Let’s use a sports analogy. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal asks the question, “Is it time to retire the football helmet?”

The reason behind the suggestion: While helmets reduce the chance of death on the field, they also create a sense of invulnerability that encourages football players to collide more forcefully and more often, according to the article. If they weren’t wearing helmets, they’d be less likely to have head-on collisions with other players.

And research shows that, in the cases of these football players, brain damage isn’t necessarily the result of any one trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly minor blows to the head.

No one is really suggesting the NFL do away with helmets.

What is being suggested is changing some of the rules of football to make head-on collisions among players less likely.

Now, let’s apply this to workplace safety.

Here’s one example: Will fall protection equipment absolutely prevent a worker’s injury or death if that person is taking too many risks while wearing the equipment? Of course not.

Safety pros know that, but some workers don’t get it. Here’s a message workers have to hear every so often: Safety gear doesn’t make you invincible. Avoiding injury also requires proper use of the PPE, employees sticking to safety rules, not taking unnecessary risks, etc.

One of the most effective ways to counter workers’ thoughts that they’re invincible is to show them how others have been injured at work. Invite someone who suffered a serious — and possibly debilitating — workplace injury to speak at a safety meeting. Ask the person to explain in detail how the injury has affected his or her life — how everyday activities can no longer be taken for granted.

How have you dealt with employees who feel an injury “won’t happen to me”? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The rule has been in effect since Jan. 12, 2009, and OSHA has already used it.

OSHA has said it intends to use these new measures only in egregious cases in which employers showed a clear disregard for issuing PPE to employees. However, the standard doesn’t spell out that it’s only for use in severe cases.

The National Association of Manufacturers points out that a $7,000 fine for lack of or incorrect PPE could turn into a $700,000 penalty if 100 employees within a facility are required to wear that type of PPE.

Arguments in the case are expected to begin in November.

Do you think OSHA should be able to fine companies, per employee, for PPE violations? If so, under what circumstances? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Specifically, OSHA is updating the references in its PPE regulations for general industry, shipyards, and longshoring and marine terminals. The regulations will now reflect more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards that incorporate advances in PPE.

The incorporated American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards are over a decade old, and in some cases, two decades old.

These updated regulations involve eye, face, head and foot protection.

OSHA is using a direct final rule to update these standards, and says there are more updates to come. These updates take effect Oct. 9, 2009.

The specifics are in the 9/9/09 edition of the Federal Register.

That’s what happened to Sims Bark Co. and Sims Stone Co. in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.

OSHA received a complaint about safety at one of Sims’ locations and determined that similar hazards might exist at its other locations.

Result: $576,750 in OSHA fines after inspectors visited six Sims facilities.

Willful citations were issued for:

• allowing workers to service, unjam and clean machinery without procedures to ensure they wouldn’t be caught in or struck by equipment or burned by machines’ heat strips, and
• exposing workers to dangers associated with being caught in fast moving machinery.

OSHA issued serious citations for:

• lack of employee training
• exposure to electric shocks
• lack of fall protection
• lack of machine guards
• exposure to noise hazards
• struck-by dangers, and
• accumulation of combustible dust.

Sims also faces other-than-serious citations for failing to keep injury/illness logs according to OSHA rules.

The company has 15 business days to comply with or contest the citations.

A rope broke on the scaffolding, but both men were prevented from falling by their safety harnesses.

A rescue team was able to pull one man to safety quickly, but the second dangled from the side of the building for about 45 minutes before he was pulled up to the roof.

While that may sound scary, it also shows how strong the fall protection was — it was able to keep the man from falling for almost an hour.

Neither worker was seriously injured.

Watch KTLA video of one man’s rescue here. (Better yet, show it to workers who use fall protection to drive home the message of why it’s needed.)

We polled our editors of safety publications at Progressive Business and came up with this list:

10. More research on dangers of nano-particles to exposed employees. Among the new studies, one that showed long, thin carbon nanotubes exhibited the same effects as long, thin asbestos fibers when injected into mice.

9. The National Institutes of Health says the superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is no longer limited to hospitals. Outbreaks of one strain — community-associated MRSA — have turned up in athletes, prison inmates, the military, daycare attendees and those who live in communal conditions such as college dormitories.

8. MSHA proposes and enacts a flurry of new mining rules in the wake of previous years’ mining disasters, such as Crandall Canyon, including: a policy letter on underground communication and tracking devices; a new final rule that increases the pounds per square inch that pressure seals must withstand in an explosion; a proposal to test miners for drugs and alcohol; and a final rule requiring additional safety equipment for rescue teams at underground mines.

7. California gets serious with heat stress on the job. The company that hired a pregnant teen who died of heat stroke this spring after working in a vineyard without enough shade or water was hit with the highest fine ever issued to a farming operation in the state. Merced Farm Labor’s license was also revoked until Aug. 24, 2011 after the death of Maria Jimenez.

6. The employer payment for most types of PPE rule takes effect. OSHA started enforcing the new rule May 15, 2008. The only exceptions: non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear; shoes or boots with built-in metatarsal protection requested by an employee; logging boots; and everyday work or ordinary clothing used solely for protection from weather.

5. An explosion at an Imperial Sugar Refinery near Savannah, GA, kills 14 people and injures dozens more. The blast destroyed a packaging plant. The cause, ignition of dust, placed an emphasis on workplace ignitable dust hazards.

4. Amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act to place burden on employers. The revision may dramatically increase the number of employees who can legally qualify as disabled. Action step for employers and those in charge of safety: Instead of an open-ended light-duty assignment that might define a worker as disabled, re-assess the returning worker’s condition every two weeks.

3. Distracted drivers prove fatal and costly. A Sept. 12 collision between two trains in California killed 25 people. The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating, but preliminary information shows the locomotive engineer of one train was using his cell phone to text within 30 seconds of the accident. In the wake of the crash, the Federal Railroad Administration enacted a new rule banning railroad employees from using cell phones (except in emergencies) and other electronic devices on the job. In another case, International Paper Co. agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle a personal injury lawsuit after one of its employees used her cell phone while driving for work. The employee hit another car, and its driver had to have an arm amputated as a result.

2. Now OSHA can multiply PPE and training fines by the number of employees. Under a new rule, OSHA can issue per-employee citations for those types of violations starting Jan. 12, 2009.

1. President-elect Barack Obama promises an “invigorated” OSHA. Obama supported the Protecting America’s Workers Act as a Senator. The bill would increase OSHA penalties. Obama has also called on OSHA to issue standards “in a timely and more effective manner.” While the financial crisis may delay some reforms the new administration may want, some changes can be made by just shifting existing funding.

Vote for your top safety story or nominate one of your own in the Comments Box below.

A district court has ruled that a company doesn’t have to pay workers for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). However, the employer may have to pay for the time spent walking from where the gear is stored to their work areas.

Three employees sued U.S. Steel Corp. seeking pay for the time spent donning and doffing PPE, showering, and walking to and from their workstations after donning and before doffing. The company asked the district court to throw out the case.

In Steiner v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court ruled “activities, such as the donning and doffing of specialized protective gear that are performed either before or after the regular workshift, on or off the production line, are compensable if those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.”

However, federal law says there are exceptions if two conditions are met:

1. There must be a bona fide collective bargaining agreement that excludes such payment, and
2. The activities at issue must constitute “changing clothes” within the meaning of the statute.

The employees in question did have a collective bargaining agreement that excluded time spent donning and doffing PPE.

So the matter came down to this: Were the employees just changing clothes or putting on specialized PPE?

The court found, after looking at photos and video of the PPE at issue, that flame retardant jackets and pants, glasses, boots, and hard hats unquestionably fell within the common definition of clothes.

For that reason, the court partially granted U.S. Steel’s request and threw out the part of the lawsuit regarding donning, doffing and showering.

But the district court didn’t throw out the question of whether to pay for the time walking from changing areas to workstations. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Alvarez that “during a continuous workday, any walking time that occurs after the beginning of the employee’s first principal activity and before the end of the employee’s last principal activity” is compensable.

The question over walking time will now go to trial.

Let us know what you think of the court’s decision and the issue of whether to pay employees for donning and doffing PPE in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Andrako v. U.S. Steel, U.S. District Court, W.D. PA, No. 07-1629, 6/22/09.

A new federal court ruling further complicates whether you have to pay employees for the time they spend putting on and taking off safety gear. This recent ruling is a split decision for employers.

A district court has ruled that a company doesn’t have to pay workers for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). However, the employer may have to pay for the time spent walking from where the gear is stored to their work areas.

Three employees sued U.S. Steel Corp. seeking pay for the time spent donning and doffing PPE, showering, and walking to and from their workstations after donning and before doffing. The company asked the district court to throw out the case.

In Steiner v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court ruled “activities, such as the donning and doffing of specialized protective gear that are performed either before or after the regular workshift, on or off the production line, are compensable if those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.”

However, federal law says there are exceptions if two conditions are met:

1. There must be a bona fide collective bargaining agreement that excludes such payment, and
2. The activities at issue must constitute “changing clothes” within the meaning of the statute.

The employees in question did have a collective bargaining agreement that excluded time spent donning and doffing PPE.

So the matter came down to this: Were the employees just changing clothes or putting on specialized PPE?

The court found, after looking at photos and video of the PPE at issue, that flame retardant jackets and pants, glasses, boots, and hard hats unquestionably fell within the common definition of clothes.

For that reason, the court partially granted U.S. Steel’s request and threw out the part of the lawsuit regarding donning, doffing and showering.

But the district court didn’t throw out the question of whether to pay for the time walking from changing areas to workstations. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Alvarez that “during a continuous workday, any walking time that occurs after the beginning of the employee’s first principal activity and before the end of the employee’s last principal activity” is compensable.

The question over walking time will now go to trial.

Let us know what you think of the court’s decision and the issue of whether to pay employees for donning and doffing PPE in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Andrako v. U.S. Steel, U.S. District Court, W.D. PA, No. 07-1629, 6/22/09.

Ever wish you could have someone translate an OSHA standard into plain English? You’re not alone.

When it comes to interpreting exactly what OSHA requires of employers, your peers often go directly to the source to find out.

In fact, OSHA keeps track of the top safety and health topic questions it receives.

The agency keeps two lists depending on how it receives the questions: by e-mail or phone.

Eight topics appear on both lists.

The following were the top 10 topics raised via e-mail questions handled by OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs in March 2009, followed by the pertinent standard and the topic’s corresponding position on the phone list:

1. Powered industrial trucks (1910.178, #3)
2. Sanitation (1910.141, #4)
3. Hazard communication (1910.1200, #2)
4. Bloodborne pathogens (1910.1030, #1)
5. Personal protective equipment, general requirements (1910.132, #5)
6. Medical services and first aid (1910.151, #6)
7. Ergonomics (no OSHA standard, not on phone list)
8. Electrical, general requirements (1910.303, not on phone list)
9. Respiratory protection (1910.134, #8)
10. Air contaminants (1910.1000, #7).

The two questions in the top-10 list of questions received by phone that aren’t on the e-mail list are about indoor air quality (no OSHA standard) and permit-required confined spaces (1910.146).

We’d like to hear from you on this topic. Which OSHA standard drives you crazy? Which one is the most difficult to understand? Have you ever sought advice from any sources on a standard? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

An official says UCLA is appealing the citations so that they can’t be used against the university in any future proceeding, such as a lawsuit or criminal prosecution, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lab assistant Sheri Sangji was transferring about 2 ounces of t-butyl lithium from one sealed container to another when a plastic syringe came apart in her hands.

The chemical ignited when it was exposed to air, setting her rubber gloves and synthetic sweater ablaze. She was burned over about half of her body and died 18 days later.

Part of the fine, $18,000, was for Sangji’s lack of a lab coat. UCLA was also fined for lack of proper employee training.

UCLA’s fear of further action against it is quite real. Cal-OSHA regularly refer workplace fatalities to district attorneys for review.

Sangji’s sister is calling for a DA investigation, and more than 1,300 people have signed an online petition calling for one.

Another possibility is a lawsuit by a labor union. Sangji’s family may be prevented from filing a lawsuit because of laws that make workers’ comp the exclusive remedy for relatives of a killed employee.

As part of its investigation, Cal-OSHA noted UCLA had not addressed deficiencies found in its own internal safety inspection two months before the fatal fire, including a finding that workers weren’t wearing lab coats.

Lesson for other companies: If your own internal safety audit finds deficiencies, not taking quick action can prove costly.

Number One Selling Premium Safety Goggle Now Available with Option for Workers Who Wear Prescription Eyewear

Offered with an Expanded Range of Lens Tints

Smithfield, RI – May 20, 2009 - Sperian Eye & Face Protection, the makers of Uvex® brand safety eyewear, is pleased to announce the newest addition to its Uvex Stealth goggle family: the Uvex Stealth OTG.

Uvex Stealth OTG goggles protect against impact, dust and airborne particles, chemical splash, and optical radiation while offering the highest levels of comfort and performance.  Designed to fit comfortably over prescription eyewear, Uvex Stealth OTG goggles are larger than the original Uvex Stealth model while retaining the sleek styling that has made this goggle an industry favorite.

Its flexible, high quality elastomer body conforms to facial contours for a secure yet comfortable gap-free fit, while its low-profile, wrap-around lens styling provides complete coverage and a clear field of vision.  With pivoting headband clips and a wide adjustable-slide headband, Uvex Stealth OTG goggles offer a wide range of adjustability and fit comfortably even with hard hats.

For protection in a variety of environments, lenses are available in Clear, Amber, Standard Gray, and Shade 3.0 and 5.0 Welding tints with Dura-streme^TM dual coating technology.  Dura-streme combines our two best lens coatings – Uvextreme® anti-fog on the interior and Ultra-dura® anti-scratch on the exterior – for long-lasting, durable anti-fog performance and added chemical resistance.  Uvex Stealth OTG goggles offer an easy and economical lens replacement system.  Lenses easily snap onto the front of the body, allowing for the use of multiple lens tints and extending the life of the goggles for exceptional total-cost-of-ownership.

Uvex Stealth OTG goggles are made in the USA in an ISO 9001:2000 facility, and are certified to meet both ANSI Z87.1-2003 (High Impact) and CSA Z94.3 standards.

About Uvex by Sperian

Uvex by Sperian is the leading U.S. brand of premium quality, state-of-the-art, feature-rich safety spectacles, goggles and face shields that offers comfort and innovation without compromise. The world’s top-selling protective eyewear brand, Uvex® has been an acknowledged leader in safety eyewear innovation for more than 50 years and is the pioneer of many groundbreaking innovations such as Dura-streme^TM Dual Coating Technology offering combined Anti-fog / Anti-Scratch lenses with 3x longer life, a cost-effective silicone goggle body and MMT – Multi-Material Technology®. Sperian Protection offers Uvex branded safety eyewear and face protection products exclusively in the Americas. For more information, please visit www.uvex.us.

About Sperian Protection

With nearly 6,000 employees worldwide, Sperian Protection serves the global personal protective equipment (PPE) industry, providing hearing, eye, respiratory, fall, body and hand protection. As a world leader in multiple PPE categories, Sperian is committed to offering innovative products adapted to high-risk environments so that workers in the manufacturing and services industries can work with confidence. For more information, please visit www.sperianprotection.com.

Sperian Protection is listed on Euronext’s Eurolist and on the SBF120. It is eligible for the SRD deferred settlement system.

For additional Uvex product information contact:

Sperian Customer Care

900 Douglas Pike

Smithfield, RI 02917

Tel: 800-682-0839

Fax: 800-322-1330

www.uvex.us

ANC roofing owner Kenneth Alton entered a no contest plea to the charge of failing to protect employees from a hazard. He was sentenced to nine months in jail and fined $248,000.

Company supervisor Robert McAfee plead no contest to a single misdemeanor violation and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Another former ANC owner will be sentenced in May.

On May 11, 2006, ANC employee Antonio Serrano backed into an unguarded skylight and fell 21 feet to his death while performing roofing work. Cal/OSHA fined ANC $14,400 for not providing a barrier to prevent a fall through a skylight opening in that incident.

Four months later on Sept. 21, 2006, ANC employee Jose Maya suffered major head trauma when he fell 19 feet from an unprotected skylight while working on a different roofing project. Cal/OSHA fined ANC $70,000 in that incident and referred the case to the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office.

An investigation revealed that ANC continued to operate in flagrant violation of the California Labor Code after Serrano died in the first incident.

California law requires that employees have fall protection if they’re working within six feet of a skylight.

The CDC says the virus is susceptible to the prescription antiviral drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir. As part of the public health emergency declared by the U.S., supplies from CDC’s Division of the Strategic National Stockpile are being sent to all 50 states and U.S. territories to help them respond to the outbreak.

What steps can people take to stay healthy and slow the spread of the flu?

• Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are also effective.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. The flu virus can spread that way.
• Try to avoid close contact with sick people. Influenza is thought to spread mainly person-to-person through coughing or sneezing of infected people.
• If you get sick, the CDC recommends you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.

Now might be a good time for businesses to consider how they would be affected if pandemic flu spreads to their area. The federal government has a business checklist available online here.

The CDC has other useful information available for free on the Web, including interim recommendations for facemask and respirator use in certain community settings where swine flu has been detected. The agency has also released interim guidelines for primary and secondary schools as well as childcare facilities.

The CDC’s general page on swine flu is at http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/index.htm.

Reference Guides Support Efforts to Build a Culture of Safety in the Workplace

Smithfield, RI – April 7 2009 - Sperian Eye & Face Protection has developed a series of reference guides for understanding protective eyewear regulations. Available online at www.uvex.us, these new reference guides are designed to provide safety managers with the educational tools they need to build a culture of safety in the workplace.

“Our customers look to us not only as a trusted brand of safety eyewear products, but also as a resource and partner in their safety efforts,” said David Iannelli, Senior Product Manager, Uvex brand products. “We’ve created these reference guides to provide customers with useful information that supports their efforts to develop effective safety programs within their organizations.”

Three reference guides are currently available on the Uvex website. These reference guides address the U.S. Department of Defense Mil V₀ Ballistic Test for Impact and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations for eye and face protection as well as general personal protective equipment. Each of the guides provides useful industry information and delivers the content in three formats in increasing levels of detail. This format makes it simple for users on every level-from distributors to safety professionals-to focus on the specific information they require.

About Uvex by Sperian

Uvex by Sperian is the leading U.S. brand of premium quality, state-of-the-art, feature-rich safety spectacles, goggles and face shields that offer comfort and innovation without compromise. The world’s top-selling protective eyewear brand, Uvex® has been an acknowledged leader in safety eyewear innovation for more than 50 years and is the pioneer of many groundbreaking innovations such as Dura-streme^TM Dual Coating Technology offering combined Anti-fog / Anti-Scratch lenses with 3x longer life, a cost-effective silicone goggle body and MMT-Multi-Material Technology®. Sperian Protection offers Uvex branded safety eyewear and face protection products exclusively in the Americas. For more information, please visit www.uvex.us.

About Sperian Protection

With nearly 6,000 employees worldwide, Sperian Protection serves the global personal protective equipment (PPE) industry, providing hearing, eye, respiratory, fall, body and hand protection. As a world leader in multiple PPE categories, Sperian is committed to offering innovative products adapted to high-risk environments so that workers in the manufacturing and services industries can work with confidence. For more information, please visit www.sperianprotection.com.

Sperian Protection is listed on Euronext’s Eurolist and on the SBF120. It is eligible for the SRD deferred settlement system.

That’s the on-screen message at the end of each of the safety videos on YouTube. Warning: They’re disturbing.

Each short story addresses different safety topics in a variety of workplace settings:

1. Restaurant: Slip-and-fall and burn hazards.
2. Construction: Falls from heights and combustible materials.
3. Factory: Forklift and storage safety.
4. Retail: Ladder safety.
5. Electricity: A dead worker speaks from a coffin.

About 280 employees sued Mountaire Farms in Delaware, claiming that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires companies to pay for that time.

Mountaire asked the court to throw out the case.

The court refused to grant the company’s request, so the case will now go to trial. And the court’s opinion seems to set the stage for an eventual outcome in favor of the employees.

In denying summary judgment in favor of the company, the judge wrote, “As an initial matter, I find the donning and doffing of PPE to be ‘work’ because these activities require physical and mental exertion controlled and required by defendants [the company].”

Ultimately, the judge said the question of whether donning and doffing in this case is compensable will be left up to the trial. “Donning and doffing many or most, if not all, of these items could well be determined at trial to be integral and indispensable to chicken processing if doing so is required by defendants’ own internal rules as well as federal law.”

In this case, all employees are required to wear ear plugs, bump caps, lab coats, hair/beard nets, steel-toed rubber boots and nitrile/latex/rubber gloves. Some workers wear additional safety gear such as safety glasses and cut-resistant gloves. The PPE is required by the Food and Drug Administration and OSHA regulations.

The court is relying on a two-part test used in a previous federal lawsuit (Alvarez). Donning and doffing of unique and non-unique protective gear are “integral and indispensable” if doing so is:

1. necessary to the principal work performed, and
2. done for the benefit of the employer.

Cite: Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., U.S. Dist. Crt. D. MD, No. AMD 06-121, 3/9/09.

OSHA has proposed more than $1.2 million in penalties relating to the handling of hazardous chemicals at G.S. Robins & Co., dba Ro-Corp, Inc., in East St. Louis, MO.

Ro-Corp faces 21 willful citations, 20 of which were cited on a per-instance basis:

• 8 instances of failing to provide employees with the correct PPE for transferring para-nitroaniline (PNA), a poison
• 4 instances of failing to provide training on the use of PPE and on working with hazardous chemicals
• 3 instances of failing to provide PPE training and training on specific PNA-transfer procedures, and
• 5 instances of failing to fit-test employees using respirators.

OSHA also issued a repeat citation for failing to provide an eyewash/shower in corrosive chemical areas and 16 serious citations for hazards associated with the transfer of PNA and other workplace practices.

PNA is highly toxic and can be fatal if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

OSHA investigated Ro-Corp after learning that employees had been admitted to several local hospitals after being contaminated with an unknown powder that turned out to be PNA. All employees recovered after treatment.

To learn more about OSHA’s ability to issue fines on a per-employee basis, click here.

Certified Painting Co., Inc., of Alsip, IL, faces $225,000 in fines for 17 alleged violations — eight willful and nine serious.

That’s bad enough. But this is the 16th time the company has been inspected by OSHA since 1976. It’s been cited for more than 100 safety and health violations.

In the latest case, Certified has cited for failure to:

• have proper carbon monoxide monitoring devices
• provide and ensure workers were using personal protective equipment
• provide required hygiene facilities
• ensure workers conducted required hygiene practices after possible exposure to lead or other hazardous materials
• provide U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jackets and have a lifesaving skiff immediately available at locations where employees were working over or adjacent to water
• provide proper fall protection for employees working on scaffolding
• maintain a safety and health program
• provide a required training program before employee exposure to lead, and
• conduct regular inspections of the job site by a competent person.

You can read more about OSHA’s citations against Certified here.

OSHA has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on occupational exposure to diacetyl and food flavorings containing the substance.

The proposal seeks public comments on issues including methods to evaluate and monitor exposure, controls, employee training, and medical monitoring.

OSHA is accepting comments through April 21. The Federal Register notice is online here.

The agency has also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish revised procedures for fit testing respiratory protection face masks.

In 1998, OSHA issued the revised Respiratory Protection Standard, which incorporated two categories of respirator fit tests. Some tests expose wearers to airborne agents to determine if they can detect them. Other tests use a machine to measure how much of a test agent leaks into a mask.

The proposed revisions would allow certain machine-based fit tests to be conducted more quickly and increase the required score for passing them.

Comments on this proposal are due by March 23. It’s online here.

Peach State Roofing of Rock Hill, SC, was issued just one citation by OSHA from a recent inspection.

But that citation will cost the company $50,000 because it’s a repeat of one it was cited for previously.

OSHA visited a worksite in Sicklerville, NJ, where two Peach State employees were performing roofing work.

After the inspection, the company received one repeat citation for failure to provide fall protection for employees working approximately 13 feet above ground.

The President of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) says he’s concerned about recent reports that some companies are cutting safety processes in hopes of reducing costs.

Warren Brown says workplace safety processes are even more critical during business downturns.

“The ongoing positive results are in and have been for companies that have a strong safety culture,” Brown said. “Not only does their bottom line benefit positively, but their company reputation stays intact, employees stay safe and healthy, reducing health care, workers’ comp, training and turnover costs.”

Another reason it’s important for companies to maintain safety programs during tough economic times: It helps boost employee morale because they know the company is looking out for their safety.

Employees can help companies save money by following safe working procedures to prevent injuries, related downtime and expenses such as workers’ comp and costly fines. Another way they can help: by properly using, cleaning and caring for protective equipment. Proper care can extend the life of safety equipment, deferring replacement costs.

Streamlining safety training can also help save money. Some companies are turning to online or electronic safety training rather than relying on face-to-face classroom sessions.

A recent investment firm study in Australia showed positive links between workplace safety and health and investment performance.

You can read more about ASSE’s take on workplace safety during the recession here.

Has the economy had an effect on your company’s safety program? Let us know about it in the Comments Box below.

“How do I get all my employees to wear their safety gear all the time?” It’s one of the top challenges safety pros face year after year. So we asked 290 of your peers about their experiences to find out the top reasons workers give for not wearing PPE.

And we also asked safety managers how they deal with the problem. Here are the results:

Fit/comfort

“It doesn’t fit right,” or “it’s uncomfortable” are the reasons 30% of safety pros hear most often when they ask workers why they aren’t wearing their PPE.

Solution: Get workers involved in PPE choice. Ask what the comfort and fit issues are with their safety gear.

Work with a few select employees to order several different trial samples of regulatory-compliant gear.

Then have these employees test it. If there isn’t a consensus, note whether people with certain physical characteristics prefer certain types. You may have to order more than one type to satisfy your workers.

‘I didn’t know’

Some workers will try to put the blame for their lack of PPE on someone else – many times their supervisors or trainers.

“I didn’t know I needed safety gear” was the top reason heard by 10% of safety pros.

Solution: When safety gear training is given, have workers sign a paper stating that they’ve received and understand the training.

To make this policy work, supervisors will have to follow up with disciplinary action when workers don’t wear PPE.

Time factor

“I didn’t have time,” or “it takes too much time” are the main reasons 18% of safety pros hear as excuses from workers without PPE.

The first step to solve this problem: Ask workers why and listen carefully to their answers. You may have a conflict between production and safety. In that case, ask production supervisors to emphasize that work doesn’t start until safety gear is on.

You may also find out these workers weren’t properly trained about donning PPE. Another possibility is that workers are rushing to get to their stations on time because of tardiness. Disciplinary measures may be necessary in those cases.

They’re invincible

“I won’t get in an accident” is heard most often by 8% of managers.

Oddly enough, this sentiment is expressed by two very different groups.

Young workers often think they’re invincible — that nothing bad will ever happen to them. If they haven’t been exposed to a serious injury, it may seem to them like “that only happens to other people.”

More experienced workers who have gone their entire career without a serious workplace injury adopt this rationale: I’ve always done it this way and haven’t been hurt so far.

Solution: Show them how it has happened. Invite someone who suffered a serious — and possibly debilitating — workplace injury to speak to an all-hands safety meeting.

Ask the person to explain in detail how the injury has affected his life — how everyday activities others take for granted are now much more difficult for him.

Another tactic: Tell employees to put an arm behind their back. Now, ask them to perform a simple task such as tying their shoes.

Memory lapse

The rest, 34%, say “I just forgot.” Check first if fit, comfort or time is a factor before accepting this excuse.

This is where a strong safety policy comes into play. Each workplace has to decide how often it’s acceptable for someone to “just forget” and what will happen to the employee each time. Universal enforcement — up to dismissal if appropriate — will send a message to others to always wear their PPE.

What’s the biggest excuse you hear from employees when they don’t wear their PPE? What has — and hasn’t — worked for you to make sure they wear it? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

American Bridge, based in Pennsylvania, faces $90,000 in fines after an employee fell 70 feet to his death from a girder at a construction site.

The victim fell at the site of the Highway 62/641 bridge being built over the Tennessee River below Grand Rivers, KY. He was wearing a harness and lanyard but wasn’t anchored.

OSHA is citing the company with one willful violation for failing to eliminate employee exposure to fall hazards and failing to ensure that employees properly used personal protective equipment while working above heights of 6 feet. That carries a $70,000 penalty.

The agency is also issuing four serious citations to the company for:

• using pulleys that weren’t guarded on the winch gear
• failing to barricade the swing radius on the cranes
• not securing material against accidental displacement, and
• failing to use conforming fall protection systems.

Each of those citations carries a $5,000 penalty.

OSHA said American had a fall protection plan, but management failed to enforce its own policy.

Starting Jan. 12, 2009, OSHA can issue per-employee citations for those types of violations.

While OSHA says it intends to use these new measures only in egregious cases, the standard doesn’t spell that out specifically.

The agency is relying on a directive to its inspectors to determine when per-employee citations will be made, but directives can change without going through the formal rulemaking process.

What will this mean financially to companies who have some workers who don’t always wear their PPE?

The multiplication factor is the number of employees.

In the case that sparked this rulemaking, an employer hired 11 undocumented Mexican workers to handle asbestos without providing each a respirator.

OSHA wanted to issue 11 separate citations, but a court consolidated them into one.

Under the new rule, the fine would have been 11 times as much.

All sorts of employers are affected by this. OSHA amends PPE and training standards for:

• general industry (Part 1910)
• shipyards (Part 1915)
• marine terminals (Part 1917)
• longshoring (Part 1918), and
• construction (Part 1926).

For now, OSHA claims it will rely upon its guidance document, Handling of Cases To Be Proposed for Violation-By-Violation Penalties.

That document says cases under consideration for per-employee fines must be classified as willful and meet at least one of these requirements:

• Violation resulted in worker fatalities, a worksite catastrophe or a large number of injuries or illnesses
• Violations resulted in persistently high rates of worker injuries or illnesses
• Employer has an extensive history of prior OSHA violations
• Employer has intentionally disregarded its OSHA responsibilities
• Employer’s conduct taken as a whole amounts to clear bad faith in the performance of its OSHA duties, or
• Employer has committed a large number of violations that significantly undermine the effectiveness of any OSHA safety or health program that might be in place.

1-BP is used to clean electronics and metal. In some states, it’s also being used as an alternative in the dry cleaning industry instead of perchloroethylene, which is considered “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Now, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says the solvent may represent an unrecognized occupational health risk.

In a recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, NIOSH presents two cases of workers exposed to 1-BP who were diagnosed with clinical manifestations of neurotoxicity. The cases were from the electronics and dry cleaning industries.

Also, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has concluded that there’s sufficient evidence of developmental and reproductive toxicity among animals exposed to 1-BP.

NIOSH doesn’t have a Recommended Exposure Limit (REL), nor does OSHA has a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for 1-BP.

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends an 8-hour time weighted average (TLV) of 10 perts per million (ppm).

EPA says exposures within or below the range of 17 to 30 ppm are anticipated to be protective against reproductive effects in men and women.

NIOSH recommends engineering controls and work practices, including personal protective equipment, to limit workers’ exposure where 1-BP is manufactured, used, handled or stored.

The agency continues to study the solvent.

Disability laws don’t trump OSHA rules on required personal protective equipment (PPE).

That’s according to a new document from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

If OSHA requires PPE for a certain type of work, and a person with a disability can’t wear the PPE, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) doesn’t provide the worker with an exemption.

Is worker ‘qualified?’

Example: An OSHA regulation requires an employer’s workers to wear steel-toed boots.

An employee has severe burns on his feet and legs that prevent him from wearing steel-toed boots.

No accommodation is possible, so the employee asks for an exemption.

The ADA doesn’t prevent employers from complying with other federal laws, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Under these circumstances, the employer may insist that the employee wear steel-toed boots.

Because the employee can’t comply, he is considered “not qualified.”

At this point, the company should explore whether it can reassign him to another job as a reasonable accommodation. If that isn’t possible, the company can consider medical leave until he can wear the boots.

For more information, you can download The Americans with Disabilities Act: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities for free here.

When asked if they’ve ever observed anyone at their company failing to wear proper PPE when they should have been, 89% said yes. Specifically:

• 45% said it happens on numerous occasions
• 44% answered that it happens infrequently
• 8% said it doesn’t happen
• 3% answered “don’t know.”

Since many of your peers have this problem, what are they planning to do to boost compliance?

• Improve existing education and training: 70%
• Purchase more comfortable PPE: 69%
• Increase monitoring: 42%
• Tie compliance to individual performance evaluations: 32%
• Purchase more stylish PPE: 31%
• Develop incentive programs: 24%
• None of these: 2%.

The survey was conducted at this year’s National Safety Council Congress on Sept. 23 by Kimberly-Clark Professional Safety among safety managers in attendance.