Specifically, it has come to their attention that the latest draft of New York City's effort to regulate biological, chemical and radiological devices (which is attached) provides an exemption to only one type of SH&E professional who would be impacted by these rules -- certified industrial hygienists (CIHs).  ASSE's own membership includes many CIHs.  However, you need to be aware that this exemption, if adopted, would give an unfair professional advantage to CIHs over other highly qualified SH&E professionals who do the same work as CIHs in using biological and chemical measuring devices.  Rules meant to help protect New York City from terrorist attack cannot be allowed to have the unintended consequence of giving one type of professional an unfair economic advantage over another as these proposed rules now would do.  Regulations must treat all those affected fairly.  If CIHs are to be specifically exempted in the rules, then the rules must, at a minimum, also exempt Certified Safety Professionals (CSPs), as indicated in the following suggested language --     

§ 20‑05 Exceptions.

Detectors possessed or deployed by certified industrial hygienists, certified safety professionals, labor unions and other individuals or entities responsible for or engaging in testing or monitoring of workplace or environmental safety.

Both the CSP and CIH designations are recognized throughout industry as certifying both the experience and expertise of SH&E professionals in managing a wide range of occupational safety and health risks, including risks that are routinely measured with devices affected by these proposed rules.  Both the CSP and the CIH are highly respected voluntary certifications recognized and accepted throughout industry.  The organizations that offer these certifications both meet the same highest levels of accreditation.  The Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP) offers the CSP, and American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) offers the CIH.  Information on BCSP can be found at www.bcsp.org and on ABIH at www.abih.org.  ASSE is proud that our membership includes many who have achieved this level of professional recognition.

ASSE fully understands the purpose of these proposed rules in helping protect New York City from terrorist attack.  We are certain that any intent to give professional advantage to one group of SH&E professionals over another is unintended.  Yet, to ensure fairness, the suggested amendment needs to be made.  Copied on this email is Stephanie Altis-Gurnani, CSP, the President of ASSE's Metropolitan Chapter in New York City.  If this change can be made, we thank you.  If it cannot, we would appreciate knowing the best means of making sure that it is made.  

ASSE is a global professional society representing 32,000 safety, health and environmental professionals.  Our members work in every industry, every state and across the world to help employers protect their workers and property from safety, health and environmental risks.  More information on ASSE can be found at www.asse.org.

Thank you for your time and attention to our concern.

Sincerely,

Dave Heidorn

Combustible Dust Takes Center Stage

As a result of the recent sugar dust explosion in Savannah, Georgia, the issue of combustible dust is the latest occupational safety and health issue that has risen to prominence in the current Washington, DC, political debate, as the following USA Today items indicate.  One (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/at-workers-peri.html#more) is the paper’s editorial calling for stronger regulation.  The other (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/opposing-view-o.html) is from Assistant Secretary for OSHA Edwin Foulke, Jr., arguing that current regulation is sufficient.  The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is undertaking an investigation of the explosion (http://www.chemsafety.gov/index.cfm?folder=current_investigations&page=info&INV_ID=80), and is bringing attention to its November 2006 recommendations on combustible dust (http://www.chemsafety.gov/index.cfm?folder=recommendations&page=details&ReportID=32).   

Also, a bill (HR 5522) has been introduced by House Labor and Education Chair George Miller (D-WA), which can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/ .  ASSE has not taken a position on the bill and is establishing a task force of members to determine just what regulatory approach should be taken to address this issue but issued the following press release for the March 12 House Committee on Education and Labor hearing on the combustible dust issue.  A report from that hearing follows the press release.  

American Society of Safety Engineers News

Protecting people, property and the environment.

For Immediate Release                              Contact:  Joanna Climer, 847-768-3404, jeclimer@asse.org

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS COMMENDS FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS COMBUSTIBLE DUST IN THE WORKPLACE BUT URGES CAUTION IN MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT DEEPER EXAMINATION OF STANDARD ENFORCEMENT POLICIES

DES PLAINES, IL (March 11, 2008) – Due to recent explosions attributed to combustible dust, the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) commends the House Education and Labor Committee for its efforts to address the occupational risk posed by combustible dust as it determines whether or not an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) is needed, but urges caution in moving ahead without a deeper examination of how standards are enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

ASSE also commends Chairman Miller and Representative Barrow for adopting an approach in their Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act (HR 5522) that would ensure any action taken by OSHA on hazardous dust will be no less effective than the widely respected national voluntary consensus standard, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids – 2006 (NFPA 654).

ASSE also urges the Committee to consider that in relation to combustible dust hazards, a standard driven by OSHA’s existing hazard identification and management approach may not be adequate.  An approach consistent with the highest levels of safety and health risk management that is based on risk assessment with probability and severity determinations may offer a more effective and, at the same time, practical and workable regulatory solutions that will achieve the foal of better management of dust hazard risks that ASSE shares with Congress.

“ASSE has been consistent in calling on OSHA and other federal agencies to incorporate voluntary consensus standards in advancing approaches to workplace safety and health,” said ASSE President Michael W. Thompson, CSP. “The work of industry joining together with the occupational safety and health community in determining these voluntary standards provides a proven resource of practical solutions to saving lives, preventing injuries and protecting property.”

Thompson added, “Our member safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals are on the front lines of managing the kind of complex risk involved with combustible dust and see how limitations in OSHA’s capabilities and resources can hinder the stated goals of a standard.”

ASSE views that specifically, any action taken by Congress needs to ensure that OSHA’s compliance officers be given adequate training and information to be able to identify and help address combustible dust risks and that any enforcement be driven by universal and uniform compliance directives intended to achieve consistency in all workplaces and covered situations among compliance officers, area offices and regions.

Founded in 1911, the Des Plaines, IL-based ASSE is the largest and oldest professional safety organization and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment. Its more than 31,000 occupational safety, health and environmental professional members manage, supervise, research and consult on safety, health, transportation and environmental issues in all industries, government, labor and education. For more information please go to www.asse.org.

Report from March 12 Hearing –

On March 12^th 2008 Heidi Hansen of the Law Office of Adele Abrams attended the US House of Representatives hearing regarding the newly introduced bill H.R. 5522 for combustible dust explosion and fire prevention.  Chairman George Miller (D-CA) presided over a mostly absent committee, opening with remarks that indicted OSHA for its lack of action regarding any kind of mandatory standards regulating combustible dust so that more accidents like the Imperial Sugar explosion in February 2008 could be prevented.  He stated that “unfortunately we see this tragic pattern of workplace injury or death followed by OSHA inaction everywhere we look.”  Rep. Miller cited many instances that OSHA has failed to take action, holding a position of pushing “voluntary” programs as a way of attempting to circumvent disaster.  Representatives who eventually showed for the hearing were: Buck McKeon (R-CA), David Davis (R-TN), John Kline (R-MN), John Sarbanes (D-MD), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and Donald Payne (D-NJ).

Rep. John Barrow, of Georgia, was the first witness to testify.  He spoke of the need for mandatory standards for a problem that has existed for decades.  Rep. Barrow said the Georgia Insurance Commission is presently adopting the NFPA standards since the Imperial Sugar tragedy.  He said the most common objection to this kind of regulation is that it will take jobs away from Americans because manufacturers will go to other countries so they won’t be regulated.  Rep. Barrow argued that the only thing worse than taking jobs from Americans by sending them overseas is to take jobs from Americans by other Americans in a system of states that will regulate and states that will not.  He said unsafe competition is unfair competition.  Rep. Miller asked if he foresaw the loss of American jobs and he said that it was time for American businesses to understand that “the cost of doing things safely must be seen as a cost of doing business in America.”  Rep. Barrow stressed that “we need the will to act” by creating standards to protect workers from this kind of accident every happening again.  He said when you have an organization that doesn’t seem to care about what it is supposed to be doing it is like hunting and having to carry the dog.

Rep. Jack Kingston, of Georgia, testified next, with concerns for making sure this bill was not a “one size fits all” approach.  As much as he lauded the bill and the need for it, he decried rushing into it without addressing issues such as: will OSHA have the authority to reach into areas such as building design as the present NFPA regulations are written?; will stakeholders have the opportunity to make comments and suggestions; will the investigations be able to narrow down definitively what caused the explosion and use that information to prevent further explosions.  Rep. Kingston felt all these questions needed to be answered in order to make more effective legislation.

William Wright of the US Chemical Safety Board testified that the human tragedies such as what happened at Imperial Sugar were preventable.  He told of CSB’s investigations into three dust explosions in 2003 and how OSHA had never addressed the dust accumulation at any of the sites prior to the explosions in its inspections.  Mr. Wright testified that all three explosions could have been prevented had the NFPA recommended practices been implemented.  He said that OSHA had some standards in effect but they were difficult to find- but what is truly needed is a comprehensive standards package that is easily accessible.  He said the CSB urges “prompt development of a comprehensive dust standard as we recommended in our 2006 dust study.”

Assistant Secretary of Labor Edwin Foulke spoke of all that OSHA has done to combat combustible dust explosions.  OSHA responded immediately to the Imperial Sugar explosion and was continuing an investigation.  OSHA has a new website for combustible dust information, it sent out 30,000 letters to inform business owners of the dangers of combustible dust (there are over 80,000 worksites with a combustible dust danger), and there are already “tough standards on the books” for combustible dust regulations, 17 in total.  Mr. Foulke spoke of the National Emphasis Program that focuses on facilities with a high probability of danger (the selection of companies is apparently based on the illness/injury rate and fatality rate reported by the company to the BLS).  OSHA recently published a fact sheet, and offered a refresher course to inspectors on what to look for when inspecting combustible dust sites.

Tammy Miser told the story of her brother’s death in a 2003 dust explosion in graphic detail, and the trauma of having to remove him from life support because not only was he burned outside but his internal organs were so scorched there was nothing the doctor’s could do to save him.  She said when she first read the CSB report in 2006 she felt relief that something would finally be done to create standards so no other person would have to suffer as her brother suffered.  It hurt and angered her that OSHA still had taken no steps toward creating standards to protect workers.  She said her brother’s last words were “I am in a world of hurt.”

Attorney David Sarvadi testified, representing the US Chamber of Commerce.  He mentioned that he had been in Safety and Health for 35 years and was constantly humbled when an incident took place because he often finds out what he did not know about combustible dust. Mr. Sarvadi spoke of the West Pharmaceutical explosion in 2003 and how engineers and safety experts collaborated on how to eliminate dust accumulation but nobody ever thought about the ceiling as a place that would need to be kept clean with general housekeeping (which was the cause of the explosion).  His position was that it is crucial for information for prevention of such explosions to get to employers and employees.  Mr. Sarvadi felt strongly that the NFPA standards were too ambiguous, but that he was committed to make enforceable standards work.

Senior Chemical Engineer Amy Spencer of NFPA spoke about the specificity of the NFPA standards for individual types of dust, stressing that it was not a “one size fits all” recommendation; the NFPA had tailored the standards to be commodity specific.  The recommendations of the NFPA cover hazard identification, hazard evaluation, hazard control measures, and offer ways to safely regulate, disseminate information, and provide training.

Rep. Miller asked Mr. Wright if he truly believed that explosions such as the Imperial Sugar incident were preventable- Mr. Wright said they were very preventable if only there were enforceable regulations.  He said the notice OSHA sent to 30,000 businesses is informational but is not an enforceable standard.

Rep. Miller asked Mr. Foulke if OSHA took the CSB recommendations seriously to which he replied it does, and that OSHA had implemented 70% of the CSB recommendations over the years in “one form or another.”  Rep. Miller said “It is the ‘one form or another’ that worries me.”  Mr. Wright stressed there really should be a formal standard and not just a National Emphasis Program.

Rep. Miller asked Mr. Foulke if prior to the new 3.5 day training OSHA had for inspectors concerning combustible dust, did the inspectors have any training dealing with combustible dust.  Mr. Foulke said they did and Rep. Miller said he was requesting verification of that.

Mr. Foulke continued to say that if all 17 of the present OSHA standards regarding dust were followed the workplace would be safe.  He said if you eliminate the dust you eliminate the hazard, and OSHA has been citing employers on combustible dust.  It is all about the housekeeping standards.  Mr. Wright countered by stating that “a robust standard would ensure that everyone is on the same sheet of music.”  Although a rise in awareness is good, it will not prevent accidents from occurring- the Emphasis Program is ineffective at prevention according to Mr. Wright.

Rep. McCarthy questioned Mr. Foulke about the present OSHA housekeeping standards and how they make no mention cleaning ceilings.  He said that with the Emphasis Program OSHA plans to look into that issue.  Ms. Spencer stated that general housekeeping is not enough, the problem is bigger than just cleaning up some dust from the floor.  Rep. McCarthy asked if with the present budget cuts, does OSHA have enough inspectors to carry out an inspection plan.  Mr. Foulke equivocated for some time, but eventually kind of answered yes by saying “we are obviously doing the job we need to do.”

Rep Davis asked Mr. Sarvadi how many kinds of combustible dust are there, and he responded that they are innumerable. 

Rep. Sarbanes spent a lot of time asking Mr. Foulke about the housekeeping standards and how it appeared that everyone but Mr. Foulke agreed that they were not enough to prevent such tragedies.  He asked if Mr. Foulke would be resistant to setting a grain dust standard if it had not already been set in 1987.  Mr. Foulke said the grain dust standard relied on housekeeping and there were still injuries and fatalities due to grain dust explosions.  When pressed, Mr. Foulke said “we have not ruled out rulemaking.”  Rep. Sarbanes stated that he felt the grain dust standard set a powerful precedent and he just could not understand Mr. Foulke’s resistance to setting a standard for all combustible dusts.

Rep. Payne vented his frustration regarding this issue with Mr. Foulke. He mentioned that several months ago he asked Mr. Foulke if the Reactives Alliance was more effective than mandatory standards and Mr. Foulke answered yes, that OSHA was able to reach more people through the Alliance program.  Rep. Payne said that it seemed all the Reactives Alliance managed to do before disbanding last year was set up a web page and open a booth at a safety and health conference.   Rep. Payne said he abhorred OSHA’s current reliance on voluntary programs, and he spoke of the Jacksonville explosion at T2 Laboratories, saying that had OSHA adopted the NFPA standards four people would not be dead today.  Rep. Payne asked Mr. Foulke “How many people have to die before you act?”

Rep Miller started a scathing indictment of Mr. Foulke and OSHA’s lack of response to the CSB recommendations; he said such utter lack of response was astounding to him.  He brought up the BP investigation and how there was all kind of unethical behavior discovered with payoffs to BP officials showing a conspiracy to prevent inspection of the explosion. Rep. Miller excoriated Mr. Foulke for clinging to the housekeeping standards while workers die, and what he is clinging to is grossly inadequate.  Rep. Miller said it seemed that if someone was adept at navigating the new OSHA combustible dust website, received one of the letters recently sent out by OSHA, and was part of OSHA’s National Emphasis Program, it may be possible for an employer to tape together some kind of preventative measures, but the workers deserve more than that.  Rep. Miller told Mr. Foulke that if he wanted to cling to the past he could do that, but it had turned out to be fatal.  Mr. Foulke weakly responded by saying OSHA had been inspecting for combustible dust since the 1970’s; Rep. Miller interrupted and said “you have been focused on slips and falls while the BP refinery was getting ready for the biggest industrial accident in this century.”  Rep. Miller said that Imperial Sugar was not even on OSHA’s inspection list; Mr. Foulke’s response was that their illness and injury rate were low so they that was why they did not make the inspection list.  Rep. Miller noted that Imperial Sugar was not on the National Emphasis list either; Mr. Foulke said that was incorrect, they would have been inspected eventually.  Rep. Miller requested some evidence of that.  Rep. Miller ascertained from Mr. Wright that the CSB had found OSHA’s lack of response as unacceptable, and stated that he felt the CSB was the gold standard and he did not take it lightly that CSB found OSHA’s response unacceptable.

Georgia Issues New Rules on Combustible Dust

Also as a result of the Savannah sugar dust explosion, Georgia has issued new rules for combustible dust, which are available at http://www.gainsurance.org/ANNOUNCEMENTS/1078ER-372008143836.pdf

OSHA Rejects Significant Adverse Comment to Push Ahead

Rulemaking Updating Standards Based on National Consensus Standards

In a January 14 comment, ASSE has urged OSHA to withdraw its December 14, 2007, Direct. Final Rule Updating OSHA Consensus Standards Based on National Consensus Standards. The proposed amendments aim to eliminate “outdated consensus standards that have requirements that duplicate, or are comparable to, the requirements specified by other OSHA rules.” This includes a specific reference to the ANSI/ASSE A10.3 standard. ASSE expressed concern that the rulemaking went beyond the stated purpose and failed to meet the Congressional mandate that federal agencies reference voluntary consensus standards. As such, ASSE viewed the amendments as inappropriate and, if adopted, would significantly impact the standards’ effectiveness in protecting workers from occupational safety and health risks. Despite this significant adverse comment, OSHA has decided to move ahead with a final rule, as indicated by its recent notice in the Federal Register –

Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards

OSHA confirmed the effective date of its direct final rule to revise a number of standards for general industry that refer to national consensus standards.  
The direct final rule stated that it would become effective on March 13, 2008 unless OSHA receives significant adverse comment on these revisions by 
January 14, 2008.  OSHA determined that it received no adverse comments by that date and, therefore, has confirmed that the rule will become effective 
on March 13, 2008.  As OSHA says in the notice, 

OSHA received six comments on the direct final rule; none of these comments was significantly adverse.  Some commenters suggested that OSHA, 
instead of removing the duplicative and outdated references, update the references to the latest versions of the consensus standards.  While OSHA 
will consider updating its rules to incorporate more recent versions of the consensus standards in the future, updating the references is outside the 
scope of this rulemaking.  In addition, some commenters mistakenly believed that removing the duplicative references would diminish employee 
protection.  As explained in the December 14, 2007 Federal Register notice, OSHA is removing references that essentially duplicate requirements 
found elsewhere in OSHA's standards.  For this reason, employee protection will not be diminished by the direct final rule. Therefore, the direct final 
rule will become effective on March 13, 2008.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-5120.htm

Tales from the Front:  April 1 Senate HELP Hearing on OSHA

The following is a report from the April 1 hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on “OSHA Violations:  Strategies for Breaking Dangerous Patterns” –

Heidi Hansen of the Law Office of Adele Abrams attended the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety hearing regarding “OSHA Violations: Strategies for Breaking Dangerous Patterns.”  Chairwoman Senator Patricia Murray (D-WA) opened the hearing with an indictment of OSHA and its failure to live up to its mission of enforcing workplace safety for employees.  Sen. Murray stated that there are strings of disasters with repeat offenders, and OSHA has been “dangerously ineffective for the past 7 years.”  She cited the workplace fatality statistic of 16 workers a day dying in the workplace, and all OSHA does is send letters to companies stressing safety.  Sen. Murray feels that the current system of fines and penalties is ineffective, and must be readdressed. 

Ranking Member Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) spoke briefly of the Imperial Sugar factory explosion in his home state of Georgia, and how that was the kind of incident that OSHA is charged with preventing.  He said that he was looking forward to the testimony, as he felt that “it is our challenge to make safety a top priority” for workers in the U.S.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) began by thanking Sen. Murray for her enduring commitment to worker safety.  He spoke of the time over 30 years ago when OSHA was first created and said it was a dramatic time, to know that the U.S. had the strongest economy in the world but the weakest protections for worker safety.  Sen. Kennedy said that what was “cutting edge 40 years ago is out of date today.”  He said that OSHA spends its time treating the symptoms but ignores the underlying problems.  Sen. Kennedy spoke of OSHA’s “willful neglect” and cited incidences in his home state of Massachusetts of deaths in the construction industry.  He also spoke critically of OSHA’s lack of attention to the poultry industry, saying it “sits on the sidelines” while ignoring patterns of unsafe work conditions in poultry processing plants.  He said that rather than only assigning blame, OSHA needs to find the root cause for preventable workplace hazards.  Sen. Kennedy suggested that OSHA look at the patterns of violations in corporations and industries and fix the problems, rather than practicing ineffectiveness.  He cited Paul O’Neil, former CEO of Alcoa, who felt strongly that safety was the bottom line, because a safe work environment created greater productivity at lower cost. 

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) cited the fatality statistic for his state of 166 per year or 3 per day, and expressed his frustration with OSHA’s unwillingness to regulate dangerous workplace conditions.  He said it was well-known and documented that diacetyl is dangerous to workers, and yet OSHA denied a petition to regulate the chemical.

Eric Frumin, Health and Safety Coordinator for Change to Win, was the first witness to testify.  He spoke of the repeated OSHA violations of companies such as Cintas, Smithfield Packing, BP, Avalon Bay, and Waste Management.  Mr. Frumin cited a recent study done by the Teamsters (based on a survey written by Heidi Hansen last year) that reveals the dangers to sanitation workers who work for Waste Management, Inc., stating that Waste Management’s philosophy revolves around worker behavior, which is so common in today’s corporations. There is no accountability when it comes to workplace safety other than “blame the employee.”  Mr. Frumin said a corporation gets jail time for killing a wild burro, but when an employee is killed the company gets an ineffective fine that eventually gets reduced to a slap on the hand.

Doris Morrow works at a Tyson Poultry plant in Kentucky. She spoke of her horrific work conditions in the plant, working in the cold, the threat of frostbite, constant respiratory problems, icy floors, etc.  She said that when she started working there 12 years ago it was a non-union plant but is now a union plant. While this has made some improvements for the employees, she felt that the government needed to intervene in order for there to be effective safety and health protections for workers.

Gerard Scannell, former Assistant Secretary for OSHA, testified about the lack of corporate culture embracing workplace safety.  He was adamant that workplace safety and health must come from the CEO down through the ranks, that it is essential for CEO’s to understand that safety in the workplace is the number one priority.  Mr. Scannell lambasted the Chamber of Commerce for not taking a leadership role to push a safety agenda to CEO’s. He was also disparaging of the current penalty and fine system within OSHA, saying that it is absolutely absurd to allow the fines to be negotiable.  Mr. Scannell said the fines are essentially ineffective because they do not hurt the company; he agreed with Mr. Frumin that there needs to be criminal liability in order to hold companies accountable for repeated violations and lax safety protections.  He mentioned that you cannot reduce a lost life to a $3,000 dollar fine, there needs to be greater accountability. 

Carman Bianco, executive consultant at BST Solutions, spoke of the organizational and behavioral causes for a lack of safety in the workplace.  He agreed with Mr. Scannell’s assessment that the corporate culture needs to be overhauled, and that a lack of safety comes from the leadership.  He said that leadership at all levels will influence a safety culture.  Mr. Bianco feels it is essential that corporate management “engages in ownership of safety.” 

Sen. Murray asked Mr. Frumin if he thought it was true that the OSHA statistics for fatalities and illness/injury rates were unreliable due to under-reportage.  Mr. Frumin responded by saying that OSHA keeps touting the lowest rates ever, but there is a serious under-reporting problem with about 2/3 of illness/injuries and fatalities not getting reported.  He cited a recent series by the Charlotte Observer regarding under-reportage, which Sen. Murray was entering into the record.  Mr. Frumin said that OSHA provides no serious enforcement, workers are fearful of retaliation, many employers control physician access that limits reporting, and it all adds up to an environment that creates many disincentives for accurate reporting.  Sen. Murray asked Ms. Morrow why workers do not report all injuries; Ms. Morrow said that workers are afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of retaliation.

Sen. Murray asked Mr. Frumin if OSHA verifies its numbers and he said that OSHA does not perform audits anymore, and there is no penalty for lack of reporting that creates a disincentive to employers.

Sen. Isakson asked Mr. Scannell if he understood him correctly, that compliance with OSHA alone will not assure a safe workplace, unless there is also a culture of safety in the company.  Mr. Scannell said yes, there needs to be a pattern of practice for safety that comes from the top down, and the penalty has to be enough to be a deterrent to unsafe practices.

Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Scannell how to get business leaders to accept that they need to create and enforce a culture of safety.  Mr. Scannell said “workers get blamed for everything” regarding workplace safety, but really the CEO’s need to be held accountable, they need to know “There is a crisis here!”  Sen. Kennedy wanted to know why OSHA does not go after repeat offenders.  Mr. Frumin said that it was a “failure of will” and that since its inception OSHA has not been run effectively.  He said OSHA needs to get a grip on what corporations are doing.  Mr. Frumin also mentioned the costs to the business to not have a serious safety plan in place, that they treat it like the workforce is expendable but it really costs the company so much more to not enforce safety controls.  Mr. Scannel said that he had many CEO’s say to him during his career “Make me safe, I don’t want to get in trouble,” meaning they wanted to avoid any kind of criminal action.  He said if the CEO’s feel they are at risk, they will change the culture.

Mr. Scannell wanted to make the point that with an upcoming change in leadership in the White House that the committee will have the opportunity to seriously question the views of any candidate for the Secretary of Labor, and he urged them to do so.  Sen. Murray said she looked forward to that process.

OSHA Announces Availability of FY ’08 Harwood Training Grants

OSHA has announced grant availability for Susan Harwood Training Program grants. All information and forms needed to apply are included in this 
notice or are available on the Grants.gov site.  The program awards funds to nonprofit organizations to provide training and educational programs 
for employers and employees about safety and health topics selected by OSHA. Nonprofit organizations, including community-based and faith-based 
organizations that are not an agency of a state or local government are eligible.  Also, state or local government-supported institutions of higher education 
are eligible to apply.  Grant applications must be received electronically by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., E.T., on Friday, May 23,2008.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-6108.htm

OSHA Publishes Ergo Guidelines for Shipyard Workers

OSHA has published ergonomic guidelines for the shipyard industry, as the following press release from OSHA indicates –

Trade News Release
Mar. 7, 2008

 

OSHA Announces New Ergonomics Guidelines for Shipyards

WASHINGTON -- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today announced the release of Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Guidelines for Shipyards, an industry-specific guidance document that provides practical recommendations to help employers and employees reduce the number and severity of musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace.

"Shipyard work is considered one of the most hazardous occupations, with an injury rate more than twice that of construction and general industry," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "These guidelines will assist many shipyards in their continued efforts to address and implement ways to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders."

The guidelines emphasize various solutions that have been effectively implemented by shipyards across the country to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders. An "Implementing Solutions" section offers examples of ergonomic solutions that may be used to control exposure to ergonomics-related risk factors in shipyards.

OSHA will work with trade, labor and professional organizations to assure that these guidelines and other effective practices are accessible and implemented where appropriate. OSHA’s free consultation service will be available to assist small businesses.

Senate HELP Committee Issues Report on Crandall Canyon Mine Disaster

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has issued its report on the August 2007 Crandall Canyon Mine collapse that killed nine workers and rescuers.  The report, available at http://kennedy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CCM%20Report%20Final%20FOR%20POSTING%20020608.pdf .  Senator Kennedy’s news release on the report can be found at http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=B947D740-035D-4648-998C-BC7452A1FB86 .

OSHA Enhances Web Info on State Programs

From Lee Anne Jillings, Director of OSHA’s Office of Outreach Services and Alliances –

As part of our efforts to keep Alliance Program participants informed of new OSHA resources, I wanted to alert you to a new resource on OSHA’s Web site that provides enhanced information on standards and directives issued by states that operate their own OSHA-approved job safety and health programs. There are 22 states and territories operating complete state plans (covering both the private sector and state and local government employees) and four that cover public employees only.

These states must adopt standards that are at least as effective as comparable federal standards.  Most states adopt standards identical to the federal ones.  The new State Plan Standards and Policies/Directives page includes summary charts on each state plan’s response to every new OSHA standard and directive issued since June 2006.  The charts show which states have adopted identical standards or procedures and which have adopted something different (and where to find the different state document.)  New charts will be added approximately six months after the issuance of a new federal standard or directive.

The new State Plan Standards and Policies/Directives page can be found at http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/std_fpc.html.

For a listing of states with OSHA-approved job safety and health programs, see http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html.

FACOSH Meeting April 10

OSHA has announced that the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health 

(FACOSH) will meet April 10, 2008, at the Department of Labor in Washington, DC.  The meeting will be from 1:00 to 4:30 p.m. 
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-6244.htm

OSHA Holding April 10 Webiner on Challenge Program

From OSHA –

OSHA Challenge currently has 125 Construction and General Industry Participants representing more than 68,000 employees.  Results indicate that the
typical Participant will reduce their injury and illness rates by 37%-45% from their baseline.  Some participants have even reported reductions of over 90%.

As part of our efforts to keep Alliance Program participants informed of OSHA cooperative programs, we invite you to participate in a Webinar April 10, 2008, 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT to learn more about OSHA Challenge. OSHA Challenge serves as a roadmap to enhance your Safety and Health Management System and obtain OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) status for interested applicants.  Approval into VPP is OSHA’s official recognition of the outstanding efforts of employers and employees who have achieved exemplary occupational safety and health. The Webinar will provide interested parties with:

§             An overview of OSHA Challenge

§             A description of the OSHA Challenge  process

§             Resources available to participants  

§             Examples of Participant successes

§             How to become an OSHA Challenge participant

In order to provide participants with Webinar instructions, we ask that they sign up for the session by emailing Jerad Linneman (linneman.jerad@dol.gov) no later than Thursday, April 3, 2008.

Since VPP’s inception, many employers asked for a program that caters specifically to organizations that are interested in VPP but need some help meeting its requirements.  Consequently, the Agency instituted OSHA Challenge to satisfy this need. OSHA Challenge recognizes that there are many employers at different stages in the implementation of a successful safety and health management system.  OSHA designed Challenge to provide assistance to each stage of implementation.

OSHA Challenge provides opportunities for employers not currently served by existing OSHA cooperative programs, to work with the Agency and receive recognition for their efforts. Challenge Participants enter into either the Construction or General Industry track. Within each track, Participants follow a detailed three-stage roadmap that guides them to improve their safety and health management systems and work toward VPP approval.

For more information on the Challenge Program, please refer to the OSHA Challenge Web page or contact OSHA’s Office of Partnerships and Recognition at 202-693-2213.

OSHA Launches Teen Summer Job Safety Campaign

From OSHA’s alliance program –

As part of our efforts to keep Alliance Program participants informed of new OSHA compliance assistance resources and initiatives, I wanted let you know that OSHA will launch its 2008 Teen Summer Job Safety Campaign: Build a Safe Work Foundation on April 21.  OSHA’s regional and area offices are also holding kick-off events on April 21 (and throughout the summer) to support the Campaign.    

This year’s Campaign focuses on youth employed in the construction industry with an emphasis on residential building.  To share information with the public, including teen workers, employers, educators, and parents, OSHA will launch a new Web page on the agency’s Web site that will provide teen-related compliance assistance information, such as applicable OSHA standards, on-the-job hazards, tools and equipment, and career choices.

OSHA’s five-year Teen Summer Job Safety Campaign initiative is designed to focus attention on the importance of occupational safety and health among teen workers during the summer months when many teens enter the workforce.  OSHA’s goal is to make sure that teens learn safety and health practices during their initial work experience and integrate safety principles into their work culture.  The Campaign is designed to bring teens, parents, educators, employers, government, unions, and advocacy groups together to ensure young workers have safe and rewarding work experiences.    

Please share this information with others in your organization and with your members as part of our outreach efforts together through the Alliance Program.  I will provide you with the link to OSHA’s Teen Worker Web page as soon as it is posted on the Agency’s Web site.   

House Ed and Labor Committee Posts Map of Workplace Deaths

At http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/workerdeaths.shtml , the US House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor has established a map showing where workplace deaths are occurring.  According to the committee, the map represents only approximately 10% of deaths that have occurred in U.S. workplaces during 2007. Details are provided for each fatality listed.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5,703 people died at work during 2006 (http://www.bls.gov/iif/home.htm).

EPA Sets New Lead Paint Rules

From EPA –

New Requirements to Protect Children from Lead-Based Paint Hazards

(Washington, D.C. - March 31, 2008) To further protect children from exposure to lead-based paint, EPA is issuing new rules for contractors who renovate or repair housing, child-care facilities or schools built before 1978. Under the new rules, workers must follow lead-safe work practice standards to reduce potential exposure to dangerous levels of lead during renovation and repair activities…. 

The "Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Program" rule, which will take effect in April 2010, prohibits work practices creating lead hazards. Requirements under the rule include implementing lead-safe work practices and certification and training for paid contractors and maintenance professionals working in pre-1978 housing, child-care facilities and schools. To foster adoption of the new measures, EPA will also conduct an extensive education and outreach campaign to promote awareness of these new requirements.

The rule covers all rental housing and non-rental homes where children under six and pregnant mothers reside. The new requirements apply to renovation, repair or painting activities where more than six square feet of lead-based paint is disturbed in a room or where 20 square feet of lead-based paint is disturbed on the exterior. The affected contractors include builders, painters, plumbers and electricians. Trained contractors must post warning signs, restrict occupants from work areas, contain work areas to prevent dust and debris from spreading, conduct a thorough cleanup, and verify that cleanup was effective. 

Lead is a toxic metal that was used for many years in paint and was banned for residential use in 1978. Exposure to lead can result in health concerns for both children and adults. Children under six years of age are most at risk because their developing nervous systems are especially vulnerable to lead's effects and because they are more likely to ingest lead due to their more frequent hand-to-mouth behavior. Almost 38 million homes in the United States contain some lead-based paint, and today's new requirements are key components of a comprehensive effort to eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

For more information, including in Spanish, on EPA's lead program, or to obtain copies of the rule and information on how to comply, visit: http://www.epa.gov/lead For copies of the educational brochures on this new program, call 1-800-424-LEAD [5323]. 

EPA Money for Diesel Engine Clean Up

From EPA –

EPA Makes $50 Million Available to Clean Up Diesel Engines Nationwide

(Washington, D.C. - April 2, 2008) EPA is announcing the availability of almost $50 million in grant funding to establish clean diesel projects aimed at reducing emissions from the nation's existing fleet of diesel engines.

The unprecedented sum, which was authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and funded for the first time this fiscal year, will be administered by EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) and its network of seven collaboratives, made up of EPA regional offices and public and private sector partners….

Diesels are the economic workhorses of the nation, and over the past decade, EPA has set stringent new particulate and nitrogen oxide standards for most types of new engines. These regulations will annually prevent more than 20,000 premature deaths and yield more than $150 billion in public health benefits when fully implemented. The funding announced today, however, is aimed at reducing emissions from the existing fleet of 11 million diesel engines that pre-date these standards. Addressing the existing fleet is important because diesels remain in use for decades.

State, local, regional and tribal governments can apply for the grants, as well as non-profits and institutions with transportation, educational services and air quality responsibilities. 

The grants are targeting school or transit buses, medium and heavy-duty trucks, marine engines, locomotives and nonroad engines. Grant recipients can use a variety of cost-effective emission reduction strategies, such as EPA-verified retrofit and idle-reduction technologies, EPA-certified engine upgrades, vehicle or equipment replacements, cleaner fuels and creation of innovative clean diesel financing programs. 

Some EPA Regional offices have already started issuing requests for grant applications, called Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and, along with EPA Headquarters, will continue to roll them out throughout the spring.

NCDC uses a proactive, incentive-based approach to achieve environmental results. More than 400,000 existing diesel engines have already been retrofitted during the campaign's first few years, cutting harmful emissions by nearly 300,000 tons.

More information about NCDC and funding opportunities: http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel

Mice Study Finds Artificial Butter Chemical Harmful to Lungs

A study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has determined that exposure to diacetyl, a component of artificial butter and other food flavorings, can be harmful to the nose and airways of mice. NIEHS Press Release ( http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/releases/2008/b utter.cfm )

Wharton Publishes Large-Scale Risk Report

The Wharton Risk Management Center has published a report, Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New Era of Catastrophes.  The study is available at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/Wharton_LargeScaleRisks_FullReport_2008.pdf . 

Wilson Center Says NNI Nanotech Plan Light On Occupational Risk

The following is a news release from the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emergency Nanotechnologies (PEN) announcing its view of the recently released strategy for nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research by the federal government’s National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group.  The news release can be found at http://www.nanotechproject.org/news/archive/federal_nanotech_risk_research_plan/

Federal Nanotech Risk Research Plan Still Comes Up Short

Inflated funding numbers, lack of overarching strategy and limited worker exposure research among shortcomings

WASHINGTON, DC – An improved but still flawed government-wide plan for nanotechnology risk research is the result of a broken system. Federally-funded studies essential to managing possible risks from this cutting-edge technology should be guided by a top-down strategy tied to projected commercialization, expected human and environmental exposures, and the regulatory decision-making process.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group recently released its strategy for nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research. The strategy outlines an improved focus on risk research for more than 20 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Earlier drafts of the strategy received widespread criticism from industry officials, policy experts and congressional lawmakers for being merely a list of general nanotechnology risk research categories. The new strategy makes substantial strides towards identifying prioritized research needs and assigning lead agencies to address these needs.

Also just released, the new EPA Office of Research & Development nanotechnology risk research plan appears to be in lock step with the NEHI strategy. The EPA plan includes important studies on risk assessment methods and life-cycle analysis to determine the eventual fate of nanomaterials.

But major hurdles still stand in the way of the public, industry and government obtaining a better understanding of the risks posed by nanomaterials — and how to limit those risks. Necessary resources for nanotechnology risk research are few and far between in relevant oversight agencies such as the EPA, FDA and CPSC. In addition, a limited investment by the NNI on occupational exposure research can only increase dangers to those most susceptible — workers.

“The truth is that while the NEHI made significant strides in this latest effort to present an improved nanotechnology risk research strategy, only about five of the more than 240 identified risk research projects focus on exposure assessment — which directly affects workers. These are the people who are on the front line and most likely to be exposed to potentially hazardous nanomaterials,” says David Rejeski, the director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN).

“The document also fails to employ a ‘top-down,’ strategic approach aimed at directing funds and research at the places where there’s likely to be the most risk,” according to Rejeski. “The NEHI structure and plan are still broken. The plan is a collection of individual agency research programs and not a strategic approach appropriate to a technology projected to be incorporated into $2.6 trillion worth of products by 2014.”

An earlier analysis by PEN shows that in FY2005, the U.S. government spent only about one percent of the overall $1.2 billion federal nanotechnology research investment on highly relevant risk research. For more information, see: www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs

The current strategy suggests that things have improved, but according to Rejeski “only 40% of the listed research projects are highly relevant to understanding potential nanotechnology risks—the remaining 60% have only tangential relevance. Transparency over what is being done and what needs to be done is essential to strategic planning. The cited $68 million invested in nanotechnology risk research in fiscal year 2006 is an inflated estimate of work that directly addresses the issues, and that can only further confound the formulation of an effective strategic plan.”

OSHA Seeks Comments on Standards’ Paperwork Requirements

OSHA has asked for comments on its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection (paperwork) requirements in its 
Powered Industrial Truck Standard (29 CFR 1910.178). The information collection requirements addresses truck design, construction, 
and modification, as well as certification of training and evaluation for truck operators.  Comments are due May 6, 2008 
(http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-4478.htm).  Also, OSHA has also asked 
for comments on the paperwork requirements for its Respiratory Protection Standard, comments for which are due May 23, 2008.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-5837.htm

PHMSA/FRA Propose Improved HazMat Safety of Railroad Tank Cars

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are proposing 
revisions to the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations to improve the crashworthiness protection of railroad tank cars designed to 
transport poison inhalation hazard materials.  Specifically, the agencies are proposing enhanced tank car performance standards for 
head and shell impacts; operational restrictions for trains hauling tank cars containing PIH materials; interim operational restrictions 
for trains hauling tank cars not meeting the enhanced performance standards; and an allowance to increase the gross weight of tank 
cars that meet the enhanced tank-head and shell puncture-resistance systems.  Comments are due June 2, 2008.  
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-6563.htm

PHMSA Warns of Ice Build-Up on Gas Distribution Systems

PHMSA has issued an advisory bulletin warning that recent events on natural gas distribution system facilities appear to be related 
to either the stress of snow and ice or malfunction of pressure control equipment due to ice blockage of pressure control equipment 
vents by ice. The bulletin advises owners and operators of gas pipelines of the need to take steps to prevent damage to pipeline 
facilities from accumulated snow or ice.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/08-999.htm

PHMSA Proposal to Increase Max Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines

PHMSA is proposing to amend its pipeline safety regulations to prescribe safety requirements for the operation of certain gas 
transmission pipelines at pressures based on higher stress levels. The result would be an increase of maximum allowable 
operating pressure over what is currently allowed in the regulations.  Comments are due May 12, 2008.  

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-4656.htm

PHMSA Updates Administrative Procedures

PHMSA has published an interim final rule to conform PHMSA's administrative procedures with the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 
Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) by establishing the procedures PHMSA will follow in issuing safety orders and 
handling requests for special permits, including emergency special permits. This interim final rule also notifies operators about 
electronic docket information availability; updates addresses, telephone numbers, and routing symbols; and clarifies the time 
period for processing requests for written interpretations of the regulations. This interim final rule does not impose any new 
operating, maintenance, or other substantive requirements on pipeline owners or operators.  This interim final rule is effective 
April 28, 2008.  Comments are due April 28, 2008.  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-5926.htm

GAO Stuff

Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties. GAO-08-398, March 14
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-398  Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08398high.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:  Changes in Obligations and Activities before and after Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Reorganization. 
GAO-08-328R, February 25.  http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-328R