Tales from the Front: June 8 NACOSH Meeting
On June 8, 2010, Adele Abrams, Esq., represented ASSE at the meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. Michael Silverstein, MD, of Washington State’s Div. of Occupational Safety and Health is now NACOSH chair. All other NACOSH members were present.
OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels was the initial speaker and discussed generally OSHA’s direction: “Good jobs for everyone … and it’s not a good job if it’s not a safe job.” The primary focus area is enforcement, and 100 new inspectors have already been hired with more on the way. OSHA also increased its penalty structure but it is still limited by the statutory caps in the OSH Act. OSHA is also auditing state plans to determine if they are as effective as federal OSHA (Nevada is the first to be audited). In the compliance assistance area, the focus is outreach to vulnerable populations, especially those who do not speak English. He discussed the Hispanic Summit (April 2010) and that OSHA is also trying to reach this group through church and community organizations. The agency will enforce against employers who don’t protect these workers.
OSHA is also determining more material and training for employees, with consideration of language and literacy levels. Susan Harwood grants will play a role in this initiative. The agency also has an ambitious regulatory agenda, and I2P2 is the cornerstone of its efforts because of the perceived need to change workplace safety culture and to focus on hazard elimination rather than meeting OSHA standards. The recordkeeping systems are being modernized and OSHA would like employers to move to electronic recordkeeping.
Later in the day, Michaels also discussed at length the role of incentive programs and worker discipline in suppressing reporting of injuries and illnesses, and this is being addressed in terms of collecting hard data through the Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program. He noted that it is a violation of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act to refuse to reward someone simply because they had an injury. The agency is seeking input on whether to address incentives through legislation, regulations or education. Seminario suggested that incentive programs could be regulated as part of I2P2. Michaels seemed to agree, adding that near misses can also be examined as part of that initiative.
Finally, Michaels discussed stakeholder outreach through webinars such as “OSHA Listens” and stakeholder meetings, and the agency’s efforts to strengthen ties to NIOSH.
Questions and discussions with Michaels included one member’s call for more work on agricultural safety and health, which was deemed the #1 or 2 most dangerous occupation, which OSHA ignores because of the congressional rider barring routine inspections of worksites with fewer than 10 employees. Michaels agreed that there has not been a focus commensurate with its importance and he seeks input on this. The member noted that NIOSH supports 10 agricultural health and safety centers but called this “a drop in the bucket” in terms of supporting research in this sector. Peg Seminario noted that OSHA has a huge backlog of issues and unmet needs and asked whether NACOSH could look at resource and budget issues. Silverstein said it could. Another member asked about OSHA’s role in addressing workplace violence, and Michaels said this could be covered through I2P2, shifting the burden of prevention to the employer.
Emory Knowles asked what OSHA planned to do (given the coming I2P2 rule) regarding enhanced qualifications of inspectors who will enforce this, whether the agency will encourage CEUs and also getting CSP/CIH designations. He also noted that I2P2 will be challenging for small employers who do not have safety professionals within the company. Michaels said he supports CEUs and certification of OSHA field staff, and that it is important for them to be recognized as qualified. This initiative started with John Henshaw and he plans to continue it. Regarding I2P2, he added that OSHA is looking at training and how to relate to the safety/health community to make this happen. Stakeholder meetings are starting on this project.
Dr. John Howard also gave a presentation on NIOSH activities. The agency is using social media to communicate and attract individuals to safety and health. The Prevention through Design initiative is central to NIOSH activities. NIOSH is also focusing on the “Work Life” program, which includes addressing the needs/issues of aging workers. He said that PtD is also linked to ergonomics engineering, and that people should no longer be scared to use the “E” word. It is “irresponsible,” he said, not to urge prevention since these are the most costly injuries. One panel member encouraged NIOSH to be involved with Road Safety since drivers who are not CDL fall into a regulatory gap and little is done to address this. Silverstein noted that PELs are a critical issue but there are many legal and administrative challenges and thousands of chemicals are in commercial use but cannot readily be regulated. He suggested control banding as a solution.
The majority of the meeting was dedicated to discussion of the gulf oil cleanup projects, and how the impact worker, volunteer and community safety and health – and the impact on OSHA/NIOSH resources. While considerable detail was provided by Dr. Michaels (who has been to the gulf) and Dr. Howard (concerning NIOSH’s efforts to track workers so their health effects can be studied, as in the WTC project, but also to prevent harmful exposures instead of tracking the aftermath of illnesses), a number of issues repeatedly surfaced, including:
• OSHA jurisdictional challenges: OSHA lacks jurisdiction off-shore and there seems to be little coordination so far to ensure that the Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service are doing much to protect workers who are at sea engaged in cleanup. OSHA also lacks jurisdiction over volunteers and community members who may be exposed to health hazards.
• The unions are concerned because OSHA has waived some of the Hazwoper training requirements and is letting workers receive (in some cases) only 4 hours of training before commencing work. Several panel members urged the agency to at least ensure that supervisors were getting adequate training, and that appropriate PPE supplies and training were also given. It was noted that many workers have been seen on TV with their protective clothing rolled down to the waist, or masks hanging around their necks.
• NACOSH is concerned that the long hours, high heat/humidity, and stressful and physically exhausting work may increase safety hazards and injuries. OSHA has no rules on this currently. Many workers are handling shifts in excess of 12 hours/day for 7 days/week.
• OSHA is trying to provide assistance and technical support, but so far has not issued any citations to companies engaged in cleanup. It has not ruled out issuance of citations.
• There needs to be better coordination because OSHA, NIOSH, NIEHS, EPA, DHS, CDC, Coast Guard, MMS, and governments of three states and many counties/parishes are all involved in some way with the cleanup effort. It was suggested that a single source website where workers could get information would be useful, similar to the www.flu.gov site used for H1N1. It was also suggested that since all of these (plus BP) are collecting data, a central database should be created so everything will be available to those analyzing it.
• More data is needed on exposure to chemicals, including VOCs/hydrocarbons, involved in the oil spill and cleanup. The agencies are grappling with the issue of respiratory protection, because of the heat index involved, and the need to separate effects due to oil “smell” versus actual toxicity responses. Area and personal monitoring (and, perhaps, biomonitoring) were urged, as well as determining exposure profiles and hazard assessments. Michaels noted that most of thee chemicals have no PELs, which makes this challenging.
• OSHA was urged to be more proactive when dealing with the media on risk communication and to lose its “bunker mentality.” Mixed messages are being sent, such as “c’mon down, the beaches are fine” while workers and the community are being exposed to toxics at the shoreline.
• Public sector workers involved in the cleanup do not have OSHA coverage looking out for them, and there is no enforcement authority to protect them.
The remainder of the meeting focused on recommendations to OSHA, and formation of a work group on oil spill activities. The work group consists of five members, including Emory Knowles, with Denise Pouget (Alexandria, VA, Fire Dept) serving as chair. The charge to the work group is to have a worker focus, and develop short term recommendations for immediate implementation. The work group will assist in addressing evolving needs, plus respiratory protection/PPE, Communications, and Control Technologies.
NACOSH also developed several recommendations to OSHA/NIOSH, all of which were adopted unanimously by formal motion. In summary, they are:
1. OSHA should develop work hour limitation guidelines, and consider promulgating an Emergency Temporary Standard for protection of gulf oil cleanup workers.
2. OSHA/NIOSH should do a formal assessment of necessary resources involved in the gulf cleanup (agency resources, costs of outside experts etc) as well as identifying “foregone activities as a result of diversion of resources to the gulf” and get reimbursement and advance funding for these from BP so that previously planned work will not be set aside. If BP is slow to pay, supplemental funding should be approved by Congress.
3. OSHA and NIOSH should identify, evaluate, and characterize the nature of operations and jobs for the gulf cleanup, describe each job, the number of workers involved, potential hazardous exposures, including exposure monitoring results, and recommend control measures, training and PPE.
4. NIOSH/OSHA, in conjunction with NIEHS, should design and implement a pilot project to identify hazards and field test Best Available Control Technologies for protection of gulf cleanup workers, and training to implement the BACT. This may be done in conjunction with NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations, if the focus is control technology. The information should be made publicly available, and be readily accessible to employers, employees, and safety and health professionals. The information should be frequently updated, as appropriate.
In closing comments, Michaels said that this is the beginning of a close working relationship with NACOSH and he was glad the work group would continue its activities between meetings. He added that NIOSH and OSHA have never had a closer relationship. The next NACOSH meeting will be September 14-15, 2010, in Washington, DC. Issues suggested for the next meeting include: the Recordkeeping NEP; Issues of Discipline as Section 11(c) violations; PtD; Agricultural Safety and Health; and a report on the status of OSHA Enforcement.