Out Loud Blog

In his newest post, guest blogger and Future Leader in EHS Jason Townsell discusses the hierarchy of controls.

I am often asked what I do for a living. Because the field of health and safety management is mostly unknown to those not within the industry, I have developed a simple and appropriate response: I am in hazard control, which may also be referred to as risk management.

There are typically three hazard control methods that managers may implement: engineering controls, administrative controls and the provision of personal protective equipment. Each of these is effective, but there is a hierarchical approach to their use.

Hierarchy of Controls

The hierarchy of controls is a system that lists the controls in descending order from the most effective to the least. This very important tool provides a listing of the available options for hazard control and also provides the best option for protection.

In the workplace, the best option for hazard control is the utilization of engineering controls. Engineering controls effectively remove or minimize hazards, thus eliminating or reducing the exposure to employees. Well-designed engineering controls can be highly effective in protecting workers and are typically independent of worker interaction, which reduces the potential of malfunction due to improper use.

The initial cost of engineering controls can be higher than the cost of administrative controls or personal protective equipment, which may make them the least used method of control. Over the long term, however, operating costs are frequently lower once the controls are put into place; in addition, maintenance is typically in low demand.

Administrative controls and PPE (in this order) fall lower on the hierarchy as they provide less protection than engineering controls. They both involve the worker adhering to set policies (i.e. following an injury and illness prevention program and/or appropriately wearing PPE) and other types of controls such as worker rotation and medical screening. Administrative controls minimize worker exposure through the provision of policies, procedures and training, but they do not eliminate hazards.

Like administrative controls, the use of PPE does not eliminate hazards but rather attempts to protect workers from the impact of hazardous exposure. Safety experts refer to the use of PPE as the last resort for worker protection. There are several concerns with this approach. First, PPE cannot guarantee employee safety as hazard forces are not completely predictable. Second, for PPE to do its job, it must be worn correctly and under the appropriate circumstances – and there is no guarantee that this will take place (it often does not). Finally, PPE takes a great deal of maintenance and inspection, both of which can be neglected.

Effective Hazard Control

Engineering controls are by far the most effective control available and thus should be the most frequently used. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as hazard control is often addressed by managers taking the path of least resistance (which in business often is the cheapest and easiest path). This usually consists of reminding employees to wear their PPE or by requiring them to read the safety manual and attend required safety training. While these are effective, they do not control the hazard but rather the employee. Hazard control must be concerned with controlling hazards.

Tran Huynh, a student pursuing a Ph.D. in industrial hygiene at the University of Minnesota, was selected as a runner-up in the 2010 Future Leaders in EHS program. This scholarship program was created to support and encourage EHS students as they lead the way in keeping tomorrow’s workers safe. The judging panel recognized Huynh based on her research experience, her excellent grades and references and her dedication to protecting workers from health and safety risks. She shares a guest blog below.

NIOSH ERC Funding Crisis: A Student’s Perspective

by Tran Huynh

I recently learned from my program director at the University of Minnesota about President Obama’s FY 2012 budget proposal for the Department of Human Health and Services. The proposal suggests a 17 percent cut in the NIOSH budget, which includes the elimination of federal funding of $24.3 million for the 17 Education and Resource Centers (ERC) across the United States.

These university-based ERCs support graduate degree programs and research training for students in the occupational health and safety field. In addition, these centers also offer continuing education for occupational health practitioners so that they are equipped with the latest information to improve worker health and safety.

As a trainee under the ERC, I am very concerned about the future of these centers. If the funding is eliminated, this will significantly and negatively impact the number of future students entering the field, as well as the quality of training and education that future students will receive.

Recruitment Challenges

Compared to other public health graduate degree programs, occupational health is not a popular degree among students. Because the field is highly specialized and field-based, job opportunities in health departments are very limited. OSHA and MSHA are the two main government agencies that deal with occupational health issues, but these agencies often face budget cuts and can only hire a limited number of inspectors. That leaves the private sector as the primary source of employment for occupational health professionals.

Most small, mid-size and even large mining and manufacturing companies usually employ a bare minimum number of health professionals for compliance purposes. Unlike opportunities for graduates with an engineering or business degree, in the private sector, occupational health job prospects are limited to these highly specialized, skilled professionals because they are usually perceived as extra cost. So when it comes to cost reduction, health and safety unfortunately are among the first lines to be affected.

The lack of awareness of the profession, coupled with the limited job opportunities at health departments and in the private sector, makes recruitment of students into the field very challenging. Thus, besides promotional materials and effort, training grants are an important incentive to recruit students to take at least a few introductory classes to explore the profession.

Currently, even with the existing training grants, the number of students enrolled in the program is very small compared to other public health programs such as epidemiology and biostatistics that don’t offer such incentive. I am afraid without the financial incentive at the beginning, the number of students entering the profession will quickly dwindle, resulting in shortages of occupational health professionals to adequately protect the growing work force.

A Rewarding Path

Even though job opportunities seem limited, once students get to work, occupational health and safety can be a very rewarding career path. That is why the majority of graduates remain in the field. The challenge is to get them interested in the first place.

Elimination of the ERCs will affect the quality of training and education of students and practitioners. Like any other field, research and the dissemination of research results in order to improve practices is essential to protect workers’ health. New technology such as nanotechnology will bring new hazards that need careful evaluation to balance economic benefits and the public health.

These centers are not only an essential funding source for researchers-in-training and research projects that help to advance the occupational health field (besides NIOSH projects), but they also provide a channel to disseminate the latest information to practitioners through continuing education programs. Without the centers, we will not be able to attract qualified students and support research projects pertinent to the field.

ERC: Investing in the Future

According to NIOSH statistics, these ERCs supply approximately 75 percent of the occupational health and safety professionals responsible for protecting the health of the work force. These highly skilled professionals are undoubtedly one of the greatest returns expected from investment in these ERCs.

I would also like to point to a less obvious benefit resulting from investing money in trainees: the contribution of ex-trainees to help current students and to enrich the programs. For example, since I have started in the industrial hygiene program, I have seen a handful of ex-trainees, now very successful professionals, come back to volunteer their time and expertise as guest speakers, serve on advisory board for the center and reach out to current students so they can get a head-start on their career path. The fruit that current students receive is a result of the seed the ERC planted years ago. Because these ex-trainees at one time received assistance in their career, they are more motivated to help the next generations. These people are inspiring examples for current students like me who would like to continue this tradition of giving back.

I understand that in times of budgetary crisis, it is necessary to make sacrifices for the good of the country. If it means that the ERC will have smaller operating budget and current students, like me, will no long receive stipend for training or only have partial tuition coverage, I am OK with that. However, total elimination of the ERC will be catastrophic to future students, the future of occupational health and safety field and subsequently to our work force.

While it may seem that occupational health field is not so crucial right now because of the economic downturn, when our economy recoveries in a few years, more people will enter the work force and more occupational health professionals will be needed to protect our workers.

I sincerely ask that our elected officials consider a temporary reduction of funding for ERC during this crisis rather than complete elimination. When our economy recovers, it may cost more to rebuild the program so that our work force has an adequate supply of occupational health and safety professionals.

To learn more about the Education and Resource Centers and how to help save them, please visit: http://clients.criticalimpact.com/vm.cfm?i=daca62e0a8f27b99&jid=7ce958c35b7b0f98.