BLS occupational injury and illness numbers come from the BLS annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. The survey captures data from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) logs of workplace injuries and illnesses maintained by employers. While BLS occupational injury and illness data have been the subject of scrutiny from time to time, a study released in early 2006 is the first specific research documenting missing cases in individual firms, as determined by comparisons between BLS and state workers’ compensation data. BLS provided the researchers with access to occupational injury and illness data and facilitated the research activities, which were funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. BLS is taking a number of steps to learn more about these research results, and to address any deficiencies in its survey operations.

Another researcher is currently conducting a similar study using BLS and workers’ compensation data from several States. The BLS also is interested in the details of these comparisons, such as by type of injury or demographic characteristics of the injured worker. This type of information will help to focus BLS efforts to improve survey operations. In addition, BLS is developing its own “follow-back” study to ensure the survey correctly captures the data that employers have recorded on their OSHA logs. Further research is being planned as well. BLS will update this response as more information becomes available.

Among the issues that have been raised in the past is the coverage of the BLS occupational injury and illness data. The BLS survey measures nonfatal injuries and illnesses only and excludes the self-employed; farms with fewer than 11 employees; private households; Federal government agencies; and (through 2007) national estimates for employees in State and local government agencies. National estimates for employees in State and local government became available for the first time beginning with 2008 data. Data for railroads and certain mining industries are not from the BLS survey, but are supplied to BLS from the Federal Railroad Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Data on fatal occupational injuries are collected by a separate BLS program.

Often as a safety professional you have to determine if an injury is work related. There sometimes can be a gray area such as a worker eating in your lunchroom who cuts their finger while eating. In some companies workers do not clock out for lunch. Would the injury be deemed work related? The answers below come from OSHA’s Recordkeeping Handbook.

Section 1904.5 Determination of work-relatedness

(a) Basic requirement.
You must consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.

(b) Implementation.

(1) What is the “work environment”?

OSHA defines the work environment as “the establishment and other locations where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. The work environment includes not only physical locations, but also the equipment or materials used by the employee during the course of his or her work.”

(2) Are there situations where an injury or illness occurs in the work environment and is not considered work-related?

Yes, an injury or illness occurring in the work environment that falls under one of the following exceptions is not work-related, and therefore is not recordable.

1904.5(b)(2) You are not required to record injuries and illnesses if …

(i)  At the time of the injury or illness, the employee was present in the work environment as a member of the general public rather than as an employee.

(ii)  The injury or illness involves signs or symptoms that surface at work but result solely from a non-work-related event or exposure that occurs outside the work environment.

(iii)  The injury or illness results solely from voluntary participation in a wellness program or in flu shot, exercise class, racquetball, or baseball.

(iv)  The injury or illness is solely the result of an employee eating, drinking, or preparing food or drink for personal consumption (whether bought on the employer’s premises or brought in). For example, if the employee is injured by choking on a sandwich while in the employer’s establishment, the case would not be considered work-related.

Note: If the employee is made ill by ingesting food contaminated by workplace contaminants (such as lead), or gets food poisoning from food supplied by the employer, the case would be considered work-related.

(v)  The injury or illness is solely the result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of the employee’s assigned working hours.

(vi)  The injury or illness is solely the result of personal grooming, self -medication for a non-work-related condition, or is intentionally self-inflicted.

(vii)  The injury or illness is caused by a motor vehicle accident and occurs on a company parking lot or company access road while the employee is commuting to or from work.

(viii)The illness is the common cold or flu (Note: contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, hepatitis A, or plague are considered work-related if the employee is infected at work).

(ix)  The illness is a mental illness. Mental illness will not be considered work-related unless the employee voluntarily provides the employer with an opinion from a physician or other licensed health care professional with appropriate training and experience (psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric nurse practitioner, etc.) stating that the employee has a mental illness that is work-related.

3) How do I handle a case if it is not obvious whether the precipitating event or exposure occurred in the work environment or occurred away from work?

In these situations, you must evaluate the employee’s work duties and environment to decide whether or not one or more events or exposures in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition.

(4) How do I know if an event or exposure in the work environment “significantly aggravated” a preexisting injury or illness?

A preexisting injury or illness has been significantly aggravated, for purposes of OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping, when an event or exposure in the work environment results in any of the following:

(i)  Death, provided that the preexisting injury or illness would likely not have resulted in death but for the occupational event or exposure.

(ii)  Loss of consciousness, provided that the preexisting injury or illness would likely not have resulted in loss of consciousness but for the occupational event or exposure.

(iii)  One or more days away from work, or days of restricted work, or days of job transfer that otherwise would not have occurred but for the occupational event or exposure. Medical treatment in a case where no medical treatment was needed for the injury or illness before the workplace event or exposure, or a change in medical treatment was necessitated by the workplace event or exposure.

(5) Which injuries and illnesses are considered pre-existing conditions?

An injury or illness is a preexisting condition if it resulted solely from a non-work-related event or exposure that occurred outside the work environment.

(6) How do I decide whether an injury or illness is work-related if the employee is on travel status at the time the injury or illness occurs?

Injuries and illnesses that occur while an employee is on travel status are work-related if, at the time of the injury or illness, the employee was engaged in work activities “in the interest of the employer.” Examples of such activities include travel to and from customer contacts, conducting job tasks, and entertaining or being entertained to transact, discuss, or promote business (work-related entertainment includes only entertainment activities being engaged in at the direction of the employer).

(b)(7) How do I decide if a case is work-related when the employee is working at home?

Injuries and illnesses that occur while an employee is working at home, including work in a home office, will be considered work-related if the injury or illness occurs while the employee is performing work for pay or compensation in the home, and the injury or illness is directly related to the performance of work rather than to the general home environment or setting. For example, if an employee drops a box of work documents and injures his or her foot, the case is considered work-related. If an employee’s fingernail is punctured by a needle from a sewing machine used to perform garment work at home, becomes infected and requires medical treatment, the injury is considered work-related. If an employee is injured because he or she trips on the family dog while rushing to answer a work phone call, the case is not considered work-related. If an employee working at home is electrocuted because of faulty home wiring, the injury is not considered work-related.

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.

WASHINGTON – A proposed rule to align the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) will be published in the September 30 Federal Register.

The current HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import and provide information to subsequent users. The current standard requires all employers to have a hazard communication program for workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. The program includes materials such as container labels, safety data sheets, and employee training.  A number of countries, including the United States, international organizations and stakeholders participated in developing the GHS to address inconsistencies in hazard classification and communications. The GHS was developed to provide a single, harmonized system to classify chemicals, labels and safety data sheets with the primary benefit of increasing the quality and consistency of information provided to workers, employers and chemical users. Under the GHS, labels would include signal words, pictograms, and hazard and precautionary statements. Additionally, information on safety data sheets would be presented in a designated order.

The proposal to align the hazard communication standard with the GHS will improve the consistency and effectiveness of hazard communications and reduce chemical-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities,” said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. “Following the GHS approach will increase workplace safety, facilitate international trade in chemicals, and generate cost savings from production efficiencies for firms that manufacture and use hazardous chemicals.”

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s men and women by setting and enforcing standards and providing training, outreach, and education. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

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.

OSHA Steps Up Enforcement of Worker Training Requirements

OSHA will step up enforcement of worker training requirements, especially for non-English speaking workers, according to a recent announcement from Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. She announced a number of major new OSHA enforcement initiatives during her April 14 speech at the National Action Summit for Latino Worker Health and Safety. OSHA currently requires that training provisions under OSHA standards be provided in a language or a form workers can understand. OSHA has already developed a training language policy. OSHA further requires that its compliance officers check and verify that workers have received the training required by OSHA standards. The Agency will expand upon this and effective on April 28—Workers Memorial Day—Secretary Solis explained, “OSHA will also assure that its Compliance Officers check and verify not only that the training has been provided, but that it was provided in a format that the workers being trained can understand.”

Trainers need to find ways to hurdle language barriers. While English is a second language for an increasing percentage of the workforce, employers are still obligated to make sure Hispanic worker training and other immigrant worker training is understood by employees. It’s not enough to make a presentation if you know that members of your audience may not be able to comprehend or use the information effectively. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor (DOL), and other government agencies are keenly aware of this.

Following are some commonsense tips for Spanish worker training:

• Establish companywide safety policies for bilingual training supported by top management.
• Hire supervisors who are bilingual.
• Provide signage (safety guidelines, emergency evacuation, warnings) in Spanish and include diagrams or symbols.
• Pair new employees with bilingual veteran employees who comply with safety and health guidelines.
• Conduct periodic jobsite visits and work with employees in the field.
• Follow up formal training with demonstrations, then have employees demonstrate to one another.
• Conduct safety meetings and toolbox talks to reinforce formal training

OSHA’s Training Language Policy

According to OSHA’s training standards policy statement, if an employee does not speak or comprehend English, instruction must be provided by the employer in a language the employee can understand. Similarly, if the employee’s vocabulary is limited, the training must account for that limitation. According to OSHA, an employer’s responsibility to provide employees with safety information and training doesn’t go away because an employee can’t understand standard English-language training programs. When that is the case, employers must inform and train these workers in a language they can understand.

The policy directs OSHA compliance inspectors to determine whether workplace instructions regarding job duties are given in a language other than English. If so, they will also need to provide safety and health training to employees in the same manner. If a reasonable person would conclude that the employer had not conveyed the training to its employees in a manner they were capable of understanding, the violation may be cited by the inspector as serious.

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

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.

What is VPP?

The Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) promote effective worksite-based safety and health. In the VPP, management, labor, and OSHA establish cooperative relationships at workplaces that have implemented a comprehensive safety and health management system. Approval into VPP is OSHA’s official recognition of the outstanding efforts of employers and employees who have achieved exemplary occupational safety and health.

What Is the Authority for VPP?

The legislative underpinning for VPP is Section (2)(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which declares the Congress’s intent “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources – (1) by encouraging employers and employees in their efforts to reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of employment, and to stimulate employers and employees to institute new and to perfect existing programs for providing safe and healthful working conditions.”

How Does VPP Work?

In practice, VPP sets performance-based criteria for a managed safety and health system, invites sites to apply, and then assesses applicants against these criteria. OSHA’s verification includes an application review and a rigorous onsite evaluation by a team of OSHA safety and health experts.

OSHA approves qualified sites to one of three programs:

• Star
• Merit
• Star Demonstration: Recognition for worksites that address unique safety and health issues.
  Sites that make the grade must submit annual self-evaluations and undergo periodic onsite reevaluations to remain in the programs.

When Did VPP Begin?

• 1979 – California began experimental program
• 1982 – OSHA formally announced the VPP and approved the first site.
• 1998 – Federal worksites became eligible for VPP.

How Has VPP Improved Worker Safety & Health?

Statistical evidence for VPP’s success is impressive. The average VPP worksite has a Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) case rate of 52% below the average for its industry⁽¹⁾. These sites typically do not start out with such low rates. Reductions in injuries and illnesses begin when the site commits to the VPP approach to safety and health management and the challenging VPP application process.

How Does VPP Benefit Employers?

Fewer injuries and illnesses mean greater profits as workers’ compensation premiums and other costs plummet. Entire industries benefit as VPP sites evolve into models of excellence and influence practices industry-wide.

How Does VPP Benefit OSHA?

OSHA gains a corps of ambassadors enthusiastically spreading the message of safety and health system management. These partners also provide OSHA with valuable input and augment its limited resources.

Another benefit to OSHA is a safety and health advocacy group that came into existence as a result of the VPP, the Voluntary Protection Program Participants’ Association (VPPPA). The VPPPA is a nonprofit organization founded in 1985. As part of its efforts to share the benefits of cooperative programs, the VPPPA works closely with OSHA and State Plan States in the development and implementation of cooperative programs. The VPPPA also provides expertise to these groups in the form of comments and stakeholder feedback on agency rulemaking and policies. Additionally, the Association provides comments and testimony to members of Congress regarding legislative bills on health and safety issues.