“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 recently solidified leadership for the agency and has provided a clearer picture of the regulatory horizon.

18 states and Washington DC have now passed laws prohibiting drivers of a moving vehicle to text while driving. Yet over 10% of all drivers still continue to text. Many of these drivers are under the age of 29. The University of Utah recently published a study (December 16, 2009) Text Messaging During Simulated Driving, which found that drivers who texting have a much greater chance for an vehicle incident (6 times) than those who use a hand-held cell phone.

Recently I have been speaking at regional and local safety conferences on the topic of driver distraction, You Can Drive Me To Distraction. During these presentations I ask the audience how many people either text or use a cell phone (hand-held or hands free) while they drive. When I ask them to be honest, more than 60% of the people raise their hands.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines distraction as:

Distraction is anything that diverts the driver’s attention from the primary tasks of navigating the vehicle and responding to critical events.  To put it another way, a distraction is anything that takes your eyes off the road (visual distraction), your mind off the road (cognitive distraction), or your hands off the wheel (manual distraction).  So when you think about tasks that can be a driving distraction, you can see that they often fit into more than one category: eating is visual and manual, whereas using a navigation system is all three.

Both the National Safety Council and the NHTSA have become very active in awareness programs and getting laws passed which prohibit the used of any electronic device while driving a motor vehicle.  To make the point much clearer click on this link and watch this video (hint; it is a little hard to watch, be prepared).

So, what’s that message here?  Any time you lose focus on driving for only 2 seconds, your reaction time to avoid an incident is the same as if your blood alcohol level is .08 or the DUI limit.  We must stay alert and focused to stay alive and keep others from getting killed or injured.

MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS ARE THE #1 CAUSE OF EMPLOYEE DEATH AND INJURY.

More people have died in 1 year from texting related incidents in the US, than all the service people who have died in the middle east conflict since 2003.

Hepatitis B Vaccination and Post-Exposure Follow-Up Procedures

Q. Who must be offered the hepatitis B vaccination?

A. The hepatitis B vaccination series must be made available to all employees who have occupational exposure. The employer does not have to make the hepatitis B vaccination available to employees who have previously received the vaccination series, who are already immune as their antibody tests reveal, or who are prohibited from receiving the vaccine for medical reasons.

Q. When should the hepatitis B vaccination be offered to employees?

A. The hepatitis B vaccination must be made available within 10 working days of initial assignment, after appropriate training has been completed. This includes arranging for the administration of the first dose of the series. In addition, see page 17 for vaccination of designated first aiders.

Q. Can pre-screening be required for hepatitis B titer? Post-screening?

A. No. The employer cannot require an employee to take a pre-screening or post-vaccination serological test. An employer may, however, decide to make pre-screening available at no cost to the employee. Routine post-vaccination serological testing is not currently recommended by the CDC unless an employee has had an exposure incident, and then it is also to be offered at no cost to the employee.

Q. If an employee declines the hepatitis B vaccination, can the employer make up a declination form?

A. If an employee declines the hepatitis B vaccination, the employer must ensure that the employee signs a hepatitis B vaccination declination. The declination’s wording must be identical to that found in Appendix A of the standard. A photocopy of the Appendix may be used as a declination form, or the words can be typed or written onto a separate document.

Q. Can employees refuse the vaccination?

A. Employees have the right to refuse the hepatitis B vaccine and/or any post-exposure evaluation and follow-up. Is important to note, however, that the employee needs to be properly informed of the benefits of the vaccination and post-exposure evaluation through training. The employee also has the right to decide to take the vaccination at a later date if he or she so chooses. The employer must make the vaccination available at that time.

Q. Can the hepatitis B vaccination be made a condition of employment?

A. OSHA does not have jurisdiction over the issue.

Q. Is a routine booster does of hepatitis B vaccine required?

A. Because the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) does not recommend routine booster doses of hepatitis B vaccine, they are not required at this time. However, if a routine booster dose of hepatitis B vaccine is recommended by the USPHS at a future date, such booster doses must be made available at no cost to those eligible employees with occupational exposure.

Q. Whose responsibility is it to pay for the hepatitis B vaccine?

A. The responsibility lies with the employer to make the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination, including post-exposure evaluation and follow-up, available at no cost to the employees.

Q. What information must the employer provide to the healthcare professional following an exposure incident?

A. The healthcare professional must be provided with a copy of the standard, as well as the following information:

•A description of the employee’s duties as they relate to the exposure incident;

•Documentation of the route(s) and circumstances of the exposure;

•The results of the source individual’s blood testing, if available; and

•All medical records relevant to the appropriate treatment of the employee, including vaccination status, which are the employer’s responsibility to maintain.

Q. What serological testing must be done on the source individual?

A. The employer must identify and document the source individual if know, unless the employer can establish that identification is not feasible or is prohibited by state or local law. The source individual’s blood must be tested as soon as feasible, after consent is obtained, in order to determine HIV and HBV infectivity. The information on the source individual’s HIV and HBV testing must be provided to the evaluating healthcare professional. Also, the results of the testing must be provided to the exposed employee. The exposed employee must be informed of applicable laws and regulations concerning disclosure of the identity and infectious status of the source individual.

Q. What if consent cannot be obtained from the source individual?

A. If consent cannot be obtained and is required by state law, the employer must document in writing that consent cannot be obtained. When the source individual’s consent is not required by law, the source individual’s blood if available shall be tested and the results documented.

Q. When is the exposed employee’s blood tested?

A. After consent is obtained, the exposed employee’s blood is collected and tested as soon as feasible for HIV and HBV serological status. If the employee consents to the follow-up evaluation after an exposure incident, but does not give consent for HIV serological testing, the blood sample must be preserved for 90 days. If, within 90 days of the exposure incident, the employee elects to have the baseline sample tested for HIV, testing must be done as soon as feasible.

Q. What information does the healthcare professional provide to the employer following an exposure incident?

A. The employer must obtain and provide to the employee a copy of the evaluating healthcare professional’s written opinion within 15 days of completion of the evaluation. The healthcare professional’s written opinion for hepatitis B is limited to whether hepatitis B vaccination is indicated and if the employee received the vaccination. The written opinion for post-exposure evaluation must include information that the employee has been informed of the results of the evaluation and told about any medical conditions resulting from exposure that may further require evaluation and treatment. All other findings or diagnoses must be kept confidential and not included in the written report.

Q. What type of counseling is required following an exposure incident?

A. The standard requires that post-exposure counseling be given to employees following an exposure incident. Counseling should include USPHS recommendations for prevention of HIV. These recommendations include refraining from blood, semen, or organ donation; abstaining from sexual intercourse or using measures to prevent HIV transmission during sexual intercourse; and refraining from breast feeding infants during the follow-up period. In addition, counseling must be made available regardless of the employee’s decision to accept serological testing.

Q. What information about exposure incidents is recorded on the OSHA 300 Log?

Revision 10/02 A. All work-related needlestick injuries and cuts from sharp objects that are contaminated with another person’s blood or other potentially infectious materials must be recorded. Enter the case on the 300 Log as an injury. To protect the employee’s privacy, do not enter the employee’s name. Enter the case on the sharps injury log or enter comparable data on the OSHA 300 Log.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has released a new report titled Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey that offers data on the public’s thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors related to preparedness and community safety for multiple types of hazards. FEMA says the report’s findings are particularly relevant as the nation prepares for a possible pandemic flu outbreak, hurricane season, and other hazards.

Results from the national survey have important implications for the development of more effective communication and outreach strategies to achieve greater levels of preparedness and participation, the agency says. For example, the results indicate that 30 percent of Americans have not prepared because they think that emergency responders will help them and that more than 60 percent expect to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster. While government will execute its functions, communications to the public should convey a more realistic understanding of emergency response capacity and emphasize the importance of self-reliance. FEMA concludes that messaging should thus speak to a shared responsibility and stress that everyone has a role to play in preparedness and response.

The survey also found that many people who report being prepared have not completed important preparedness activities or do not have a sound understanding of community plans. Of those who perceived themselves to be prepared, 36 percent did not have a household plan, 78 percent had not conducted a home evacuation drill, and 58 percent did not know their community’s evacuation routes.

Fourteen percent of respondents reported having a physical or other disability that would affect their capacity to respond to an emergency situation. Alarmingly, however, few individuals with disabilities had taken specific actions to help them respond safely in the event of an emergency, the study found. Only 27 percent had taken a CPR or first aid training and less than half (47 percent) had a household plan. Another 14 percent of survey participants indicated they lived with and/or cared for someone with a physical or other disability. Of these individuals, less than 40 percent reported taking a CPR or first aid training (36 percent and 39 percent respectively) and 53 had supplies set aside in their home.

The report notes that practicing response protocols is critical for effective execution; this is true for emergency responders and true for the public. Fewer than half the surveyed individuals (41 percent) had practiced a workplace evacuation drill, only 14 percent had participated in a home evacuation drill, and of those in school and/or with children in school, only 23 percent had participated in a school evacuation drill. And the numbers are much lower for shelter in place drills (27 percent, 10 percent, and 13 percent respectively). Drills and exercises for multiple hazards and multiple locations need to be conducted through social networks, the study found. In addition, community members need to be included more effectively in government-sponsored community exercises.

The survey results indicate that individuals’ perceived utility of preparing and their confidence in their ability to respond varies significantly by disaster type. Only 7 percent of individuals felt that nothing they did would help them handle a natural disaster, whereas 35 percent felt nothing they did would help them in an act of terrorism, such as a biological, chemical, radiological, or explosive attack. All-hazards terminology may mask important nuances relative to conveying personal preparedness guidance for specific hazards. The report thus says it is important to emphasize the survivability of manmade disasters and the relevant protective measures for these hazards.

The report notes that national leaders must be strong advocates for personal preparedness, but adds it is clear that messages specific to individual preparedness must include critical local information, such as information on local hazards, local alerts and warnings, and local community response protocols. Local social networks must also be used to support outreach and education on personal preparedness, such as neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith communities. And the concepts of mutual support at the local, neighborhood level should be emphasized.

To read the survey report, go to www.citizencorps.gov/ready/2009findings.shtm.

Since statistics prove more than 90 percent of all collisions are a direct result of driver error, and an increasingly large number of people choose to drive distracted, it shouldn’t be surprising that motorists consider unsafe driving a threat to themselves and others who use our roads and highways.
Many drivers frequently use cell phones for personal and business purposes, everyone from soccer moms to company CEOs. There is no question regarding the benefits of being in constant communication.
Realistically we all have to think about the times it’s just not proper to use your cell phone. Operating a motor vehicle is one of those times.  According to the results of a study by Carnegie Mellon University in 2008, talking on the cell phone while driving reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37 percent.
There is enough evidence from agencies such as AAA Traffic Safety Foundation, National Safety Council and the American College of Emergency Physicians that there should be a national ban on cell phone use and text messaging while behind the wheel.
There are only five states along with Washington, D.C., that ban hand-held cell phone use: California, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Washington. Sixteen additional states and D.C. restrict cell phone use by drivers under the age of 18.
An important point to apply here is that the level and danger of the distraction is not lessened by the use of “hands-free.”  Most drivers are unaware of the liability issues related to distracted driving. Insurance companies routinely subpoena driver’s cell phone records when a client is involved in a crash with bodily injury.
Anything that allows you to drive your vehicle in an unsafe manner can result in a charge of careless driving. Remember the law requires us to maintain control of the vehicle at all times.  Let’s transfer that liability over to employers who encourage or allow cell phone use, especially in company vehicles. You better have some good insurance if you do so.

Recently the International Paper Company settled a lawsuit for a reported $5.2 million. The suit alleged that an IP employee was using her company-supplied cell phone when she rear-ended another vehicle. The other driver suffered such severe traumatic injuries she eventually had to have her arm amputated.
Experience indicates the importance of prohibiting cell phone usage while driving through the use of a written policy.  Employers should implement a strong policy forbidding phone calls by all employees while driving a vehicle on company business. It may limit use to hands free calling or completely ban cell phone usage while driving.  Supervisors, for example, will have to understand when the call goes to voice mail or why it might take awhile for the employee to check in.
 

ReCellular, a leading electronics sustainability firm, recently announced a new partnership with TerraCycle to establish over 1,000 “phone brigades” by the end of the year, building on a similar concept previously launched by TerraCycle. The brigades will collect and donate cell phones, raise funds for local causes and keep e-waste out of landfills.

“Economic, social and environmental sustainability have been at the core of our business long before the term ‘triple-bottom line’ was coined,” says Chuck Newman, CEO and founder of ReCellular. “Today, we are proud to be a part of the emerging green economy, and to partner with an innovative company such as TerraCycle. We look forward to expanding this relationship over the coming months.”

The Phone Brigade program could be a way to earn money for your favorite charity.
The partnership provides a solution for TerraCycle to expand their upcycling efforts to include consumer electronics. First launching the Brigade concept in 2006, TerraCycle pays schools and non-profits to collect 20-ounce soda bottles. Today, more than 20,000 participating locations are part of the Brigades, and the programs have raised more than $100,000 from millions of reused and recycled soda bottles, yogurt cups and snack wrappers. This money, primarily, has been donated to public-school organizations.

According to TerraCycle, the company “decided to expand their upcycling collections to help address the estimated 65,000 tons of cell phones that are discarded every year.” Cell phones contain both hazardous chemicals and valuable materials for reclamation, making them ideal for recycling.

Anyone can sign up to participate in the TerraCycle Phone Brigade, and volunteers will receive donation boxes for collecting and shipping phones. Brigades will be compensated for each item they collect, which provides schools and other grassroots organizations with new ways to fundraise.

The phones will be delivered to the ReCellular phone processing facility, where they will be either refurbished and reprogrammed for reuse, or are recycled to reclaim materials needed to make new electronics equipment.

In 2008, ReCellular collected over 5.5 million phones and raised over $4 million for charities across the country.

The Compliance Resource Center has reported that both the domestic hazardous materials transportation regulations and international rules for shipping batteries have undergone significant changes over the past two years.  All batteries, alkaline, lithium, lead, nickel metal hydride, carbon zinc, etc., or battery powered products are subject to 49 CFR 173.21(c) in the U.S. hazardous materials regulations.   Many batteries that were previously unregulated or under-regulated must now be thoroughly evaluated to determine hazard potential. Detailed packaging and communication standards must be followed under. 

Adding complexity to the issue is the fact that shipping requirements vary greatly, depending on the mode of transport and the type of battery.  Battery shipping regulations affect a wide array of industries from manufacturers and part suppliers to freight forwarders and distributors.  Regardless of whether a lithium or lithium ion cell or battery qualifies for the exceptions in the regulations, shippers must still comply with requirements of 49 CFR 173.21(c). That is, the cells and batteries must be securely packaged and offered for transportation in a manner that prevents the dangerous evolution of heat and short circuits.

Both FedEx and UPS will refuse to accept packages not meeting FedEx, Government or IATA requirements.

Green Energy Center Gets Project of the Year Recognition from U.S. EPA
EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program Recognizes Ohio Landfill Gas to CNG Fueling Operation
NEWPORT BEACH, CA – January 13, 2009
FirmGreen, Inc. (FGI) was recognized today at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) annual conference with a Project of the Year Award for its Green Energy Center (GEC). The high Btu landfill gas utilization project, located near Columbus, Ohio is a public-private partnership with the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (SWACO).

“Forward thinking and dedication are key ingredients to successful alternative energy projects like the Green Energy Center,” said Rachel Goldstein, EPA LMOP Program Manager. “It is a win for the environment and the local community.”
FGI used its patented CO2 Wash® landfill gas (LFG) clean-up technology to convert raw LFG that would otherwise be flared into pipeline quality natural gas for a potential array of clean, renewable energy sources. The CO2 Wash unit processes 300scfm of raw LFG into ultra-pure medium Btu methane that powers a 250kW micro turbine to generate electricity for the facility.  The high Btu methane is used as a fuel for SWACO vehicles.  The clean-up technology was invented in Ohio by Acrion Technologies, Inc.
“FirmGreen is much honored to have been selected as EPA’s Project of the Year,” stated Steve Wilburn, founder and CEO of FirmGreen, Inc. “We have worked closely with the Landfill Methane Outreach Program staff for several years and congratulate them on their dedication and support.  The Program is really one of the true success stories within our federal government.”

“By utilizing waste gases generated from SWACO’s landfill, we produce domestic, renewable transportation fuels, improve the environment and generate economic growth.  We are proud of our ongoing partnership with SWACO as we work to clean our air, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, provide clean and affordable vehicle fuels, and spur job creation.”

“Forward thinking and dedication are key ingredients to successful alternative energy projects like the Green Energy Center,” said Rachel Goldstein, EPA LMOP Program Manager. “It is a win for the environment and the local community.”

The GEC demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility of utilizing CO2 Wash as the technology platform for a smaller scale high Btu landfill gas project. The project accomplished its goals with a facilities design that:

•is self-sustaining; the facility generates enough electricity for its own operations.
•demonstrates that smaller landfill operations have a viable LFG utilization option at a competitive cost
•enables landfill and waste water operations to respond effectively to national environmental policy with a single project.