On February 4, 2013, Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health spoke at an OSHA Employees All-Hands Meeting where he recognized some of the agency’s successes over the past several years, and discussed its future directions for 2013. This past December marked Michaels’ third anniversary of becoming Assistant Secretary of OSHA.

The significant accomplishments Michaels highlighted were:

• Launching the new Severe Violator Enforcement Program to target the worst of the worst violators.
• Issuing a record number of significant and egregious enforcement cases — including the largest fine in OSHA history.
• Issuing three major standards — one of which was an important new rule aligning OSHA’s Hazard Communication standard with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).
• Playing an influential role in protecting clean up and recovery workers in national disasters.
• Conducting unprecedented outreach and education to vulnerable workers — including Latinos, members of the Asian American Pacific Islander community, and others with limited English proficiency.
• Conducting a vigorous compliance assistance program to help employers and workers — including two national outreach campaigns.
Approving hundreds of new Voluntary Protection Program sites and enhanced the integrity of the program.
• Strengthening protection of whistleblowers.
• Launching several new National, Regional and Local Emphasis inspection programs.

In addition, Michaels stated that last year, OSHA removed 685,000 workers from job hazards. It also conducted nearly 41,000 federal OSHA inspections and another 51,000 with its state plan partners.

Although Michaels expressed his gratitude for the solid foundation that Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis put in place to protect workers, with the support of the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Labor, Seth Harris, who is now Acting Secretary, Michaels’ acknowledges that there is much more work to be done.

The number one priority that Michaels identified for the future that he believes is critical to driving injury, illness, and fatality rates down is the injury and illness prevention program initiative.

“One of my main objectives is to educate our country’s employers about moving beyond reactive compliance to embrace a culture of safety. Many workplaces have already adopted injury and illness prevention programs, where employers develop a process to find and fix workplace hazards before workers are hurt,” said Michaels. “Employers in our terrific VPP and SHARP recognition programs recognize that higher profits are the welcome byproducts of safety management. These employers experience dramatic decreases in workplace injuries, accompanied by a transformed workplace culture that leads to higher productivity and quality, reduced turnover, reduced costs, and greater employee satisfaction. Now it’s time to take this message from the best to the rest.”

Other initiatives include continuing to:

• Address the problem of systems that undermine a workplace culture of safety. These include incentive programs based on injury rates or reports that can discourage workers from reporting injuries and programs that punish workers for reporting injuries.
• Provide swift assistance and direct resources to those most in need of our help. As tornados tore through the middle of the country, historic floods plagued North Dakota, as oil spilled into the Yellowstone River, OSHA responded with boots on the ground to bring life-saving guidance to responders and cleanup crews. It drew lessons from these hardships, devising original and effective strategies to provide swift assistance and direct resources to those most in need of the agency’s help.
• Protect vulnerable and hard-to-reach workers . OSHA is continuing to translate its publications and webpages into Spanish and other languages. And, it plans to re-launch the Campaign to Prevent Fatal Falls in Construction this spring-with signs on buses and billboards, new training guides, and more.
• Strengthen the whistleblower program. As the number of whistleblower statutes under its jurisdiction continues to expand, OSHA will continue to strengthen its whistleblower protection program
• Address the alarmingly high rate of worker injuries and illnesses in hospitals and health care. OSHA is developing guidance products.
• Work closely with industries like the oil and gas sector to protect workers. Due to the success of the safety stand down in Oklahoma, additional events have been planned in Texas, Montana, and North Dakota.
• Develop new ways to approach dangerously outdated chemical standards. The GAO recently reported, the current complexity of the rulemaking process makes it prohibitively difficult to issue new standards in a reasonable amount of time. One challenge is to develop news ways to approach the issue of Permissible Exposure Limits, both from the enforcement and standard setting perspectives.
• Protect temporary and contingent workers. OSHA is working with Wage and Hour — its sister agency — on protecting these workers. It has begun reaching out to temporary workers through day labor and construction groups, and as the agency moves forward it plans to amplify its efforts to ensure that temporary workers are getting the training and information they need to be safe at work.

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that requires everyone from clerks to senior management to receive some form of Designated Operator Training. This training must be completed on or before August 8, 2012. This law significantly affects all underground storage tank programs and will require major changes to existing policies and procedures.

The goal of this legislation is to reduce underground storage tank releases to our environment. This is a national requirement and is mandatory for all underground storage tank (UST) operators. The type of training required will depend on the individual job responsibilities of the employee operating the tanks. However, all operators must eventually have some understanding of UST systems as it pertains to leak detection, spill prevention, over-fill prevention, corrosion protection and emergency response procedures.

A few states still need to finalize their requirements and will have later dates. In those states without final requirements, operators do not need to meet training requirements until their state issues final requirements.

Three classes of operators are designated by the requirement include:

• Class A Operator is any person having primary responsibility for on-site operation and maintenance of underground storage tank systems. Class This operator may be the owner/operator, an employee or a contractor with general knowledge and understanding of the UST system.
• Class B Operator is any person having daily on-site responsibility for the operation and maintenance of underground storage tank systems. This can be employees or a contractor with in-depth knowledge and understanding of the UST systems. They must know how to operate and maintain the system as well as possess a thorough understanding of the federal and state regulatory requirements that apply.
• Class C Operator is any on-site employee having primary responsibility for addressing emergencies presented by a spill or release from an underground storage tank system. This employee can be trained by a Class A, B or A/B Operator. They should understand emergency procedures know how to respond to alarms at the facility.

These requirements will present new challenges and impose new responsibilities upon UST owners and operators across the nation. Compliance with your state specific operator training requirements is a regulatory requirement that in the end could be your greatest resource for avoiding the environmental liability associated with petroleum spills.

Contact OCCU-TEC to learn more about training and our designated operator services.

The violations involve deficient lockout/tagout procedures, a lack of machine guarding, defective slings, poor housekeeping, a lack of protective footwear, and failing to have legible load ratings on slings.

OSHA has cited National Vinyl Products Inc. and subsidiary NVP Hospitality Design LLC, both located in St. Genevieve, Mo., with a total of 30 safety and health violations, including three repeat violations for failing to properly ground electrical equipment and a lack of machine guarding. Proposed penalties total $199,800.

OSHA initiated a follow-up inspection of National Vinyl Products Inc. in December 2011 after inspections in May 2009 and April 2010 resulted in citations for a variety of violations. The most recent inspection resulted in citations for 12 violations. OSHA initiated a concurrent inspection of NVP Hospitality Design LLC based on a report of unsafe working conditions, which resulted in citations for 18 violations.

“Employers have a responsibility to protect the safety of their workers,” said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo. “It is imperative that employers make the commitment to safety and health to ensure that employees are not continually exposed to hazards like these.”

One repeat violation at National Vinyl Products is failing to ground electrical equipment. Two repeat violations at NVP Hospitality Design involve a lack of machine guarding and using flexible cords that are not grounded. These violations previously were cited during the 2009 and 2010 inspections.

National Vinyl Products has been cited with a failure-to-abate violation for not correcting machine guarding deficiencies cited during an April 2010 inspection of the facility.

Nine serious safety and health violations at National Vinyl Products involve deficient lockout/tagout procedures, a lack of machine guarding, defective slings, poor housekeeping, a lack of protective footwear, and failing to have legible load ratings on slings.

Fourteen serious safety and health violations at NVP Hospitality Design involve deficient lockout/tagout procedures, a lack of machine guarding, and a lack of personal protective equipment including eyewear. Other hazards cited involve a lack of fall protection and failing to train workers who use powered industrial trucks, properly store and label flammable liquids, and implement a hazard communication program.

Three other-than-serious violations relate to a lack of certification for hazard assessments at both companies and record-keeping deficiencies at NVP Hospitality Design.

Proposed penalties total $119,700 for National Vinyl Products and $80,100 for NVP Hospitality Design.

Even under the nose of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters, unnecessary and dangerous exposure to asbestos still is occurring, leading directly to long-term health concerns now in Washington, D.C.

The union representing Capitol police force filed an official complaint with the Office of Compliance for failing to warn or protect its officers from exposure during the three-month, asbestos abatement project in the Senate subway tunnels.

The story was detailed in The Hill, a news-gathering website focused on the nation’s Capitol.

According to a copy of the complaint, police officers were stationed in the subway tunnels without the proper safety equipment while the removal of asbestos was being done under the watch of the EPA. The abatement was being performed as part of a project to install a new sprinkler system in the tunnels.

An exposure to the tiny asbestos fibers can lead to a number of serious health problems, included mesothelioma, which could mask itself for decades during a lengthy latency period. Experts have concurred that no amount of asbestos exposure is considered safe.

• Mesothelioma
• Mesothelioma Treatment
• Top Doctors
• Patient Resources
• Asbestos Exposure
• Veterans and Mesothelioma
• Legal Options

This not the first time that asbestos exposure has been a concern at the Capitol. Members of the Capitol Power Plant tunnel crew raised the issue in 2006 when a local environmental laboratory found asbestos in the air at dangerous levels.

Police officer normally is considered an high risk occupation for asbestos exposure. Officers , like firefighters often are first-responders to emergency situations, moving into areas unprotected against environmental hazards like asbestos.

As a glaring example, many New York City police officers have experienced respiratory issues stemming from exposure from the 9/11 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center more than a decade ago.

The asbestos removal at the Capitol was done during the weekends. A notice in advance was sent to all building occupants, including Senators and their staffs and the Capitol police.

Senate superintendent Robin Morey detailed many of the precautions in the memo back in January:

“Employees conducting the abatement have current EPA certifications , personal protective equipment and necessary training. . . . The work will be supervised by an EPA accredited supervisor. . . . Areas where the abatement of ACM (asbestos containing material) is taking place will be fully enclosed with a sealed containment. . . . We are taking all necessary precautions to ensure public and Senate staff safety.”

The union’s complaint, according to The Hill reporter, alleges that the officers on duty nearby were not notified by management of the asbestos hazards, and requests to reassign officers in the area were ignored.

Part of the complaint alleges that there were no posted signs in the immediate area of asbestos removal.

A Capitol police spokesperson, though, told The Hill that all necessary precautions were taken.

Asbestos has been a priority for years with the EPA, which his charged with enforcing regulations to protect human health and the environment. It was listed as one of the top seven priorities for 2012 by EPA administrator Lisa Jackson.

OSHA’s recently published the final rule to adopt the Global Harmonization System (GHS), whichaccording to them will not change the framework and scope of the current Hazard CommunicationStandard (HCS) but will help ensure improved consistency in the classification and labeling of allworkplace chemicals. GHS provides a single set of harmonized criteria for classifying chemicalsaccording to their health and physical hazards and specifies hazard communication elements for labelingand safety data sheets. Under GHS, labels would include signal words, pictograms, and hazard andprecautionary statements and safety data sheets would have standardized format. This system wasagreed on at an international level by governments, industry, and labor, and adopted by the UN in 2002with a goal of 2008 for implementation.

According to OSHA this change will affect over 40 million workers in about 5 million workplaces. Thechange to GHS was a long time in coming and necessary as the global chemical business is more than a$1.7 trillion per year enterprise. In the U.S., chemicals are more than a $450 billion business and exportsare greater than $80 billion per year. Existing laws and regulations are currently different enoughto require multiple labels for the same product both within the U.S. and in international trade andrequiring multiple safety data sheets for the same product in international trade. Several U.S. regulatoryagencies and various countries also have different requirements for hazard definitions as well as forinformation to be included on labels or material safety data sheets. GHS effectively establishes agreedhazard classification and communication provisions with explanatory information on how to apply thesystem worldwide.

It is important to remember that GHS itself is not a regulation or a standard. The GHS Document(referred to as “The Purple Book”) is simply a mechanism to meet the basic requirements of anyhazard communication system, which is to decide if the chemical product produced and/or supplied ishazardous and to prepare a label and/or Safety Data Sheet as appropriate. OSHA’s HCS will incorporatethe needed elements of GHS to make international trade and commerce easier.

Of course with change comes the need for training. Employers will need to have trained their employeesregarding the new label elements and safety data sheets format by December 1, 2013 with fullimplementation of GHS taking place December 1, 2015.

OSHA has published a side-by-side comparison of the current HCS with the new GHS elementsincorporated which can be found here. If you need more information or training contact Greg Lemke atglemke@occutec.com who would be happy to help you find the needed resources.

A new report from the National Safety Council (NSC) estimates that 24 percent of all motor vehicle crashes involve cell phone use and outlines how advances in legislation, enforcement, technology, culture and corporate policies could help save lives and make the roads safer.

The report, “State of the Nation of Cell Phone Distracted Driving,” was released April 12 and comes 3 years after NSC called for the first nationwide ban on all cell phone use while driving. The report reveals that NSC estimates cell phone use, whether handheld or hands-free, contributes to more than 1 million crashes a year, or 21 percent of all crashes. An additional 3 percent involve text messaging.

In an April 12 press call, John Ulczycki, group vice president of strategic initiatives at NSC, called cell phone use while driving “a significant, growing risk” and said the data on distracted driving crashes is “severely underreported.”

NSC’s report indicated that it is difficult to determine the full scope of the distracted driving problem because drivers are reluctant to admit their behavior; there is no “test” for distracted driving as with a blood-alcohol test for drunk driving; distracted drivers often have no witnesses; there is a lack of evidence in fatal crashes; law enforcement faces time and resource limitations; and it is difficult to obtain cell phone records at the time of a crash.

Risk and Prevalence

Ulczycki also addressed the common perception that cell phones are only one of many potential driving distractions and should therefore not be such a concern. In reality, he said, the existence of other distractions does not mean that these distractions are as prevalent or as risky as talking on a cell phone while driving.

“Cell phones are not the most dangerous or risky thing that people can do in their automobiles, yet because of the prevalence of their use, they are the distraction involved in the most crashes,” Ulczycki said.

For example, turning around to talk to kids in the backseat of the car while driving may be more dangerous than using a cell phone, but this type of behavior is not nearly as prevalent among drivers as cell phone use. Similarly, drinking coffee or changing the radio station while driving is perhaps more prevalent than using a cell phone, but this behavior is not nearly as risky as cell phone use.

“It’s not just the risk but the risk combined with the prevalence that sets cell phone use apart from any other distraction,” Ulczycki said. “Texting is a much more dangerous activity than talking, but talking [on a cell phone] is much more prevalent, which is why talking leads to 6-7 times more crashes.”

Corporate Policies

Many employers take a leading role in distracted driving reform by creating policies that completely ban employees’ use of cell phones while driving. NSC estimates that more than 3 million employees are covered by total cell phone bans at work.

“Employers [implement] cell phone policies because they want to prevent injuries to employees. It’s really no different than what they’re doing in their workplace,” Ulczycki said. “Employers who care about their employees and manage their safety in all aspects of their job put total ban policies in place because they know they have a responsibility to keep their employees safe.”

Some companies currently maintain policies that address handheld cell phone use only, requiring employees to use hands-free devices while driving. The research shows, however, that hands-free devices are no safer than handheld phones. Ulczycki said companies may implement these partial bans to conform to state laws, as an intermediate step toward a total ban or because they do not understand that the same risks are inherent in hands-free cell phone use.

“Many companies have policies, procedures [and] best practices that go far beyond what OSHA laws require,” he added. “The same thing is true here.”

Outside of the workplace, NSC calls for additional legislation for distracted driving, high-visibility enforcement, technological solutions that prevent incoming and outgoing calls while driving and a cultural shift that does not accept cell phone use while driving.

To read the report in full, visit http://distracteddriving.nsc.org.

On January 31, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Communications released a statement that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has posted a series of 17 videos to help workers learn about the proper use of respirators on the job.

These short videos, nine in English and eight in Spanish, provide valuable information to workers in general industry and construction. Topics include OSHA’s Respiratory Standard, respirator use, training, fit-testing and detecting counterfeit respirators. The videos are available with closed captioning for streaming or download from OSHA’s Web site.

OSHA’s Safety and Health topics page on Respiratory Protection also includes additional training materials, information about occupational respiratory hazards in different industries, and details of OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134 and 29 CFR 1926.103).

Every year, in the February issue of Safety+Health magazine, the National Safety Council features an article on CEOs Who “Get It.” This year’s honorees lead national and international organizations ranging in size from 90 to more than 100,000 employees. While they come from very diverse backgrounds and a variety of industries, they share certain traits that make them world-class safety leaders. Of this year’s nine honorees, Mr. Andrew Liveris, Chairman and CEO of The Dow Chemical Company was awarded the 2012 Green Cross for Safety Medal. Here is a part of what he had to say:

How does safety “pay” at your company?
Setting ambitious EHS efforts at Dow and letting our employees develop innovative ways to meet those goals have resulted in safer workplaces, new business opportunities and considerable financial rewards. In 1996, Dow set ambitious 2005 goals that committed to a 90 percent reduction in injuries and illnesses per 200,000 work hours, leaks, breaks and spills, process incidents, and more. As a result, we reduced personal safety and health incidents by 84 percent. Our injury and illness rate is well below the chemical industry average. We also reduced solid waste by 1.6 million pounds, or the equivalent of 415 football fields of waste 1 meter thick, reduced water use by 183 billion pounds and saved 900 trillion Btu of energy. Our efforts, while difficult to achieve, saved lives and improved our world, while saving the company more than $5 billion with a $1 billion investment.

Our current set of sustainability goals for 2015 sets the bar even higher and calls for an average 75 percent improvement in key indicators for EHS operating excellence from 2005. By setting aspirational 10-year goals with annual milestones, we have been able to break free from a focus on incremental improvement. Because our employees are not sure how they are going to reach these goals, they are more likely to innovate and seek non-traditional ways to improve performance. That is exciting and has paid off with some truly cutting-edge technology improvements at our sites.

What advice do you have for other CEOs who want to “get it”?
I would advise them to set bold goals – goals so aspirational that you do not know how you can possibly achieve them. Only then will you truly stretch yourself and your people. This is the path Dow has taken, first with our 2005 EHS goals. After achieving and exceeding many of those goals, we pushed ourselves even further with our 2015 sustainability goals. These goals may be difficult to attain, but they have driven innovation and performance throughout our company, and have taken us to where we are today.

I also would tell them to set the tone from the top. Leadership, from the board of directors down, plays a key role in cultural change. Safety must involve everyone. Make safety a core value rather than an initiative, infuse it into your corporate strategy, integrate it across your company, and continually measure progress. In addition, leaders should take every opportunity to talk about safety. They must show they personally care, they want others to care and it takes a team to succeed.

Finally, never be satisfied. The moment you become satisfied with performance, you become complacent. The constant drive to zero, to perfection, is the key to “getting it.”

Follow the link to read the whole article.
http://www.nsc.org/safetyhealth/Pages/212-2012CEOsWhoGetIt.aspx

Some companies use the term “Circle of Prevention” when following the Plan, Do, Check, Act model for their safety and heath programs. As safety is really a continuing process of improvement, the OSHA standards should only be the beginning. They may help identify many of the general hazards of general business and construction, but you and your employees should be working together to identify on-the-job hazards unique to your industry and your work areas, using formal and informal safety audits and hazard analysis.

Whether through reading OSHA standards, consulting other guidelines or making your own observations, the circumstances of the hazards in your organization must be analyzed, the problem diagnosed, a plan of action developed, and then effective corrective action taken to minimize the risks.

But for whatever reason, somehow, even with your excellent safety and health program in place, an accident happens. Now what? After all the initial work is done including securing the scene and caring for the employee, you need to conduct a thorough accident investigation in order to help prevent similar accidents from happening in the future.

How your investigation is conducted will determine in large part how useful it will be.

When to start an Accident Investigation

You must act quickly as memories get fuzzy and initial perceptions may change, other employees start talking and with that the ‘water cooler’ effect takes over. Perceptions and eye witness accounts start being influenced by the storytelling. However, even though you want to get started right away do not get locked into a deadline for completing the investigation. If you are too rushed you may reach the wrong conclusions about the root causes.

Who should conduct the Investigation?

Most minor incidents and accidents can be investigated by the supervisor who is often the person most familiar with the operation. The supervisor is also in position to implement remedial measures as necessary. More serious and complicated incidents and accidents require more expertise. A team approach that includes the supervisor, safety professional or risk manager, management representative, perhaps a safety committee member and even a human resources representative will allow for a wide range of issues to be addressed. In addition, your insurance company will certainly be involved with any serious accident.

The purpose of the Investigation is Prevention not Blame.

It is crucial to the success an accident investigation to make sure you are getting full cooperation from witnesses or those involved in the accident. Remember, the people you are interviewing may be afraid that you will blame them and react defensively or even embellish the facts if they feel threatened. It is important to make sure they understand that you are simply trying to find the factors that led to the accident so future accidents can be avoided.

Review the facts.

• Description of the accident
• Witness Discrepancies
• Condition of any equipment involved
• Environmental factors
• Personnel issues with injured employee(s) (training, competence, attitude, past performance, alcohol/drug use, etc.)
• Routine or non-routine task

Consider all the possibilities

• The immediate cause?
• Contributing factors?
• Underlying root causes?
• Unpredictable factors?
• Alternative theories?

Accident Investigation Reporting

Your report should summarize the facts of the accident and events leading up to it. Include any injuries suffered from the accident, the total of all property damages and any other costs of the accident, and if “human error” was involved, this should be included in the report; however, disciplinary recommendations should not be included as part of the investigation. It is however crucial to include information about the immediate and underlying causes and definitely report any dissenting opinions if the investigation was a team effort.

Management can’t do accident prevention in a vacuum, employees need to be involved. Without their understanding and cooperation, nothing management does will really work in the long run to stop the accidents and injuries.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently posted a series of 17 videos to help workers learn about the proper use of respirators on the job.

These short videos are intended to provide information to workers in general industry and construction.  Topics include OSHA’s Respiratory Standard, respirator use, training, fit-testing and detecting counterfeit respirators. The videos are available with closed captioning for streaming or download from OSHA’s Web site.

OSHA’s Safety and Health topics page on Respiratory Protection also includes additional training materials, information about occupational respiratory hazards in different industries, and details of OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134 and 29 CFR 1926.103).