contact with before they experience casual, acute or chronic exposure.

The proposed rule’s comment period ends April 19, 2021. So if you have concerns, (or even want to request the need for a public hearing), on OSHA adding definitions, implementing enforcement policies, incorporating compliance directives and international requirements, let them know. 

See the Guidance documents and FAQ, on OSHA’s Hazard Communication webpage.

In addition to international recommendations and evolving scientific knowledge, the proposed rule hopes to incorporate past Letters of Interpretation (LOI) issued by OSHA in regards to the labeling of small containers, pictogram provisions, the marking of shipping containers and the use of concentration ranges for trade secrets. 

Browse the 1910.1200 Hazard Communication Letters of Interpretation, (LOI). 

OSHA believes many SDS’s lack adequate information to communicate hazards and precautions. In studies they found that data on individual ingredients within mixtures was missing and in many cases information on hazard characterization and classification could be “ambiguous and almost entirely incorrect”. 

With this in mind, OSHA has raised additional concerns with and is requesting comments on, exposure to engineered nanomaterials like silver, silica and titanium dioxide which can be taken up in the lungs causing inflammation, tissue damage, fibrosis and tumour generation. They have concerns over the manufacture, use and disposal of these nanomaterials, as they may penetrate cell membranes and cause damage to intracellular structures and cellular functions. Their concerns range from antimicrobials in clothing to materials that come into contact with food.

The proposed rule’s contact is Frank Meilinger, Director of Office of Communications, telephone: (202) 693–1999; email: meilinger.francis2@ dol.gov. However, it notes for general information and technical inquiries to reach out to Maureen Ruskin, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, telephone:(202) 693–1950; email: ruskin.maureen@dol.gov.

We will of course cover the OSHA GHS proposed changes and clarifications in my future seminars and blogs. But, in the meantime if you have specific questions, or just lonely, call or email us. 

Robert J Keegan 
Publisher and President
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company
Transportation Skills Programs Inc.
Hazmat.tsp@gmail.com