Join us for a free NIOSH Center for Workers' Compensation Studies (CWCS) webinar on Thursday, March 23, 12-1pm Eastern, in which CWCS will discuss proposed changes to improve workers' compensation patient encounters and care. Event Schedule (all times Eastern): 12:00-12:45pm: CWCS Presentation; 12:45-1:00pm: General Audience Q/A. Presentation Summary: In the US, every year there are more than one million workplace injuries or illnesses severe enough that days are lost from work. Injured workers require medical care and careful attention to factors that will help them recover their ability to work, but American medical practice focuses on disease diagnosis and treatment, with little attention paid to functional ability. In the workers' compensation arena, health care providers must address issues such as causation, functional impact and return-to-work planning, issues that are not represented in the most widely used payment systems, based on codes and coding rules designed for primary care and other group practice settings. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) supports modifying the rules for documentation of care in workers' compensation in order to provide reimbursement and other incentives to deliver care that adheres to best practices, including focus on assessing and improving patient function. The recommended changes include alternative ground rules for documentation and coding evaluation and management encounters, physician case management services and consultation services as they relate to workers' compensation care. These alternative rules may be adopted by states or payers seeking to realign incentives toward improved functional and clinical outcomes and decreased costs. Speakers include: Marianne Cloeren, MD, MPH, FACOEM DISCLOSURE: In compliance with continuing education requirements, all presenters must disclose any financial or other associations with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters as well as any use of unlabeled product(s) or product(s) under investigational use. CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. Presentations will not include any discussion of the unlabeled use of a product or a product under investigational use. CDC did not accept commercial support for this continuing education activity.
Mar 22, 2017
Mar 20, 2017
Mar 16, 2017
Database of hazardous reactions launched allows scientists to submit and search for safety information not publicly cataloged elsewhere
A nonprofit group today released a database tool chemists can use to share information about hazardous chemical reactions. Called the Chemical Safety Library, the tool was developed by a group that included representatives from pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions.
"We feel this will be a valuable and unique set of data that is currently not available and should advance safety for all researchers," says Carmen Nitsche, executive director for business development in North America at the Pistoia Alliance, which brings together companies, vendors, publishers, and academic groups to address research and development challenges in the life sciences industry.
The project started when chemists at Bristol-Myers Squibb were looking for a better way to catalog and share information about lab accidents and other adverse events. Eventually the project landed at Pistoia.
"I didn't know if we were going to get any interest" in putting together the library, says Mark Manfredi, a business capability manager at Bristol-Myers Squibb. "But right from the first meeting, we had several organizations that were interested in participating."
To use the Chemical Safety Library, chemists must first register for an account. They can then start entering reaction information, including specific reagents as well as reaction class, hazard category, scale, warning message, and additional information such as a literature reference. Pistoia worked with Millipore Sigma and Biovia to preload more than 75,000 reagents to help ensure accuracy. Library administrators review submitted reaction entries to ensure they are appropriate.
Chemists may search the library for particular reactions or reagents or even download the full data set. An organization could incorporate downloaded data into an electronic laboratory notebook system to issue an alert when a particular combination of reagents associated with a known hazard is entered. Bristol-Myers Squibb is already using the data in an electronic laboratory notebook system and an ordering system, Manfredi says.
Pistoia sees the current library tool as an experiment to gather information about the willingness of the community to populate and use the database, Nitsche says. Pistoia will analyze database use to determine the resources and technology needed to sustain the library long-term.
The library will be a "wonderful resource" for researchers to use as an additional source of information when doing hazard and risk assessments of experiments, comments Bettyann Howson, chair of the American Chemical Society's Committee on Chemical Safety. ACS also publishes C&EN. C&EN plans to encourage scientists who submit safety letters to also enter the information into the Chemical Safety Library.
Article By Jyllian Kemsley
Full credits to: Chemical & Engineering News American Chemical Society
Mar 15, 2017
(PAINT.ORG) Legislation seeking to significantly broaden chemicals management has been introduced in the Vermont House of Representatives. H.268, An Act Relating to the Regulation of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Materials, was introduced on Feb. 14, and would revise Vermont's chemical reporting law, including requiring reporting of all consumer products. The bill would create an electronic registry for Vermont, requiring industries to list chemical substance used in their products.
The chemicals management measure follows recommendations made by a chemical task force issued in a January 2017 report the legislature. The task force was established after a 2016 law mandated its formation. The law was enacted following the detection of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOA) in Bennington, Vt. drinking water.
In addition to the much broader chemical reporting, the bill provides for the elimination of the chemical ban veto power by the chemical task force, and an automatic 6-year ban of any reported chemical in children's product.
A companion chemicals management bill in the Senate, S.103 was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy.
The January-released recommendations of the 20-person chemical task force also included
Strengthening the community's "right-to-know" laws, as well as establishing legal recourse. As such, the legislation would also allow residents to sue ...read on at: http://www.paint.org/vermont-chemicals-management/
Mar 9, 2017
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP: In a wide ranging, 58-page petition criticizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) (and various state counterpart agencies') approach to the regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) under the Clean Water Act, nearly three dozen NGOs filed a petition on March 8, 2017 urging EPA to undertake comprehensive rulemaking to substantially revise its federal regulations on the subject. Among other things, the petition requests a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that all large CAFOs discharge pollutants to jurisdictional waters, which would directly conflict with controlling legal precedent regarding the limits of EPA's jurisdiction under the federal law. The petition also seeks a severe limitation of a statutory exemption for agricultural runoff caused by storm events, and the extension of the rule to hold so-called "integrators" responsible for discharges from unrelated contract livestock producers. The petition attempts to reignite the debate concerning the adequacy of EPA rules applicable to large livestock operations, a debate that has been the subject of prior court decisions at the federal circuit court of appeals level. The petition is unlikely to stir any interest in the Trump administration or EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt who recently vowed to return the agency to the "rule of order" and follow established court precedents and Congressional directives.
Large CAFOs are livestock operations that confine more than 1,000 animal units (a calculation of species-specific weight) for more than 45-days in any 12-month period. The recent trend in livestock production has been fewer farms that manage more animal numbers. This production method boasts management efficiencies as a result of scale, and proponents argue environmental impacts from livestock can be better managed via confinement and containment than rather dispersion across the country. This production method has brought with it opposition from those who live nearby the operations as well as those opposed to the scale of production.
The petition argues that substantial rule revisions are required to address everything from faulty manure storage and nutrient management technical standards to discharges of heavy metals and pharmaceuticals it alleges are present in livestock excrement. The petition alleges the federal response is needed to "fill the gaps" that state level permitting programs leave due to inadequate resources and permitting programs.
Read full and follow: Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Free @SafetyHealthMag Webinar - How to Get Employees to Stop Taking Unnecessary Risks with @tcmusick
Every organization is on a safety maturity curve, striving toward improved risk management and safety performance. To guide us along the journey and move us forward, we develop rules and regulations, implement processes and procedures, create safeguards and deliver training. Despite all of the systems, equipment and training, we are still willing to take risks. But, why do we take unnecessary risks? The answers lie in our motivations, our mindsets, and even in our emotions. New research in the areas of neuroscience and aﬀective psychology details the role that feelings and emotions play in our decision-making process.
Join DuPont Sustainable Solutions for "How to Get Employees to Stop Taking Unnecessary Risks" and discover how you can help improve employees' personal accountability for their safety.
This webinar will cover:
EPA Extends Comment Period for Proposed Rule to Add Natural Gas Processing Facilities to TRI Reporting
Mar 8, 2017
Mar 7, 2017
Mar 6, 2017
Mar 4, 2017
Radiation from the failed reactors at Fukushima is causing clean-up robots to malfunction and fail. Naohiro Masuda, head of decommissioning for Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the plant's operator, has called for the robots to be redesigned so they can withstand the lethal conditions inside the nuclear power plant.
Mar 2, 2017
Inspections: Preventing Slips, Trips, and Falls and Other Workplace Hazards
UL Environment, Green Electronics Council Unveil UL ECOLOGO/EPEAT Joint-Certification for Mobile Phones
Source: Green Electronics Council, 2/28/17.UL Environment, a business division of UL (Underwriters Laboratories), a global safety science leader, and the Green Electronics Council (GEC), managers of the EPEAT program, today announced a collaboration enabling mobile phones certified to the ANSI/UL 110 sustainability standard to also be featured on the EPEAT Registry, which is used by public and private institutional purchasers globally to identify and buy sustainable IT products. The UL ECOLOGO/EPEAT Joint Certification is now available for brands that wish to certify mobile phones to the latest version of the UL 110 standard and make them eligible for procurements and tenders that require EPEAT-registered products.
Read in browser »
Read in browser »
Mar 1, 2017
These initiatives and policies include President Trump's Jan. 30-issued Executive Order 1377, "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs," known as the '2 for 1': whenever an executive department or agency proposes a new regulation, it is to identify two existing regulations for repeal. According to the White House, the goal is to offset the number and cost of new regulations.
Each agency is to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations (as defined in section 4 of Executive Order 13771) and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. According the Executive Order, "Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda," at a minimum, each Regulatory Reform Task Force should identify regulations that:
(i) eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits; or
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
President Trump's '2 for 1' Executive Order
Under Executive Order 1377, in addition to identifying two regulations to be repealed for every new one, for fiscal year 2017, the total incremental cost of all new regulations should be zero, unless required by law or otherwise directed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Other pertinent points of Executive Order 1377:
- It applies to significant regulatory actions only (any that imposes an annual economic cost of $100 million or more, 1993 EO 12866);
- It does not apply to independent agencies; but independent agencies are encouraged to identify existing regulations to offset costs of new significant regulatory actions;
- Costs should be measured as opportunity costs to society, which is defined as "the net benefit [a] resource would have provided in the absence of the requirement";
- Agencies may not use previously calculated costs from Regulatory Impact Analyses for cost estimates, and must instead use "the most current information available"; and
- Guidance or interpretive documents may be addressed on case-by-case basis.