Combustible Dust Standard - Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

From: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=16623

US Labor Department's OSHA addresses need for combustible dust standard
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking solicits comments from public

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Oct. 21 edition of the Federal Register as an initial step in development of a standard to address the hazards of combustible dust.

"It's time for workers to stop dying in preventable combustible dust explosions," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Workplace safety is not a slogan. It's a priority clearly embodied in our laws."

"Last year, 14 workers lost their lives in a combustible dust explosion at Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, Ga. Since 1980, more than 130 workers have been killed and more than 780 injured in combustible dust explosions," added acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab.

OSHA has been conducting a Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) since October 2007; a status report is available on OSHA's Combustible Dust Safety and Health Topics page. The NEP has resulted in an unusually high number of general duty clause violations, indicating a strong need for a combustible dust standard. The general duty clause is not as effective as a comprehensive combustible dust standard would be at protecting workers. Responses to questions posed in the ANPR will help the agency propose an effective combustible dust standard.read more here.

Protecting America’s Workers Act of 2009: A Plan to Give OSHA A Lot More Teeth

From: McDermott Newsletters

"Just weeks before his death, the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), with the help of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), introduced legislation to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), which has not been significantly altered since its inception. The proposed legislation, S. 1580, is known as the Protecting America’s Workers Act of 2009 (PAWA). A companion bill, H.R. 2067, has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

...Previous versions of PAWA, introduced in 2004, 2007 and 2008, gained increasing support, including co-sponsorship by then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden. What makes this legislation different is that it actually may make it out of committee and, with the blessing of the current administration, be passed by Congress in some form.

PAWA would make a number of major changes to enforcement of the OSH Act. This On the Subject, however, focuses on the very significant changes to criminal and civil penalties under the OSH Act proposed in this legislation.

More “Meaningful” OSHA Penalties

Penalty amounts under the current OSH Act regime have been criticized as too small to effectively promote worker safety. Congressman George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, recently wrote on the Hill’s Congress blog: “Penalties are the key enforcement mechanism under the OSH Act. They must be real. They must be meaningful. They must function to deter violations. They must get people’s attention. And, these enforcement mechanisms must not be a mere cost of doing business.” PAWA increases the size and application of penalties in several important ways. The penalty increases contained in this bill, in conjunction with OSHA’s new “per employee” penalty rule issued in December 2008 (the final rule subjects employers to “per employee” penalties for violating a large number of existing standards and permits OSHA to propose a separate penalty with respect to each employee not trained or not equipped with personal protective equipment) would dramatically increase the penalty amounts that may be assessed against employers. Under the OSH Act, OSHA has the authority only to propose penalties. Penalties are assessed by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, an independent agency that is not part of OSHA. See 29 U.S.C. § 666(j).

Criminal Penalties

PAWA would greatly expand the availability of criminal penalties against employers. The bill proposes to change the criminal charge for willful violations that result in an employee death from a misdemeanor to a felony. This change would make the prosecution of such charges much more attractive to local U.S. attorneys and give them an incentive, at OSHA’s urging, to bring more criminal charges. Furthermore, for the purposes of felony OSHA prosecutions only, the legislation expands the definition of “employer” to include “any responsible corporate officer.”

The maximum prison sentence for a willful violation that results in the death of an employee would increase under the bill from six months to 10 years for the first offense and from one year to 20 years for repeat convictions. The maximum prison term for knowingly making a false statement, representation or certification to OSHA also would be increased by the legislation from six months to two years.

PAWA would also expand potential criminal liability for willful violations to include circumstances that do not involve the death of an employee. Under PAWA, employers or responsible corporate officers who commit a willful violation that results in the serious bodily injury of an employee would be subject to a felony criminal prosecution, with imprisonment up to five years for a first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent convictions.

Civil Penalties

Civil penalties for willful and repeated violations would be increased under PAWA from a current maximum of $70,000 to a new maximum of $120,000 per violation. The bill would also increase the minimum penalty for a willful violation from $5,000 to $8,000 per violation. If a willful or repeated violation results in the death of an employee, PAWA would increase the penalties even higher, to a minimum of $50,000 and a maximum of $250,000 per violation. In conjunction with OSHA’s new “per employee” penalty rule, these increases could result in enormous proposed penalties.

Under the bill, the maximum civil penalty for serious and other-than-serious violations, and the maximum daily penalty for a failure to abate, would increase from $7,000 to $12,000 per violation. Should an employee death result from such a violation, the minimum penalty under the legislation would be $20,000 and the maximum would be $50,000 per violation.

Finally, regarding penalty amounts generally, PAWA would require OSHA to adjust these civil penalty minimums and maximums at least once every four years to account for increases or decreases in the Consumer Price Index..."

read more here.

Obama taps epidemiologist to lead OSHA

From: http://blogs.hcpro.com/osha/2009/07/obama-taps-epidemiologist-to-lead-osha/

President Obama wants David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH to serve as the next head of OSHA, according to the Associated Press.

Michaels is currently the research professor and interim chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. Read more here.

More on Overexertion Injuries: Repetitive Motion Injuries

Repetitive motion injuries (RMI), are gradually developing injuries of soft-tissue structures such as tendons, nerves, and muscles. Repetitive motion injuries are most common in fingers, wrists, elbows, arms and shoulders. Characterized by pain and discomfort, repetitive motion injuries tend to become progressively worse over time if not treated, and may result in a disabling loss of function of the affected area.

While Tennis Elbow (tendinitis) is a well known as a sports related injury, most RMI's have occupational stressers as the major contributing cause. Unlike other injuries, RMI's do not have a single definitive date of injury. Repeated motion of a body part without time for recovery causes micro-tears in the tissues and nerve. These micro-tears accumulate to cause a permanent cumulative trauma to the area. Repetitive motion injuries are also known as Cumulative Trauma Disorder (CTD). Symptoms include chronic aches, stiffness, sore muscles, decreased coordination, tingling or numbness especially upon waking, and trouble sleeping because of the pain.

Carpal tunnel syndrome (impingement of the nerves in the wrist) may be the best know work related RMI. However, hand-arm vibration syndrome (wrist), radial tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, tenosynovitis of the forearm extensor and flexor muscles (elbow and forearm), tension neck syndrome, thoracic outlet syndrome (shoulders and neck), are also examples of repetitive motion injuries. Repetitive motion injuries are often tough to diagnose and treat. However, once diagnosed, OSHA considers this to be a recordable occupational illness. Due to the difficulty in diagnosis and treatment, RMI's are among the most costly occupational injuries. Preventing these injuries can result in significant cost savings for a company.

The first step in prevention is determining which tasks are at risk. A job hazard analysis with a focus of which tasks are frequently repetitive or tasks that very little throughout the workweek, awkward positions and posture, excessive pinching, frequently raising the arm or shoulder and excessive force needed in the job task. Employee surveys, reviewing incident records, and noting areas where employees leave or bid out to other areas are great ways to pinpoint which areas may need the most attention.

Educate employees to the risks of repetitive motions injuries. Encourage employees to promptly report all concerns with repetitive tasks and aches or pain. Repetitive motion injuries can often be healed quickly if promptly reported.

Train supervisors to be aware repetitive motion tasks and issues employees may have. Supervisors should help evaluate workstations. Encourage and allow supervisors to cross train employees, and vary their tasks through-out the day or week. Supervisors must continually monitor work areas for proper ergonomic work practices.

Once an employee reports a repetitive motion injury or pain and swelling, take them off the task to allow the injury to heal. Before allowing the employee back on the task, adjust the workstation or task to control the hazard. Merely allowing a healed employee back on the same task that caused the issue, doesn't fix the problem. Inevitably the repetitive motion injury will return.

An untreated repetitive motion injury can be disabling for the employee. Controlling repetitive motion injuries can result in a significant cost savings in workers compensation rates, reduced absence rates, and increased productivity. One study estimated that each controlled or eliminated repetitive motion injury saves a company $27700.

Additional Links:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/ergotxt1.html

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2006-119/pdfs/2006-119a.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_031.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_031.pdf

https://www.hrtools.com/insights/jennifer_blanchard/dont_let_repetitive_motion_injuries_damage_your_workplace.aspx

http://www.scif.com/safety/safetymeeting/Article.asp?ArticleID=99

http://ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_37502/

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-122/glossary.html

Overexertion Injuries and Lifting Requirements

According to Liberty Mutual's "Most Disabling Injury Report", overexertion ranks first as the leading cause of workers compensation claims costs in the workplace. The report goes on to state, "This event category, which includes injuries related to lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying, or throwing, accounted for more than one-quarter of the overall national burden at 25.7 percent. In the latest data year (2006), these injuries cost businesses $12.4 billion in direct cost." Given that, if your company has injuries related to this category, revisiting the manual materials movement requirements may save a significant amount of money, either as a significant decrease in the Experience Modification Rates (EMR) or as direct costs for those self-insured companies. In this post, we'll concentrate on lifting.

Do you know how your company came up with its current lifting requirement? Too many companies base their lifting requirements on the weight of the item to be lifted. As an example, the item to be lifted weighs 65 pounds. The employee is capable of lifting it from the floor to waist height, so the lifting requirement was set at 65 pounds. There was no consideration given to the demographics of the workforce, the frequency of the lift, any twisting that needed done, etc.

At the time of writing OSHA does not have an ergonomic standard, though that may change with the new administration. Currently, OSHA is able to cite employers under its General Duty Clause when a workforce is found to have lifting requirements well above that which is safe. Given the direct cost of injuries attributed to lifting and the possibility of additional costs in possible fines, a company would be well served to take a long hard look at their current lifting requirements.

OSHA uses a Lifting Guide issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to help determine a recommended safe lifting weight. NIOSH recommends lifting a maximum of 51 pounds and that is only under very controlled conditions (lifts from knee level to waste level, no twisting, proper hand-holds, etc.). If an employee must start a lift below knee level, twist as part of that lift, reach above shoulder level, lift more frequently, etc. the maximum recommended weight for the lift goes down – in some cases drastically.

NIOSH has published an “Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation” (See links). My suggestion would be to read it throughly and then use one of the on-line calculators to determine the maximum recommended lifting weight for the task (See links). A lifting requirements must be assigned for each task, or in cases where employees change tasks often, must be determined by the lowest recommended weight limit of all of the tasks performed.

There are things that can be done to increase the recommended weight limits, while still reducing the instances of overexertion injuries related to lifting. Engineering controls include:

• Reduce the size and /or weight of the object to be lifted.
• Adjust the starting and ending height of the lift by installing pneumatic lifts, or lowering the height of shelves.
• Adjust work stations to reduce twisting, or obstructions.
• Use conveyors to eliminate of reduce lifting frequencies.

Administrative controls could include:

• Train employees to lift properly.
• Use two hand lifts where necessary.
• Strength test potential employees to make sure they are capable of handling the lifts.
• Where possible, include passing a strength test as a condition of accepting transfer to a new position.

Whether there will be a revised OSHA ergonomic standard or not, it makes good financial sense to adjust tasks and lifting requirements to help reduce the costs associated with employee overexertion injuries from lifting.

Useful Links:

Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation

• http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/94-110/

On-line Lifting Calculators

• http://www.emcins.com/lc/niosh.htm
• http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/niosh/calculating_rwl.html
• http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/Ergonomics/ServicesResources/Tools/LiftingCalculator3/ergo_worksheetIE.htm
• http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/94-110/
• http://www.ohiobwc.com/employer/programs/safety/liftguide/liftguide.asp - Includes lifting limits for injured workers.

Other Useful Links

• http://www.libertymutualgroup.com/omapps/ContentServer?cid=1138365240689&pagename=LMGResearchInstitute/cms_document/ShowDoc&c=cms_document
• http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-111/thumb.html
  
• http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/Ergonomics/ServicesResources/WhatsNew/PDFs/LiftingFAQrevised.pdf
• http://libertymmhtables.libertymutual.com/CM_LMTablesWeb/taskSelection.do?action=initTaskSelection
• http://www2.worksafebc.com/Topics/Ergonomics/Home.asp