In a recent letter to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on the proposed “Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment” rule (29 CFR, Part 1910), the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) urged OSHA to utilize existing fall standards and the voluntary consensus standards process widely used in industry as it develops the new rule.
ASSE believes the process and the end users would be better served if standards such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
ANSI/ASSE Z359 Fall Arrest Code as well as the ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and Guardrails Systems standards were utilized in developing the OSHA rule.
A voluntary consensus standard is a documented agreement, established by a consensus of subject matter experts and approved by a recognized body that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. Voluntary consensus standards developed by industry in accordance with ANSI’s procedures for due process, openness and consensus are often subsequently adopted by the government as part of the regulatory framework. Currently, ASSE is secretariat for 11 standards projects overseeing several committees made up of subject matter experts.
In his August 19 letter to Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels, ASSE president Darryl C. Hill, Ph.D., CSP, said, “ASSE’s members are most concerned with several inconsistencies between the proposed rule and relevant consensus standards. We believe OSHA has been given a responsibility to utilize consensus standards like Z359 and A1264 by Congress in Public Law 104-113, ‘The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995’ and through the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-119, ‘Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in the Conformity Assessment Activities’.
“We understand the agency’s responsibilities in developing a standard are more complex than simply mirroring consensus standards and that its current ability to update references to consensus standards is inadequate, but we believe the ANSI/ASSE Z359 and the ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 standards developed by subject matter experts should be used in developing this rule revision,” Hill said. “ASSE supports the performance-oriented approach that would set a general requirement coupled with a non-mandatory appendix of appropriate national consensus standards proposed in OSHA’s rulemaking, ‘Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards; Personal Protective Equipment’. We urge OSHA to move that proposal forward, especially when it comes to enhancing workplace safety and health.”
ASSE stated its overall appreciation for OSHA’s effort in this rulemaking to be consistent with the approaches to fall protection reflected in current national voluntary consensus standards and that some of the concerns ASSE raised earlier in the rulemaking process have been addressed.
However, there are concerns. Hill commented on several specific topics that ASSE’s members believed OSHA had not gone far enough in addressing in the rule including body belts for work positioning devices; the hierarchy of controls in Z359; fall protection on rolling stock and motor vehicles; fall protection for employees standing or climbing on stacked materials; qualified climbers; qualified person inspecting walking/working surfaces; trigger heights; training; competent person; body belts; snaphooks; personal fall protection systems; the deceleration distance requirement; the conversion factor; and, positioning systems.
“While ASSE’s members have various concerns about the current proposed rule, we do commend OSHA for its efforts to advance this rulemaking and offer whatever assistance our members or the Z359 and A1264 committees can provide to help ensure a positive outcome,” Hill concluded.
Founded in 1911, the Des Plaines, Ill.-based ASSE is the oldest safety society and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment. Its 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental professional members manage, supervise, research and consult on safety, health, transportation and environmental issues in all industries, government, labor and education. For more information, go to www.asse.org.
“Injury and illness prevention programs are a better approach than safety incentive programs,” said OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels in his American Society of Safety Engineers webinar in May. “Already, workers have lots of incentives to work safely. We don’t need incentives. We need strong safety and health programs.”
Given this perspective, OSHA’s accelerated effort to adopt an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) standard makes sense. Once adopted, the standard would require all U.S. employers to have company I2P2s, something that, incredibly, is not required under current regulations. Michaels said he wants the standard in place within three years, a lightning pace if judged by OSHA’s past standard adoption performance.
Through its effort to require injury and illness prevention programs at all work sites, OSHA hopes to bring much added focus to the question of what constitutes an effective safety and health program. The basic purpose of an I2P2 is identification and assessment of hazards and the institution of prevention measures. Good data collection is one aspect; so is worker involvement and top-management attention. Training is also critical.
“Safe work is more important than reporting,” said Michaels, who stressed that employers’ drive for low, reported injury and illness rates has corrupted the data and masked the extent of the nation’s workplace safety and health problems. “We want programs that reward workers for working safely, identifying hazards and abating them. A good I2P2 is a better approach than an incentive program.”
During June, OSHA convened three sessions to receive public comment on its proposed I2P2 standard. The LHSFNA participated and is working with the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to develop an I2P2 rule specific to the construction industry. Eventually, the key components of a solid safety program will be codified in the new standard.
Michaels also urged companies to use government safety consultation services that are provided at the state level, and he praised Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) companies that strongly pursue safety programs and safe workplaces. He advised all companies to develop I2P2s and to engage their workers and supervisors in the process.
The LHSFNA’s Occupational Health and Safety Division provides support to LIUNA signatory employers who want help developing company- and site-specific safety programs. It can be reached at 202-628-5465
OSHA defines I2P2 programs as management systems that are designed to help employers reduce workplace injuries and illnesses “through a systematic process that proactively addresses workplace safety and health hazards.” In 1989, OSHA implemented an I2P2 program that encouraged employers to voluntarily implement a safety and health protocol and programs. During the Clinton administration, OSHA attempted to promulgate a regulatory requirement that employers implement I2P2 programs, but the effort stalled due to opposition from employers. OSHA dropped the effort from its agenda in 2002, but the Obama administration has indicated that an I2P2 rule is a high priority. Current OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels has spoken frequently of his determination to implement a final rule on I2P2 in the near future.
Stakeholders at the June 29 meeting discussed four general topic areas: possible regulatory approaches, the scope and application of the rule, organization of the rule, and the economic impacts of the rule. Organized labor was bullish on the notion of implementing an I2P2 requirement, while employers were mostly opposed to a new mandate. In general, employers expressed concern over requiring firms to implement an I2P2 system rather than relying upon a voluntary system. Small business representatives were particularly vocal about the burden of an I2P2 requirement and urged that any such rule permit flexibility or carve out exemptions based upon size or injury rate. Additionally, many employers requested that an I2P2 rule should consider employees’ behavior and overall wellness and the impact of those factors on risk and injury. During the meeting, a recommendation was made that the proposed rule contain a section on employee duties to complement the employer duties. Finally, employers in attendance urged OSHA to ensure that any I2P2 regulation would not be overly prescriptive and that it address only those areas of workplace safety that have been proven quantitatively to benefit from specific health and safety management protocols.
Several steps remain before an I2P2 rule could be finalized; indeed, a proposed rule has not even been drafted. The June 29 meeting marked the third of five I2P2 stakeholder meetings scheduled for 2010; previous meetings took place on June 3 in East Brunswick, N.J., and on June 10 in Dallas, Tex. The remaining meetings will be held on July 20 in Washington, D.C., and on August 3 in Sacramento, Calif.
Once the stakeholder meetings have been completed, OSHA must proceed through the regular rulemaking process, which involves drafting a proposed rule, publishing it in the Federal Register, permitting public comment, and responding to public comment before a Final Rule is issued. Since the regulation impacts small businesses, OSHA must include one additional step as part of the review process: In coordination with the Small Business Administration (SBA), OSHA must also establish a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel that includes small business representatives impacted by the proposed rule. The panel will review the regulatory language and preliminary government analysis of the regulation’s impact before producing a report that will be published along with the rule. SBREFA also requires that all rules reviewed by a panel are subject to Congressional review.
If a stranger passed out on the sidewalk in front of you, how likely would you be to administer mouth-to-mouth?
In our age of no-touch faucets in public bathrooms and special disinfectant wipes for grocery store carts, you wouldn’t be alone if you say you might hesitate.
Happily, two new studies conclude that when it comes to CPR, pressing rhythmically on the chest with your hands is enough to save a life.
No mouth-to-mouth required.
The American Heart Association, which has been promoting hands-only CPR for two years, hopes that bystanders will feel less apprehensive and more likely to act if faced with an emergency.
Studies indicate that fear of doing something wrong, more so than catching something, makes many would-be-heroes freeze. And people may have has good reason to fear doing something wrong when practicing traditional mouth-to-mouth CPR.
The traditional method is a bit complicated, and one study showed that those who did attempt it often didn’t do it very well. For starters, the victim’s head has to be tilted back, the airway cleared, the nose pinched and the mouth completely covered with the rescuer’s.
There are many opportunities for air to escape, and some experts believe that some bystanders perform mouth-to-mouth so poorly that the interruption reduces blood flow.
Yet the aim of CPR is to do some of the mechanical work of the heart by forcing at least some blood and oxygen to the brain and other vital organs, which is why chest compressions work.
The only cases in which mouth-to-mouth seems to make a difference is when the victim is a child, or in cases of adults who have stopped breathing because of choking, drowning or other respiratory problems.