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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently, NFPA published a study by John R. Hall, Jr. on TheTotal Cost of Fire in the US. To see the complete paper click on the link provided.

The core of the total cost of fire was $134.2 billion in 2007. Other cost components that have been estimated only in one-time special studies may add about $42.3 billion to the total. Human losses, which many people resist converting to dollar equivalents, would add $42.5 billion in 2007 if valued along the lines discussed in this report. And the value of the donated time of volunteers is very roughly estimated as $128 billion, using the rough bases of valuation discussed here.

Adding these all together produces a total value affected by fire - lost to fire, spent to avoid or deal with fire, or donated to avoid or deal with fire - of $347 billion, or about 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product.

It should be clear by this point that most of the analysis supporting these estimates is soft and has wide bands of uncertainty. Nevertheless, the conclusion that fire has a tremendous impact on the way the U.S. uses its scarce resources is indisputable.

It also is clear that we have a dual interest in reducing U.S. fire losses – which include human losses that are among the highest per capita in the industrial world – and in seeking ways to achieve equivalent fire safety at lower costs, since the growth in total cost of fire has been led not by the fire losses but by the other cost components. This provides a clear indication of need for product innovations or other programs (e.g., educational) that can improve fire safety at the same or lower costs. It also shows the need for improved methods (e.g., models) for calculating fire performance and costs, so the implications of different choices can be considered and judged more comprehensively.

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.

PEL and REL are acronyms used by the safety industry to define Permissible Exposure Limits (OSHA term) and Recommended Exposure Limits (NIOSH term).

In 1974, NIOSH joined OSHA in developing a series of occupational health standards for substances with existing PELs. OSHA sets enforceable permissible exposure limits (PELs) to protect workers against the health effects of exposure to hazardous substances. PELs are regulatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air. They may also contain a skin designation. OSHA PELs are based on an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure. Together NIOSH and OSHA set limits for 380 hazardous chemicals.

OSHA currently has about 500 permissible exposure limits (29 CFR part1910.1000), while NIOSH has about 700 RELs. NIOSH is able to evaluate them while OSHA PEL limits has not be updated since late 1960’s.

Acting under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC Chapter 15) and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 USC Chapter 22), NIOSH develops and periodically revises recommended exposure limits (RELs) for hazardous substances or conditions in the workplace. NIOSH also recommends appropriate preventive measures to reduce or eliminate the adverse health and safety effects of these hazards.

The NIOSH Web site features many different types of databases and information collections. The most popular databases include the International Chemical Safety Cards, NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, and NIOSHTIC-2.

Chemical Databases:

· Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH)
Provides the immediately dangerous to life or health air concentration values (IDLHs) for substances and the criteria and information sources that have been used to determine these values.

· International Chemical Safety Cards (WHO/IPCS/ILO)
ICSC cards summarize essential health and safety information on chemicals for their use at the “shop floor” level by workers and employers in factories, agriculture, construction and other work places.

· Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM)
NMAM is a collection of methods for sampling and analysis of contaminants in workplace air, and in the blood and urine of workers who are occupationally exposed.

· NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (NPG)
The NPG is intended as a source of general industrial hygiene information on several hundred chemicals/classes for workers, employers, and occupational health professionals.

·  The Emergency Response Safety and Health Database (ERSH-DB)
Developed by NIOSH for the emergency response community, The ERSH-DB contains accurate and concise information on high-priority chemical, biological and radiological agents that could be encountered by personnel responding to a terrorist event.

·Occupational Safety and Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards
Summarizes information on permissible exposure limits, chemical and physical properties, and health hazards. It provides recommendations for medical surveillance, respiratory protection, and personal protection and sanitation practices for specific chemicals that have Federal occupational safety and health regulations.

· OSHA 1988 Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
PELs are OSHA comments from the January 19, 1989 Final Rule on Air Contaminants Project extracted from 54FR2332 et. seq. This rule was remanded by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the limits are not currently in force.

·Specific Medical Test Published in the Literature for OSHA Regulated Substances (MEDTEST)
The MEDTEST database lists the specific medical tests published in the literature for OSHA regulated substances. Updates of OSHA mandated tests (July 1, 2000) and NIOSH/OSHA recommendations are included.

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.

On April 6, 2010, EPA took an important step toward providing communities with additional information about toxic chemicals being released to the environment. The Agency announced that it is proposing to add 16 chemicals to the TRI list of reportable chemicals. The Agency’s proposal is part of its ongoing efforts to examine the scope of TRI chemical coverage and provide communities with more complete information on toxic chemical releases, and is the first TRI program chemical expansion in over a decade.

The chemicals that EPA is proposing to add have been classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in their Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. Based on a review of the NTP RoC data, EPA believes that these 16 chemicals meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B)statutory listing criteria because they can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. Additionally, four of the chemicals are being proposed for addition to the polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) category. The PACs category is a category of special concern, because PACs are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals, and as such, they are likely to remain in the environment for a very long time, are not readily destroyed, and may build up or accumulate in body

1-Amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone

2,2-bis(Bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol

Furan

Glycido

Isoprene

Methyleugenol

o-Nitroanisole

Nitromethane

Phenolphthalein

Tetrafluoroethylene

Tetranitromethane

Vinyl Fluoride

Additions to the Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (PACs) category:

1,6-Dinitropyrene1,

8-Dinitropyrene,

6-Nitrochrysene,

4-Nitropyrene

What are hazmat package markings? By definition, markings can be a descriptive name, UN identification number (some are on placards or orange panels), instructions, cautions, weight, and package specification. Markings can also be UN marks (such as UN package identification code), or any combination required by the regulations on the outer packaging of hazardous materials. Marking on the outside of packages communicates the presence of the hazardous materials inside.

Unless there’s an exception in the regulations, a package is required to have markings displayed on the outside. When markings are required, there are also certain rules on how the marking has to be maintained (such as durability and legibility), minimum size requirements and times when the display for certain markings may be prohibited for bulk packages. Even the hazardous material itself may require an additional marking, such as a material that is poisonous by inhalation. The regulations also dictate how the marking has to appear on the packaging or transport vehicle, so make sure you consult the regulations on marking display. After all, it wouldn’t do any good to place a marking on the bottom of the package where nobody can see it right?

When determining whether or not a package has to marked and what kind of markings have to be on the package itself, it’s important that the hazmat shipping papers are looked at. Again, this re-emphasizes the importance of well prepared shipping papers. If shipping papers are prepared wrong it can start an avalanche of other violations! If you put the wrong UN identification number on the shipping papers, then you may have the wrong identification number on the package. So now you have two violations on an  inspection report – a shipping papers violation and a marking violation. If the transport vehicle itself was required to be marked with the UN number, and it’s marked wrong, that vehicle may be placed out of service.

Once you’ve looked at the shipping papers, take a close look at the quantity to determine whether you’re hauling a bulk or non-bulk amount of hazmat. If the material meets the definition of non bulk, then the general requirements of 172.301 (non bulk requirements) will apply. If the hazmat meets the definition of bulk, then the requirements for bulk packages in 172.302 will apply. Keep in mind that these are just the basic requirements for bulk and non bulk markings, and there may be more requirements that apply to the package.

Remember when marking hazmat packages, what the markings are for – to warn others of the danger inside that package. Make sure you take your time and get the markings right, others are depending on you!

The Department of Defense will break ground this month on a $12.5 million Hazardous Material Response Facility (HMRF) targeting LEED Silver certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

The design/build team of architecture firm Lord, Aeck & Sargent (Atlanta office) and construction firm The Christman Company (Alexandria, Va. office) was selected from among four shortlisted teams to design and construct the HMRF. The award was a best value decision that included, among other things, the team’s proposed enhancements to the design of an existing facility program as well as its experience in designing and building laboratories and sustainable facilities.

The HMRF will be located on the Pentagon Reservation and will be home to members of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA), a Department of Defense Agency charged with protecting the Pentagon Reservation and other DoD-occupied facilities in the National Capital Region.

When completed in summer 2011, the two-story HMRF will house lab, storage, training, and administrative spaces to be shared by PFPA responders.

Some of the building’s sustainable design features and products will include:

• Use of recycled content materials, including a steel frame with 95 percent recycled content

• Use of regionally sourced materials

• Sunshades for control of solar heat gain and glare

• A high-efficiency air handling unit with a heat recovery wheel and a building management system

• Bike racks and showers

• Low-flow toilets and faucets

In addition, The Christman Company will carry out construction site waste management practices.

Design speaks to safety and permanence

Sheathed in a ground face concrete masonry unit, both smooth and corrugated aluminum panels and a Low-E glass curtainwall with an anodized aluminum framing system, the HMRF’s exterior design will complement other industrial structures on the Reservation.

“The building’s architectural style can be described as ‘contemporary industrial,’” said Dan Nemec, who is Lord, Aeck & Sargent’s project designer and project architect. “Although the exterior uses industrial materials such as corrugated metal panels, they’re scaled and fastened in such a way as to soften the hardness of the material. Furthermore, the smooth machined metal panels are sleek and refined, and large areas of glass allow light to spill into the occupied areas to give the building a contemporary look appropriate to its office and administrative functions.

“Overall,” Nemec continued, “The building’s design - especially the solidness and texture toward the base - lends a feeling of safety and permanence that is appropriate to the function of the building.”