Severe Work-Related Injuries in the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry - 32 Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Jurisdictions, United States, January 2015-July 2022.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) severe injuries reports include work-related injuries from establishments under federal OSHA jurisdiction that result in an amputation, loss of an eye, or inpatient hospitalization. Data from 32 jurisdictions were examined to determine oil and gas extraction industry-specific severe industry trends during January 2015-July 2022, using the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for oil and gas extraction. During this period, a total of 2,101 severe work-related injuries were reported in this sector. Among these severe work-related injuries, well service contract workers' injuries included the highest number of amputations (417) and hospitalizations (1,194), accounting for 20% and 57%, respectively, of all severe injuries reported. Overall, 895 (43%) of all severe injuries reported involved upper extremities. Contract workers in the service and drilling subindustries (NAICS codes 213112 and 213111, respectively) experienced disproportionately more work-related injuries compared with those in the operation subindustry (NAICS code 211). These injuries could be preventable by including contractors in worksite safety plans that administer the hierarchy of controls, are within an effective safety management system, and provide consistent safety training on work equipment, personal protective equipment, and daily site safety meetings that increase safety culture.

Evaluation of the characteristics of injured workers and employer compliance with OSHA's reporting requirement for work-related amputations.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enacted a standard requiring employers to report work-related amputations to OSHA within 24 hours. We studied the characteristics of the injured workers and employer compliance with the regulation in Michigan. METHODS: Two independent data sets were used to compare work-related amputations from 2016 to 2018: employer reports to OSHA and the Michigan Multi-Source Injury and Illness Surveillance System (MMSIISS). We deterministically linked employer reports to OSHA with the MMSIISS by employee name, employer name, date, and type of amputation. RESULTS: We identified 1366 work-related amputations from 2016 to 2018; 575 were reported by employers to OSHA and 1153 were reported by hospitals to the MMSIISS. An overlap of 362 workers were reported in both systems, while 213 workers were only reported by employers to OSHA and 791 workers were only reported by hospitals. Employer compliance with the regulation was 42.1%. Employer compliance with reporting was significantly less in: agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (14.6%); construction (27.4%); retail trade (20.7%); arts, entertainment, and recreation (7.7%); accommodation and food services (13.0%); and other services (27.0%). Large employers and unionized employers were significantly more likely (67.9% and 92.7%, respectively) and small employers were significantly less likely (18.2%) to comply with the reporting rule. Enforcement inspections at 327 workplaces resulted in 403 violations; of those, 179 (54.7%) employers had not corrected the amputation hazard before the time of inspection. DISCUSSION: Michigan employers reported less than half of the work-related amputations required by OSHA's reporting regulation. Noncompliance was greatest in small employers, and agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; construction; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and retail and other service industries. Inspections found that over half of the employers had not corrected the hazard that caused the amputation at the time of the inspection's initial opening date; in these cases, abatement of any hazards identified would have occurred after the inspection. Improved compliance in employer reporting of work-related amputations will identify hazards posing a high risk of recurrence of injury to other workers from the same injury source. Greater compliance can also help target safety-related preventive and intervention efforts in industries that might otherwise be overlooked.

Occupational exposures to asbestos in the steel industry: An analysis of the AISI sampling campaign (1989-1997).

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) gathered data between 1989 and 1997 to build an "objective database" to further understand the occupational exposures generated by the few asbestos-containing materials remaining at various steelmaking companies at this time. This paper analyzed the 520 samples from this campaign which occurred at five different steel manufacturers: Georgetown Steel Company, Inland Steel Company, Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, and Weirton Steel Corporation. This database is believed to have never previously been systematically organized. Samples were grouped based on sampling times to determine whether they should most appropriately be compared to the OSHA short-term excursion limit (EL) or the 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL). Sampling times of 30 min or less were considered short-term samples, and samples of 180 min or greater were considered representative workday samples. Samples that did not fit into either category, with sampling times between 31 and 179 min, were considered task samples. Overall, the data indicated that the airborne concentrations were quite low in 1989 and they continued to be low through the study period which ended in 1997. Only seven out of 286 (approximately 2.5%) short-term or representative workday samples were in exceedance of the current OSHA OELs that were implemented in 1994 (short-term samples being compared to the 1 f/cc EL and representative workday samples being compared to the 0.1 f/cc 8-hr TWA PEL). Consistent with prior data, analysis of this dataset supports the view that materials containing asbestos were not used in many applications in the steel industry, and measured airborne concentrations of asbestos were almost always below the occupational exposure limits (OELs) in the post-OSHA era (1972-2000).

Evaluation of the characteristics of workers injured on the job requiring hospitalization, and employer compliance with OSHA's reporting requirement for these work-related hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implemented a new standard in 2014 requiring employers to report nearly all work-related inpatient hospitalizations within 24 h of the event. We examined the characteristics of the injured workers who were reported and the compliance of Michigan employers with the regulation. METHODS: From 2016 to 2018, we compared reports of acute nonmotor-vehicle work-related injuries and illnesses from two independent datasets, employer reports to OSHA and the Michigan Multi-Source Injury and Illness Surveillance System (MMSIISS) which collects injured worker hospital records from the 134 hospitals in Michigan. We matched records from employer reports to OSHA with the MMSIISS by employee's first and last name, company name, date of injury/illness, and type of injury/illness. RESULTS: We identified 2887 workers hospitalized with severe injuries/illnesses from 2016 to 2018 in Michigan; 1260 workers were reported by employers to OSHA and 2238 workers were reported by hospitals to the MMSIISS. There was an overlap of 611 workers reported in both systems, while 649 workers were only reported by employers to OSHA and 1627 workers were only reported by hospitals to the MMSIISS. Employer compliance with the regulation over the 3 years showed a nonsignificant increase; from 42.0% to 43.6% to 45.0%. Fractures were the most frequent type of injury (1238, 42.9%), then head injuries, including skull fractures (470, 16.3%). The median length of hospital stay was 3 days. Manufacturing (709, 25.5%) and construction (563, 20.3%), accounted for the greatest number of hospitalizations. Employer-reported cases to OSHA significantly undercounted hospitalized workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; construction; finance and insurance; real estate and rental and leasing; administrative and support and waste management and remediation services; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services except public administration. Companies with 250 or more employees were significantly more likely to comply and small companies with 10 or fewer employees were significantly less likely to comply with the reporting rule. Enforcement inspections at 465 of the workplaces where a hospitalization had occurred resulted in $1,017,835 in fines and identified 608 violations. Of the 465 inspections, 246 (52.9%) of the employers had not corrected the hazard before the inspection. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that workers sustained severe injuries and illnesses on the job and that over half of the companies where a worker suffered an injury/illness leading to hospitalization were not in compliance with OSHA's reporting regulation. Furthermore, at the time of an inspection 1-5 months later, 50% of the companies had not corrected the hazard causing the hospitalization. Improvement in the reporting of work-related injuries/illnesses that result in hospitalization will identify more ongoing hazards in the workplace and improve where to focus preventive actions.

Reports to OSHA of severe occupational injuries due to animals, 2015-2021.

BACKGROUND: Workers can be injured by animals such as mammals and insects. Previous studies found that most animal-related occupational fatalities were caused by horses and cattle. We analyzed characteristics of recent nonfatal severe animal-related injuries in US workers. METHODS: The severe injury reports (SIR) database, collected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, contains employer self-reports of inpatient hospitalizations and amputations. We used 2015-2021 SIR data to assess properties of animal-related injuries, including the type of animal involved, the nature of the injury, and the industry of the employer. Industry-specific incidence rates were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 788 severe animal-related injuries during the 7-year study period. Mammals caused over half of these injuries (476; 60.4%), followed by insects, arachnids, and mites (183; 23.2%) and reptiles (127; 16.1%). Two-thirds (529; 67.1%) of animal-related injuries were traumatic, while 211 (28.0%) injuries were due to poisoning or allergic reaction. The highest observed incidence was in livestock merchant wholesalers (59.6 severe injuries per 100,000 workers per year); injuries in this industry were often due to cattle. Mail delivery and landscape architecture, two industries in which animal contact is atypical, were also among the 10 industries with the highest incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Workers in many industries experienced severe injuries due to animals. Among workers whose job involves animal contact, cattle workers appear to be at highest risk. Outdoor workers in some industries require protection from bites of dogs, snakes, and insects.

TSCA risk evaluation-directed characterization of occupational exposures during formaldehyde manufacturing, use as an intermediate, and compounding of formaldehyde-based polymers.

In 2020, the U.S. EPA initiated TSCA risk evaluations for 20 High Priority chemicals, as required by the Lautenberg Act. In addition to consumer exposures, the evaluations include quantitative assessments of worker exposures, hazards and risk. The EPA evaluations of worker exposures, and authority over corrective action to address unacceptably high workplace exposures, overlap OSHA's authority for regulating workplace exposures. This dual federal regulatory authority for risk evaluation and risk management, presents new challenges for industrial hygienists, exposure/risk assessors, and risk managers. One of the chemicals identified as High Priority by the EPA is formaldehyde. In response to these challenges, Celanese supplemented its regular OSHA compliance sampling for formaldehyde with a one-time comprehensive sampling at our sole U.S. formaldehyde manufacturing facility. The sampling characterized all worker populations at the facility, including office workers. Although the EPA assessment is ongoing and may reach different conclusions related to an acceptable exposure limit, 126 full-shift monitoring results demonstrated compliance with the OSHA Formaldehyde Standard (29 CRF 1910.1048) for health protection. Methodologies used to identify workers for exposure monitoring, to characterize multiple EPA-specified worker populations, as well as potential challenges related to the dual regulatory authority for assessing and managing worker exposures are discussed.

Analysis of biomonitoring data to assess employer compliance with OSHA's permissible exposure limits for air contaminants.

BACKGROUND: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates exposures to hazardous chemicals in workplace air. When contemporaneous exposure measurements are unavailable, retrospective analysis of biomarkers could provide valuable information about workers' exposures. METHODS: Single-compartment pharmacokinetic (PK) models were created to relate the concentration of a chemical in the air to the concentration of the chemical or its metabolite in workers' blood or urine. OSHA utilized the PK models in investigations of three fatal incidents in which workers were exposed to nickel carbonyl, methyl bromide, or styrene. To obtain the minimum plausible estimate of each exposure, OSHA used conservative assumptions about parameters such as workers' inhalation rates, baseline levels of biomarker, and chemicals' volumes of distribution. RESULTS: OSHA analyzed a worker's urinary nickel concentration and concluded that his 8-h time-weighted average exposure to nickel carbonyl was at least 0.06 mg/m3 . Analysis of a worker's postexposure, premortem blood bromide level revealed that his exposure to methyl bromide was at least 181 mg/m3 . Post-mortem blood styrene measurements suggested that a third worker's exposure to styrene was at least 625 mg/m3 . These exposures exceeded OSHA's permissible exposure limits of 0.007 mg/m3 for nickel carbonyl, 80 mg/m3 for methyl bromide, and 426 mg/m3 for styrene. OSHA successfully cited the three employers for violations of chemical exposure limits. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of biomarkers via PK modeling enables retrospective evaluations of workers' acute exposures to hazardous chemicals. These techniques are useful to occupational regulators who assess employer compliance with mandatory exposure limits.

A Call for Increased Focus on Reproductive Health within Lab Safety Culture.

The approach to reproductive health and safety in academic laboratories requires increased focus and a shift in paradigm. Our analysis of the current guidance from more than 100 academic institutions' Chemical Hygiene Plans (CHPs) indicates that the burden to implement laboratory reproductive health and safety practices is often placed on those already pregnant or planning conception. We also found inconsistencies in the classification of potential reproductive toxins by resources generally considered to be authoritative, adding further confusion. In the interest of human health and safe laboratory practice, we suggest straightforward changes that institutions and individual laboratories can make to address these present deficiencies: Provide consistent and clear information to laboratory researchers about reproductive health and normalize the discussion of reproductive health among all researchers. Doing so will promote safer and more inclusive laboratory environments.

Silica: a lung carcinogen.

Silica has been known to cause silicosis for centuries, and evidence that silica causes lung cancer has accumulated over the last several decades. This article highlights 3 important developments in understanding the health effects of silica and preventing illness and death from silica exposure at work. First, recent epidemiologic studies have provided new information about silica and lung cancer. This includes detailed exposure-response data, thereby enabling the quantitative risk assessment needed for regulation. New studies have also shown that excess lung mortality occurs in silica-exposed workers who do not have silicosis and who do not smoke. Second, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration has recently proposed a new rule lowering the permissible occupational limit for silica. There are approximately 2 million US workers currently exposed to silica. Risk assessments estimate that lowering occupational exposure limits from the current to the proposed standard will reduce silicosis and lung cancer mortality to approximately one-half of the rates predicted under the current standard. Third, low-dose computed tomography scanning has now been proven to be an effective screening method for lung cancer. For clinicians, asking about occupational history to determine if silica exposure has occurred is recommended. If such exposure has occurred, extra attention might be given to the early detection of silicosis and lung cancer, as well as extra emphasis on quitting smoking.

The pragmatic use of industrial elastomeric facemasks in health care practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced health care workers to explore alternative personal protective equipment (PPE) strategies due to traditional product shortages in the setting of increased global demand. Some physicians have chosen to use elastomeric face masks (EFMs), traditionally used in non-healthcare industries. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians working at a Level 1 Trauma Center who chose to use self-supplied EFMs for PPE. All subjects used commercial EFMs with disposable filters (N95, P95, or P100). All subjects chose their mask size independently with no input from employee health regarding appropriate fit. Per study protocol, subjects were fit tested periodically during clinical shifts over the course of the 6-week study period. All investigators performing fit testing underwent OSHA qualitative fit testing training. Data collected included mask/filters age, subjective assessment of mask seal quality, and fit test results. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 105 fit tests were performed on physicians wearing EFMs over the course of 49 shifts. Physicians felt their fit was adequate for all tests performed. There were no fit test failures in any subjects. CONCLUSIONS: EFMs have an extremely low failure rate. Physicians are able to assess the adequacy of fit and accurately choose EFM size.

Beyond descriptive statistics: using additional analyses to determine the technological feasibility of meeting a new exposure limit.

In determining whether a new permissible exposure limit is technologically feasible, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and various courts have used poorly defined criteria such as whether "most employers most of the time" are able to comply with a standard. This vague definition creates problems when employers try to determine the best way to protect their workers and estimate the costs to remain in compliance with the permissible exposure limit. This article proposes a more rigorous approach to determine feasibility. By utilizing the best available statistical methods, employers and rule makers can better understand the variability within existing exposure data to determine the feasibility of new exposure limits. There are several readily available statistical tools that can be used for this purpose. To illustrate these techniques, a subset of data from the foundry industry and analysis from the OSHA respirable crystalline silica rulemaking proceeding are compared to methods published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in 1977 and a more sophisticated Bayesian approach. The results of this analysis suggest that complying with a new permissible exposure limit is more challenging than what is implied by OSHA's analysis, and calls into question its method of determining compliance. In the same vein, OSHA should move away from assessing compliance based on individual measurements and instead use a statistical approach to determine if a workplace is in compliance. These changes will encourage employers to better characterize occupational exposures, and will ultimately lead to better protection for employees while also providing employers protection from violations due to one-off overexposures.

Particle-phase collection efficiency of the OVS and IFV Pro personal pesticide samplers.

The inhalable aerosol sampling criterion has been developed to characterize the efficiency of particles entering the nose and/or mouth. However, pesticides can exist in the air in both vapor and particulate phases, which complicates exposure assessments. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has established an IFV (inhalable fraction and vapor) endnote for chemicals such as many pesticides that need to be evaluated for both their inhalable fraction and vapor concentrations to fully characterize worker exposures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the particle-phase collection efficiency of a commonly-used pesticide sampler, the OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS) as well as a recently developed sampler, the IFV Pro. The OVS was not designed as an inhalable aerosol sampler, whereas the IFV Pro contains a sampling head scaled to that of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) sampler, which is known to closely follow the inhalable sampling criterion. Laboratory experiments involving a vertical-flow, low-velocity scheme, and finely graded test dusts with known median aerodynamic diameter were used to determine sampler collection efficiencies. The collection efficiency of the OVS was evaluated as recommended by the manufacturer and after two modifications made to potentially improve its collection efficiency. The OVS was found to substantially under-sample relative to the inhalable criterion, and the two modifications did not provide substantial improvements to the original configuration. Conversely, the collection efficiency of the IFV Pro was found to compare closely to that of the IOM, although collecting 9% more mass. When applied side-by-side with the OVS sampler in a chamber into which ethylene glycol was sprayed as a proxy for a pesticide, the IFV Pro collected an average of 1.9-fold more mass than the OVS for the same flow rate and sample time.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 50: Protecting Workers in a Changing Economy.

The passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 brought unprecedented changes in US workplaces, and the activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have contributed to a significant reduction in work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. Despite this, millions of workers are injured annually, and thousands killed.To reduce the toll, OSHA needs greater resources, a new standard-setting process, increased civil and criminal penalties, full coverage for all workers, and stronger whistleblower protections. Workers should not be injured or made sick by their jobs. To eliminate work injuries and illnesses, we must remake and modernize OSHA and restructure the relationship of employers and workers with the agency and each other.This includes changing the expectation of what employers must do to protect workers and implementing a requirement that firms have a "duty of care" to protect all people who may be harmed by their activities. Only by making major changes can we ensure that every worker leaves work as healthy as they were when their work shift began.

A Short History of Occupational Safety and Health in the United States.

As this short history of occupational safety and health before and after establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) clearly demonstrates, labor has always recognized perils in the workplace, and as a result, workers' safety and health have played an essential part of the battles for shorter hours, higher wages, and better working conditions. OSHA's history is an intimate part of a long struggle over the rights of working people to a safe and healthy workplace. In the early decades, strikes over working conditions multiplied. The New Deal profoundly increased the role of the federal government in the field of occupational safety and health. In the 1960s, unions helped mobilize hundreds of thousands of workers and their unions to push for federal legislation that ultimately resulted in the passage of the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. From the 1970s onward, industry developed a variety of tactics to undercut OSHA. Industry argued over what constituted good science, shifted the debate from health to economic costs, and challenged all statements considered damaging.

Uninvestigated fatal workplace injuries in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5000 people are killed by an injury at work every year, but the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) only investigates 25%-35% of these deaths. The aim of this study was to identify industry, geographic, and worker demographic disparities in the proportion of fatal workplace injuries that are investigated by OSHA. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis drew from 2 years of public data (2014-2015) from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries and investigation data from OSHA. Differences by worker age and sex, geographic region, industry, and State Plan- versus Federal Plan-state were examined. RESULTS: Nationally, OSHA investigated about one in four (27.5%) of the 9657 fatal workplace injuries that occurred. Higher odds of uninvestigated fatalities were observed for female workers compared to male workers (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.89, 2.93), for workers over age 65 compared to those aged 18-24 (3.05; 2.44, 3.82), for worker deaths occurring in State Plan states compared to Federal Plan states (1.64; 1.49, 1.79), among other differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although some of the disparities could be explained by OSHA jurisdiction restrictions, other areas of potential reform were identified, such as investigating a greater number of workplace violence deaths and increasing focus in industries with a low proportion of investigations but a high number of fatalities, such as transportation and warehousing. Consideration should be given to adapt policies, expand OSHA jurisdiction, and to increase OSHA resources for conducting both fatality investigations and proactive investigations that can identify and abate hazards before a worker is injured.

Estimation of the number of workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica by industry: Analysis of OSHA compliance data (1979-2015).

BACKGROUND: Respirable crystalline silica (RCS) can potentially cause silicosis, lung cancer, and renal failure. The current study estimates the percentages of workers potentially overexposed to concentrations of RCS dust and silicosis proportional mortality rates (PMRs) by industry. METHODS: Occupational Safety and Health Administration compliance inspection sampling data for RCS collected during 1979 to 2015 were used to estimate percentages of workers exposed. The results were used in combination with US Census Bureau estimates to produce industry specific worker population estimates for 2014. Estimates of the numbers and percentages of workers exposed to RCS concentrations at least 1, 2, 5, and 10 times the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended exposure limit (REL) were calculated by industry using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System. Silicosis PMRs by industry were estimated using National Center for Health Statistics multiple cause of death data. RESULTS: RCS concentrations/workers exposed were highest in the poured concrete foundation and structure contractors; commercial and institutional building construction; and masonry contractors. Approximately 100 000 workers were exposed above the RCS REL, and most (79%) worked in the construction industry. Tile and terrazzo contractors (12%); brick, stone, and related construction merchant wholesalers (10%); masonry contractors (6%) and poured concrete foundation and structure contractors (6%) were the highest percentages of workers potentially overexposed. PMRs were highest for the structural clay product manufacturing and the foundries industries. CONCLUSION: Percentages of workers exposed to RCS varied by industry and in some industries workers are exposed over 10 times the REL. Exposures can be reduced below the REL by implementing the hierarchy of controls.

Analysis of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise standard violations over 50 years: 1972 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Noise exposure has long been an occupational health concern and has been an important area of focus of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) since its founding. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what effects OSHA's noise standards have had on employer efforts to reduce risks. Consequently, a review of OSHA noise standard violations was performed to clarify the violation trends between 1972 and 2019. METHODS: Using the OSHA Information System, researchers identified 119 305 violations involving four noise standards between 1972 and 2019: 29 CFR 1910.95, occupational noise exposure in general industry; 1926.52, occupational noise exposure in construction; 1926.101, hearing protection in construction, and 1904.10, recording criteria for cases involving occupational hearing loss. Violation frequencies of noise standard subparagraphs and relationships to factors such as industry differences were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t tests. RESULTS: The most commonly violated noise standard was 1910.95 in manufacturing. Such violations rose between 1972 and 1985 and then declined steadily. Whether in general industry or construction, four noise standards were most-frequently cited: lack of feasible administrative or engineering controls (1910.95[b] and 1926.52[d]) and inadequate hearing conservation program (1910.95[c] and 1926.52[b]). These violations were more highly penalized (mean = $1036.50) than other subparagraph violations (mean = $915.80). Programmed and unprogrammed inspections generated similar violation quantities except between 1980 and 1985, when programmed inspections exhibited a sharp spike in violations. CONCLUSION: The study identified trends in OSHA noise standard violations and possible explanations for those trends. The study findings can support development of more practical noise-exposure protection policy.

Too loud? Do powered hand dryers violate federal noise exposure standards?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if high-powered air hand dryers produce sufficient noise to warrant concern over acoustic trauma as determined by federally established standards. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational field data collection SETTING: Urban and suburban community SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Using a NIOSH developed and calibrated soundmeter app, powered hand dryers were measured throughout two metropolitan areas. Ear level measurements were performed while drying wet hands. Recorded variables included average LAeq, Time-Weighted Average, Max and Peak Levels, Noise Dose, and Projected Dose according to NIOSH and OSHA standards, and all three major weighting networks (A, C, and Z). RESULTS: Fifty-four trials were performed at 27 locations. Average dryer run time was 28.9 s (range 14-45 s). Average LAeq (dBA), average maximum level (dBA), and average TWA (dBA) were 90.46 ± 5.32, 94.86 ± 5.73, 59.90 ± 6.80, respectively. The noise generated exceeded published manufacturer specifications. However, even with estimated cumulative daily exposure, the noise generated by these dryers did not exceed federal safety standards. CONCLUSIONS: Air-powered hand dryers produce noise output at a level that many would find subjectively uncomfortable with some brands/models consistently producing noise in excess of 90 dBA. Nonetheless, these dryers do not produce sound exceeding NIOSH standards for noise exposure.

OSHA Voluntary Respirator Use: Challenges incurred with use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article discusses several lessons learned in dealing with the interpretation of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Voluntary Use provision of the Respiratory Health Standard at health-care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. This includes (but is not limited to) (a) confusion about OSHA policy and procedures when health-care workers brought outside personal protective equipment (PPE; N95 filtering facepiece respirators) into the workplace; (b) challenges in adhering to guidelines stated in Appendix D of the Respiratory Protection Standard; (c) difficulty in achieving respirator fit testing for workers; and (d) vague or inconsistent determination of "non-hazardous" environments (concerning COVID-laden droplets and aerosols). The purpose was to identify gaps in knowledge to help policy makers, enforcement personnel, safety managers, and health-care workers in the United States prepare for similar future events involving PPE shortages.

Current understanding and future directions for an occupational infectious disease standard.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has demonstrated a need for an infectious disease standard that will promote a safe and healthy work environment and assure business continuity. The current pandemic has revealed gaps in workplace preparedness and employee protections to microbial exposures. Federal and state government agencies have responded by providing interim guidelines and stop-gap measures that continue to evolve and vary in approach and required controls. This interim and inconsistent approach has resulted in confusion on the part of businesses as they work toward reopening during the pandemic and uncertainty as to the efficacy of required or suggested controls. Moving forward, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, with guidance from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, should establish consistent and effective strategies through a nationwide standard to address the potential microbial exposures in the workplace. Such a standard will require effective worker protections from infectious diseases and assure business continuity.