Campaign To Prevent Falls In Construction

CPWR — The Center for Construction Research and Training is an international leader in applied research and training for the construction industry, and serves as the National Construction Center for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  CPWR conducts research to identify causes and solutions for safety and health risks on construction jobs that can lead to injuries, illnesses and fatalities, publicizes the results, encourages the use of solutions, and conducts programs to train instructors in general and specialized safety and health topics.

This national campaign to prevent falls in construction is a government-labor-management partnership including CPWR, NIOSH, OSHA, state government, private industry, trade associations, academia, professional and labor organizations.

The campaign grew out of multi-stakeholder discussions under the auspices of the NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) program.  A NORA Construction Sector Council was formed to discuss top priorities for construction safety and health research and practice and to create national efforts to address them.

About The Campaign

Falls kill – they are the top cause of construction fatalities and account for one-third of on-the-job injury deaths in the industry. Each year in the U.S. more than 200 construction workers are killed and over 10,000 are seriously injured by falls.

The goal of this national campaign is to prevent fatal falls from roofs, ladders, and scaffolds by encouraging residential construction contractors to:

  • PLAN ahead to get the job done safely.
  • PROVIDE the right equipment.
  • TRAIN everyone to use the equipment safely.

Fall Prevention Campaign Partners
NORA Construction Sector Partners

Industry Stakeholders

Labor Stakeholders

 Academia Stakeholders

  • East Carolina University Department of Technology Systems, Occupational Safety
  • Harvard University Department of Environmental Health, Environmental and Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology
  • West Virginia Safety and Health Extension
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • Virginia Tech Center for Innovation in Construction Safety and Health

Government Stakeholders

  • National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
  • OSHA Directorate of Construction
  • Kentucky Department of Labor Office of Standards Interpretation
  • Massachusetts Department of Health, Occupational Health Surveillance Program
  • Wisconsin Division of Public Health
  • Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense

Other Stakeholders

Other Fall Prevention Partners

Industry Stakeholders

  • Hispanic Contractors Association de Tejas

CPWR: Don’t Fall For It!

Don’t Fall for It! is the result of a CPWR led, multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop attention-grabbing training materials to raise awareness of ladder fall hazards and prevention.

CPWR: Don’t Fall For It!

This 11-minute Don’t Fall For It! DVD features first-person accounts of workers who have fallen from ladders and emotional testimony from the family of a fatal fall victim.

Fact Sheets

Four accompanying fact sheets reinforce the DVD’s step-by-step primer on choosing, inspecting, setting up, and climbing ladders safely.

Don’t Fall For It Impact Card

Training & Other Resources

Campaign Materials

Toolbox Talks

Ladders

Scaffolds

Roofs

Other

Instruction Materials

Ladders

Other

Handouts

Ladders

Scaffolds

Other

Visit Website Here: http://stopconstructionfalls.com/

Study Indicates That Safety Inspections Don’t Hurt Businesses Monetarily

Random inspections of U.S. industrial workplaces lower the risk of workers being injured on the job and have no measurable negative effect on the companies inspected, according to a study in the journal Science.

Companies chosen for random inspections by California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration recorded 9.4 percent fewer worker injuries than those that were not inspected, the study found.

The study, published today, also found that the companies inspected were no more likely to cut jobs, lose sales, have their credit ratings cut or go out of business than those that were not inspected.

Over its four-decade history, the federal OSHA has come under fire from both organized labor, which worries that it does not do enough to protect workers, and from big business, which argues that it imposes unnecessary costs.

An attorney representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told an April Senate committee hearing into whether OSHA moves too slowly in developing new regulations that employers view the agency as unresponsive to businesses’ suggestions.

“Too often there is a perception that OSHA is determined to pursue a new standard regardless of how it will impact employers or whether it is justified,” said the attorney, David Sarvadi of Keller and Heckman.

That sort of concern sparked the idea for the study, conducted by three professors from the University of California, Harvard Business School and Boston University.

“We went in not really knowing what to expect, because from my perspective the rhetoric on both sides seems in some ways convincing but in some ways extreme,” said Michael Toffel, an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School and one of the study’s authors. “It seemed like a real puzzle that people had such strong opinions without a whole lot of evidence.”

LOWER INJURY COSTS

When injuries were reported, the worker compensation claims that resulted from them — which account for both the cost of medical treatment and lost wages — were 26 percent lower in facilities than were inspected than those that were not.

The study is based on an analysis of 409 California single-location businesses in industries, including woodworking and metalworking, which had high injury rates and were inspected by that state’s OSHA body from 1996 through 2006. It compared results at those businesses with 409 similar companies that were not inspected in that time period.

The authors focused on California because at the time the state’s safety agency conducted some inspections based on random selection, rather than just focusing on targets of complaints.

An official at the AFL-CIO labor federation said the findings show that OSHA is effective in promoting safe workplaces.

“What the study tells us is that protecting your workers on the job and keeping them safe is good for workers but is also good for business,” said Peg Seminario, director of safety and health at the AFL-CIO. “What’s too costly is not addressing injuries and illnesses. We can’t afford not to protect people.”

An official at the National Association of Manufacturers said the study failed to consider whether the regulations that OSHA enforces — rather than the inspections — hurt companies or protect workers.

“The authors are not asking the right question,” said Joe Trauger, vice president of human resources at the trade group. “The appropriate question is, ‘Do regulations provide a safer workplace?’ Random inspections happen after the fact, so if any job losses were to happen due to regulations, they would have happened before the inspection took place.”

CSB Commends Massachusetts Authorities for Issuing Tough Hazardous Materials Storage and Processing Rules

May 17, 2012

Investigation Details:
CAI / Arnel Chemical Plant Explosion

Washington DC, May 17, 2012 – The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announced today that it is commending Massachusetts authorities for improving the regulation of hazardous materials storage and processing in the state, including monitoring of high risk facilities to ensure they are complying with key federal process safety and risk management programs.

The action – taken by the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services – satisfied a key recommendation made by the CSB in its 2008 final report on the 2006 explosion at an ink and paint products manufacturing facility in Danvers, a suburb of Boston. The CSB concluded that an unattended mixing tank overheated in an unventilated building at CAI, Inc, causing the release of flammable vapors which subsequently ignited. The facility stored alcohols, heptanes, other solvents, pigments, resin and nitrocellulose ; all of it which were destroyed in the explosion. Twenty-four houses and six businesses were destroyed. Many other homes were extensively damaged in the blast. Ten people were injured, but no one was killed, possibly because the accident occurred in the middle of the night while people were asleep in bed.

The CSB investigation found that CAI had increased its quantities of flammable liquids over the years. The additional quantities went undetected by local authorities who had not inspected the facility for over four years prior to the time of the incident.

At the time of the accident mandatory notification by companies to local authorities that a facility had increased its quantities of flammable materials from the initial amount listed in the permit was not well enforced. Therefore, the Board recommended that Massachusetts require companies storing and handling flammable materials to amend their license and re-register with state or local authorities when increasing their quantities of flammable materials; they must also verify compliance with local, state fire codes and hazardous chemical regulations.

Noting the Board voted unanimously to declare the status of the recommendation as “Closed – Exceeds Recommended Action,” CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso said, “Massachusetts authorities have not only adopted the CSB recommendation, but went beyond their intent with the regulations issued by the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations in 2012. The Massachusetts approach, if adopted by other states, has the potential of leveraging the resources of fire authorities to complement the regulatory and enforcement work of OSHA and the EPA with regard to high hazard facilities.”

Dr. Moure-Eraso noted that the Massachusetts regulations classify hazardous materials into five categories based on threshold quantities. Categories 1-4, for example, must be in compliance with OSHA’s Hazard Communication standard. Category 5, under which CAI would have fallen, requires companies to certify compliance with the OSHA Process Safety Management standard and with the EPA Risk Management Program regulation. “Had this state regulation been in place, and been enforced, in 2006,”
Dr. Moure-Eraso said, “the company and regulators would have been more likely to have recognized the hazard presented by the operation and to have prevented the accident.”

A key related Board recommendation to the state remains open. It urges the Department of Fire Services to audit local governments and local fire authorities in Massachusetts for their enforcement of compliance with permit limits and inspection requirements for storage and handling of flammable materials.

The Department of Fire Services informed the CSB that it lacks the resources to audit all local government for compliance, and would instead provide training for local fire authorities to adequately review permits and inspect facilities for compliance with the new requirements. Training materials are reportedly in development,

CSB recommendation status is determined by a board vote following a staff analysis. Reponses may be deemed “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable,” and either closed or left open for further consideration. To date, 57% of CSB recommendations have been designated “Closed – Acceptable action.” In some cases, the board has designated responses as exceeding recommended action. Only 2% of CSB recommendations – open or closed – have resulted in an “unacceptable” status.

The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agency’s board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA. Visit our website, www.csb.gov.

For more information, contact Communications Manager Hillary Cohen, cell 202-446-8094, or Sandy Gilmour, 202-261-7614, cell 202-251-5496 in CSB public affairs.

OSHA Investigating Postal Worker’s Illness After Handling Package From Yemen

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the federal agency charged with monitoring worker safety, is investigating the illness of a U.S. Postal Service employee who handled a leaking package from Yemen at an Orlando mail-sorting facility.

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting first reported that Jeffrey A. Lill experienced health problems after handling the parcel, which was leaking a brown viscous substance. Lill, 44, suffers from extreme fatigue, tremors, and liver and neurological problems consistent with toxic exposure.

But USPS has refused to investigate what happened to Lill, stating through lawyers that the incident never occurred. But FCIR, in partnership with the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkeley, uncovered related documents and interviewed two whistleblowers who confirmed what happened.

Following FCIR’s report — which was published May 13 in The Ledger, the Miami Herald and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, as well as in more than 250 newspapers worldwide through Associated Press distribution — Michael D’Aquino, a spokesman for OSHA’s southeast regional office, confirmed the agency is looking into what made Lill sick.

D’Aquino said OSHA began its investigation in April, when he said investigators first received a complaint. But records show Lill’s mother, Janet Vieau, filed a complaint in February.

Either way, OSHA’s investigation will likely be toothless, because federal law prohibits the agency from issuing citations for incidents that are more than six months old. Lill and two witnesses said the package came through Orlando on Feb. 4, 2011.

Vieau, 64, a real estate agent in Rochester, N.Y., said she has been calling OSHA for months to encourage them to investigate her son’s illness.

“I’ve spoken to OSHA a number of times, and each time, they just flipped me off,” Vieau said. An OSHA representative had told Vieau that the agency would not investigate because the incident had occurred more than six months ago.

This is the first time Vieau has heard of an active OSHA investigation, which she attributes to the media attention her son’s case has received.

“I’m beginning to think that as a result of what you’ve done, there will be an exception to the rule,” she said. “Before now, OSHA told me quite frankly that six months was up and sorry.

NSC Free Heat Stress Webinar – Licensed to Chill: Heat Stress Overview & Solutions – May 17, 2012 @ 12:00 PM CDT

binarShellLeft.png binarShellRight.png
Licensed to chill: Heat stress overview & solutionsMay 17, 12:00 p.m. Central
Register online for this free webinarA utility lineman is sent out to repair a power line brought down by a tropical storm. Working in oppressively hot and humid conditions, he wears protective gear that adds to his discomfort. He may have a small water bottle or, even more likely, no water at all. He will be working in the sun and heat for at least 4 hours without a break. This hypothetical worker faces an all-too-common high-risk situation. And even though the worker might not die as a result of these conditions, the effects of heat stress cause immediate health and productivity problems. Join this heat stress webinar to learn about heat stress causes, symptoms and costs; all the latest in OSHA regulations; and critical PPE solutions.

In this webinar, leading experts in the hydration and PPE industries will discuss:

  • Causes, symptoms and costs of heat-related illness
  • The evolving regulatory scene
  • Helpful guides and solutions

Presenters


Bubba Wolford, Sqwincher

Wolford received his MS in Exercise Physiology from Mississippi State University 1991. He joined Sqwincher in 2009 where he has spearheaded promotion in the sports and industrial athlete market.

Adria Ensrud, Ergodyne

Ensrud received her BA from North Dakota in 2004. She then went on to work as a product specialist at Coloplast and MAAX Bath. She joined Ergodyne in 2010 where she is currently product manager of the Elements pillar, which specifically deals with worker safety in environmental situations such as extreme heat and cold conditions.


Kyle W. Morrison, Safety+Health magazine

Morrison covers occupational safety and workplace safety regulation for Safety+Health magazine. He will moderate the session.

Hope to see you on Thursday. Register now!

Sponsors:Ergodyne

Sqwincher

Presenters:

name

Bubba Wolford,
Sqwincher

name

Adria Ensrud,
Ergodyne

Moderator:

Kyle Morrison

Kyle W. Morrison,
Safety+Health

p1x1.gif

Do Employee Safety Incentives Discourage Workers from Reporting Injuries? Download GAO Report Below!

Many employers are in the dark over whether their safety incentive programs encourage or discourage the reporting of injuries and illnesses by their employees, or if they have no effect.

But a new report says employers, and the federal officials who oversee workplace safety, should care what effects the incentives are having.

In March 2005, 15 workers died and 180 others were injured in an explosion at the BP Texas City refinery. A safety incentive program at the refinery rewarded workers with bonuses for achieving low rates of injuries and illnesses. A 2007 study after the explosion found that workers feared reprisals for reporting potentially risky conditions at the refinery.

That accident also prompted members of Congress to ask the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into safety programs. In 2009, GAO issued a report that found that safety incentive programs “can provide disincentives for workers to report injuries and illnesses to their employers.”

The GAO has again visited the issue of injury reporting and in its latest study out this week is recommending that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) do more to shed light on the effects of incentives and other programs on reporting.

Knowing the effects is important not only for employers, but also for OSHA, which relies heavily on workers to report injuries and illnesses to their employers, and on employers to accurately report this information to OSHA.

Since it does not currently address incentive programs in its guidance and field operations manual, OSHA could be recognizing some employers as having exemplary safety systems without realizing the negative effects on reporting of some of their incentive programs, GAO warned.

“Without accurate data, employers engaged in hazardous activities can avoid inspections and may be allowed to participate in voluntary programs that reward employers with exemplary safety and health management systems by exempting them from routine inspections,” GAO said.

Insurers are also interested in knowing if injuries are being accurately reported since they use employers’ illness and injury rates among other factors in setting workers’ compensation premiums.

Although OSHA is not required to regulate safety incentive programs, GAO urged OSHA to address the potential effects of such programs and other workplace safety policies on injury and illness reporting.

In response to GAO’s inquiries, OSHA recently issued a memo, warning employers that some programs that discourage employees from reporting their injuries are problematic because an employer may not “in any manner discriminate” against an employee because the employee exercises a protected right, such as the right to report an injury.

In addition, OSHA warns, “if the incentive is great enough that its loss dissuades reasonable workers from reporting injuries,” the program could result in an employer being in violation of recordkeeping responsibilities.

OSHA issued this memo to regional and whistleblower program officials in March and published it on its website but it has not yet incorporated it into its field operations manual. OSHA also has guidance under its whistleblower section on retaliation by employers against employers who report injuries.

OSHA said it has received reports of disciplinary action against employees who are injured on the job, such as where an employee does not report an injury or illness in a timely manner. OSHA said employers have a legitimate interest in establishing reporting procedures but they may “not unduly burden the employee’s right and ability to report.” For example, the rules cannot penalize workers who do not realize immediately that their injuries are serious enough to report, or even that they are injured at all. Nor may enforcement of such rules be used as a pretext for discrimination.

OSHA acknowledges that some employers establish programs that “unintentionally or intentionally provide employees an incentive to not report injuries.” For example, an employer might enter all employees who have not been injured in the previous year in a drawing to win a prize, or a team of employees might be given a bonus if no one from the team is injured over a period of time.

“Such programs might be well-intentioned efforts by employers to encourage their workers to use safe practices. However, there are better ways to encourage safe work practices, such as incentives that promote worker participation in safety-related activities, such as identifying hazards or participating in investigations of injuries, incidents or ‘near misses,’” OSHA says.

OSHA’s guidance for its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) cite various positive incentives, including providing t-shirts to workers serving on safety and health committees; offering modest rewards for suggesting ways to strengthen safety and health; or throwing a recognition party at the successful completion of company-wide safety and health training.

 Types of Incentives

There are basically two types of safety incentive programs. Experts distinguish between rate-based safety incentive programs and behavior-based programs.

Rate-based programs provide rewards such as bonuses and prizes for having no or a low number of work-related injuries and illnesses during a specified period. For example, an employer may reward workers with $100 bonuses for having no reported work-related injuries or illnesses in a given year.

Behavior-based programs provide rewards for demonstrating safe behaviors but are not tied to low injury and illness rates. For example, an employer may reward workers with gift cards for identifying hazardous conditions and suggesting safety improvements. These systems may also include demerit systems that discipline workers for failing to follow safety procedures.

In 2010, from its survey, GAO estimated that 25 percent of U.S. manufacturers had safety incentive programs, and most had other workplace safety policies that, according to experts and industry officials, may affect injury and illness reporting. Safety programs and policies are more common among larger manufacturers.

GAO found that there is little definitive research on the effects of safety incentive programs and other workplace safety policies on workers’ reporting of injuries and illnesses, but some of the 50 experts and industry officials GAO interviewed suggested that rate-based programs may discourage reporting.

Several experts told GAO that there may be an unintended consequence of rate-based programs. For example, when workers’ injuries are relatively minor or easy to hide, and if the rewards provided under the program are relatively large, workers may not report their injuries to preserve their rewards.

They also warmed of potential underreporting of injuries and illnesses when an incentive creates peer pressure on workers to not report injuries. “When all workers on a team get a reward only if no one on the team has an injury, there may be pressure on all team members to not report injuries,” the report says.

The experts also suggested that that certain polices, such as post-incident drug and alcohol testing, as well as demerit programs that are used to discipline unsafe workers, may discourage workers from reporting.

But how safety is managed in the workplace, including employer practices such as fostering open communication about safety issues, may encourage reporting of injuries and illnesses.

Quantifying the effects safety incentive programs may have on injury and illness reporting is difficult because researchers do not have access to workers’ medical records, according to GAO.

The GAO report may be downloaded here:  GAO-on-OSHA-Safety-Incentives