Category Archives: Uncategorized

NHCA Announcement OSHA Withdraws Proposed Interpretation

 

NHCA members: 

Over the past several months, we have followed and contributed to the debate around OSHA’s proposal to revert to the original interpretation and intent of the noise standard. This interpretation would require noise control (administrative or engineering) when economically and technologically feasible for employees exposed at or above the permissible exposure limit.  The basis for this more rigorous enforcement was the continuing occurrence of permanent, significant hearing loss in employees; the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported 125,000 such cases since 2004.

In response to certain reactions to this proposed interpretation, OSHA has withdrawn this proposal, as of January 19, 2011.  In their news release, they indicated that they were still committed to the goal of reducing the incidence of work-related hearing loss; they are suspending work on this policy modification while they study other approaches.

NHCA supported the proposed interpretation as a significant step towards our association’s primary mission: the prevention of hearing loss due to noise and other environmental factors in every sector of society.  We will continue to support OSHA’s efforts to address the issue of work-related hearing loss.

Laura Kauth, M.A., CCC-A

Director of Communications, NHCA

Noise Control: How to Plan for OSHA’s New Interpretation

Designing to achieve the desired reduction in noise without excessive capital cost and negative operational impact is often a delicate balance.

    * By Mike Taubitz
    * Jan 01, 2011

OSHA is making noise about noise and industrial employers need to be thinking about how they might retrofit plants as a result.

Industry has had nearly three decades of relative peace and quiet with its noise control programs. Since 1983, OSHA has typically not cited employers who deployed personal protective equipment and a hearing conservation program to address noise, rather than using engineering and administrative controls. The exceptions were for noise so loud that it borders on 100 dBA when the most effective hearing protection is used or in cases where the controls cost less than an effective hearing conservation program. In practice, controls are usually more expensive, so citations for failure to use them have been rare. However, that could change.

Employers in construction and general industry are likely to have a new category of expenses — and potential OSHA citations — to worry about if the agency’s “proposed interpretation” on noise regulations goes into effect.

That’s because OSHA now proposes to interpret 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) and 1926.52(b) as written.

These sections of the two noise standards are almost identical. They say, “When employees are subjected to sound exceeding those listed [in tables within the standard], feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of the tables, personal protective equipment . . . shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of the table.”

Click here for the remainder of the article.

Hollywood-style special effects give N.C. girl new ear

 

Photo from The Anaplastology Clinic.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010
(Updated 7:15 am)
By Lauran Neergaard
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Elise Lutz never let her friends see what was left of her ear.
She’d carefully style her long hair into a one-sided ponytail, or swelter under a swim cap for hours at meets, to cover the molten lump from a severe burn as a toddler in her native China.
But as a teenager, the North Carolina girl expressed her desire to be whole again with a simple request: She really wanted pierced earrings. Thus began a months-long quest for a new right ear, one made of silicone but so lifelike that it even glows a bit in the sun like real skin.
Elise benefited from a little known field called anaplastology, where medical artists make Hollywood-like special effects come alive to fix disfigurements that standard plastic surgery cannot.
“It kind of took forever, but it was worth it,” says Elise, 14, as she headed to show her transformation to her dad and sisters. “I’m so excited, I’m more than 100 excited.”
No messy glue-on prosthetic that she might accidentally knock off. Elise had tried that once and hated it. This time, she would go under the knife to have rods implanted in her skull to snap her new ear into place — and hold it even when this passionate swimmer dives into the pool.
“People who have implant-retained ears or noses or whatever usually think of them really as their own body,” says Jerry Schoendorf, who with his colleague at The Anaplastology Clinic in Durham, N.C., — and surgeons at nearby Duke University Medical Center — created Elise’s ear.
“It’s the Rolls Royce of what we can offer,” adds fellow anaplastologist Jay McClennen.
Facial prosthetics — made to counter damage from cancer, trauma, birth defects — haven’t gained the attention of artificial legs and arms. The specialists who craft them can be hard to find: The International Anaplastology Association counts just 150 members worldwide.
But facial prosthetics are becoming more realistic and longer-lasting, and Elise’s journey offers a glimpse of the tricks that help: Titanium rods adapted from dentistry that bond with bone to hold them in place. More flexible silicones. Even “flocking,” using those nylon particles that make the velvety insides of jewelry boxes can help give silicone “skin” more dimension — and not in flesh tones, but flecks of bright reds, plums, blues, oranges.
Patients “can’t believe all those colors go into making that skin,” says McClennen, who now fixes faces using techniques honed in previous careers to “age” actors in the movies, and in forensic reconstruction.
No one knows for sure how Elise was burned. Probably, boiling water sloshed down her head and right side, says Kim Williams of Wake Forest, N.C., who with her husband adopted Elise from a Chinese orphanage at age 9. Plastic surgery enabled hair to cover the scar-riddled right side of her scalp, a shield as Elise learned English and met new friends.
Plastic surgeons started but abandoned ear reconstruction. Prosthetics made to glue on daily are a more common option, especially for cancer patients whose doctors need to regularly check for recurrences. But that didn’t work for Elise. Her scars interfered with a straight fit, and crusty adhesive lined edges where she didn’t clean the prosthetic well enough.
Then Schoendorf suggested an implant-retained ear: It would cost about $8,000 to $10,000, nearly double an adhesive-retained prosthesis, plus surgery. But where a glue-on ear prosthetic might last about three years before wearing out, the implant-retained one should last twice as long, he says. Replacements will fit onto those same rods, making surgery a one-time hurdle.
In June, Schoendorf and McClennen made a precise mold of where a new ear implant would need to fit. With the residual ear tissue carefully removed, Duke otolaryngologist Dr. David Kaylie then drilled tiny titanium posts into Elise’s skull. They barely emerge from the skin.
Over the next few months, bone cells called osteoblasts will fuse with the titanium to anchor those rods, he told her.
“If you wiggle it while it’s healing, that prevents those osteoblasts from growing in,” Kaylie cautions. “They really have to keep their hands off.”
Back at The Anaplastology Clinic, McClennen was sculpting the ear that eventually would hook onto those rods with a mere three clicks. Elise’s has a bar on the back to snap it on; noses especially are starting to be made with magnets for attachment.
Coloring brings out the true art. In the 1990s, as part of a team working on movies like “Nixon” and “Legends of the Fall,” McClennen learned to impregnate colorless silicone with a mix of colors so the finished prosthetic required only thin glazing and not heavy paint. Harder acrylic threaded through the rubbery silicone like cartilage holds the retention bar and, with a technique gleaned at a cancer center in Toronto, McClennen used the right color to mimic that red glow when sunlight shines behind the ear.
Blending where the edges meet real skin is crucial, as is managing expectations, Schoendorf says: “As good as it is, it’s not perfect.”
The day before Thanksgiving, Elise’s new ear is ready to attach, complete with earring hole. She practices clicking it on, surprised that it’s easy, and smiles into the mirror, hair tucked back.
“This one looks fantastic,” she later proclaims.

Click here for article.

OSHA extends comment period and announces stakeholder meeting on noise control interpretation

OSHA announced in the Dec. 14 Federal Register that the agency is extending by 90 days the official comment period on the proposed “Interpretation of OSHA’s Provisions for Feasible Administrative or Engineering Controls of Occupational Noise.” Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments online, by mail or by fax by the March 21, 2011, deadline.
Responding to continuing high levels of hearing loss among employees in the nation’s workplaces, the notice proposed clarifying the term “feasible administrative or engineering controls” in OSHA’s occupational noise exposure standards to make enforcement consistent with that of all other OSHA standards. The agency will also hold a stakeholder meeting before the end of the comment period to listen to the concerns of businesses and workers about the proposed noise interpretation. See the news release for more information.
“We are intending to hold this stakeholder meeting before the comment period ends and it will provide an opportunity for all interested parties to provide their comments to the agency. Our common objective is to ensure that workers do not lose their hearing without overly burdening employers,” said OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels. “OSHA will take all stakeholder comments seriously and will fully consider impacts on business and workers before determining what final action, if any, we will take.”

Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Linked to Hearing Loss

By Deborah Huso Nov 18th 2010 12:46PM for AOL

While health professionals have long been touting the dangers of secondhand smoke, pointing out that even if you’re not a smoker yourself but hang out with someone who is, you could still suffer the consequences of repeated smoke inhalation. And if the fear of lung or heart disease isn’t enough to give you pause, a new study indicating secondhand smoke may also lead to hearing loss might.

Research published in the journal Tobacco Control suggests that nonsmokers who regularly inhale secondhand smoke could be increasing their risk of some hearing loss. While previous studies have already shown a link between smoking and hearing loss, this latest research out of Starkey Laboratories in Minnesota shows that former smokers as well as people who have never smoked but live among smokers could experience some degree of hearing loss related to past or present smoke inhalation. One in 10 nonsmokers who participated in the study exhibited low- to mid-frequency hearing loss, and one in four had high frequency hearing loss.

Study authors analyzed information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, relying on data between 1999 and 2004 on more than 3,000 adults, ages 20 to 69, all of whom had their hearing tested and were classified as passive smokers.

While researchers remain uncertain about what exactly is causing the hearing loss, there are some theories. Dr. Freedom Johnson, director of head and neck oncologic, reconstructive and cranial base surgery with MetroHealth in Cleveland, who reviewed this latest study, told AOL Health that it’s possible the hearing loss is a direct result of toxins from cigarette smoke that get into the bloodstream. However, he said the hearing damage could also occur because smoking can lead to heart disease, which often reduces blood flow to the inner ear.

This study is another thing that raises our awareness of the complications of smoking,” Johnson says. “And it may help us provide better counseling to patients who are already experiencing hearing loss about what could be causing it.”

What do you do if your spouse or friends smoke and you’re worried about secondhand exposure?

“It’s similar to having allergies to a pet,” Johnson says. “You don’t want to take the cat to the pound.” In other words, while you can’t be expected to move out of the house because your husband smokes, you can do things to reduce its impacts on your own health.

“If you can’t eliminate your exposure to the smoke, do everything else you can to maximize health,” Johnson advises. That includes eating right and exercising. “Try to counteract the adverse effects of secondhand smoke exposure as much as you can.”

Click link to read Fox News take on it.

Click here for another related article about kids in apartment buildings exposed to tobacco.

2011 NIOSH schedule from Workplace INTEGRA, Inc.

 

National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety

                                                                                                                                                                                      NIOSH Spirometry Initial Training

February 10-11, 2011
May 19-20, 2011
September 22-23, 2011
November 17-18, 2011

Description: http://www.workplaceintegra.com/trng-PFT.html

NIOSH Spirometry Refresher Training

April 15, 2010
October 21, 2010

Description: http://www.workplaceintegra.com/trng-PFT-refresher.html

All Spirometry Courses are held at the Greensboro, NC facility of Workplace INTEGRA, Inc.

A Statement from our Director of Audiology

    

The following is a reply to an existing client of Workplace INTEGRA, Inc by George Cook, Au.D. CCC-A on the topic of OSHA proposing a new interpretation of occupational noise exposure standards.

I wouldn’t want to minimize anything the Federal government and OSHA might do, but it doesn’t seem much more than what we had to deal with before 1983. At one time, NC OSHA issued a noise control citation to every company with noise requiring them to document a noise control compliance plan. Each plant would show evidence that they had investigated noise control on existing equipment. If the company could not engineer out the noise, some of the following was done.
1. Show evidence of investigations to apply practical noise control, as moving a trash hog out of the production area.
2. Contact industry associations to see what other’s have done with the equipment.
3. Write the manufacturer to see if anything was available and to what extent it would reduce employee exposure. 
4. Inform purchasing of the need to purchase the quietest equipment available and to place noise output specifications into the  purchase orders
5. Document any maintenance or engineering efforts that reduce noise exposure. This should be done even when the main purpose of the engineering or equipment removal or equipment relocation was not noise control.
6. Document the direct and indirect costs of all related efforts.
Each plant would have a Noise Control Compliance Plan documenting their efforts and costs, showing a good faith effort.

Please contact George Cook @ gcook@wpintegra.com with any questions or comments.

The following is a copy of the e-mail Workplace INTEGRA received from NIOSH:

National Institute for Occupational Health and SafetyThe NIOSH spirometry training program has received communications from partners and stakeholders regarding the deadline (Dec 30, 2010) for obtaining spirometry refresher training.  Companies who have been diligent about sending their personnel to our initial training in the past have had difficulties supporting their staff and provide for refresher training.  NIOSH wants to be responsive to the needs of all stakeholders and does not want to penalize the occupational medicine community who values the importance of proper training and your services.  Therefore, the training program has decided to extend the deadline for refresher training to December 31, 2012.  This does NOT affect the grandfathering of people who took their initial training prior to January 1, 2000.

Our office has posted the notice below on the NIOSH web site (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/training.html). We will also request the assistance of ATS, ACOEM, and AAOHN in alerting their memberships to this change, as they have graciously done in the past.
New Program Change: Extension of Spirometry Refresher Training Deadline
Technicians whose NIOSH-Approved Spirometry Course certificates are dated January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2007, are eligible to complete a NIOSH-Approved Spirometry Refresher Course by December 31, 2012, to maintain a valid NIOSH-Approved Spirometry Course certificate.
Technicians with NIOSH-Approved Spirometry Course certificates dated prior to January 1, 2000, are not eligible to take a NIOSH-Approved Spirometry Refresher Course.
Effective January 1, 2009, NIOSH changed the time limits on all certificates to 5 years from the course date. Previously awarded certificates are no longer valid indefinitely. Individuals who choose to have a valid NIOSH certificate must either take a NIOSH-Approved Spirometry Refresher Course before the certificate is invalidated or retake the initial Course.

OSHA seeks comments on its official interpretation of workplace noise exposure controls

OSHA issued a notice in the Oct. 19 Federal Register proposing to issue an interpretation of the term “feasible administrative or engineering controls” as used in the general industry and construction occupational noise exposure standards and to amend its current enforcement policy to reflect the interpretation. This change is intended to better protect the hearing of approximately 30 million workers who are exposed to hazardous noise each year.
OSHA’s noise standards specify that feasible administrative or engineering controls must be used to reduce noise to acceptable levels and that personal protective equipment, such as ear plugs and ear muffs, must be used only as supplements when administrative or engineering controls are not completely effective. The preference for engineering and administrative controls over personal protective equipment is consistent with the approach taken in all of OSHA’s health standards and reflects the fact that such controls are generally more effective. Under the agency’s current enforcement policy, however, the agency issues citations for failure to use engineering and administrative controls only when they cost less than a hearing conservation program or such equipment is ineffective.
Noise overexposure is often ignored because the harmful effects are typically not visible and develop over an extended period of time. Workers exposed to high noise levels can develop elevated blood pressure, ringing in the ears or permanent hearing loss.
OSHA proposes to interpret the term “feasible” in conformity with its ordinary meaning and with the safety and health purposes of the OSH Act. The Supreme Court has held that the term “feasible” as used in the standard-setting provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act means “capable of being done.” The proposal aligns the interpretation of the noise standard with the Court’s holding and with OSHA’s other standards that require feasible engineering controls. OSHA proposes to interpret the term “feasible” in its ordinary meaning of “capable of being done.” OSHA intends to change its noise enforcement policy to authorize issuing citations requiring the use of administrative and engineering controls whenever feasible.
Comments on the proposed interpretation should be submitted before the Dec. 20 deadline either online, by mail or by fax. See the Federal Register notice for more information.

The National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) is pleased to announce that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has declared its intention to change its current policy on compliance with the noise standard, 29 CFR 1910.95.

The NHCA is a national non-profit professional association whose mission is to prevent hearing loss due to noise and other environmental factors in all sectors of society.  Its members include audiologists, industrial hygienists, nurses, physicians, and engineers.
 
OSHA published a notice in the Federal Register on Tuesday October 19th, 2010 stating its purpose to clarify the definition of the word feasible to reflect its plain meaning, capable of being done, making the enforcement of the noise standard consistent with the Agency’s approach to all other health and safety standards.   Section (b)(1) of the noise standard requires employers to use feasible engineering or administrative controls for workers exposed to time-weighted average noise levels above 90 dBA.  For many years, however, feasible has been interpreted by the Agency in an economic, cost-benefit sense rather than its plain meaning.  The result has been that OSHA has not enforced the requirement for engineering or administrative controls.
 
Since 1983 OSHA has held noise exposed workers to a double standard in that this is the only health or safety standard where OSHA used this methodology.  Simply by issuing a policy statement, OSHA has allowed employers to expose workers to time-weighted average levels of 100 dBA before requiring engineering or administrative controls, and even at that excessive noise level the requirements have rarely been enforced.
 
NHCA has communicated its position to OSHA over several years: that the existing policy is harmful to noise exposed workers and is of questionable legality since it was issued without benefit of rule making.
 
The popular assumption has been that the other components of hearing conservation programs, such as hearing protection devices, audiometric testing, and training requirements would be sufficient to prevent hearing loss.  Although these elements are helpful, they are not as effective as engineering noise control and they are not enough.  They are often inadequate and poorly administered, with the result that thousands of workers are losing their hearing every year.  In addition, the other adverse effects of noise, including safety hazards and interference with communication and warning signals need to be addressed through engineering controls.
 
In this notice, OSHA gives the legal justification for its intention to enforce the noise standard’s requirements for engineering and administrative controls above the 90 dBA permissible exposure level when technologically feasible and in economic circumstances that do not threaten an employer’s ability to stay in business.
 
American workers exposed to hazardous levels of noise have been treated unfairly for more than 25 years.  NHCA is gratified that the current OSHA administration has chosen to rectify this problem, and we look forward to continuing our work with OSHA to protect the hearing health of American workers.
 
For comments and questions regarding this Press Release:
Contact: Erin Erickson, National Hearing Conservation Association
Email: nhcaoffice@hearingconservation.org

 
Click here to review the FR Notice Noise-Eng Controls, 10/19/2010

Click here to review Trade Release: OSHA Seeks Comments on its Official Interpretation of Workplace Noise Exposure Controls