Region V ASSE has redesigned their government affairs newsletter. Check it out! Northwest Chapter will now post a link to the current issue of this newsletter on our web site.
Along with the re-design of the national ASSE website, the Government Affairs Website got a facelift.
From OSHA QuickTakes – Approximately 14,000 employers recently received a letter from Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. alerting them of their high injury and illness rates and encouraging them to use free OSHA resources to improve their safety and health performance. The notifications were based on data reported by approximately 80,000 employers surveyed by OSHA last year (the survey collected injury and illness data from calendar year 2005). Foulke said the notification process "is meant to raise awareness that injuries and illnesses are high at these facilities."
In response to a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), OSHA has agreed to issue a final rule on employer payment for personal protective equipment (PPE) for employees. In 1999, OSHA first proposed a PPE rule that would require employers to pay the costs of protective clothing, lifelines, face shields, gloves and other equipment used by an estimated 20 million workers to protect them from job hazards.
On January 3, 2007, the AFL-CIO and UFCW filed a lawsuit against the Bush Administration over its failure to finalize the payment for PPE rule. The court ordered the Bush Administration to respond to the lawsuit by March 19. On March 14, the Secretary of Labor filed papers with the court committing to issue a final rule in November 2007.
The rule was first announced in 1997 and proposed in 1999 by OSHA after a ruling by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that OSHA’s existing PPE standard could not be interpreted to require employers to pay for protective equipment. The rule proposed in 1999 did not impose any new obligations on employers to provide safety equipment; it simply codified OSHA’s policy that employers, not employees, have the responsibility to pay for it.
In 1999, OSHA promised to issue the final PPE rule in July 2000. But it missed that deadline.
Law Office staffer Tina Vinzinski represented ASSE at today’s Senate hearing before the subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, within the Senate HELP Committee, concerning Subcommittee Chairman Patty Murray’s (D-WA) proposed bill, “Ban Asbestos In America Act of 2007” (introduced today – no number yet assigned). The panel heard medical and scientific data surrounding health issues from exposre to asbestos, such as mesothelioma. Expert testimony and personal accounts from individuals experiencing or impacted by asbestosis and mesothelioma was presented.
Senator Murray cited four purposes for introducing the “Ban Asbestos In America Act of 2007:” (1) asbestos is deadly (there is no safe level of exposure); (2) asbestos is everywhere (it is in consumer products such as brake pads, roofing, and hair dryers; (3) asbestos is still legal; and (4) research and treatment for asbestos is poor. Senator Murray’s bill could accomplish several significant goals that distinctly relate to the purpose: (1) a total ban on asbestos; (2) prohibition of the importation of asbestos-containing products; (3) dramatically increases in research and treatment options through dedicated funding; (4) creation of a national asbestos registry; and (5) a public education campaign. Through the research and treatment options, Senator Murray hopes companies can embrace “green” alternatives to the products that use asbestos. The bill also would establish 10 centers for clinical trials and implements collaborative efforts between Veterans Affairs and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Senator Isakson (R-GA), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, raised concern over a complete ban on asbestos and explained that a de facto ban exists among American industries already. Senator Isakson noted that the total consumption of asbestos has decreased dramatically since 1970. Senator Isakson also asked experts to explain the differences between crysotile asbestos and anthophyllite asbestos. All experts agreed that the scientific evidence cannot determine if one is worse than the other, but suggested that the only safe alternative is to ban all forms. The major products that continue to use crysotile asbestos are roof coatings, the space shuttle, and motor vehicle parts (e.g. brake pads). Senator Isakson concluded by supporting a bi-partisan approach to the asbestos issue.
The witnesses were:
Copies of their testimony were not distributed but are available on the HELP committee website. The record will be kept open for seven days for additional comment and testimony.
The above-named experts testified and provided comparisons between American asbestos use and use by other counties. At least 40 other countries ban asbestos. This includes the European Union, Chile, Japan, Kuwait, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, and others. The economies of these counties continue without the use of asbestos. The only exception for asbestos use in the European Union is the chlorine industry.
The experts cited a specific product, durams water putty, as a hazard because the talc used in the product contains naturally occurring asbestos. Other manufacturers reformulate their products to not include the talc. The experts also stated that OSHA’s testing methods for asbestos need improvement. Methods currently use 1960s technology (e.g., phase contrast microscopy) and require better magnification abilities to analyze asbestos minerals.
Survival estimates range up to one year and asbestos-related victims do not experience symptoms for almost 20 years after exposure. An additional concern is that family members may be dying from second-hand exposure to clothing worn by the worker who is exposed to asbestos. There is no evidence of how much exposure causes asbestos-related diseases. Individual cases vary and one individual’s acute (short-term) exposure may result in a quick death, whereas someone else’s chronic, lower-level exposure may take time to result in illness or death. The individuals who are being diagnosed every day with diseases such as asbestosis or mesothelioma are factory and industry workers.
Testimony from Architect of the Capital pipe fitters and welders provided specific examples of current asbestos exposure in occupational settings. These employees work in the area below the Senate buildings and other government buildings. All of the walls are covered in asbestos. The D.C. police will not allow their officers or dogs to enter the area and the fire department will only enter for body retrieval. Many workers are showing early signs of asbestosis and mesothelioma. Tests show their exposure at 30 to 40 times the legal PEL. In August 2006, the Architect of the Capital implemented procedures requiring the workers to wear respirators and follow decontamination procedures before leaving for home; however, contractors hired to remove the asbestos did not follow proper procedures and power washed the walls while pedestrians and traffic traversed the streets above. OSHA has not inspected these tunnels.
Alternative options to a complete ban could include agency collaboration to combat importing of asbestos products. OSHA can analyze brake pads to determine if companies report asbestos use accurately. The Custom’s Office can provide the names of importers and ask if the company is shipping asbestos products to the U.S. Finally, the International Trade Commission can obtain a list of companies to determine what companies are producing asbestos products.
On March 16, 2007, OSHA held the first of four informal meetings to solicit information from stakeholders on the effects that occupational exposure to ionizing radiation has on workers; this particular meeting was focused on the concerns of stakeholders in the “healing arts.” Heidi Hansen, of the Law Office, attended as a representative of ASSE. ASSE is now on the stakeholder information distribution list for further communications regarding this topic.
The meetings are part of OSHA’s continuing efforts to collect information in order to update safety standards in this area, which have not been updated since 1971. According to OSHA Assistant Secretary Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., it is hoped that stakeholders will work together with OSHA to create a body of standards that harmonize with other Federal standards (i.e. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC). The intent is to create standards that will protect the health of employees, while patients are able to receive the benefits of ionizing radiation treatments and diagnostics.
The format and ground rules of the meeting were informal, and the dialogue was not considered a formal part of the rulemaking process. OSHA will post the final report on their website (www.osha.gov) approximately 6 weeks after the last stakeholder meeting. The final report will not attribute any comments to any one person or represented organization.
OSHA allotted an 8 hour session for this meeting (8:30a.m.-4:30p.m.), but it ended around 12:30p.m. There were approximately 30 people in attendance from various professions or associations representing the healing arts professions. These professions included radiologists, dentists, veterinarians, cardiologists, chiropractors. There were also several people representing the steel industry for some reason.
The following OSHA representatives were in attendance: Elizabeth Vasquez, Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Michael Seymour, and David Hamel. Two OSHA attorneys were also present, one of whom was Ian Moar. The meeting started with Ms. Vasquez making the introductory statements and reviewing the process and ground rules. Mr. Foulke then spoke of the importance of these meetings to OSHA, with the desire to create a dialogue between the stakeholders and the Agency for the drafting of new safety regulations. Mr. Seymour gave the history and background of 29 CFR 1910.1096 (the current safety regulations), and the steps OSHA has taken to date of gathering information, making site visits, and using census groups. Mr. Seymour discussed the jurisdiction issues, citing the Radiation Act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Mr. Hamel moderated the questions stakeholders had for OSHA, the discussion on uses of ionizing radiation, and the questions OSHA had for the stakeholders.
The stakeholders were concerned about several issues, one being how new OSHA’s standards would differ from and/or interact with current Federal regulations. Another concern was whether patient care could be compromised and whether OSHA do a cost benefit analysis for each industry or profession. OSHA stated they would take loss of access and cost benefit analysis into consideration, so that any controls will allow the benefits to society to continue; they are not going to create regulations that will eliminate a whole segment of treatment or designated jobs. OSHA is not allowed, however, to balance patient needs with worker exposure. It was stated many times that OSHA cannot regulate in areas or industries where other Federal agencies have regulatory authority.
When asked why OSHA decided to update the regulations, it was stated that the increases of ionizing radiation in security use since 9/11 and in medical use brought the issue of better, updated safety regulations to their attention. In regard to security uses, OSHA will only cover occupational exposure and not any exposure to travelers. With healing art uses, again OSHA will cover only occupational exposure, and not that of patients or visitors to hospital areas where radiation is present. One stakeholder suggested having ancillary elements in the standards to address residual risk.
OSHA stated that they will decide later if the stakeholder meetings will be used to update inter-agency agreements. Individual states use MOU’s (memorandum of understanding) to update their regulations. There are 25 states with state plans and only two states cover state workers. There was concern for the exposure risks for state workers not covered by OSHA or by the state regulation plans.
The stakeholders felt it was very important to distinguish between industries and to look at different medical uses. The different uses discussed were: X-ray, CT, angioplasty, and medical accelerator operations. It was pointed out that the manufacturers of machinery using ionizing radiation set lower exposure levels than current NRC regulations.
The questions OSHA posed to the stakeholders concerned engineering controls such as the frequency that shields and interlocks are checked, what are the alternative technologies, and the advantages/disadvantages of the alternatives (MRI, ultra sound). In regard to engineering controls, the consensus was that shields and interlocks are checked on the basis of the individual hospital’s protocol, and varies widely from hospital to hospital. There was no discussion regarding alternative technologies. OSHA asked about the use of dosimeters and this also varied widely with each hospital setting.
There was a short discussion on the frequency of checking the dose exposure and what was most beneficial; consensus was that it occurred quarterly, and to do it monthly would put an undue burden of cost on the healing arts community. Financial costs incurred due to new regulations were a concern shared by most participants.
Training was discussed and most stakeholders felt that it needed to be job specific in regard to safety training and information. Many stakeholders brought up the concern of the many employees for whom English or Spanish is not their first language (one person mentioned the presence of 32 different languages spoken in his hospital). OSHA acknowledged the diversity of the workforce and also the presence of some people who cannot read at all. There is a possibility that OSHA will find a way to communicate safety procedures through symbols as well.
The other 3 stakeholder meetings are occurring on the following dates:
When asked what the stakeholders liked or disliked about the meeting and format, several expressed dismay that there was no draft of the new regulations (OSHA responded that they are still in the fact finding stages and are nowhere near the writing process). Several other participants said they like the that there was no draft yet, as they felt their input was going to be valued more, and there were no attachments on the part of OSHA to any language or concepts of new regulations.
From OSHA QuickTakes – Spanish-speaking trainers and students will benefit from two new OSHA Web-based resources. The Spanish Outreach Trainers Lists provides the names of OSHA-authorized outreach trainers who provide 10- and 30-hour construction and general industry outreach training in Spanish. People interested in Spanish safety and health training may contact these individuals. Also, References for Spanish Trainers is a compilation of references outreach trainers will find helpful in developing or conducting their courses.
OSHA's Region V Office in Chicago is joining forces with the University of Illinois at Chicago, Northern Illinois University and Chicago's Truman College to offer an OSHA 10-hour general industry course in Spanish. This course is specifically designed for supervisors, team leaders and managers. It will be offered March 28 and 29 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Truman College, 3500 W Peterson Ave. Registration and additional information is available by contacting (773) 907-3994 (bilingual). Space is limited.
EPA is adopting controls on gasoline, passenger vehicles, and portable fuel containers (gas cans) to reduce emissions of benzene and other hazardous air pollutants since benzene is a known human carcinogen and mobile sources are responsible for the majority of benzene emissions. It is limiting the benzene content of gasoline to an annual refinery average of 0.62% by volume, beginning in 2011. For gasoline, EPA is establishing a maximum average standard for refineries of 1.3% by volume beginning on July 1, 2012, which acts as an upper limit ongasoline benzene content when credits are used to meet the 0.62 volume % standard. EPA is also limiting exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons from passenger vehicles when they are operated at cold temperatures, which will be phased in from 2010 to 2015. For passenger vehicles, EPA is adopting evaporative emissions standards that are equivalent to those currently in effect in California. And it is adopting a hydrocarbon emissions standard for portable fuel containers beginning in 2009. EPA intends to reduce emissions of benzene and other mobile source air toxics such as 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene. The final rule is effective on April 27, 2007.
WASHINGTON — A rash of fires on planes has spurred the government to plan new restrictions on
how airline passengers may carry lithium batteries used to power laptop computers and cellphones.
The Department of Transportation, which already bars bulk shipments of some lithium batteries on
passenger planes, expects to propose more restrictions later this year, said Bob Richard of the DOT's
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The Ontario government has released a new resource that offers employers and workers in-depth information about musculoskeletal (MSD) hazards in the workplace.
"Ergonomic-related injuries, or musculoskeletal disorders, account for over 40 per cent of all lost-time injuries," said Labour Minister Steve Peters. "We are making progress in our fight against pains and strains by arming workers and employers with this new resource."
The guideline is available through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) website. "Direct costs due to lost-time MSDs totaled more than $3.3 billion from 1996 to 2004," said Steve Mahoney, chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. "Having an MSD prevention program will significantly reduce these costs."
The guideline was written by health and safety professionals from the Occupational Health and Safety Council of Ontario's members, which includes the Ministry of Labour, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the Institute for Work and Health and Health and Safety Associations.
Through the Pains and Strains campaign, the Ontario ministry has implemented six specific recommendations made by the minister of Labour's Ergonomics Advisory Panel, which deal with areas such as awareness, education and prevention, as well as improved training, more resource materials, increased expertise and better tracking of ergonomic-related inspections.
"We want to make Ontario workplaces the safest in the world," Peters said. "And we can do it by building a culture of prevention amongst Ontario's workers and employers."
YORK, Pa. -- A Perryville man who said he was talking on a cell phone with his wife has been sentenced to seven months in prison for causing a head-on crash that killed a Pennsylvania restaurant operator.
Richard Davis, 42, was also sentenced to 13 months of house arrest with the balance of 48 months on probation. Davis pleaded guilty in December to homicide by vehicle, failure to drive at a safe speed and careless driving in the June 2004 crash in York County.
Police said Davis' pickup truck crossed the center line of a road and collided with an oncoming car, killing the driver, Spyridon Skouras, 64, of Red Lion.
Davis had minor injuries. Davis was fined $2,050 and ordered to pay $250 in restitution.
For more information about the ASSE Northwest Chapter, please contact:
Chapter President
William R. "Bill" Stuart
Phone: 612-671-8431
Website Editor
Richard "Rick" Johnson
Phone: 763-551-1022