Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

by H. Dale Wilson

In an effort to bolster a community’s ability to respond to man-made and natural disasters, states, cities, and counties continuously work with governmental agencies and private healthcare providers to make sure federal emergency response planning guidelines can be effectively implemented at the local level. With growing threats from any number of causes, such as biological or other acts of terrorism, and rising violence due to a several factors (including a lagging economy and general population growth), hospitals face the real crisis of being ill-prepared to deal with large numbers of people seeking help all at once. Poor communication, staff fatigue, supply shortages, and lack of facilities management can be disastrous to the healthcare industry at the local level in emergency preparedness. Paired with the monetary problems faced by the healthcare industry in general because of issues such as rising numbers of uninsured individuals, an aging populace, and higher costs of medical supplies and personnel, the industry faces enormous challenges with their emergency preparedness planning.



Solutions for strengthening hospitals and the healthcare system can be found in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)'s Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) and Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement. The goal of the Agreement is to integrate HPP and PHEP to build and sustain public health and healthcare preparedness capabilities as outlined in ASPR’s Healthcare Preparedness Capabilities: National Guidance for Healthcare System Preparedness and in CDC’s Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. These documents establish standards for protecting human health and national health security.  PHEP, released in March 2011, identifies 15 capabilities necessary for effective community emergency response; HPP focuses on 8 of PHEP’s 15 capabilities as the basis for healthcare system, Healthcare Coalition, and healthcare organization preparedness.  The 8 capabilities that impact healthcare include:

▪       Healthcare System Preparedness

▪       Healthcare System Recovery

▪       Emergency Operations Coordination

▪       Fatality Management

▪       Information Sharing

▪       Medical Surge

▪       Responder Safety and Health

▪       Volunteer Management

The Agreement, effective this month (July 2012), seeks to facilitate preparedness at the local level, stating “strong and resilient Healthcare Coalitions are the key to an effective state and local...response to an event-driven medical surge.”

Identifying gaps in preparedness, prioritization, and building a sustaining healthcare industry emergency preparedness capabilities is key to ensuring safer, well-prepared communities and cities.  With these new tool healthcare should be better prepared to support their community in event of a disaster.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General Industry H&S, General EHS, PHEP, ASPR, Emergency Response, HPP

Thousands of 9/11 responders, police officers, firefighters, students, and residents of downtown New York City will now be covered under the $4.3 billion Zadroga Act, which formerly denied any cancer coverage.  The medical fund is named for New York City Police officer James Zadroga, who was the first NYPD officer whose death was attributed to exposure to his contact with toxic chemicals at the site of the attacks. Those in contact with the toxic dust have sought for years to have their cancers acknowledged and treatments covered by the fund.  The government denied any connection between exposure to 9/11 toxins and an increased risk of cancer.



On June 8 ^th, NIOSH (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) stated that those workers, residents, and student who contracted cancer due to the toxic dust on 9/11 are now considered eligible for free medical treatment for cancers including those affecting respiratory and digestive systems, and other cancers including breast, ovarian, eye, oral, urinary tract cancers, and mesothelioma, melanomas, and lymphomas.

The list of ailments now includes 14 broad categories of cancer and 50 specific types, all of which were formally denied because federal officials stated that scientific evidence showed no link between exposure to 9/11 toxins and disease. First responders have consistently argued that the real reason for denial of coverage is because of cost to the federal government.

NIOSH based its revised decision on recommendations by an expert medical advisory panel who offered their opinions in March 2011. The panel further advised, however, against coverage for brain, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, stating there is not enough evidence to connect them to fall-out from 9/11.

Included in this ruling is the right of cancer sufferers to file claims with the Federal Victim Compensation Fund, which offers compensation to first responders and residents of downtown New York City, as well as students and workers for their out-of-pocket medical treatments, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, NIOSH, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Emergency Response, toxic dust on 9/11, exposure to 9/11 toxins and an increased risk of c, Homeland Security, Air Monitoring, Zadroga Act, Federal Victim Compensation Fund

by Bruce D. Groves, CIH

The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) recently recommended to the Department of Labor that it ask the president to use his power of executive order to update OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PELs).

An executive order is a legally-binding directive from the president, requiring no house or senate approval or oversight. However, they are normally made after certain Acts of Congress grant the specific power to the executive branch of the government, and often, presidential executive orders will come under fire for circumventing the usual congressional approval.



FACOSH, which advises OSHA on safety and health matters, recommended that companies and their subcontractors be legally obligated to adhere to the latest, most protective OELs (occupational exposure limits).

According to the FACOSH Emerging Issue Subcommittee, an executive order is needed because PELs have not been updated since 1971 and do not represent over four decades-worth of new technology and toxicological research. They further note that updating the current permissible exposure limits (PELs) needs to be of utmost concern for worker safety for federal workers and contractors working on federal projects—the only workers defined in these recommendations. The Subcommittee recommended that federal agencies and departments “use the most protective and feasible OELs in federal workplaces, notwithstanding the existence of a PEL for a given substance of concern.”

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has recently submitted a white paper stating its support for OSHA's continued role as the gatekeeper for worker safety and its support for an executive order updating PELS and itself has spent a great deal of time and money on research trying to have outdated PELs modernized.

FACOSH has tabled the proposal for now. However, it has received strong consideration from OSHA. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA has been expressing enthusiastic backing for this effort.

Opponents to the idea of using a presidential executive feel it is an end-run around the regulatory process, noting that these more restrictive OELs could be even more rigorous than what is now required by MSHA or OSHA, and that there should be measures in place to make sure the limits are technologically and economically practicable for the companies working on federal projects.

Opponents assert that adopting OELS could open the door to adopting other exposure limits which have not gone through the rulemaking process such as NIOSH’s recommended exposure limits (RELs), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ threshold limit values (ACGIH TLVs), the American Industrial Hygiene Association’s workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs).

It is my opinion that (regardless of which side of the fence you might sit on this issue) a couple facts remain:

• Many of the PELs are 40+ years old and much more data and information has been gathered during this time that may influence people conducting health hazard assessments.  The irony is that PELs for most industrial hygienists are not used exclusively because they are often out of date with current science.  TLVs and other OELs are commonly used today by H&S practitioners in designing controls to reduce exposure to “safe” levels.


• Some of the current OELs, (e.g. some NIOSH RELs) seem too low, too restrictive, or not reasonable when evaluating the total risk and exposure to some workers.  I often use professional judgment in selecting an OEL that is not the most restrictive as a guide to protecting workers who are performing specific tasks, using specific materials, and for varying durations.  OELs do not always work as an arbitrary “not to exceed” limit.  Accepting, carte blanche, the most restrictive OEL will reduce some current PELs significantly, but add considerable cost to a company or agency often without gaining appreciable benefits.


• Funds and resources are finite and should be parceled out by H&S professionals to get the best result!  Spending money to meet the needs of a blanket mandate, without evaluating the need or benefit, will take resources away from other initiatives that will or may be more effective in protecting workers.

.

I am personally against an executive order to update all the PELs.  I am not convinced that the reduction of PELs in and of itself will significantly reduce exposures to various chemicals and reduce disease.  However, I understand the frustration of many H&S practitioners in having PELs that are clearly out of date.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General Industry H&S, OSHA Compliance, General EHS, permissible exposure limits, OELs, Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety an, PELs, American Industrial Hygiene Association, AIHA, FACOSH

On February 7, 2012, The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding training and qualifications in federal rail safety laws, regulations and orders.  Train and engine workers, those who inspect and repair freight trains, passenger cars and locomotives, and other “safety sensitive” workers will be affected by the proposed new training programs.



The FRA is seeking training protocols from each railroad (and their contractors) to provide for uniformity in training, and programs that would more clearly define the qualifications of every employee involved in rail safety. Workers would be required to effectively show proficiency in a specific area of expertise, before being trained in more detailed or complicated tasks. Diligent oversight will be encouraged by employers to manage compliance and written reviews would be submitted regarding their training programs and their efficacy in enhanced safety.

Already a requirement of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, this proposed enhanced rule was developed with the input from officials in numerous federal and state government agencies, industry and labor.  The new training and reporting requirements are seeking to enhance worker safety, close knowledge gaps, and better prepare workers for the very real hazards associated with working for a railroad.

“Well-designed training programs have the potential to further reduce risk in the railroad environment,” said FRA Administrator Joe Szabo. “Better training can reduce the number of accidents, particularly those caused by human factors, which account for the vast majority of reportable accidents each year.”  Experts who seek to raise safety standards and training protocols state that railroads have sought to reduce training costs by offering unsupervised computer-based training, which is not sufficient training before a worker is sent out into the field.

Read More About The Best Type of Safety Training

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General Industry H&S, Construction H&S, federal rail safety laws, Federal Railroad Administration, regulations and orders, H&S Training, FRA, uniformity in training, Rail Safety Improvement Act

Pandemic flu preparedness was the focus of the North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza  (NAPAPI) at a meeting of the North American Leaders Summit.  This preparedness plan seeks faster reactions to pandemic threats, through enhanced emergency preparedness, a more substantial reporting network for early detection, and early warning systems for outbreaks.



An update of the 2007 NAPAPI includes new information garnered from the Department of Health & Human Services' response to the 2009 H1N1 human influenza pandemic. Collaborative response plans for the United States, Canada, and Mexico are being developed in the face of potential new pandemics. Continued training and response efforts will center around surveillance, early warning systems, and timely investigations of flu viruses in humans and animals.

A balance is being sought to provide farther-reaching border policies that will not impede trade or travel, but will allow for medical countermeasures in the event of a North American pandemic.  Protection of infrastructures is also being stressed as critical, so that reciprocal assistance can be utilized across borders to help combat potential pandemics. “H1N1 provided a stern reminder that diseases don’t respect national borders and can spread rapidly in our interconnected world so protecting health requires cooperation and collaboration among countries,” explained Dr. Nicole Lurie, assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service.

Read More About Pandemic Diseases

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Animal and Pandemic Influenza, Department of Health & Human Services, pandemic threats

A reminder to commercial truck drivers and the companies who hire them: The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's new safety requirements go into effect on July 1, 2013.



The maximum hours of service (HOS) will be reduced, meaning the maximum number of hours that a driver may operate their equipment goes from 82 hours within one week to 70 hours within one week.  The new HOS Rule also prohibits drivers from driving more than eight hours at a time without taking a break for at least thirty minutes.  Prior rules had no provisions regarding limitations on minimum “34-hour restarts,” but the new rules state that such a restart must “include two periods between 1 a.m.-5 a.m. home terminal time, and may only be used once a week.”  The new HOS rules also place limitations on time resting in a sleeper berth, what constitutes a real “rest,” and how hours are to be calculated by drivers and companies.

Proponents of the new safety requirements for commercial truck drivers state that reducing the hours a driver is required or even able to work will reduce accidents.  The DOT's stated goal is “to limit the ability of drivers to work the maximum number of hours currently allowed, or close to the maximum, on a continuing basis to reduce the possibility of driver fatigue."

Critics of the new rules state that they do not go far enough towards meaningful reform of current HOS, and will ultimately “have a negative impact on manufacturers' supply chains, distribution operations and productivity,” says Jay Timmons, National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO.

Penalties to companies who violate the new HOS rule are stiff: up to $11,000 per offense, plus drivers may face fines up to $2,750 per offense.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, DOT, General Industry H&S, HOS Rule, DOT Revisions, safety requirements for commercial truck drivers

by Megan Grennille

Mark your calendar for May 7, 2012;  the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) is changing the way contaminated sites in New Jersey are being remediated.  Starting on this date, if you are a remediating party in New Jersey, you will be required to hire a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) to work on your site.  The LSRP is a new type of environmental consultant that speeds up the clean up process.  You will no longer need pre-approval from the NJDEP to proceed with a remediation project. However, use of an LSRP will be required to remediate any site, regardless of when the cleanup was initiated.



The LSRP’s role in the LSRP program is to oversee the remediation of contaminated sites according to NJDEP’s applicable standards and regulations for responsible parties. LSRPs are subject to a strict code of conduct established by statute and regulation and must ensure that remediation of contaminated sites are performed in a protective manner of human health, safety and the environment. The conduct of LSRPs is overseen by the Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board. http://www.nj.gov/lsrpboard/

The LSRP will oversee the daily management of the remediation site while the NJDEP will still have authority on the overall process ensuring that high standards are being kept.  Milestone documents submitted by the LSRP will be reviewed by the NJDEP, including the Response Action Outcome (RAO) which is filed when remediation is complete.  LSRPs will not be required in the remediation of unregulated heating oil tanks (a subsurface evaluator can be used) and may not be needed when someone is conducting due diligence at a site.

Other regulations will apply to site remediation projects, such as RCRA and OSHA.  All employees working on these site need to be properly trained.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, LSRP, SRAA, Site Remediation Reform Act

By Paula Kaufmann, CIH

I have seen no less than 20 emails inviting me to webinars that will help me get my house in order for all the changes coming with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard this year.  From the tone of these emails, it would seem like the sky is falling! You know what?  The sky is not falling … although there is work to be done to implement the changes.



OSHA has a reasonable timeline for compliance and with planning, we can get through this with ease!  Here’s our take on the issue …

On first glance, the changes seem monumental …

• 90,000 workplaces = the number of sites that produce hazardous chemicals in the US.  HazCom 2012 requires these manufacturers to.

-       Modify the hazard classification for chemicals they produce

-       Create new labels to highlight these hazards

-       Draft and distribute revised Material Safety Data Sheets (now referred to as Safety Data Sheets)

• 43 million US workers = the number of workers in the 5 million facilities that will be notified of the new physical and health hazard classifications for the chemicals in their workplaces by new labels and Safety Data Sheets communicating these hazards.

• $201 million a year = the cost OSHA estimates to roll out HazCom 2012 for the entire United States. OSHA lists yearly program element costs as follows:

-       $22.5 million for chemical hazards classification based on the GHS criteria and revising safety data sheets and labels to meet new format and content requirements

• $24.1 million for printing packaging and labels for hazardous chemicals in color

-       $95.4 million for employee training about the new warning symbols and the revised safety data sheet format under GHS

-       $59 million a year for management to become familiar with the new GHS system and to engage in other management-related activities as may be necessary for industry's adoption of GHS

Let’s look at the actual tasks each organization has to accomplish for compliance:

With a plan … these tasks are quite doable!

• Chemical Users: Continue to update safety data sheets when new ones become available, provide training on the new label elements and SDS format and update hazard communication programs if new hazards are identified.

• Chemical Producers: Review hazard information for all chemicals produced or imported, classify chemicals according to the new classification criteria, and update labels and safety data sheets.

OSHA’s HazCom 2012 Compliance Timeline …

Requirement(s)	Completion Date
Training	December 1, 2013
Classify of Chemicals Modify Labels Update Safety Data Sheets	June 1, 2015
Update alternative workplace labeling system Revise Hazard Communication Program	June 1, 2016

On April 25, Emilcott will be presenting a HazCom 2012 Webinar for anyone interested. Our approach—let’s not try to alarm everyone, but let’s provide a basic understanding of the changes made to the standard and a simple plan of action for employers to meet the regulatory requirements within the specified time frames.  Would you like to join us?

Register here: OSHA HazCom 2012: A Simple Plan for Compliance

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, OSHA, health and safety, OSHA Compliance, Hazardous Waste Management, HazCom, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

March 5-11, 2012 marked National Sleep Awareness Week, and all over the Internet, employers, bloggers, researchers, and other scientists have marked the occasion by bringing up studies performed by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (or NIOSH) regarding sleep deprivation, sleep and work schedules, and sleep loss.



At the heart of this research lies an examination of several different types of workers, including nurses, police officers, truck drivers, manufacturing laborers, and white collar workers. Of particular importance to these sleep loss and sleep deprivation studies are those who perform shift work and have night-time work schedules.

Of high interest is the effect of occupational stress and health of police officers studied in Buffalo, New York. Statistically important health issues include tiredness due to lack of quality sleep, especially among those officers who work night shifts, and who report less than six hours of sleep a night. In addition, risk of injury is greater to the night shift workers, because of these “unnatural” sleep and work schedules

There are several research studies that are either ongoing or have been completed regarding sleep deprivation in truck drivers, manufacturing workers, and even white collar workers. Large amounts of data collected (from long-haul truck drivers especially) show a wide array of sleep disorders, including sleep apnea, fatigue and the overall lowered safety expectations from drivers who do not get enough quality sleep.

Another group being studied is American nurses, especially pregnant female nurses. In collaboration with the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, results are showing that an increased number of adverse reproductive outcomes and menstrual cycle abnormalities can be attributed to shift work; especially those studied who work a night shift.

In relation to the sleep deprivation and sleep loss health issues such as fatigue, depression, headaches, malaise, and reproductive issues, the studies point out that work hours that are too long for good health can actually attribute to the decline of healthy white blood cells, which are the first line of defense against such devastating diseases as cancer and autoimmune disorders.

In an effort to stem the adverse health effects and potential safety issues inherent in shift workers and those who work too many hours, NIOSH scientists are seeking development and training programs for managers and workers in several different fields of employ, including those mentioned above. They hope to raise awareness of the problems, encourage healthy sleep habits, and foster a healthier management style that would see more reasonable hours for workers. The dissemination of this information is being brought about through workplace posters, websites, webinars, online training courses, and public service announcements.

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, NIOSH, health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Sleep and Work Schedules, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hea, Sleep loss, worker safety, Sleep Deprivation

Topics: Emilcott, OSHA, health and safety, OSHA Compliance, HazCom, Occupational Health, Occupational Safety