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.

“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.

OSHA requires you to train employees to prevent lockout/tagout (LO/TO) accidents in the workplace (1910.147). This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for the control of such hazardous energy.

Employees must be trained in accordance with 1910.147(c)(7) . Here are 5 areas which are considered a must part of any Lockout/Tagout training program.

1. Failure to stop equipment. Sure, this sounds like common sense, but there’s much more involved. Some workers value productivity above safety and others feel that their age or experience with equipment make them immune from risk. “Taking the trouble” to properly safeguard energized equipment is essential in all cases.

2. Failure to disconnect from the power source. When working with and around electric equipment, some workers believe that simply operating the on/off switch will ensure their safety. They ignore the fact that the switch may be defective or that power may find its way through a short circuit or other source.

3. Failure to drain residual energy. There’s a reason that televisions carry warnings about trying to open the case even if the set is disconnected. That’s because many electrical devices store power in a capacitor or battery. Even unplugged, the risk remains. A compressed spring, hot pipe, pressurized tank, or heavy object hanging overhead can store energy even when the initial source of power is disconnected.

4. Accidental restart of machinery. Even if an employee knows how to shut down equipment before working on it, his or her co-workers may not. In too many instances, unknowing employees cause injury to their co-workers.

5. Failure to clear work areas before restarting. Restarting machinery must be performed as carefully as shutting it down and locking it out. A repair tool left in the works can fly out, or a restart while a co-worker remains in the path of danger represents as great a hazard as not locking out the machine at all.

Speeding is one of the primary factors leading to vehicle crashes. In 2008, 31% of all fatal crashes were speeding-related. The estimated economic cost to society for speeding related crashes is $40.4 billion per year.

Driving at higher speeds reduces the ability of drivers to avoid obstacles or react to sudden changes in the roadway environment and increases crash severity. The pervasiveness of speeding behavior is reflected in a recent national survey that showed that approximately 75% of all drivers reported speeding in the past month. Since most drivers often do not see speeding as risky or dangerous behavior, it is imperative that

NHTSA gain a better understanding of the motivations for speeding behaviors in order to develop and refine effective interventions and countermeasures.

NHTSA proposes to conduct follow-up focus groups with 72 participants from an earlier on-road instrumented vehicle data collection conducted in Seattle, WA and College Station, TX.

Focus group recruitment will be based on participants’ speeding patterns in the on-road data. The focus groups will contribute to a better understanding of speeding and speeders, a more accurate taxonomy of high/low speed driver subgroups, and a better understanding of the motives, attitudes and habits of these subgroups. The focus groups will explore speed choices and speeding behaviors and the factors that influence them, beliefs and attitudes toward speeding, reactions to and discussions about specific driving scenarios, and individual/group responses to various speeding countermeasures. The focus groups are expected to provide data relevant to descriptions of key motivations, attitudes, normative commitment to law, driving habits relevant to speeding and speeding

countermeasures; descriptions of countermeasures with the greatest likely benefits; implementation issues and concerns associated with the countermeasures; and key advantages and disadvantages associated with various countermeasures.

Affected Public: NHTSA plans to conduct six focus group sessions, three in Seattle, WA and three in College Station, TX. Each focus group will consist of 8–12 participants and last approximately 80 minutes. Participants will be recruited by e-mail or telephone based on their driving behaviors in the earlier on-road phase of the study and their demographic characteristics. Participation by all respondents would be voluntary and confidential.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: The total estimated annual burden is between 64 and 96 hours, depending on the number of participants (range 8–12) in each group. The respondents would not incur any reporting cost from the information collection. The respondents also would not incur any record keeping burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

Comments are invited on the following:

(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

(iii) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

During my time in the military, I spent a lot of time working in the hospital ER.  Each year right around July 4th, we always had injuries when children and adults mishandled fireworks.  Burns, eye injures, missing or partly missing fingers and every once in a while something more serious.  The article below comes from kidshealth.org.  I hope you will follow their advise

With warm weather and family events, the Fourth of July can be a fun time with great memories. But before your family celebrates, make sure everyone knows about fireworks safety.

If not handled properly, fireworks can cause burn and eye injuries in kids and adults. In 2003, six deaths were linked to fireworks and hospital emergency departments treated 9,300 fireworks injuries.

The best way to protect your family is not to use any fireworks at home — period. Attend public fireworks displays, and leave the lighting to the professionals.

Lighting fireworks at home isn’t even legal in many areas, so if you still want to use them, be sure to check with your local police department first. If they’re legal where you live, keep these safety tips in mind:

• Kids should never play with fireworks. Things like firecrackers, rockets, and sparklers are just too dangerous. If you give kids sparklers, make sure they keep them outside and away from the face, clothing, and hair. Sparklers can reach 1,800° Fahrenheit (982° Celsius) — hot enough to melt gold.
• Buy only legal fireworks (legal fireworks have a label with the manufacturer’s name and directions; illegal ones are unlabeled), and store them in a cool, dry place. Illegal fireworks usually go by the names M-80, M100, blockbuster, or quarterpounder. These explosives were banned in 1966, but still account for many fireworks injuries.
• Never try to make your own fireworks.
• Always use fireworks outside and have a bucket of water and a hose nearby in case of accidents.
• Steer clear of others — fireworks have been known to backfire or shoot off in the wrong direction. Never throw or point fireworks at someone, even in jest.
• Don’t hold fireworks in your hand or have any part of your body over them while lighting. Wear some sort of eye protection, and avoid carrying fireworks in your pocket — the friction could set them off.
• Point fireworks away from homes, and keep away from brush and leaves and flammable substances. The National Fire Protection Association estimates that local fire departments respond to more 50,000 fires caused by fireworks each year.
• Light one firework at a time (not in glass or metal containers), and never relight a dud.
• Don’t allow kids to pick up pieces of fireworks after an event. Some may still be ignited and can explode at any time.
• Soak all fireworks in a bucket of water before throwing them in the trash can.
• Think about your pet. Animals have sensitive ears and can be extremely frightened or stressed on the Fourth of July. Keep pets indoors to reduce the risk that they’ll run loose or get injured.

If a child is injured by fireworks, immediately go to a doctor or hospital. If an eye injury occurs, don’t allow your child to touch or rub it, as this may cause even more damage. Also, don’t flush the eye out with water or attempt to put any ointment on it. Instead, cut out the bottom of a paper cup, place it around the eye, and immediately seek medical attention — your child’s eyesight may depend on it. If it’s a burn, remove clothing from the burned area and run cool, not cold, water over the burn (do not use ice). Call your doctor immediately.

Fireworks are meant to be enjoyed, but you’ll enjoy them much more knowing your family is safe. Take extra precautions this Fourth of July and your holiday will be a blast!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost a quarter of all 65- to 74-year-olds are active in the workforce, representing the highest percentage of workers in this age group since 1970. As older adults return to work after retirement, whether due to financial need or the desire to continue working, health and safety professionals must address this population’s needs.

Gregory Petty, professor of health and safety programs at the University of Tennessee, discussed the aging workforce’s special safety concerns at the National Safety Council’s (NSC) 2007 Congress and Expo in Chicago. He explained the phenomenon of so many older employees returning to the workforce after retirement can be attributed to better health, insufficient retirement funds or the desire to gain new experiences.

“Though many older people will need to work, at least part time, many others will want to,” Petty said. “[Some] older workers want the potential for new adventures or experiences.”

Petty said that while many business and industry leaders are overlooking the increasingly older workforce, he predicted the expectations of this population’s work ability will change “with the realization that ‘old’ does not have to mean tired, sick, cautious or quiet.”

“There are reasons why you should care about the value of these older workers,” Petty said.

He explained the older working population generally is highly educated, experienced and reliable. These employees typically have held established careers, have the wisdom of maturity and often have lower injury rates. Petty acknowledged that the benefits of hiring older employees, however, are accompanied by risks.

“You have a fall when you’re 20, you have a bruise,” he said. “You have a fall when you’re 50, 60 or 70, you have a broken hip.”

Common on-the-job injuries experienced by the older working population often are caused by falls, which can be attributed to poor balance, slowed reaction time, visual deficits, lack of concentration or complacency. Sprain or strain injuries also are common, and may be brought on by loss of strength, endurance or flexibility. Additionally, older workers may be more sensitive to overexertion, heat, cold, lighting, noise and ergonomic issues.

Employers and health and safety professionals may need to make accommodations for their older workers to keep them safe. Petty suggested wellness programs, job analyses and ergonomic evaluations to protect the aging workforce. He added that restructured job duties and work hours might also be beneficial to this population. Providing behavior-based feedback and giving more positive than negative consequences are also beneficial for the older workforce.

“For employers intent on recapturing talents of older workers, more interesting, varied jobs will make a difference,” Petty said.

He stressed that older workers should be aware of their current functioning ability. Forgetting glasses or hearing aides, for example, could prove dangerous for an older worker. “You have to know your limitations,” he warned.

OSHA publishes proposed rulemaking to prevent injuries from slips, trips and falls on walking-working surfaces

OSHA Release: OSHA has announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking published in yesterday’s Federal Register its plans to require improved worker protection from tripping, slipping and falling hazards on walking and working surfaces. A public hearing on the revised changes will be held after the public comment period for the NPRM.

“This proposal addresses workplace hazards that are a leading cause of work related injuries and deaths,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels.

The NPRM describes revisions to the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards to help prevent an estimated annual 20 workplace fatalities and more than 3,500 injuries serious enough to cause people to miss work. For example, in July 2009, a worker at a chocolate processing plant was killed after falling from an unguarded work platform.

“This is a clear and grave example of the human cost incurred when fall protection safeguards are absent, ignored or inadequate,” said Michaels. “The loss of a worker’s life might have been prevented if the protective measures in these revised standards had been in place and in use.”

The current walking-working surfaces regulations allow employers to provide outdated and dangerous fall protection equipment such as lanyards and body belts that can result in workers suffering greater injury from falls. Construction and maritime workers already receive safer, more effective fall protection devices such as self-retracting lanyards and ladder safety and rope descent systems, which these proposed revisions would also require for general industry workers.

The current walking-working surfaces standards also do not allow OSHA to fine employers who let workers climb certain ladders without fall protection. Under the revised standards, this restriction would be lifted in virtually all industries, allowing OSHA inspectors to fine employers who jeopardize their workers’ safety and lives by climbing these ladders without proper fall protection

Where did that come from? I didn’t expect that! Didn’t see that coming! How did that happen? Sound familiar? After an injury caused by an incident, these are the types of comments often expressed by the victim — sometimes the witnesses.

Witnesses as well as those involved often exclaim that they had no idea what happened. This is an expression of frustration. They thought they were working safely and had probably performed the job hundreds of times. The worker could probably do the task blindfolded. Perhaps he did?

TOTAL AWARENESS IS THE KEY

A common factor in injury incidents is a lack of awareness. A thorough pre-operational inspection of workplaces and equipment is one of the most important acts that anyone can do to ensure his or her own safety each day. But a pre-operational inspection is only a start.

Each worker must constantly be aware of changes in his or her environment throughout the shift and be prepared to react appropriately to changes that occur. These differences may occur because of a change in location, or a natural change in the immediate environment. They may be changes that are forced from outside sources, or they may be changes that we create by the work we perform.

An air hose is normally a safe tool. One could consider it a tripping hazard if it crosses a walkway, or it could represent a strain hazard when lifting or pulling. But normally, if in good condition, an air hose is rather innocuous.

But, suppose someone begins to disconnect the hose. Fittings may be difficult to break. Pinch points may be encountered using tools to break the connection. But what if the hose is pressurized? The valve was shut off and the pressure was bled off. But what if the valve leaks and pressure is re-built? What if the wrong hose was bled off? Each of these hazards is easily controlled if the worker is alert.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

A worker is preparing to splice a section of conveyor belt. It must be cut square. There are machines to help do this, but we don’t make that many splices and the razor knife does a good job. The belt material is designed to resist cutting and abrasion, so the cable resists the action of cutting and requires effort, even with the sharpest knife. The worker may be cutting away from his body, but his leg is under the edge of the belt. The line-of-fire hazard is easily controlled.

Debris takes on many forms, but normally has one common characteristic. It’s disorderly. This fact raises a number of new potential hazards — pointed objects, sharp edges, unbalanced pieces, heavy loads, slippery surfaces, tangles, tension, awkward shapes and sizes, and others. It may be necessary to move smaller quantities (more trips) and/or it may require cutting pieces into manageable sections. These types of hazards are easily controlled if the worker is alert.

You are in the lunchroom and have just finished eating. Time to clean up and go back to work. You go to the sink to wash your containers and silverware. While washing some of the water splashes on the floor. Not too much, it will be fine. Someone else will clean it up and you leave. A couple of minutes later someone, comes to the sink to wash their lunch containers, but they don’t recognize the hazard. They slip on the wet water on sprain their wrist as they fall down. If the previous person had just wiped up the floor this could have been prevented. Now the injured employee will miss a few days of work, have to get medical treatment and physical therapy for a few weeks. Be restricted in their work responsibilities, so other people in the department have to do more work, they might have to get a temp employee or pay overtime. Additional expenses from the profits earned, because someone did not take the time to remove the hazard.

A THOUSAND THINGS TO SEE

Your safety and the safety of your coworkers are dependent on your awareness of potentially hazardous conditions in the workplace. Take off the blindfold. There are a thousand things to see, hear, feel and smell in the workplace. Learn to observe and notice changes. If you do not recognize the hazard, you cannot control the hazard. If you cannot control the hazard, you cannot prevent the injury.

It all starts with awareness.

Do you think a health hazard exists in your workplace? Do any of the following stories resemble situations at your workplace?

• A factory worker was feeling numbness and tingling in her fingers. She learned that three coworkers had the same problem, and two had headaches while at work but not over the weekend. Some workers said the air at work smelled bad. Their supervisor noticed the smell but didn’t think it was anything to worry about.
• A manager noticed that employees in one work area had more skin rashes in the past year than the year before. He wanted to know why, but didn’t know what to do.
• A work crew was putting cement tiles on a roof. They were working outside, but the air seemed dusty. The saws used to cut the tiles were noisy. Someone told them that this work was dangerous and they should have it checked out.

At no cost to employers or employees, or their representatives, the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) program may be able to help with problems like these. This site lets you know about the program and how to ask for NIOSH help. It also has links to reports from thousands of HHEs done by NIOSH.

What is a Health Hazard Evaluation?

An HHE is a study of a workplace. It is done to learn whether workers are exposed to hazardous materials or harmful conditions. On the basis of the information you provide, NIOSH responds to an HHE request in one of the following ways:

• NIOSH staff responds in writing with helpful information or a referral to a more appropriate agency.
• NIOSH staff calls to discuss the problems and how they might be solved.

NIOSH staff visits the workplace. When this happens, they will meet with the employer and the employee representatives to discuss the issues. They will tour the workplace. They may review records about exposure and health, interview or survey employees, measure exposures, and do medical testing. These activities may happen during one or more visits. At the end of this evaluation, NIOSH will provide a written report to the employer and to the employee representatives. This can take from a few months to a few years, depending on the type of evaluation.

Who Can Request an HHE?

Private sector and Federal workplaces

An employee can request an HHE if he or she is currently an employee at the workplace of concern and has the signatures of two other employees. If the workplace has three or fewer employees, the signature of only one employee is enough.

An officer of a labor union that represents employees for collective bargaining can request an HHE.

Any management official may request an HHE on behalf of the employer.

For anyone who submits a request, NIOSH will not reveal to the employer the names of the persons who made the request if they indicate this on the request form

State or local government workplaces

When the workplace is part of a State or local government, NIOSH authority is more limited than for the private and Federal sectors. The cooperation of the employer may be necessary before NIOSH can do an evaluation.

Should you request an HHE?

When there is concern about a health hazard in a workplace, you can request an HHE, file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or request help from the OSHA Consultative Service. Some things to consider for each of these options are listed below.

1. When to request an HHE from NIOSH

You are an employee, employee representative, or employer and the following apply:

• Employees have an illness from an unknown cause.
• Employees are exposed to an agent or working condition that is not regulated by OSHA.
• Employees experience adverse health effects from exposure to a regulated or unregulated agent or working condition, even though the permissible exposure limit is not being exceeded.
• Medical or epidemiological investigations are needed to evaluate the hazard.
• The incidence of a particular disease or injury is higher than expected in a group of employees.
• The exposure is to a new or previously unrecognized hazard.
• The hazard seems to result from the combined effects of several agents.

2. When to request help from the OSHA Consultation Program (http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html):

You are a small business owner and you want:

• assistance in recognizing hazards in your workplace.
• suggestions or options for correcting safety and health issues.
• assistance in developing or maintaining an effective safety and health program.
• to reduce workers compensation cost and improve employee morale..

The OSHA On-site Consultation Program:

• is a free service.
• is delivered by state (and territorial) governments using well-trained safety and health professionals.
• is separate from enforcement.
• is confidential. The company’s name, and any other identifying information provided about the workplace, plus any unsafe or unhealthful working conditions that the consultant uncovers, will not routinely be reported to OSHA enforcement personnel.
• does not issue and citations, penalties, or fines.
• will provide you a confidential, written report that summarizes the consultant’s findings.
• requires the correction of hazards identified by the consultant(s).
• under specific circumstances, employers with exemplary safety and health programs can be recommend for recognition and provided with an exclusion from general schedule inspections.

3. When to file a complaint with OSHA (www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/index.html):

You are an employee and the following situations apply*:

• Immediate enforcement by a regulatory agency is needed.
• Employees want the employer to comply with existing health and safety standards.
• The hazard is well recognized.
• An OSHA standard is known to adequately protect employees from the hazard.

* [Employers in the Federal sector may wish to explore the services available through the Division of Federal Occupational Health (DFOH), which maintains an office in each Federal region. State and local government employers may be eligible for help under the OSHA Consultation Program operating in their State. The State or local health department may also be able to help with occupational safety and health issues.]

How Does NIOSH Respond to an HHE Request?

NIOSH logs in each request for an HHE and generally sends a letter to the person making the request. Most often this happens within a few weeks.When NIOSH decides to send information or make a referral to another agency, usually a letter is sent within 4–6 weeks.

When NIOSH decides that telephone consultation or a workplace visit is needed, a project officer is assigned. Usually, within 4–6 weeks, the project officer contacts the person who sent in the request. When the request is made by an employee or union, NIOSH also contacts the employer to let them know about the request and to arrange for a site visit. Typically, NIOSH does not conduct surprise visits.

What protections are provided for employees who request and participate in HHE investigations?

Confidentiality

If desired and noted on the HHE request form, NIOSH will not reveal to the employer the names of the persons who made the request. Personal information from records, questionnaires, interviews with NIOSH investigators, and individual medical results will be safeguarded in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act.

Anti-discrimination Provisions

The Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act forbid employers from retaliating or punishing employees for making HHE requests or cooperating with NIOSH investigators (see Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or Section 105(c) of the Mine Safety and Health Act). The enforcement of these anti-discrimination provisions is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor. If discrimination is suspected, contact the nearest OSHA or MSHA office immediately.

Procedural Rights of NIOSH and Employee or Employee Representatives

There are 7 legal rights of NIOSH and employees or employee representatives that NIOSH considers non-negotiable:

• NIOSH and its representatives have the right to enter the workplace to conduct HHE investigations.
• NIOSH and its representatives have the right to access information and records maintained by the employer that are pertinent to the HHE investigation.
• NIOSH and employees (including management employees) have the right to private and confidential interviews.
• Employee representatives, including an employee requestor and a representative of any union representing the affected employees, have the right to accompany NIOSH investigators during the initial inspection of any workplace to be evaluated.(NIOSH investigators may have additional employee representatives accompany them if necessary to aid in the investigation.)
• Employee representatives have the right to participate in an opening and closing conference with NIOSH investigators at the start and conclusion of a NIOSH investigation at the workplace.
• Employees have the right to wear NIOSH sampling devices and participate in medical tests when offered or requested by NIOSH. (This also applies to management employees.)
• Employees have the right to read or obtain copies of all HHE interim and final reports. (The employer is required to post the final report in the workplace for 30 days, or supply a list of names and addresses of affected employees so that NIOSH can mail the report directly to them.)

Procedural Rights of the Employer

Regardless of who submitted the request for an HHE, employers have the following rights during HHE investigations:

• To obtain a copy of the HHE request (excluding the identity of confidential requestors and any accompanying information of a personal nature.)
• To obtain verbal accounts from NIOSH investigators concerning plans, procedures, and findings at conferences at the beginning and conclusion of NIOSH visits to the workplace.
• To accompany NIOSH investigators during the initial inspection of the workplace to be investigated.
• To observe NIOSH investigative procedures during the HHE, except for certain confidential NIOSH-employee interactions, such as private interviews and medical test procedures.
• To identify, at the start of the investigation, information that is considered trade secret, and to have that information safeguarded by NIOSH unless NIOSH follows procedures outlined in 42 CFR 85.7(b) to remove the trade secret designation from such information. (These procedures provide an opportunity for the employer to defend the trade secret designation.)
• To require that NIOSH officers comply with all safety and health rules in the workplace, and conduct the investigations in a manner that does not unreasonably disrupt operations.

Role of the Employee Representative

The local, national, or international union may submit an HHE request on behalf of employees it represents. Two employees may authorize a third employee to submit an HHE request on their behalf.

The employee representative has the following rights:

• To accompany NIOSH investigators on the initial inspection of the workplace.
• To convey to the NIOSH investigators, privately if requested, additional information related to the HHE request.
• To participate in the opening and closing conferences.
• To receive copies of all interim and final reports

How Are HHE Results Reported?

NIOSH reports its findings and recommendations to employers, employees, and employee representatives. Verbal reports are normally provided to employer and employee representatives during a closing conference at the conclusion of a site visit, and by telephone. Often, results are only preliminary or incomplete at that time. Written interim reports are sometimes provided while an investigation is still in progress.

When all the information and data have been analyzed, NIOSH issues a report of its final determination, giving findings and recommendations. Copies of this report are sent to the requestor, the employer, employee representatives, OSHA, and other appropriate agencies.

The employer is required to post the final report in a place accessible to employees from all areas evaluated (alternatively, the employer may give NIOSH names and addresses of affected employees to permit NIOSH to mail the report to each affected employee.) Although NIOSH has no authority to force the employer to adopt its recommendations, experience has shown that most employers attempt to address any problems identified in the HHE report.

By What Authority Does NIOSH Conduct HHEs?

In private sector workplaces, NIOSH is supported by the following:

• The Law

Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Public Law 91-596, 91st Congress, S.2193, December 29, 1970), 29 USC 669 (a)(6), authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (delegated to NIOSH), “following a written request by any employer or authorized representative of employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.” Section 501(a) of the Federal Mine Safety Act of 1977 authorizes NIOSH, “upon the written request of any mine operator or authorized representative of miners, to evaluate potentially hazardous or toxic effects of substances, physical agents, or equipment found or used in mines.”

• Federal Regulations

The regulations governing NIOSH procedures for conducting HHEs are published in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR 85).

In Federal agency workplaces, NIOSH is supported by the following:

• The Law

Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC 668) requires the head of each Federal agency to “establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program.”

• Executive Order

Executive Order 12196 of February 26, 1980, “Occupational Safety and Health Programs for Federal Employees.”

• Federal Regulations

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1960; Basic Program Elements for Federal Employees Occupational Safety and Health

Programs and Related Matters (29 CFR 1960). Section 1960.35 of these regulations describes the procedures for requesting HHEs in Federal agency workplaces.  NIOSH follows the procedures outlined in the regulations governing HHEs (42 CFR 85) when evaluating Federal agency workplaces.

In other government agency workplaces, NIOSH is supported by the following:

• The Law

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC 667) permits OSHA to approve a plan under which the State assumes responsibility for developing and enforcing occupational safety and health standards. Section 18(c)(6) requires that such a plan, to be approved, must contain satisfactory assurances that the State will “establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program applicable to all employees of public agencies of the State and its political subdivisions.” Although approved State plans do not ordinarily extend the right to request HHEs to State employees and employers, the State agency charged with carrying out this plan has right-of-access to State and local government workplaces, and could request technical assistance from NIOSH in evaluating the workplaces.

• Federal Regulations

In cases where NIOSH responds to requests to evaluate State or local government workplaces, the procedures outlined in 42 CFR 85 are followed.

Occupational Medicine Rotation Program

The NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch provides hands-on, one- and two-month workplace training opportunities to Medical Residents. Residents join staff on a combination of workplace and epidemiologic investigations, public inquiries, health and safety assessments on today’s health and safety topics and learn to plan and conduct worksite health evaluations. Residents gain understanding of the role and function of CDC/NIOSH regarding occupational health research and service.

Every year since 1996 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has collected work-related injury and illness data from more than 80,000 employers. For the first time, the agency has made the data from 1996 to 2007 available in a searchable online database, allowing the public to look at establishment or industry-specific injury and illness data. The workplace injury and illness data is available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/odi/establishment_search.htmlas well as Data.gov.