“Injury and illness prevention programs are a better approach than safety incentive programs,” said OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels in his American Society of Safety Engineers webinar in May. “Already, workers have lots of incentives to work safely. We don’t need incentives. We need strong safety and health programs.”

Given this perspective, OSHA’s accelerated effort to adopt an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) standard makes sense. Once adopted, the standard would require all U.S. employers to have company I2P2s, something that, incredibly, is not required under current regulations. Michaels said he wants the standard in place within three years, a lightning pace if judged by OSHA’s past standard adoption performance.

Through its effort to require injury and illness prevention programs at all work sites, OSHA hopes to bring much added focus to the question of what constitutes an effective safety and health program. The basic purpose of an I2P2 is identification and assessment of hazards and the institution of prevention measures. Good data collection is one aspect; so is worker involvement and top-management attention. Training is also critical.

“Safe work is more important than reporting,” said Michaels, who stressed that employers’ drive for low, reported injury and illness rates has corrupted the data and masked the extent of the nation’s workplace safety and health problems. “We want programs that reward workers for working safely, identifying hazards and abating them. A good I2P2 is a better approach than an incentive program.”

During June, OSHA convened three sessions to receive public comment on its proposed I2P2 standard. The LHSFNA participated and is working with the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to develop an I2P2 rule specific to the construction industry. Eventually, the key components of a solid safety program will be codified in the new standard.

Michaels also urged companies to use government safety consultation services that are provided at the state level, and he praised Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) companies that strongly pursue safety programs and safe workplaces. He advised all companies to develop I2P2s and to engage their workers and supervisors in the process.

The LHSFNA’s Occupational Health and Safety Division provides support to LIUNA signatory employers who want help developing company- and site-specific safety programs. It can be reached at 202-628-5465

OSHA defines I2P2 programs as management systems that are designed to help employers reduce workplace injuries and illnesses “through a systematic process that proactively addresses workplace safety and health hazards.” In 1989, OSHA implemented an I2P2 program that encouraged employers to voluntarily implement a safety and health protocol and programs. During the Clinton administration, OSHA attempted to promulgate a regulatory requirement that employers implement I2P2 programs, but the effort stalled due to opposition from employers. OSHA dropped the effort from its agenda in 2002, but the Obama administration has indicated that an I2P2 rule is a high priority. Current OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels has spoken frequently of his determination to implement a final rule on I2P2 in the near future.

Stakeholders at the June 29 meeting discussed four general topic areas: possible regulatory approaches, the scope and application of the rule, organization of the rule, and the economic impacts of the rule. Organized labor was bullish on the notion of implementing an I2P2 requirement, while employers were mostly opposed to a new mandate. In general, employers expressed concern over requiring firms to implement an I2P2 system rather than relying upon a voluntary system. Small business representatives were particularly vocal about the burden of an I2P2 requirement and urged that any such rule permit flexibility or carve out exemptions based upon size or injury rate. Additionally, many employers requested that an I2P2 rule should consider employees’ behavior and overall wellness and the impact of those factors on risk and injury. During the meeting, a recommendation was made that the proposed rule contain a section on employee duties to complement the employer duties. Finally, employers in attendance urged OSHA to ensure that any I2P2 regulation would not be overly prescriptive and that it address only those areas of workplace safety that have been proven quantitatively to benefit from specific health and safety management protocols.

Several steps remain before an I2P2 rule could be finalized; indeed, a proposed rule has not even been drafted. The June 29 meeting marked the third of five I2P2 stakeholder meetings scheduled for 2010; previous meetings took place on June 3 in East Brunswick, N.J., and on June 10 in Dallas, Tex. The remaining meetings will be held on July 20 in Washington, D.C., and on August 3 in Sacramento, Calif.

Once the stakeholder meetings have been completed, OSHA must proceed through the regular rulemaking process, which involves drafting a proposed rule, publishing it in the Federal Register, permitting public comment, and responding to public comment before a Final Rule is issued. Since the regulation impacts small businesses, OSHA must include one additional step as part of the review process: In coordination with the Small Business Administration (SBA), OSHA must also establish a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel that includes small business representatives impacted by the proposed rule. The panel will review the regulatory language and preliminary government analysis of the regulation’s impact before producing a report that will be published along with the rule. SBREFA also requires that all rules reviewed by a panel are subject to Congressional review.

If a stranger passed out on the sidewalk in front of you, how likely would you be to administer mouth-to-mouth?

In our age of no-touch faucets in public bathrooms and special disinfectant wipes for grocery store carts, you wouldn’t be alone if you say you might hesitate.

Happily, two new studies conclude that when it comes to CPR, pressing rhythmically on the chest with your hands is enough to save a life.

No mouth-to-mouth required.

The American Heart Association, which has been promoting hands-only CPR for two years, hopes that bystanders will feel less apprehensive and more likely to act if faced with an emergency.

Studies indicate that fear of doing something wrong, more so than catching something, makes many would-be-heroes freeze. And people may have has good reason to fear doing something wrong when practicing traditional mouth-to-mouth CPR.

The traditional method is a bit complicated, and one study showed that those who did attempt it often didn’t do it very well. For starters, the victim’s head has to be tilted back, the airway cleared, the nose pinched and the mouth completely covered with the rescuer’s.

There are many opportunities for air to escape, and some experts believe that some bystanders perform mouth-to-mouth so poorly that the interruption reduces blood flow.

Yet the aim of CPR is to do some of the mechanical work of the heart by forcing at least some blood and oxygen to the brain and other vital organs, which is why chest compressions work.

The only cases in which mouth-to-mouth seems to make a difference is when the victim is a child, or in cases of adults who have stopped breathing because of choking, drowning or other respiratory problems.

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.

Recently, Dave Kaufman from Techlife, sent me an article he found in Gizmodo about a safety inventor who finally got justice.

Years ago, Floridian inventor Michael Powell pitched Home Depot a device that would keep its employees’ fingers safe when cutting wood for customers. It worked so well that they stole his idea. Now Powell’s getting sweet, $25 million justice.

Before Michael Powell came along, Home Depot employees were slicing off fingers left and right, resulting in nearly $1 million a year in worker’s compensation claims. But Powell devised a simple guard for protecting workers’ digits and let the company test it out in eight stores in the area. The trial was a huge success—and cut worker’s compensation claims down to $7000 the following year—but instead of ponying up Powell’s proposed $2000 per device, Home Depot just went ahead and fabricated copies of the saw guards without Powell’s consent.

According to court documents, when Powell’s claim to the invention was brought up in a meeting, one Home Depot executive responded, “Fuck Michael Powell. Let him sue us.” Well, hey, Powell did just that, and after a series of courtroom victories, he’s now looking to collect some $25 million from the company.

Handing down the latest ruling, a district judge said:  ”Home Depot knew exactly what it was doing. They simply pushed Mr. Powell away and they did it totally and completely for their own economic benefit.”

To read the full article check out the Palm Beach Post News.

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.

OSHA’s Means of Egress standard (1910.37 [b][1]) states “Each exit route must be adequately lighted so that an employee with normal vision can see along the exit route.”

The new technology behind photo luminescent products is going to make the emergency exit sign industry the “green” envy of the world. Photo luminescent products use ambient light from your buildings fluorescent lights to power and charge photo sensitive material that then releases that energy as light. For lack of a better term we are basically talking about “glow in the dark” exit signs and tape for striping and outlining evacuation routes to comply with fire codes.

By law public buildings must mark exits with lighted signs, or signs that are visible in the dark or smoky conditions due to fire. Egress or evacuation pathways must be clearly lit and marked. Photo luminescent striping tape is the perfect answer for this requirement. Again this “glow in the dark” film is used to mark doorframes, steps, stairways, hallways and hand railings to assist in evacuation during a blackout or fire.

Since photo luminescent products do not use electricity, their use in public buildings would significantly conserve tremendous amounts of costly energy. Currently over 1 billion dollars annually is spent on lighting egress systems and emergency signage in just the United States alone. This cost would be eliminated by the use of photo luminescent products and the carbon footprint left behind on the planet would be significantly reduced.

Because of this technology’s sustainable architecture and planet saving “green” quality it has really exploded on the commercial building scene. Not only will you find photo luminescent exit signs and fire striping in today’s public places, but you will also find this product used for OSHA exit signs, school emergency exit signs, fire extinguisher signs, fire equipment signs, office door signs, outdoor signs, and the list goes on and on. You will find photo luminescent signage basically anywhere and everywhere you need emergency lighting or lettering that is visible in darkness.

It is truly amazing how a simple idea can be transformed into an industry-changing product that could save billions of dollars annually and help keep the planet healthy. All the above data is based on just the United States switching over to photo luminescent emergency exit systems. Just image if the whole would changes over!

Some places which sell photo luminescent are:

The Exit Store, www.theexitstore.com

Jessup Manufacturing, www.globritesystem.com

Exitsigns.com

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.

You can’t see, smell, or taste radon, but it could be present at a dangerous level in your home.  Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers in America and claims the lives of about 20,000 Americans each year.  In fact, the EPA and the U.S. Surgeon General urge all Americans to protect their health by testing their homes, schools, and other buildings for radon. Exposure to radon is a preventable health risk, and testing radon levels in your home can help prevent unnecessary exposure.  If a high radon level is detected in your home, you can take steps to fix the problem to protect yourself and your family.

MYTH: Scientists are not sure that radon really is a problem.

FACT: Although some scientists dispute the precise number of deaths due to radon, all the major health organizations (like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Lung Association and the American Medical Association) agree with estimates that radon causes thousands of preventable lung cancer deaths every year. This is especially true among smokers, since the risk to smokers is much greater than to non-smokers.

MYTH: Radon testing is difficult, time-consuming and expensive.

FACT: Radon testing is easy. You can test your home yourself or hire a qualified radon test company. Either approach takes only a small amount of time and effort.

MYTH: Homes with radon problems can’t be fixed.

FACT: There are simple solutions to radon problems in homes. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners have already fixed radon problems in their homes. Most homes can be fixed for about the same cost as other common home repairs; check with one or more qualified mitigators. Call your state radon office for help in identifying qualified mitigation contractors.

MYTH: Radon affects only certain kinds of homes.

FACT: House construction can affect radon levels. However, radon can be a problem in homes of all types: old homes, new homes, drafty homes, insulated homes, homes with basements, and homes without basements. Local geology, construction materials, and how the home was built are among the factors that can affect radon levels in homes.

NATIONAL RADON MONTH

MYTH: Radon is only a problem in certain parts of the country.

FACT: High radon levels have been found in every state. Radon problems do vary from area to area, but the only way to know your radon level is to test.

MYTH: A neighbor’s test result is a good indication of whether your home has a problem.

FACT: It’s not. Radon levels can vary greatly from home to home. The only way to know if your home has a radon problem is to test it.

MYTH: Everyone should test their water for radon.

FACT: Although radon gets into some homes through water, it is important to first test the air in the home for radon. If your water comes from a public water supply that uses ground water, call your water supplier. If high radon levels are found and the home has a private well, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 800-426-4791 for information on testing your water.

MYTH: It’s difficult to sell homes where radon problems have been discovered.

FACT: Where radon problems have been fixed, home sales have not been blocked or frustrated. The added protection is some times a good selling point.

MYTH: I’ve lived in my home for so long, it doesn’t make sense to take action now.

FACT: You will reduce your risk of lung cancer when you reduce radon levels, even if you’ve lived with a radon problem for a long time.

MYTH: Short-term tests can’t be used for making a decision about whether to fix your home.

FACT: A short-term test, followed by a second short-term test* can be used to decide whether to fix your home. However, the closer the average of your two short-term tests is to 4 pCi/L, the less certain you can be about whether your year-round average is above or below that level. Keep in mind that radon levels below 4 pCi/L still pose some risk. Radon levels can be reduced in most homes to 2 pCi/L or below.

* If the radon test is part of a real estate transaction, the result of two short-term tests can be used in deciding whether to mitigate. For more information, see EPA’s “Home Buyer’s and Seller’s Guide to Radon“.