A White Paper

1. Definition of the problem and why regulation is necessary.

When an individual or business cannot distinguish between professional individuals (i.e., those who have devoted a career to safety and industrial hygiene) from those individuals who have little or no relevant experience or training, workers may be exposed to grave harm, and employers may incur unnecessary costs. Specifically, failure to properly address occupational health and safety issues can cause immediate and delayed health effects for workers (including death), and damage to property and equipment for employers. Employers also incur indirect costs, when occupational health and safety issues are not properly addressed, due to lost workdays and equipment downtime.

According to the Georgia Commissioner of Labor, 164,500 Georgians suffered on the job injuries or illnesses in 1996; and in 1997, a total of 241 Georgians were killed at work. These statistics do not capture the full story, since occupational diseases and injuries are often underreported. However, the statistics do indicate that injuries and illnesses, and the workplace hazards which cause them, are a significant problem in Georgia.

The remaining sections of this report provide background information and analysis concerning the problem, and how the proposed legislation will help to protect Georgians. The report is written in a question and answer style that is responsive to the exact questions and information requirements of the Georgia Occupational Regulation Review Council (GORRC). Note, however, that the authors' decision to use the GORRC format is for reasons of thoroughness, rather than necessity. The proposed legislation is written in such a manner that the GORRC process is not applicable.

A. The nature of the potential harm to the public if the business or profession is not regulated, and the extent to which there is a threat to public health and safety.

There are thousands of occupational hazards in the workplace. Potential harm to the public can occur in several ways when an untrained or unqualified individual provides services in the areas of occupational health and safety. Three ways in which harm can occur are:

(1) failure to identify the hazard(s);

(2) overstating or understating the severity of a hazard and recommending inappropriate or excessive control measures, and;

(3) actually creating a hazard as a result of services rendered.

Industrial hygiene and safety professionals play a pivotal role in protecting the working public from illness and injury and have done so since the beginning of the industrial revolution. These professionals generally possess a college degree rooted in the fundamentals including science, mathematics, engineering, and medicine. This knowledge along with additional training and studies allows these professionals to anticipate, recognize, evaluate, and control workplace hazards. Continuing education is required to keep abreast of new developments in the professions.

Among occupational health and safety professionals, there are several titles widely recognized as hallmarks of the profession. The most prominent of these titles are the "Certified Industrial Hygienist" (CIH) and "Certified Safety Professional" (CSP). Each of these titles is granted only after the applicant meets rigorous education, experience, character and written examination requirements. The certifying bodies for these titles are non-profit organizations, namely the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) and the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP).

In the past few years some disturbing facts have emerged. (See Appendix A for examples.)

First, there has arisen a number of mail order "diploma mills" and "certification for sale" companies that, for a fee, will grant an official-sounding industrial hygiene or safety certification. A person can receive one of these "certifications", often with no questions asked, and no continuing education required.

Second, many of the certifications carry titles that "sound like" the respected CSP and CIH. At best, this is confusing to the public -- at worst, it is intentionally misleading. Consider the similarities between the following recognized titles and "sound alike" titles.

Third, the public is generally unable to differentiate between recognized certifications, such as the CIH and CSP, and the growing list of new, sound-alike certifications.

Fourth, there are no laws or penalties that provide a credible deterrent to persons who would misrepresent their professional qualifications and certification status.

Fifth, individuals who misrepresent their professional qualifications and certification status pose a substantial risk to the safety and well-being of the citizens of Georgia, and to the financial well-being of Georgia employers.

(1) defining the industrial hygiene and safety professions;

(2) providing recognition for long-standing and well-respected certifications in these professions, and;

(3) establishing consequences for those who would misrepresent their qualifications and certification status.

Consumers, including businesses, unions, state agencies and individuals, need this legislation to provide a mechanism to identify those individuals who are competent and qualified in the areas of industrial hygiene and safety. Consumers will benefit from the regulation by having the ability to identify trained professionals who can help lower the risks associated with occupational injury and illness in the workplace. With lower risks, there are lower costs with regard to both the direct costs (medical and insurance costs) and indirect costs (such as lost earnings, lost work time) of workplace injuries and illnesses.

Nationwide, the costs of workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities are staggering. According to a 1997 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the total costs were estimated to be $171 billion (refer to Occupational Injury and Illness in the United States; Archives of Internal Medicine, 1997; 157).

In Georgia, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported that in 1996, private businesses paid total direct costs of $333 million for workers' compensation claims. The total does not include indirect costs, or the costs of workers compensation claims from the public sector.

Business consumers often rely on industrial hygienists and safety professionals to assist in complying with OSHA regulations. Using qualified industrial hygiene and safety professionals, who thoroughly understand regulatory requirements and apply solutions for the employer, can lower the risk of fines by OSHA, and adverse publicity that can accompany these fines.

Finally, enactment of the proposed legislation will deter persons from misrepresenting their qualifications and certifications, and provide consumers with the ability to impose consequences on those who do mislead or misrepresent themselves.
 

2. The efforts made to address the problem:

There are several organizations that provide guidance to industrial hygiene and safety professionals. Two of the organizations, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), provide general membership services. Two additional organizations, the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) and Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP) provide certification examinations and continuing education verification. All four organizations maintain a code of ethics. The code of ethics is used to guide the members of these organizations, and there are disciplinary procedures for those who violate the code of ethics. In addition, the organizations respond to complaints from the public regarding association members. However, the organizations have no authority to deal with non-members who practice in the profession. Appendix B lists the code of ethics for each profession.

B. Recourse to and the extent of use of applicable law and whether it could be strengthened to control the problem.

The industrial hygiene and safety professions are not defined in Georgia law. Therefore, there are no directly applicable laws that could be strengthened to address the problem.
 

3. Alternatives considered.

Since the certifications are held by individuals, who make autonomous decisions regarding workplace hazards, the regulation of businesses or employers would not fit this particular scenario.

B. Regulation of the program or service rather than the individuals.

The industrial hygiene and safety professions are multi-disciplined in nature and can not be defined by a specific program or a particular service. Due to the variety of functions performed, it would be impractical to regulate a program or service. Examples that demonstrate the diversification in the services include: exposure assessment monitoring; workstation assessment to prevent repetitive motion injuries; evaluation of a ventilation system for appropriateness and performance; calculating safe load limits for cranes; or reviewing overall health and safety programs.

C. Registration of all individuals.

A registration of all individuals would include the development of lists including the names and qualifications of individuals. Unfortunately, there is no assurance that registration would involve verification of the individual's qualifications. Thus, the state would have to provide resources for registration, and incur the costs of its administering a registration and verification program. In addition, there is an administrative burden for individuals who are required to register. For those who are certified by the BCSP or ABIH, registration is an exercise in redundancy which provides no added value to the state.

D. Certification of all individuals.

Certification is an appropriate solution to the issue of demonstrated competence in the fields of industrial hygiene and safety. However, a state certification is not necessary since nationally recognized certification programs already exist, and have been in place for many decades. The state of Georgia can use the existing ABIH and BCSP certification programs and avoid unnecessary redundancy, costs, and resources that would eventually be passed on to consumers. By adopting these certification programs, there will be no state administration costs incurred, and the consumers of industrial hygiene and safety services will reap the benefits of the certification process without any added administrative costs.

E. Other alternatives.

Consideration was given to the actions of other States to address the problem of identification of competent industrial hygiene and safety professionals. As of December 1998, thirteen states have enacted legislation granting a form of professional recognition to the industrial hygiene and/or safety professions. Eleven of the thirteen states chose certification (i.e., sometimes referred to as title protection) as the appropriate alternative.

Two of the thirteen states chose other options. One of the two states enacted legislation that serves to define and recognize industrial hygienists and certified industrial hygienists. The other state enacted legislation that creates a form of registration referred to as "voluntary licensing".

Currently, twenty-one additional states, including Georgia, are considering the introduction of professional recognition legislation in 1999, or are re-introducing legislation from prior years. The proposed legislation for Georgia is modeled after legislation enacted in Florida in 1998.

F. Why the use of the alternatives specified in this paragraph would not be adequate to protect the public interest?

One alternative, certification, as proposed in the bill, is an appropriate solution. Certification is the preferred alternative for the states that have already enacted professional recognition legislation, and those additional states that are considering such legislation.

G. Why licensure would serve to protect the public interest?

The proposed legislation does not advocate licensure, and would not create a license or licensing board. The proposed legislation would simply recognize existing certifications that have been in existence for many decades. Recognition of existing certifications, as described in the proposed bill, will provide a cost-effective solution to the problem.
 

4. The benefit to the public if regulation is granted

Appendix C has specific case histories illustrating some of the problems that have occurred in the workplace. Management representatives from organizations involved in these incidents have indicated that the proposed legislation would have substantially reduced the probability of these incidents occurring. Additionally, the organizations indicated that they would have benefited from the punitive provisions of the proposed legislation, had the legislation been in place at the time the incidents occurred.

(B) Whether the public can identify qualified individuals;

No. The previously cited case histories indicate that the general public has a very limited ability to differentiate between qualified and unqualified individuals. Even the most sophisticated consumers, such as large corporations, have had problems differentiating between qualified and unqualified individuals.

(C) The extent to which the public can be confident that regulated individuals are competent;

(i) Whether the proposed regulatory entity would be a board composed of members of the profession and public members, or a state agency, or both and, if appropriate, their respective responsibilities in administering the system of certification or licensure, including the composition of the board; the powers and duties of the board or state agency regarding examinations, investigations, and the disciplining of certified or licensed individuals; the promulgation of rules and a code of ethics; and how fees would be levied and collected to cover the expenses of administering and operating the regulatory system;

The proposed bill does not contemplate formation of a regulatory entity as defined by GORRC. Instead, the proposed bill would recognize titles conferred by professional associations and related boards in industrial hygiene and safety. The associations and boards (refer to section 2A) have long been accepted and recognized by industrial hygiene and safety professionals in private industry, government and academia. Bylaws, certification requirements, codes of ethics and many other details relating to these organizations are presented in Appendix B. The administrative responsibilities and costs for these organizations are borne by the members of the organizations, and will not result in any new or additional administrative burden or cost to the state or general public.

(ii) If there is a grandfather clause, whether such individuals will be required to meet the prerequisite qualifications established by the regulatory entity at a later date;

There will be no grandfather clause.

(iii) The nature of the standards proposed for certification or licensure as compared to standards of other jurisdictions;

The standards of certification utilized by the ABIH and BCSP certifying boards are consistent throughout the U.S. Thirteen states have adopted some form of professional recognition relating to the industrial hygiene and/or safety professions. Of those thirteen states, eleven states have chosen certification, as is recommended in the proposed legislation. In addition, the membership organizations (AIHA and ASSE) support their members by providing a consistent legislative approach throughout the U.S. Georgia's proposed legislation is modeled after a bill that was enacted in Florida in 1998, and was based on guidance from AIHA and ASSE.

(iv) Whether the regulatory entity would be authorized to enter into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions;

The proposed bill would not establish a regulatory entity as defined by GORRC. Additionally, there would be no need for the state to enter into a reciprocity agreement, because the titles and certifications defined in the bill are consistent throughout the U.S.

(v) The nature and duration of any training and whether the applicants will be required to pass an examination; and, if an examination is required, by whom it will be developed and how the cost of development will be met;

ABIH and BCSP strictly enforce education, training and experience requirements for those seeking certification, and for those who maintain certification in the industrial hygiene and safety professions. A two-part, multi-day exam is given to assess capabilities. Certification is granted to those who meet the education, training, and experience requirements, and who pass the examinations according to standards set by each certifying body.

Details relating to education, experience and examination requirements for certification are presented in Appendix B. The cost of exam development is borne by the respective boards.

(D) Assurance to the public that regulated individuals have maintained their competence:

(i) Whether the certification or license will carry an expiration date; and

Yes, certifications carry an expiration date. For re-certification to be granted, a minimum number of continuing education points are necessary to prove that the individual has kept up with progressive developments in the profession. Re-certification is granted after a full review of each individual's continuing education points and professional standing. Refer to Appendix B for details.

(ii) Whether renewal will be based only upon payment of a fee or whether renewal will involve reexamination, satisfactory completion of continuing education, peer review, or other enforcement;

Please refer to the previous answer.
 

5. The extent to which regulation might harm the public.

The proposed legislation is specifically written such that it does not restrict individuals from entering or practicing in the area of industrial hygiene and safety in the state of Georgia. The proposed legislation simply ensures that individuals who use a select few professional titles, are in fact, qualified to use those titles. There is no restriction on the use of any other professional titles, certifications or initials. Therefore, the proposed bill offers one of the least restrictive ways to ensure safe and effective performance for the general public.

(B) Whether there are similar Professions to that of the applicant group which should be included in, or portions of the applicant group which should be excluded from, the proposed legislation.

The applicant group includes the two major professions that should be included in the proposed legislation (industrial hygienists and safety professionals). Individuals who engage in the profession of preventing, reducing, or controlling occupational health and safety hazards within the state of Georgia are not affected by the proposed legislation unless they use the professional titles or initials defined in the proposed legislation.
 

6.  A description of the group proposed for regulation, including a list of associations, organizations, and other groups representing the business or profession in this state, an estimate of the number of individuals in each group, and whether the groups represent different levels of business or professional activity.

(1) AIHA ­ Georgia Section 257 members.

(2) ASSE - Georgia Chapter 650 members.

(3) ASSE - Augusta Chapter 65 Members.

7. The expected cost of regulation.

There are no new or additional costs to be borne by the public.

(B) The impact regulation might have on various types of insurance;

The proposed regulation has the potential of reducing the cost of workers' compensation insurance for employers who use qualified industrial hygiene and safety professionals to help the employer identify and control hazards.

(C) The initial and long-term cost to the state, and to the general public, of implementing the proposed legislation.

The proposed legislation will not produce any start-up costs. Long-term costs are limited to incidental costs associated with enforcement efforts.
 

8. Any additional information requested by the council or the legislative committee of reference.