Docstoc

March 2011

Document Sample
March 2011 Powered By Docstoc
					                                   March 2011

                                       Table Of Contents
1.    Welcoming Our New 2011 NSMS Members
      FREE ACCESS: Online Certified Safety and Health Manager (CSHM) Educational and Exam
2.
      Preparation Reference Materials
3.    College Outreach Initiative Launched
      “Enhancing Safety Management Skills, Knowledge & Abilities (SKAs): 2-Day Professional
4.
      Development Workshop”
      The ISHM “Certified Safety and Health Manager” (CSHM)
5.
      Accreditation Has Been Achieved!
      NSMS’ “Certified Safety Supervisor (CSS)” Credential Now Accepted Towards
6.
      Associate Safety Health Manager (ASHM) Qualification
7.    If Government Shuts Down, Some Regulations Can Be Published
8.    OSHA's Top 10
9.    OSHA Withdraws Proposed Noise Interpretation Change
10.   OSHA Proposes Requiring Employers to Track MSDs
11.   OSHA Updates Enforcement Guidance for PPE
12.   DOT Issues Tougher Hazmat Shipping Rule
13.   OSHA Web Chat Puts Focus on Injury and Illness Prevention Program
14.   ASSE Share Views, Support on OSHA’s I2P2 Standard
15.   What's in Your Safety Program?
16.   Campaign Puts Focus On Distracted Driving
17.   Evaluating Job Offers: Give Prospective Employers a Thorough ‘Reference Check’
18.   The Seven Safety Virtues
19.   Put a Stop to Repeat Accidents
20.   Lessons Learned: Rochester Pizza Dough Maker Hit With OSHA Fines
21.   Lessons Learned: OSHA Proposes Steep Fine for New York Foundry
22.   Lessons Learned: Family of Dayton Man Suffocated by Machinery Gets $4.3 Million Verdict
23.   Lessons Learned: WC Benefits for Horseplay Injuries? You've Got to Be Kidding!
24.   Safety Training Strategies: More Than Words: Tips for Training Trainers
25.   Safety Tidbits
Welcoming Our New 2011 NSMS Members

On behalf NSMS President Roosevelt, the NSMS Executive Committee and the NSMS Board of Directors,
we like to thank all members who have proactively renewed their 2011 National Safety Management
Society memberships. We would also like to acknowledge, recognize and welcome the following new
members to our professional organization:

    Harold L. Allen, Safety Instructor – Canada & Associates Safety Training
     (Abilene, Texas)
    Richard T. Dunn, Safety, Health and Environment Manager – SeaRiver
     Maritime, Inc. (Houston, Texas)
    Stacey L. Irvine, University Environmental Health and Safety Coordinator
     – Pace University (Elmsford, New York)
    Ralph (Doug) Jarrett, Safety Director – Brown Electric Company (Dunbar,
     West Virginia)
    Michael T. Lescallette, Safety Coordinator – Equipment and Controls,
     Inc. [ECI], (Monessen, Pennsylvania)
    Lee A. Tufte, CSR – Como Oil and Propane (Duluth, Minnesota)
We appreciate your interest in furthering your skills, knowledge and abilities in the management of
safety and risks, as well as your interest to networking and continued professional development.
Welcome again to NSMS!



Members’ Accomplishments and Special Recognitions
NOTE: If any current or new NSMS member would like to share his/her special accomplishments
and/or recognition awards, please send those announcements to nsmsinc@yahoo.com and we will
gladly publish them and celebrate together! A photo is optional.


FREE ACCESS: Online Certified Safety and Health Manager (CSHM) Educational and
Exam Preparation Reference Materials
As a benefit for our current and future dues-paying members, NSMS is permanently offering free
access to the Certified Safety and Health Manager (CSHM) preparation and educational materials.
The online resources, created by NSMS member Steve Geigle, can be found at www.cshmprep.com
and the only action an NSMS member needs to take is to email Steve requesting access from that
website. You will need to include your current NSMS member number (found on your membership
card and certificate). Once the number is verified, you will be granted a username and password to
access the online reference materials. This is a great opportunity to brush up on your safety
management and technical knowledge and prepare for a successful passing of the CSHM certification
examination.


                                    ************************
College Outreach Initiative Launched

Per decision of the National Safety Management Society Board of Directors, President Roosevelt Smith
signed an outreach letter introducing our Society to colleges and universities that currently offer
academic degree programs in occupational safety and health. The goal of this initiative is to offer higher
educational institutions the opportunity to establish Student Chapters. The Student Chapter is designed
for students pursuing a career in the safety, health, environment (SHE) fields.

NSMS Student Chapters provide a means for students to gain real-world insights into their chosen field
of study through mentoring and interaction with experienced technical, supervisory and management
working-level professionals. A student chapter may be established in any school that confers academic
(2-year associate, 4-year undergraduate and/or graduate) degrees in safety and health management
and/or technology.

If your institution does not receive one of our outreach letters and you are interested in establishing a
Student Chapter, download the guidance document from our website at http://nsms.us or email our
headquarters to receive an electronic copy at nsmsinc@yahoo.com



                                       ANNOUNCEMENT
                                      WORKSHOP AVAILABILITY

                       NATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT SOCIETY

 “Enhancing Safety Management Skills, Knowledge & Abilities (SKAs): 2-Day
                   Professional Development Workshop”

PLEASE NOTE: NSMS would like to offer this program at your location if a minimum class size of
twenty five (25) attendees can be registered. An individual who volunteers to organize the group will
receive have his/her registration fee waived.

This interdisciplinary workshop will enable safety professionals/managers to sharpen their skills,
knowledge and abilities in interacting with employees and company leadership. The fee (early-bird, pre-
registration payment) for NSMS members is $150 and $275 for non-members and an on-site (or late)
registration payment of $195 for NSMS members and $325 for non-members (includes lunches and
program materials). With space available, college students enrolled and majoring in this field of study
are also invited to attend (NSMS Student *Affiliate+ Members’ workshop fee is $100).


                                 *********************************
           “Enhancing Safety Management SKAs: 2-Day Professional Development Workshop”
                  Instructor: Dr. Jeffrey Chung, CSHM CHFP – NSMS Executive Director

   Day One – (subject to minor adjustments)

       •    Administrative Business, Introductions and Workshop Overview
       •    Safety Management Principles and Practices
       •    Safety Attributes for Best-in-Class Organizations
       •    Emerging Safety and Health Issues – Aging Workforce, Green Jobs and Special Needs of Foreign
            Workers
       •    Psychology of Safety – A Behavior-based Approach; Human Performance Improvement
       •    Developing Effective Training/Presentation Skills
       •    Role of Safety Committees; Conducting/Facilitating Effective Meetings

   Day Two – (subject to minor adjustments)

       •    Occupational Safety and Health Auditing
       •    Accident Investigation Process
       •    Understanding Self/Others/Your Organization – SMART Profile
       •    Strategic Planning Concepts and Process
       •    Problem Solving and Analytical Tools
       •    Performance Metrics for Continuous Improvement
       •    Corporate Communication Strategies for Safety/Risk Management Professionals
       •    Ethics for the Safety Practitioner and Manager
       •    Stress and Health Management for the EH&S Professional
       •    Wrap-up and Workshop Evaluation




                   The ISHM “Certified Safety and Health Manager” (CSHM)
                             Accreditation Has Been Achieved!

The vision of our early NSMS founders to develop a safety management-focused credential to recognize
professional competence in safety leadership has culminated in the official accreditation of the NSMS-
created Certified Safety and Health Manager credential by the Council on Engineering and Scientific
Specialty Boards (CSEB). CESB is a self-sustaining, independent body which accredits certification
programs organized and operated consistent with sound credentialing practices tailored to the needs of
engineering and technology specialties. CESB is the recognized accreditation body for engineering and
scientific certification and specialty certification programs for professional credentials such as the Board
Certified Environmental Engineer, Certified Industrial Hygienist and Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager.

Our sister organization, the Institute for Safety and Health Management (ISHM) and its Board of
Directors deserve all the credit for their leadership, diligence, determination and perseverance in
marshalling this monumental effort to fruition. Our CSHM credential holders deserve our gratitude for
their patience as this initiative effort went through many trials and tribulations over the years. The
Institute for Safety and Health Management is the credentialing organization which administers the
CSHM to recognize safety and risk management professionals who, through demonstrated professional
experience and the passing of a comprehensive exam, have met ISHM's requirements for mastering the
safety management body of knowledge.

The CSHM credential recognizes safety and health professionals who demonstrate knowledge of health
and safety management skills and techniques through examination and experience.
The CSHM certification program promotes the integration and practice of safety management principles
throughout all levels and activities of an organization. In addition to technical knowledge of safety and
industrial hygiene, a successful safety and health manager must possess working knowledge of a broad
range of business and financial principles and an understanding of related issues such as hazard
analyses, accident/incident investigations, safety audits/surveys, workers' compensation, risk
management, product safety, human factors, environmental laws, quality, and labor relations. The
CSHM program is designed to provide recognition of those who can apply such a broad range of health
and safety management tools. NSMS offers to be a resource and facilitator to help those interested in
pursuing such a certification.



      NSMS’ “Certified Safety Supervisor (CSS)” Credential Now Accepted Towards
               Associate Safety Health Manager (ASHM) Qualification

Associate Safety and Health Manager (ASHM) designation is intended to recognize those individuals who
possess some combination of formal training and experience listed below that prepares them for safety
and health management responsibilities. The ASHM serves to let potential employers and current
employers know that these individuals have been formally educated to address workplace safety and
health issues or are ready to step into entry level positions in safety management.

Individuals who receive the ASHM designation have a period of six years to pass the accredited Certified
Safety and Health Manager (CSHM) certification examination. The ASHM designation will permanently
expire six years after the date of issue or when replaced by the CSHM designation, whichever comes
first. For more information, please visit the ISHM website: http://www.ishm.org/pages/associate.html

Upon completion of the application package, approval by the review committee, and payment of the
appropriate fees, a candidates who does not have a college degree, but is a holder of a safety certificate
recognized by the ISHM Board (http://www.ishm.org/pdf/certprograms.pdf), plus nine years of
qualifying work experience is eligible for the ASHM designation:



If Government Shuts Down, Some Regulations Can Be Published
(oshonline.com – March 6, 2011)

While the president has signed a short-term bill funding federal operations through March 18, the
prospect of a government shutdown has not disappeared. Accordingly, the Office of the Federal Register
published a notice of special procedures that spells out how documents "directly related" to the
government functions that address imminent threats to life or property will be published as required
during an appropriations lapse.
The office says it cannot make case-by-case determinations, so it is placing responsibility on agencies
that submit documents to certify the documents relate to emergency activities authorized under the
Anti-deficiency Act.

An August 16, 1995, opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice said functions
and services that would qualify include activities such as those related to the constitutional duties of the
president, food and drug inspection, air traffic control, responses to natural or man-made disasters, law
enforcement, and supervision of financial markets. "Documents related to normal or routine activities of
Federal agencies, even if funded under prior year appropriations, will not be published," the notice
states.

The contacts for information are Amy Bunk, director of Legal Affairs and Policy, and Miriam Vincent,
staff attorney for the Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration,
202-741-6030 or Fedreg.legal@nara.gov.



OSHA's Top 10
(Safety Advisor Daily – February 14, 2011)

Every year OSHA publishes its Top 10 violations list, and every year employers fall into the same trap,
garnering citations and often hefty fines. Last year was no different.

The top 10 OSHA violations for fiscal 2010 were:

1. Scaffolding, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.451)
2. Fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
3. Hazard communication standard, general industry (29 CFR 1910.1200)
4. Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)
5. Respiratory protection, general industry (29 CFR 1910.134)
6. Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
7. Electrical, wiring methods, components and equipment, general industry (29 CFR 1910.305)
8. Powered industrial trucks, general industry (29 CFR 1910.178)
9. Electrical systems design, general industry (29 CFR 1910.303)
10. Machines, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.212)

The same standards, with one exception (machines replaced training requirements for fall protection in
the number 10 slot this year), featured in OSHA's Top 10 for 2009. In fact, with few exceptions the same
violations appear on the list year after year, which means employers and employees are making the
same mistakes every year about compliance with OSHA standards.

Highest Penalties: Standards for which OSHA assessed the highest penalties in fiscal 2010 were:

      Fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
      Electrical, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.403)
      Safety training and education, walking and working surfaces (29 CFR 1910.21)
      Lockout/tagout, general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
      Machines, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.212)
      General Duty Clause (Section 5[a][1] of the OSH Act)
      Excavations, requirements for protective systems, construction (29 CFR 1926.652)
      Lead, general industry (29 CFR 1910.1025)
      Grain handling facilities (29 CFR 1910.272)
      Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)



OSHA Withdraws Proposed Noise Interpretation Change
(By Risk & Insurance Online – February 10, 2011)

Citing the concerns raised about this proposal, OSHA has pulled its noise control interpretation for now. The
proposal would have resulted in increased enforcement of workplace noise standards for general industry and
construction.

In announcing the withdrawal, David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and
health, said, "It is clear from the concerns raised about this proposal that addressing this problem
requires much more public outreach and many more resources than we had originally anticipated." He
said the agency would study other approaches to abate workplace noise hazards.

Many commentators cited increased costs and other hardships associated with the revised
interpretation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it would be disruptive to employers' current noise
reduction programs and would impose extraordinary costs and called the action ill-conceived.

The Chamber questioned the justification for the new approach. "OSHA does not suggest that the
number or severity of hearing loss cases has increased or provide any other information from which one
could conclude that its long-standing approach is ineffective or unwarranted. Indeed, hearing loss
injuries have been decreasing since they were added to the OSHA 300 logs."

The Chamber said the change would reverse the priority between engineering controls and personal
protective equipment, which it said was "arbitrary because it reflects no consideration at all for the
practical consequences of the change." It specifically cited the potential cost of the change.

"Under OSHA's new standard, a company's only defense against using a 'possible' engineering control
would be that implementing it would threaten the company's very 'ability to remain in business.' In the
case of a large company, therefore, OSHA could conceivably force the company to expend tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade machinery in a facility, or even force the closure of the facility
altogether, so long as the company itself could survive," the Chamber wrote.

Others expressed similar concerns. "I think this regulation is going way too far," wrote Tim Manherz of
TAS Commercial Concrete. "How do you determine whether the hearing loss is because of work
activities or if it is due to after work activities? We would have to test every individual at the time they
are hired and monitor that annually. Who pays for that?"

Mark Garvin, president of the Tree Care Industry Association, said the 2,000 member companies provide
utility vegetation management services to maintain reliable electrical service throughout the country.

"OSHA's proposed action would put all these employers and their employees out of business quite
literally," Garvin wrote. "OSHA's proposed action imposes such steep economic penalties that utility
rates would rise dramatically and residential tree care costs would force homeowners or non-
professionals to attempt to perform the work themselves, endangering amateurs and putting employers
and their professional employees out of business."

In proposing the change, OSHA had said nearly 125,000 workers have suffered significant, permanent
hearing loss since 2004, with more than 22,000 cases in 2008 alone.

Michaels said for the time being, the agency will:

      Conduct a thorough review of comments that were submitted.
      Hold a stakeholder meeting on preventing occupational hearing loss to get a variety of
       viewpoints.
      Consult with experts from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the
       National Academy of Engineering.
      Institute a robust outreach and compliance assistance effort to provide enhanced technical
       information and guidance on the many inexpensive, effective engineering controls for dangerous
       noise levels.



OSHA Proposes Requiring Employers to Track MSDs
(Risk & Insurance Online – March 11, 2011)

Despite objections from the business community, OSHA recently unveiled its proposal to restore a column on the
OSHA 300 Injury and Illness Log that would require employers to list work-related musculoskeletal disorders
separately.

OSHA chief David Michaels, a longtime supporter of an enforceable ergonomics standard, said that
restoring the MSD column will "improve the ability of workers and employers to identify and prevent
work-related MSDs by providing simple and easily accessible information." The move, he said, will also
improve the accuracy and completeness of national work-related injury and illness data.

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, believe otherwise. They have argued that
restoring the MSD column is the first step in resurrecting national ergonomics regulations. OSHA officials
said this isn't the case.

Prior to 2001, OSHA's injury and illness logs contained a column for repetitive trauma disorders that
included noise and MSDs. In 2001, OSHA put noise and MSDs into separate columns, but the MSD
column was deleted in 2003 before the provision became effective.

OSHA is requesting comments on the proposed rule. The deadline for submission is March 15.
OSHA Updates Enforcement Guidance for PPE
(Occupational Safety and Health – February 15, 2011)
The new document is sure to help employers because it lists and links to the standards that require them to
provide PPE and links to a list of relevant OSHA interpretation letters.

OSHA has published a new "Enforcement Guidance for Personal Protective Equipment in General
Industry" that became effective Feb. 10. It replaces a 1995 directive and reflects two significant rules
since then: A 2007 rule requiring employers in general industry, shipyard employment, longshoring,
marine terminals, and construction to pay for most types of required PPE and a 2009 rule updating
OSHA's PPE standards to make them more consistent with consensus standards.

This new guidance will be a useful reference for safety personnel who ask whether a list exists of OSHA
standards requiring employers to provide PPE. Section XIV of the guidance lists and links to them; the
guidance also lists many consensus standards. It lists types of PPE for which an employer must pay if that
PPE is used to comply with an OSHA standard, including respirators, personal fall protection, hearing
protection, hard hats, firefighting PPE, and metatarsal protective footwear.

Appendix A is a long list of OSHA interpretation letters answering questions about the various PPE
standards.

For additional information, visit OSHA's Safety and Health Topics page on Personal Protective
Equipment.




DOT Issues Tougher Hazmat Shipping Rule
(OS&H-Occupational Safety and Health – March 3, 2011)

The new authority allows Department inspectors to close down shipping companies with poor safety records. It
also specifically authorizes inspectors to take immediate action when there is a significant safety problem with
a package in transit.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) announced that Department inspectors will now have greater authority when it comes to
ensuring the safety of hazardous materials in the stream of transportation. The new rule, which
implements authority granted by Congress, allows inspectors to investigate shipments of hazardous
materials during transport and take tougher enforcement action against companies shipping in an
unsafe manner.

“Safety is the Department’s number one priority, and this rulemaking will give our inspectors the tools
they need to ensure hazardous materials are packaged correctly and reach their destination safely,” said
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The new authority allows Department inspectors to close down shipping companies with poor safety
records. It also specifically authorizes inspectors to take immediate action when there is a significant
safety problem with a package in transit. This includes ordering restrictions, bans, or immediate recalls
of faulty packages. With these new provisions, inspectors will be able to temporarily detain and inspect
packages that may pose a serious threat to life, property, or the environment.
Department inspectors will also be able to immediately open packages even if the request to open them
is refused. However, if a particular package is detained, the rest of the shipment may continue in transit.

“This rulemaking is another step in ensuring the safe transportation of hazardous materials by providing
our inspectors the authority to conduct thorough investigations, to remove non-compliant packages
from transportation, and to recall packages that could pose a significant threat to the public and the
environment,” said PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman.

The rule applies to U.S. Department of Transportation inspectors in PHMSA, as well as the Federal
Aviation Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Federal Railroad
Administration. The final rule is scheduled to become effective May 1. The final rule, and the related
internal operations manual, is also available on PHMSA’s website: www.phmsa.dot.gov.


OSHA Web Chat Puts Focus on Injury and Illness Prevention Program
(By Laura Walter, EHS Today – January 6, 2011)

In a Jan. 5 Web chat to discuss the 2010 fall semi-annual regulatory agenda, OSHA Administrator Dr. David
Michaels and staff asserted that the potential Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) is the agency’s
highest regulatory priority with “the greatest impact in terms of preventing workplace injuries, illnesses and
fatalities.”

The I2P2 proposal, which would require employers to find and fix workplace hazards and is listed on the
agenda in the pre-rule stage, garnered multiple questions during the Web chat. Michaels and other
agency staff explained that I2P2 would cover all workplace hazards; companies with effective safety and
health programs may already comply with future I2P2 requirements; and small- and medium-sized
employers may stand to benefit the most from this rule.

When asked how the agency intends to address today’s many pressing occupational health and safety
concerns, Michaels and staff acknowledged that OSHA cannot have a standard for every hazard. The
agency therefore is seeking a solution by moving toward a possible I2P2 rule and increasing use of the
general duty clause.

“This is a very important project and it is important that the agency get it right,” Michaels and staff said
about I2P2. “While we have accomplished a lot since we announced this project in the Spring 2010
Regulatory Agenda, we have much more to do. We want to gather as much information as possible in
advance of SBREFA to make the process as productive as possible.”

PELs

Safety stakeholders have had permissible exposure limits (PELs) updates in their sights for a long time.
While OSHA did not address the complex problem of updating the long-outdated PELs in the regulatory
agenda, staff said that PELs still are a key priority for the agency.

During the chat, agency staff pointed out that OSHA held a stakeholder meeting of labor, business and
academic leaders in June 2010 to discuss PELs options. The agency also assembled a PELs task force and
held a Web forum so stakeholders could pinpoint the chemicals they thought OSHA should focus on.
“OSHA is now analyzing all the information we have received to determine our next steps” to address
PELs, Michaels and staff said during the chat.

Combustible Dust

A combustible dust regulation is in the proposed rule stage, with plans to initiate an SBREFA in April. This
rule was proposed Oct. 21, 2009, and the comment period closed Jan. 19, 2010. OSHA has conducted
research, site visits and stakeholder meetings on combustible dust. During the chat, OSHA staff
acknowledged this is a “complex issue” and pledged to “work as expeditiously as possible” to develop a
combustible dust final rule.

“Combustible dust rulemaking is a complex project that could affect a large number of industry sectors.
Consequently, the agency must conduct considerable research to ensure that the resulting standard
effectively protects workers and meets legal requirements,” Michaels and staff explained during the
chat. “While OSHA proceeds with its research and deliberations, we continue to actively enforce
relevant standards and the general duty clause to address this serious hazard.”

The 2010 fall semi-annual regulatory agenda outlined the anticipated final rules for Confined Spaces in
Construction, General Working Conditions for Shipyards, Electric Power Transmission, Hazard
Communication and Standards Improvement. The agency also plans to publish final rules for several
whistleblower regulations; intends to propose a rule for silica; and included two new legislative
initiatives for the construction industry: Backing Operations and Reinforcing and Post-Tensioned Steel
Construction.

“This agenda continues to build upon the Secretary Hilda Solis’ regulatory strategy of plan, prevent,
protect; and solidifies the Agency’s commitment to strengthening the worker’s voice in the workplace,”
Michaels wrote in the live chat. “Improving access to information establishes a solid foundation for
making workplaces safer.”


ASSE Share Views, Support on OSHA’s I2P2 Standard
(By Laura Walter, EHS Today – February 8, 2011)

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) sent a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to reiterate its support for OSHA’s development of an
injury and illness prevention program (I2P2) standard.

The I2P2 rule would require employers to implement a program tailored to the hazards in their
workplaces and require employers to “find and fix” hazards without waiting for a workplace incident, an
issue-specific OSHA standard or an OSHA inspection. If House leadership decides that OSHA’s I2P2
rulemaking requires oversight, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform could hold
hearings.

“To be clear, ASSE, like everyone else, waits to see what OSHA proposes for its I2P2 standard,” wrote
ASSE President Darryl C. Hill, Ph.D., CSP. “If the Committee determines that its oversight of OSHA’s
activities with regard to the I2P2 is needed, we encourage you to take the opportunity to listen to our
member safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals’ view of such a standard.”
In the letter to Issa, ASSE shared the ASSE December 2010 letter sent to Assistant Secretary for OSHA
David Michaels stating the principles ASSE will use in helping determine its engagement in the important
rulemaking process.

“OSHA’s final I2P2 must encourage risk-based safety management that will help employers avoid
proscriptive regulations, be highly flexible so that every industry can meet its requirements without
unnecessary burdens, and be simple enough for the smallest employers to use without being burdened.
We firmly believe OSHA can write a standard that meets those requirements and will do all that we can
do to help see a final standard that meets our principles,” Hill continued.

ASSE’s suggested set of principles for a successful I2P2 standard include:

      An I2P2 standard must encourage a movement in this nation towards risk-based management of
       workplace hazards.
      An I2P2 standard must recognize the need for involvement of both the employer and employee
       in establishing a safe workplace without diminishing or replacing the overall responsibility for the
       program by the employer.
      An I2P2 standard should instill in workplaces a commitment to continual improvement and
       appropriate periodic review of the workplace I2P2.
      An I2P2 standard will not succeed if the end result is simply a reiteration of the General Duty
       clause to cover hazards not specifically addressed in current OSHA standards.
      A standard must address the qualifications of the individual charged by the employer with
       creating a workplace’s I2P2. The complex operations and hazards that many large employers face
       will require a Certified Safety Professional (CSP). Many employers will be able to rely on a
       “competent person” if a more definitive understanding of “competent person” can be adopted
       by OSHA.
      While all employers should be covered under an I2P2 standard, the standard must be scalable,
       reasonably flexible and responsive to the realistic capabilities and hazards of employers of all
       sizes and industry groups. For some very small employers or light hazard operations, if a one or
       two-page checklist of hazards with guidelines to control those hazards cannot meet the standard,
       the standard will have difficulty succeeding.
      Federal OSHA should take into consideration the California I2P2 standard as a basis for a federal
       standard. In any case, states like California with an existing I2P2 standard should be exempt from
       a federal standard if their standard is at least as effective as the federal standard.
      An I2P2 standard should be harmonized with the most widely accepted voluntary consensus
       standards governing safety and health program management in the private sector, including
       ANSI Z10 Occupational Health & Safety Management System and OSHAS 18000 Occupational
       Health and Safety Management Systems Specification, and efforts should be made to work with
       the standards development organizations responsible for those standards.
      Appropriate training for OSHA inspection personnel that encourages cooperative as well as
       enforcement-directed interaction with employers is necessary to support the implementation
       and meaningful adherence to an I2P2 standard.
      Withdrawing support for VPP is not consistent with the establishment of an I2P2 standard.
       Participation in VPP demonstrates that I2P2s are effective in addressing workplace risks and
       developing a shared employer and employee commitment to workplace safety and health.
What's in Your Safety Program?
(By Chris Kilbourne, Safety.BLR.com – February 24, 2011)

The best safety programs incorporate an accident prevention policy that covers these basic points:

       A statement of the company's commitment to safety
       Establishment of a safety committee and an explanation of how members are selected, their
        responsibilities, and their authority
       An outline of the supervisor's responsibilities—for example conducting safety and housekeeping
        inspections, filling out accident report forms, disciplining employees who disobey safety rules,
        conducting safety orientation for new workers, and ensuring that PPE is worn
       A list of employee responsibilities that might include noting hazards and reporting them to their
        supervisors, offering suggestions for improving safety procedures, and adhering to all OSHA
        regulations and company safety rules
       A plan for accident investigation and reporting procedures
       Procedures for correcting hazards and handling injuries and emergencies
       A description of safety training and education programs for both employees and supervisors
       A description of your safety inspection procedures and copies of inspection checklists
       A description of job safety analysis measures designed to identify and eliminate problem areas
       A statement about PPE requirements
       A warning about violation of work rules and disciplinary actions
       A mention of workers' compensation benefits and required documentation
       A list of emergency stations (first aid, eyewash, showers, etc.), locations, and use procedures



Campaign Puts Focus On Distracted Driving
(TheDailyTimes.com – February 20, 2011)

It may seem harmless at the time, but doing something as simple as sending a text message while
driving is proving over and over to result in fatal consequences. Due to this epidemic, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently announced an education campaign asking employers
to prevent work-related distracted driving, with a special focus on prohibiting texting while driving.

Professionals are constantly taking work-related calls, e-mails and text messages by phone now more
than ever, some even while driving. Blount Memorial safety director Carole Chambers prompts, “Please
don’t participate in distracted driving. Driving itself is an activity, and this isn’t the time to multi-task. In
fact, Tennessee has joined 29 other states in banning texting while driving.” The Tennessee Department
of Transportation (TDOT) reports that in 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes linked to
distraction, and thousands more were injured. In particular, texting while driving has become such a
prominent hazard that 30 states now ban text messaging for all drivers.

Chambers says that when OSHA recently weighed in on the topic, the organization made it clear that the
employer is responsible for ensuring it does not occur due to work-related activity. An excerpt from a
recent news release, from the assistant secretary of OSHA, states “To combat the threat of distracted
driving, we are prepared to act quickly. When OSHA receives a credible complaint that an employer
requires texting while driving or who organizes work so that texting is a practical necessity, we will
investigate and, where necessary, issue citations and penalties to end this practice.” OSHA says that year
after year, the leading cause of worker fatalities is motor vehicle crashes. While there’s no question that
new technologies are helping businesses work smarter and faster, getting work done faster does not
justify the dramatically increased risk of injury and death that comes with texting while driving, OSHA
states.

But texting isn’t the only distraction that can impair your driving skills. “TDOT’s National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published interesting research,” Chambers says. “To summarize,
‘distraction’, a subcategory of ‘inattention’, plays a part in many vehicle accidents. The researchers are
looking at activities like eating, using electronic devices (phone calls/texting) and conversing with
passengers, as well as fatigue and the physical and emotional condition of the driver. Any of these, or a
combination, may play a part in an auto accident.” Strong evidence supports that the use of devices
decreases the driver’s ability to respond to changes in their surroundings, Chambers adds. In 2009, the
NHTSA reported that 16 percent of fatal crashes and 20 percent of injury crashes involved reports of
distracted driving.

What else is considered “distracting” while driving? For safety purposes, Chambers says to consider
what is distracting to you. “Conversing with passengers, dialing, talking and hanging up the phone,
eating, drinking and adjusting the radio all have been shown to be factors in auto accidents.
Transporting children, who can be distracting, may be a necessity, but you can choose to not speak on
the cell phone or text while driving.” Chambers also reminds, “In addition, let’s not forget impaired
(alcohol or drug) driving. In 2009, 32 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities involved alcohol.”


Evaluating Job Offers: Give Prospective Employers a Thorough ‘Reference Check’
(By Lauryn Franzoni, Savety-X-Change – February 11, 2011)

The employment relationship is supposed to be based on mutual trust and communication. In reality,
the trust and communication burden often runs in one direction. At no time is the imbalance more
pronounced than during the recruiting process. Recruiting should be a mutual feeling out period. But
while job candidates are expected to provide persuasive evidence of their brilliance, companies too
often cover up their warts. That’s why it’s so important for you men and women of safety to do your
own reference checks on prospective employers before agreeing to work for them.

The Reference Check Process - It’s perfectly understandable for companies to check references and
even, in some cases, credit background and academic credentials before asking job candidates to join
their organization. But the recruiting process works both ways. The company isn’t just a buyer but a
seller. And the job candidate isn’t just a seller but a buyer. Consequently, job candidates have every right
to perform their own due diligence on prospective employers.

Moreover, it’s in their interest to do so. Just like job candidates do, companies often try to hide their
warts during the recruiting process. Just think about the jobs you’ve had. How many of them turned out
to be exactly the way the company representatives you interviewed with described them? And, yet, the
thought of performing a reference or background check on the company recruiting them seldom occurs
to most job candidates.

How to Perform a Reference Check on Prospective Employers - Because it’s not universally considered
part of the process, there’s not a lot of collective wisdom for job candidates on performing reference
checks on a prospective employer. So here are a few pointers:
Talk to Sources within the Company - Part of the interviewer’s role is to cast the company in a positive
light and sell you on its virtues. But some of the individuals you encounter during the recruitment and
interview process may be willing to speak openly without simply pronouncing the “party line.” So, keep
your eyes open for individuals that you can cultivate for “off the record” conversations about the
company. Phone these persons after you get an offer and ask them if there’s anything you should know
about the company before accepting the position. Ask them if they’d accept the offer if they were in
your shoes knowing what they do about the company and its people. Assure them that you’ll keep their
response strictly confidential.

Talk to Former Employees - Talk to former employees, especially those who held the position you’ve
been offered. Find out why they left and whether they’d return if given the opportunity. Ask about all
aspects of the organization and the people within it. For obvious reasons, former employees are more
likely to furnish candid answers. But they might also have an ax to grind. You need to factor this into the
equation.

Talk to Future Co-Workers - Try to get to know the people you’ll be working with in a social situation.
Listen carefully to how they talk about the company, co-workers, customers and their jobs. Observe
their attitude and morale.

Talk to Customers and Former Customers - You can find out a lot about companies by talking to their
clients and customers. Identify the individuals at client companies who deal directly with your potential
employer. Ask for their opinion of the company and the individuals who work for it. Also talk to former
clients and find out why they no longer do business with the company.

Investigate If Company Is Involved in Any Legal Issues - Check the public legal records to determine
whether the company or its leaders are involved in any major lawsuits. Nowadays, just about all
companies have some legal issues. But if the number of lawsuits is inordinate, it should raise a red flag,
especially if the company is being sued by employees or former employees. Keep in mind that personal
lawsuits involving high ranking company officials—bankruptcies, divorces, criminal indictments, etc.—
can also have an impact on the company and its finances.

Conclusion - I know it’s not easy to say no to an offer. But one thing is certain eventually, that will
change. In the meantime, one thing is certain in all markets: Finding out that your new employer
misrepresented itself during the recruitment process will set back your career and expose you to
professional anguish that you might easily have avoided. So I implore you to remember that recruiting
works both ways and that you shouldn’t say “yes” to a company without thoroughly checking its
references.
The Seven Safety Virtues
(Safety.BLR.com - March 04, 2011

Everyone deserves a safe workplace, and by applying strong training and motivation techniques and
consistent enforcement of policies and rules, your company can reach this goal. Your employees should
work safely because:

   1. They know what they are supposed to do. Your employees know the company policies. They
      have been over the company rules many times and in several formats. A manager or supervisor
      has talked to them and made sure they understand. They have passed quizzes on the policies and
      rules. They know whom to ask if they have any questions about safe practices.
   2. They know how to do what they are supposed to do. Someone has watched them work or
      perform their assigned tasks. Workers have had enough practice or drills to feel comfortable with
      procedures. Someone has instructed, corrected, and coached them until they got the procedures
      right.
   3. They know safety is important and affects them directly. Employees have learned—often first
      hand—how injuries from accidents impact workers, their families, their co-workers, and the
      company, both personally and financially. They know the company enforces its safety rules. They
      also know that working safely is part of their performance appraisals and can affect their pay and
      job security.
   4. They care about safety. For the reasons just described, workers care about safety, but they also
      care because they have invested time and energy in addressing safety problems themselves.
      They know that their safety ideas, concerns, and complaints will get a fair hearing by their
      employer.
   5. They know that their company cares about safety, too. Your employees have seen accidents and
      near-misses investigated promptly and thoroughly, and they are informed of the results. They
      expect safety issues to be part of company communications and training. They are aware that
      the company corrects hazards and establishes and maintains safe work practices.
   6. They never forget about safety. Even on days when employees feel distracted, they still
      remember to work safety because by now, it is their habit.
   7. Employees know shortcuts aren’t worth the risks. Even when employees are tempted to take
      shortcuts around the demands that safe work presents, they don’t take the risk because they are
      aware of the consequences of carelessness in the workplace.



Put a Stop to Repeat Accidents
(By Chris Kilbourne, Safety Daily Advisor – February 23, 2011)

One accident is bad enough. But when the same accidents occur over and over, you have to act fast and
decisively to put a stop to the mistakes that lead to repeat accidents.

Breaking the chain of repeat accidents is a priority in any workplace. An accident can cause injuries,
affect production and morale, damage equipment and structures, and create fear and stress among
employees. Repeat accidents multiply the damage.
What can you do to stop employees from making the same mistakes that lead to repeat accidents?

Do:

         Set a goal. Without a specific intention to eliminate repeat accidents, positive results may be
          elusive.
         Determine the steps toward this goal. Steps might include increased awareness, additional
          training, stepped up supervisory oversight, changes in procedures or equipment, etc.
         Communicate priorities clearly. Make sure employees understand the goal, the steps required to
          reach it, and how important it is to eliminate repeat accidents.
         Promote an accident-free culture. Encourage employees to participate in safety programs and
          become actively involved in reducing accident risks.
         Recognize and reinforce safe performance. Use a variety of incentives and rewards to improve
          safety performance.
         Emphasize hazard detection, and encourage hazard reporting.

Don't:

         Send mixed messages. Everyone needs to know that you take each accident seriously and that
          preventing the same kind of incident from happening again is a top priority.
         Use discipline without also offering help. When safety rules are broken, discipline may be
          required. But even then, make sure that there's a positive element as well and that supervisors
          help poor safety performers improve.
         Lecture. Employees don't respond well to this method. It often goes in one ear and out the
          other. Lecturing also turns employees into passive receptors rather than engaging them actively
          in their own safety performance.
         Blame. Even if an employee makes a mistake, blame won't solve the problem. The issue should
          be why the employee made the mistake and how to fix that so he or she doesn't repeat a
          mistake that leads to another accident.
         Assume the worst. Expect the best and that's usually what you'll get, even from employees with
          poor safety performance histories.
         Give empty pep talks. Actions speak louder than words, so back up encouraging words by
          making real safety improvements and offers of assistance and support.

Continuous Safety Improvement

Ensuring that the same mistakes that lead to the same accidents are not repeated is really part of a
continuous safety improvement process. This process identifies:

         Jobs that have the highest risk of accidents
         Employees who are involved in repeat accidents and what these individuals are doing or not
          doing that puts them at risk
         Human factors such as safety attitudes, skills, work habits, and fitness
         Job-related factors such as work spaces, PPE, workload, tasks, procedures, and equipment
         Safety culture issues such as employee participation and training, management commitment to
          safety, and the accident reporting, investigation, and correction process
Repeat accidents are not inevitable. They can be stopped cold with a cooperative and continuous effort
on the part of management and employees to eliminate human error, eradicate unsafe conditions, and
continually improve workplace safety.

Tomorrow, we'll discuss key elements of an accident prevention policy that should be incorporated in
everyone's safety program.


Lessons Learned: Rochester Pizza Dough Maker Hit With OSHA Fines
(DemocratandChronical.com – February 19, 2011)

Bona Via Inc., a Rochester maker of pizza dough, is facing as much as $195,200 in fines from the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration for alleged hazards at its plant. OSHA said it fined the
company $12,000 in late 2009 for a variety of hazards at the plant on the city's northwest side. But the
company hadn't corrected the problems when OSHA inspectors returned in August, according to the
agency.

The problems included failing to safely maintain electrical equipment, not replacing pressure relief
devices on an ammonia refrigerator compressor, failing to ensure the flour silo area was clean of flour
dust that could result in a dust explosion, and failing to evaluate employees on their ability to safely
operate industrial equipment.

The repeat violations resulted in $188,000 in proposed fines. The August inspection also found new
safety issues, leading to an additional $7,200 in proposed fines.

The facility is now run by Goglanian Bakeries Inc., a California-based chain of industrial bakeries.
Goglanian did not return a call Friday.



Lessons Learned: OSHA Proposes Steep Fine for New York Foundry
(By Recycling Today – February 18, 2011)

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Oberdorfer LLC
for 28 alleged violations of workplace health and safety standards, including failing to correct hazards
cited during a previous OSHA inspection. The Syracuse, N.Y., manufacturer of aluminum castings faces a
total of $220,000 in proposed fines following an OSHA inspection opened July 30, 2010, to verify
correction of previously cited hazards.

OSHA previously cited the company for a variety of violations involving employee overexposure to
airborne concentrations of silica, which has been classified as a human lung carcinogen. This newest
inspection found the company failed to implement engineering controls to reduce workers' exposure to
silica. In addition, the inspection found that an employee who was overexposed to silica lacked a
respirator.

"This company was given the time and opportunity to take effective corrective action, yet our latest
inspections identified silica-related hazards that either went uncorrected or were allowed to recur. This
is unacceptable," says Christopher Adams, OSHA's area director in Syracuse. "The sizable fines levied
here reflect the severity and recurring nature of these conditions. They must be corrected - once and for
all - to help ensure the health and safety of the workers at this plant.

As a result of its latest inspections, OSHA issued the company two failure-to-abate notices carrying
$75,000 in fines for the uncorrected conditions and one willful citation with a $70,000 fine for the lack of
respiratory protection. A failure-to-abate notice is issued, and additional fines proposed, when an
employer fails to correct previously cited hazards. A willful violation exists when an employer has
demonstrated either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the law or plain indifference to
employee safety and health.

The company also was issued 21 serious citations with $72,000 in fines for fall, electrical and machine
guarding hazards; a locked exit door; lack of a permit-required confined space program and training;
failure to develop specific lockout/tagout procedures to prevent the unintended startup of machinery;
lack of an eyewash station; and failing to provide training on silica. Finally, the company was issued four
other-than-serious citations with $3,000 in fines for inadequate recording of workplace injuries and
illnesses. OSHA issues a serious citation when there is substantial probability that death or serious
physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. An
other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably
would not cause death or serious physical harm.

"One means of addressing workplace hazards such as these is for employers to establish and maintain
an illness and injury prevention program, in which workers and management work together
continuously to identify and eliminate hazardous conditions," says Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional
administrator in New York.



Lessons Learned: Family of Dayton Man Suffocated by Machinery Gets $4.3 Million
Verdict
(By Teresa Mioli, beaumontenterprise.com – February 22, 2011)

A Liberty County jury has awarded more than $4.3 million to the family of a man who was killed by large
machinery in 2007. Ignacio Arreozola died after gross negligence on the part of Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc., according to a jury summary released Tuesday.

Evidence presented in court showed Arreozola and a co-worker were working at a hopper pit under a
Martin rail track in Dayton on Feb. 17, 2007. The hopper pits are used for unloading rock from rail cars,
according to a court document. Arreozola slipped and fell head first into the hopper pit after trying to
open the hopper, according to the document. He was wedged between the pit's concrete wall and the
conveyer's metal frame and "suffered a slow and agonizing death," according to the document.
Arreozola's family claimed in the lawsuit that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. did not ensure a safe
working environment, according to court documents.

Evidence used in the trial showed that the company did not properly report the accident to OSHA and
that it was five months before OSHA learned the true circumstances of the accident, said David Mee,
attorney for Arreozola's family.
Lessons Learned: WC Benefits for Horseplay Injuries? You've Got to Be Kidding!

Compensation for injuries arising out of horseplay. Generally, innocent victims can collect, but many
states deny benefits to those who initiate horseplay. Occasionally, however, initiators are able to collect.
Here's a case where that happened.

The horseplay initiator in this case was a bakery employee whose job was to move bread racks in and
out of the bread cooler. During the shift, the floor in his work area became greasy, wet, and slippery.
The employer provided employees in this area with special work shoes to help prevent slips and falls.

One day while working, the employee and a co-worker across the room were exchanging mock insults.
At one point during the conversation, the worker lifted his leg as if to give his co-worker a karate kick.
Being 10 feet away, the co-worker was in no danger.

But as it turned out the employee who threw the kick was. He slipped and fell hard, sustaining a
sprained wrist and a hernia.

Case Goes to Court

When the employee filed for workers' comp benefits, the employer's position was, You've got to be
kidding! And the workers' comp board agreed.

But the employee appealed the decision and got a different result in the state court of appeals.

The court ruled that the horseplay in this case did not constitute an "extensive or serious deviation"
from the worker's job duties. The horseplay was minor and the employee never really stopped doing his
job during the incident. The court also pointed out that the accident was caused at least in part by an
unsafe condition—slippery floors.

The result might have been different if the employee had left his workstation and walked over to his co-
worker to throw the kick, and then slipped and fell. It also might have been different in a different state
and a different court.

The Message

The important message in this case is not to wait for horseplay to cause safety problems and injuries in
your workplace. Take preventive action now.

   Explain your policy prohibiting horseplay anywhere in the workplace. Don't just say, "Don't." Also
    say why—"Somebody could get hurt, and it could be you."
   Enforce your policy consistently. Don't overlook any incident, no matter how insignificant or
    whether anybody gets hurt or not. Also don't be reluctant to use progressive discipline to deal
    with horseplay. The behavior in this case may not seem like a big problem, but look what a costly
    mess it caused for the employer.
   Don't ignore complaints from employees. Usually, the problem is that witnesses and victims don't
    report horseplay. But if somebody does, investigate. Also encourage employees to speak up about
    horseplay—to the instigators directly, to you, or both.
   Take a second look. Even if you think you don't have a horseplay problem, think again, especially
    if you employ spirited young male workers. Make some unscheduled visits to work areas. You
     might be surprised at what you see. Fooling around on the job happens even in the most well-
     managed and well-behaved workplaces.



Safety Training Strategies: More Than Words: Tips for Training Trainers
(Safety Daily Advisor – February 8, 2011)

It's not just what trainers say that determines their effectiveness, but also critical nonverbal cues for engaging
trainees.

Trainers' body language, eye contact, and voice control have a greater impact on the effectiveness of
training sessions than you might realize.

Trainer's who make eye contact with trainees and who use body language and vocal control effectively
are much more likely to engage their audience than trainer's who don't, says Lynn Espinoza, president of
Speak! Communications, Inc. (www.lynnespinoza.com).

Body Language

It important for trainers to convey a sense that they are comfortable and in control of the training
session by using "open and authentic body language," says Espinoza. "If you naturally use your hands
when you speak, feel free to use your hands during the presentation. You will appear more comfortable
and energetic.

"Conversely, if you don't naturally gesture, just let your arms and hands fall comfortably to your side.
Avoid fidgeting with a pen, pointer, etc. Also keep your hands out of your pockets. Putting your hands in
your pockets looks less professional and tells your audience that you may be nervous.

"Once the audience knows you're comfortable, it's much easier for them to listen to what you say,"
suggests Espinoza.

Eye Contact and Vocal Control

Espinoza encourages trainers to avoid using a podium and to position trainees' seats in a horseshoe
shape rather than traditional rows of seats. This provides more opportunities for the trainer to make eye
contact with, move closer to, and connect with trainees.

"You want to take the time to make sure you have looked each participant in the eye," she says. If you
look at the floor or at the back wall of the room, "you've missed an opportunity to connect with them."

However, "voice control—or vocal presence—is the most important aspect of a presentation," Espinoza
says, referring to trainers' ability to project their voice so that trainees "hear you and hear that you've
passionate about the topic and that you want to be there."

She adds that "vocal presence is the number one indicator to the audience that the speaker is in control
and comfortable with the material."
Trainers will pay more attention to their vocal control, body language, and eye contact, says Espinoza, if
they approach each training session as if it were the first time they presented the topic.


Safety Tidbits
(from "Safety Stuff" by Richard Hawk Inc. http://www.richardhawkinc.com)

          Purdue University researchers say most drivers have no problem exceeding the speed limit by
           up to 20 mph and see no risk in doing so.
          Odds that you will drown in a bathtub: 1 in 11,469. (In a shower: almost zero.)
          Another cause of lightning: friction between ash particles from an erupting volcano.
          Country with the most automobile deaths in the world: India (more than 130,000 yearly).
          Six people died in bullfights in 2004.
          You are five times more likely to be in a car accident at 35 mph than you are at 65 mph.
          The British Medical Journal has estimated that smoking one cigarette takes eleven minutes
           off the life of an average person.
          One way to tell whether you have a cold or the flu: Colds make you sneeze: flus don't.
          Type 2 Diabetes in children, once unheard of, has risen 45 percent in the U.S. in the last ten
           years.
          The leaves of the coffee plant contain more caffeine than the beans.
          Black urine can be a sign that you have alkaptonuria, a rare hereditary condition that causes
           urine to turn pitch black upon exposure to air.
          Dark yellow or brown urine is an indication that you are dehydrated. Go drink a glass of
           water.
          Urine with a sweet odor can indicate that blood sugar is being excreted, a warning sign for
           diabetes.
          Red urine can indicate diabetic nephropathy, papillary renal cell carcinoma, or aloe poisoning.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:11/23/2011
language:English
pages:23