At the end of next month, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) will launch their online Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers. The survey will collect data from a random sample of International Association of Healthcare Central Service Materiel Management (IAHCSMM) members concerning “health and safety practices and types of exposure controls used by healthcare workers who handle or come in contact with hazardous chemical agents,” specifically aerosolized medications, antineoplastic agents, chemical sterilants, high level disinfectants, surgical smoke, and anesthetic gases. NIOSH plans to release a report to all IAHCSMM members detailing aggregate data from all survey respondents.
We join NIOSH in encouraging all IAHCSMM members who are asked to complete the survey to do so, as the data provided will be invaluable in determining the best practices to keep employees safe from exposure to chemical agents in the workplace. The more data that is shared, the more educated in chemical safety employers and employees alike will become. As we’ve discussed on this blog before, education is the single most important component of employee safety. Surveys like this one play a key role in increasing awareness of the potential dangers of chemical agents, as well as the best ways to prevent exposure.
For more information on NIOSH and the work they are doing to keep healthcare workers safe, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
How will the Results of the Midterm Elections affect Workplace Safety?
There has been a lot of talk over the last several weeks concerning how the Republican takeover of Congress will affect OSHA’s activity over the next 2 years. Worker safety is, should, and always will be a nonpartisan issue. However, how many tax-payer dollars are given to organizations that enforce regulations of the workplace is a partisan issue, for better or worse. Since the Obama Administration began, funding for OSHA enforcement has increased, as has the number of inspectors and overall inspections. Many fear that with the continuing economic struggles of the country, a Republican Congress will not continue the pattern of increasing OSHA’s budget as the Democrats have. Even if that is the case, it shouldn’t be anything to worry about in terms of worker safety.
Workplace safety is a matter of law, but as we have pointed out in the past, it is also a matter of employer responsibility. If an accident were to occur at a facility, the blame always falls on the employer, not OSHA, as the responsible party. The reason for this can be understood quite simply by reviewing the General Duty Clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It states, “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Thus, whether OSHA reduces the number of inspections they conduct or not, the employer still has a duty to ensure the safety of their workers. Decreased OSHA activity is not an excuse for decreased worker safety.
Recently, OSHA published the results of its informal survey on what chemicals should be regulated. The optional survey received a great response from employers and experts about chemicals that are not currently regulated, but should be because of their harmful effects to humans when exposed. Seeing as new information is constantly being revealed, employers have a duty to protect their workers from new threats, whether OSHA establishes a permissible exposure limit or not. Thus, education of employers about such chemicals is a key issue as well. As a government bureaucracy, OSHA moves slowly, and cannot possibly set a regulation for everything that could be potentially harmful in the workplace. Some element of responsibility needs to fall on the individual employers themselves.
The bottom line is that just because OSHA does not say an employer has to structure the workplace a certain way, establish rules to prevent employee injuries, or monitor a chemical they use, does not mean it isn’t the right thing to do, and even the lawful thing to do under the General Duty Clause. If an employer has evidence that something may cause harm to their employees, they should take the appropriate steps to prevent it.
Employee safety has nothing to do with who controls Congress.
Workplace safety is a matter of law, but as we have pointed out in the past, it is also a matter of employer responsibility. If an accident were to occur at a facility, the blame always falls on the employer, not OSHA, as the responsible party. The reason for this can be understood quite simply by reviewing the General Duty Clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It states, “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Thus, whether OSHA reduces the number of inspections they conduct or not, the employer still has a duty to ensure the safety of their workers. Decreased OSHA activity is not an excuse for decreased worker safety.
Recently, OSHA published the results of its informal survey on what chemicals should be regulated. The optional survey received a great response from employers and experts about chemicals that are not currently regulated, but should be because of their harmful effects to humans when exposed. Seeing as new information is constantly being revealed, employers have a duty to protect their workers from new threats, whether OSHA establishes a permissible exposure limit or not. Thus, education of employers about such chemicals is a key issue as well. As a government bureaucracy, OSHA moves slowly, and cannot possibly set a regulation for everything that could be potentially harmful in the workplace. Some element of responsibility needs to fall on the individual employers themselves.
The bottom line is that just because OSHA does not say an employer has to structure the workplace a certain way, establish rules to prevent employee injuries, or monitor a chemical they use, does not mean it isn’t the right thing to do, and even the lawful thing to do under the General Duty Clause. If an employer has evidence that something may cause harm to their employees, they should take the appropriate steps to prevent it.
Employee safety has nothing to do with who controls Congress.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
EPA Solicits Requests for Chemical Substance Nominations
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice on the Federal Register calling for public “nominations for substances to be considered for an assessment or reassessment in its IRIS Program”, similar to the request made by OSHA a couple of months ago (see: http://chemdaq.blogspot.com/2010/09/osha-recognizes-its-shortfalls.html). The EPA’s IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System, www.epa.gov/iris) Program collects data and evaluates risk information on effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. The database itself contains searchable documents describing the health effects of exposure to more than 540 different chemical substances for which the EPA issues exposure level recommendations.
According to the EPA, nominations are evaluated on 5 factors:
(1) Potential public health impact
(2) EPA statutory, regulatory, or program-specific implementation needs
(3) Availability of new scientific information or methodology that might significantly change the current IRIS information
(4) Interest to other governmental agencies or the public
(5) Availability of other scientific assessment documents that could serve as a basis for an IRIS assessment
We are encouraging readers to submit nominations for Peracetic Acid (PAA) as well as Ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), which are both used in the sterilization and disinfection of medical instruments, and whose potential adverse health effects have been well-documented.
Nominations are being accepted via email (ORD.Docket@epa.gov) as well as online (http://regulations.gov/ , enter Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0744, and select “submit a comment”).
The notice on the Federal Register and complete instructions can be found here:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/18/2010-26159/integrated-risk-information-system-iris-request-for-chemical-substance-nominations-for-2011-program.
According to the EPA, nominations are evaluated on 5 factors:
(1) Potential public health impact
(2) EPA statutory, regulatory, or program-specific implementation needs
(3) Availability of new scientific information or methodology that might significantly change the current IRIS information
(4) Interest to other governmental agencies or the public
(5) Availability of other scientific assessment documents that could serve as a basis for an IRIS assessment
We are encouraging readers to submit nominations for Peracetic Acid (PAA) as well as Ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), which are both used in the sterilization and disinfection of medical instruments, and whose potential adverse health effects have been well-documented.
Nominations are being accepted via email (ORD.Docket@epa.gov) as well as online (http://regulations.gov/ , enter Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0744, and select “submit a comment”).
The notice on the Federal Register and complete instructions can be found here:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/18/2010-26159/integrated-risk-information-system-iris-request-for-chemical-substance-nominations-for-2011-program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
