OSHA finalizes PPE payment rule

After eight years of debate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has published its final regulation on Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment.

The rule went into effect Feb. 13 and employers must begin implementing it by May 15.

The rule affects all OSHA health, safety, maritime and construction standards in which personal protective equipment (PPE) is specified. While the rule does not set forth any new requirements for what PPE should be used, it does offer clarification regarding what an employer is or is not responsible to purchase for their employees.

The general requirements of the standard are as follows:

• Employers are responsible for paying for the minimum level of PPE as required in 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918 and 1926.
• If an employer decides to use upgraded PPE to meet the requirements of a standard, the employer must pay for that PPE.
• If an employer provides PPE at no cost and an employee asks to use different PPE, and the employer decides to allow him or her to do so, then the employer is not required to pay for the item.

In addition to the general requirements, the rule specifies some PPE items that are exempted from the rule:

• Non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear (e.g., steel-toe shoes/boots) that an employer allows an employee to wear off the jobsite
• Non-specialty prescription safety eyewear that an employer allows an employee to wear off the jobsite
• Sunglasses/sunscreen
• Sturdy work shoes
• Lineman’s boots
• Ordinary cold weather gear (coats, parkas, cold weather gloves, winter boots)
• Logging boots required under §1910.266(d)(1)(v)
• Ordinary rain gear
• Back belts
• Ordinary work clothes
• Dust masks/respirators used under the voluntary use provisions in §1910.134

The rule also outlines items under which employer payment is required, including:

• Metatarsal foot protection
• Special boots for longshoremen working with logs
• Rubber boots with steel toes
• Shoe covers—toe caps and metatarsal guards
• Non-prescription eye protection
• Prescription eyewear inserts/lenses for full-face respirators
• Prescription eyewear inserts/lenses for welding and diving helmets
• Goggles
• Face shields
• Laser safety goggles
• Firefighting PPE (helmet, gloves, boots, proximity suits, full gear)
• Hard hats
• Hearing protection
• Welding PPE
• Items used in medical/laboratory settings to protect from exposure to infectious agents (aprons, lab coats, goggles, disposable gloves, shoe covers, etc.)
• Non-specialty gloves
  • Payment required if they’re PPE, e.g., for protection against dermatitis, severe cuts/abrasions
  • Payment is not required if they’re only for keeping clean or for cold weather (with no safety or health consideration)
• Rubber sleeves
• Aluminized gloves
• Chemical-resistant gloves, aprons and clothing
• Barrier creams (unless used solely for weather-related protection)
• Rubber insulating gloves
• Mesh cut-proof gloves, mesh or leather aprons
• Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), atmosphere-supplying respirators (escape only)
• Respiratory protection
• Fall protection
• Ladder safety device belts
• Climbing ensembles (e.g., belts and climbing hooks) used by linemen
• Window cleaner’s safety straps
• Personal flotation devices (life jackets)
• Encapsulating chemical protective suits
• Reflective work vests
• Bump caps

The rule also provides clarification on the following issues:

• Replacement of PPE: Employers are required to pay unless in the limited circumstances in which an employee has lost or intentionally damaged the issued PPE.
• Employee-Owned PPE: Employers are not responsible for reimbursing an employee for any PPE he or she may already own (from previous employment); however, employers cannot make any employee buy their own PPE.
• Upgrading PPE: Employers are not required to pay for upgraded or personalized PPE requested by an employee, provided the employer provides adequate basic PPE to the employee.

The rest of the rule outlines what employees qualify for this rule, acceptable payment terms, effects on union contracts and environmental impact.

Click here to review the full context of the standard.

Back to Contents

Ergonomics for construction crews

A new ergonomics booklet developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) focuses on reducing the number of repetitive stress injuries sustained by construction crews.

In 2006, the construction industry reached an all-time high employment with 7.7 million workers. The physical nature of the work, from heavy lifting to performing repetitive tasks, can easily lead to strains, sprains and musculoskeletal disorders.

NIOSH encourages contractors and construction workers to review Simple Solutions: Ergonomics for Construction Workers and to look for new ways to adapt the solutions presented to their jobsites. The booklet provides practical ideas to reduce the risk of repetitive stress injury in common construction tasks. The booklet contains sections on floor and ground-level work, overhead work, material handling and hand-intensive work. For each type of work, it describes solutions consisting mostly of materials or equipment that can be used to do the work easier. The information is provided in the form of a “Tip Sheet” that identifies a problem, one possible solution and its benefits to the employer and the worker, where it can be purchased and how much it costs.

In all, 20 Tip Sheets cover topics including fastening tools that reduce stooping, extension poles for power-actuated tools, vacuum lifters for windows and sheet materials, and reduced vibration power tools.

Click here to view the booklet online.

Back to Contents

Caution: Youth at work

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has developed a foundation curriculum aimed at reducing occupational injuries and illnesses among youth workers.

The curriculum is meant to be used in a classroom or group training environment, and has been customized for each state and Puerto Rico to address state-specific rules and regulations.

The information has been designed to teach core health and safety skills and knowledge, covering basic information relevant to any occupation and raising awareness among young workers. The materials may either be used alone or incorporated into other safety programs.

Instructions for teachers and step-by-step presentation guides are included along with overheads, PowerPoint presentations, videos, student handouts, quizzes and completion certificates.

Click here for more information on the NIOSH Youth @ Work program.

Back to Contents

Work injuries causing missed time on the decline

Both the rate and number of occupational injuries and illnesses forcing time away from work dropped in 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics (BLS).

Private industry saw 1.2 million cases requiring days away from work in 2006, a decrease of 4 percent from 2005. The rate was 128 per 10,000 workers, a decrease of 6 percent from 2005.

The median number of days away from work was seven days in 2006, the same as the previous two years. Median days away from work measures severity and designates the point at which half the cases involved more days and half involved fewer days.

Among the key findings for 2006:

• Sprains and strains were the leading cause of injury and illness in every major industry sector.
• The part of the body most affected—the trunk, including the shoulder and back—accounted for 34 percent of all cases.
• Floors, walkways and ground surfaces were the source for 18 percent of all days-away-from-work cases.
• The eight-hour period from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. accounted for 65 percent of the cases.
• Nursing aides, orderlies and attendants had 49,480 days away from work and a rate of 526 per 10,000 workers.
• Construction laborers; laborers and freight, stock and material movers; and heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers each had rates above 400 per 10,000 workers.
• Computer and mathematical occupations had the lowest rate at 11 per 10,000 workers.
• Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD)—injuries or disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, joints, cartilage or spinal discs—do not include disorders caused by slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or similar accidents. In 2006, there were 357,160 MSD cases with a median of nine days away from work (two days longer than for all days away from work cases).
• Fractures resulted in the longest absences with 28 median days away from work. Carpal tunnel syndrome had 27 median days and amputations had 22 median days.

Click here to view the entire report.

Back to Contents

Nonfatal workplace injuries, illnesses drop in ’06

Private industry workplaces reported 4.1 million nonfatal injuries and illnesses in 2006, down from 4.2 million the prior year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in its Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.

Of the 4.1 million nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses, approximately 3.9 million were injuries, with 2.6 million occurring in service-producing industries and the remaining 1.3 million occurring in goodsproducing industries.

Fourteen industries, each having at least 100,000 injuries and illnesses combined, accounted for 45 percent of the total, or about 1.8 million cases. General medical and surgical hospitals reported more injuries and illnesses than any other industry in 2006, totaling more than 264,300 cases.

Approximately 2.1 million injuries and illnesses were cases away from work, job transfer or restriction. They required recuperation away from work, transfer to another job, restricted duties at work or a combination of these actions.

The remaining 2.0 million were other recordable cases that did not result in time away from work.

Click here to review the entire survey.

Back to Contents

Revised standard strengthens SCBA safety

The 2007 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1981 Standard on Open-Circuit Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services was approved as an American National Standard on Dec. 20, 2006. It is the sixth edition and supersedes all previous editions.

This standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, performance, testing and certification of new compressed breathing air open-circuit SCBA, Supplied Air Respirators (SARs), and all replacement parts, components and add-on accessories for SCBA and combination SCBA/SARs.

The sixth edition of the NFPA 1981 standard represents a complete revision and retitling of the standard.

The most notable change is the mandatory requirement for all emergency services SCBA to also be National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) SCBA in accordance with the NIOSH Statement of Standard for NIOSH CBRN SCBA Testing.

This evaluation for CBRN protection provides verification and assurance that the component and material combinations in the approved SCBA configurations provide high resistance to permeation and penetration from exposure to toxic industrial chemicals and chemical warfare agents. This is of importance to all responders subject to extreme exposures to any hazardous chemicals and materials.

In addition to the new CBRN requirement, six significant requirements were added to increase safety to the users of emergency services SCBA and to better assure the proper functioning of the SCBA:

1. New breathing air cylinder retention requirement within the mounted position.
2. Mechanical voice diaphragm performance requirement increased to 80 percent minimum score at a 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) distance.
3. New voice communications system with at least an 85 percent score at a 3 meter (10 feet) distance.
4. New independent pressure gauge that would not be affected by failure of the heads-up display (HUD).
5. New water immersion requirements for electronic devices that are part of the SCBA that must function properly and remain watertight after six exposures to 177ºC for 15 minutes and water submersion to 1.5 meters (4.9 feet).
6. New low power capacity requirements for electronic devices to assure they will continue to function properly for at least two hours following activation of the low power source signal.

Click here to purchase this standard (NFPA 1981-2007).

Click here to view a current listing of approved SCBA.

Click here to view a searchable list of approved SCBA.

Back to Contents

OSHA issues new combustible dust instructions

New instructions for inspecting workplaces that handle combustible dusts and have the potential for a dust explosion were issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration last October as a National Emphasis Program (NEP).

Combustible dusts are often either organic or metal dusts that are finely ground into very small particles, fibers, chips or flakes. These dusts can come from metal, wood, plastic, grain, flour, sugar, paper, soap, dried blood or textile materials.

Agriculture, coal handling and processing, chemical, forest and furniture products, metal processing, paper products, pharmaceuticals, recycling operations, textile, tire and rubber manufacturing and wastewater treatment industries handle combustible dusts.

OSHA initiated this NEP in response to a number of combustible dust accidents that have resulted in deaths and serious injuries. The NEP addresses the deflagration, other fire and explosion hazards associated with most combustible dusts.

A dust deflagration, as defined by OSHA, “occurs when the right concentration of finely divided chemical dust suspended in air is exposed to a sufficient source of ignition to cause ignition (combustion) of the dust. If the deflagration is in a confined area, an explosion potential exists.”

Click here to view the instruction online.

Back to Contents

DHS issues high-risk chemical info

Back in 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security identified the need for legislation authorizing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop and implement a framework to regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities in the U.S.

Passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2006, Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 authorized DHS to require high-risk chemical facilities to complete security vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans and implement risk-based measures designed to satisfy DHSdefined risk-based performance standards.

The act gave DHS six months to develop regulations implementing this authority. DHS published an Advance Notice of Rulemaking in December 2006 and an Interim Final Rule (IFR)—the Chemical Facility Anti- Terrorism Standards (CFATS)—in April 2007.

Within the IFR, DHS included a public comment period specific to “Appendix A,” a proposed list containing the DHS chemicals of interest (COI) and their corresponding screening threshold quantities (STQ).

Under the rule, if a facility possesses a chemical of interest at or above the screening threshold quantity found in Appendix A, the facility must complete and submit a consequence assessment known as a “Top Screen.” This must be done within 60 calendar days of the publication of a final Appendix A or within 60 calendar days of coming into possession of the listed chemicals at or above the listed STQ.

Facilities required to complete the Top Screen will largely fall into one of three categories:

• Chemical manufacturing, storage and distribution facilities
• Petroleum refineries
• Liquefied natural gas storage facilities

For facilities that don’t fall into one of these three categories, they must complete and submit a Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) Top Screen if they manufactured, used, stored or distributed the chemicals found in Appendix A above a specified quantity.

On Nov. 20, 2007, DHS published the final Appendix A in the Federal Register. The deadline for submissions of Top Screens as required by 6 CFR §27.210(a)(1)(i) is 60 calendar days from this date.

Click here to view Appendix A online.

Back to Contents

Flame-resistant clothing myths

Clothing that ignites and continues to burn is the leading cause of severe and fatal burn injuries sustained on the job, according to recent government reports.

Companies are often cited and fined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for not providing flame-resistant clothing under 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.132—Occupational Safety and Health Standards: Personal Protective Equipment.

Flame resistant (FR) refers to a material’s ability to self-extinguish once an ignition source is removed. Materials can either be inherently flame resistant or treated.

Inherently flame-resistant fibers contain an essential characteristic that protects the wearer from an ignition source. Treated fibers have an applied chemical treatment that changes the original level of flame resistance.

It is important to be aware of some of the common myths and misconceptions about FR clothing.

Myth: Cotton provides sufficient FR protection from electrical hazards.

This is easily the most dangerous misconception of all. Not only is cotton 100 percent flammable, it will ignite and continue to burn long after being exposed to an ignition source.

Most people recognize the burning and melting hazards of fibers such as nylon and polyester, but they often fail to recognize the dangers that cotton presents, especially considering that cotton can sometimes propagate flames more quickly than other fibers.

In certain electric utility applications, 100 percent cotton is only acceptable for use when the exposed energy source is not sufficient to ignite the garment.

Myth: FR garments are rigid and uncomfortable.

While this may have been true in the past, a variety of new flame-resistant fabrics are available today that include inherent blends and FR cotton blends offering superior comfort over those from decades ago.

Myth: “I don’t need FR clothing; I’ve never had an accident.”

Accidents can happen anytime, anywhere and to anybody, regardless of past performance. The use of FR clothing and other personal protective equipment is the last line of defense when these incidents occur.

Myth: FR clothing is too expensive.

While FR clothing may be priced higher than standard work clothing, the long-term benefits far outweigh the initial costs. Many FR garments have a significantly longer wear life than basic work clothing, providing a greater value on a cost per wear basis. But more importantly, if FR clothing saves one life, there is no cost too great.

Myth: Flame resistance doesn’t last. It washes out.

As long as the garments are laundered in accordance with the fabric manufacturer’s recommendations, the flame resistance will not wash out. It is important to note that some FR fabrics’ protective qualities may be compromised if laundered with certain chemicals, namely chlorine or hydrogen peroxide bleaches.

Myth: All FR fabrics are the same.

Some fabrics are inherently flame resistant, while others are specially treated to provide such protection. Different fabrics also provide different levels of protection against various hazards. It’s important to assess the workplace hazards and supply the appropriate fabric and garments to match the needs.

Myth: It’s perfectly safe while you’re working to roll up the sleeves of your FR clothing if you’re hot.

Unfortunately, this can be a dangerous misperception. FR clothing can only provide protection where it separates the wearer from the ignition source. If sleeves are rolled up or cut off, the exposed body parts are completely unprotected and will suffer the same injuries as if the garments had never been worn.

Some company policies may allow for employees to unbutton their shirts or roll up their sleeves when not working around energized parts or other potential ignition hazards.

Back to Contents

Ask A Tech Rep

ASME Pipe Marking Standard
Amy
Technical Representative

ASME A13.1, Scheme for Identification in Piping Systems was revised in 2007. What changed?
The updated ASME A13.1-2007 standard has been simplified by condensing parts, revising headers and adding a method of identification paragraph, plus the color scheme designations have been expanded to include six standard colors instead of four.

What are the suggested color schemes per ASME A13.1-2007?
The updated color combinations/ schemes are detailed in Table 2 of ASME A13.1-2007. See the Designation of Colors chart below.

What is the proper placement for pipe markings?
Labels should be positioned on the pipes so they can be easily read. Proper label placement is on the lower side of the pipe if employees have to look up to the pipe, on the upper side of the pipe if employees have to look down toward the pipe, or directly facing employees if on the same level as the pipe.

Labels should be located where branches, valves or a change in flow direction occurs, as well as on re-entry and entry points through walls or floors and on straight segments where spacing between pipe markers allows for easy identification.

Are there specific letter-size requirements?
Yes. The size of legend letters is detailed in Table 3 of ASME A13.1- 2007. See the Size of Legend Letters chart below.

Are particular shades of color suggested in ASME A13.1-2007?
Yes. The updated standard recommends the color code featured in the ANSI Z53.1, Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards. The color shades recommended are intended to give the highest level of recognition to employees with both normal and color-deficient vision.

How can I mark my high-temperature lines/pipes if the labels and markers won’t adhere?
For high temperatures (up to 1000ºF), LSS can special order porcelain enamel pipe markers. These are available for pipes that measure 3/4–2", 2 1/2–6" and 8–10" in diameter. Contact LSS Technical Support for pricing information by calling 1-800-356-2501.

Has this updated ASME A13.1-2007 standard been adopted by OSHA?
No. It is still considered an industry consensus standard, which is only a recommendation. Although this has not been specifically adopted by OSHA, industry consensus standards may be evidence that a hazard is “recognized” and there is a feasible means of correcting such a hazard. If you choose not to follow a consensus standard, it is possible to be cited under the General Duty Clause of the OSHA Act.

For more information on ASME Pipe Marking Standard, contact Safety TechLine® Technical Support at 1-800-356-2501 or via e-mail at techsvc@labsafety.com. Or visit us online at www.LSS.com.

Back to Contents

Worth Noting

Security: OSHA’s “Preparing and Protecting Security Personnel in Emergencies” publication addresses emergencies involving the release of hazardous substances and provides guidance for employers and their security personnel involved in the emergency response. Printed copies can be obtained by calling OSHA’s publication office at (202) 693-1888.

School Buses: A new federal proposal will require all new school buses to be equipped with 24"H seat backs, a 4" increase over the current 20"H seat backs. The proposal also requires all new small buses to be equipped with three-point seat belts and, for the first time, the proposed rule would provide federal standards for seat belts for large buses for school districts that make the decision to add them. Click here to access the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) online.

Mine Safety: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Office of Technical Support recently unveiled a prototype system to assist miners in evacuating an underground mine quickly and safely during a mine emergency. The prototype was a 42"-dia. concrete pipe with accessibility points with doors and vents along the pipe. Next, MSHA will be evaluating feedback and continuing testing.

Lead: The EPA has released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking early comments on policy options being considered as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead is reviewed. The EPA is required by a consent decree to issue a proposal regarding the lead standards by May 1, 2008, and to issue a final rule by Sept. 1, 2008. Click here for more information.

Hazards: Three new health hazard evaluation reports are available from NIOSH. Click here to download Evaluation of Exposure to Metalworking Fluids (MWFs); Evaluation of Noise Levels; and Evaluation of Work Stress.

Back to Contents

is published bi-monthly by LSS Inc., PO Box 1368, Janesville, Wisconsin 53547-1368.
's goal is to provide accurate information on the subject matter covered. However, it is impossible to guarantee absolute accuracy of the materials. The publisher, therefore, cannot assume any responsibility for omissions, errors or misprinting contained within this publication.
For additional information, call LSS's Safety TECHline® at 1-800-356-2501.