Summary of Key Point:

People don’t follow words; they follow actions. A leader’s behavior creates the foundation of the team’s culture. If you expect accountability, trust, and excellence, you must embody those values yourself. By consistently demonstrating the behaviors you want to see, you establish trust and set clear expectations without relying solely on directives or policies.

Application in Your Life:

Leadership by example means embracing the habits and attitudes you wish to see in others. For example, if you want your team to prioritize safety, ensure you’re always following safety protocols yourself—even when it’s inconvenient. If you value open communication, regularly share your own thoughts and listen actively when others speak. Over time, your actions become a benchmark for the team, shaping their daily decisions and attitudes.

Reflection Points:

1. How closely do my actions align with the values I talk about?
2. Are there instances where I’ve sent mixed signals through my behavior?
3. What’s one small change I can make today to better model the values I expect from my team?

Teaching Approach:

• Explain the Concept: Use the “parent-child” analogy—children watch their parents’ actions more closely than they listen to their words. In the same way, team members internalize the behavior their leader demonstrates.
• Activity: Ask participants to identify a specific behavior or value they want their team to adopt, such as punctuality, attention to detail, or respectful communication. Then have them outline one practical way they will consistently model that behavior in their daily work.
• Follow-Up: Encourage participants to track their efforts for a week and note any changes in their team’s behavior, sharing observations in the next meeting. This can lead to a group discussion on what worked, what was challenging, and how modeling behaviors can create lasting cultural shifts.

From the Federal Register:

OSHA issued the healthcare ETS under section 6(c) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(c)) ( Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard,86 FR 32376 (June 21, 2021), codified at 29 CFR 1910.502, 1910.504-.505, and 1910.509). Under section 6(c)(3) (29 U.S.C. 655(c)(3)), an ETS initiates rulemaking proceedings under section 6(b) and the ETS "as published shall also serve as a proposed rule for the proceeding."

When the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020, OSHA initially responded to COVID-19 in the workplace by creating guidance documents and using its existing enforcement tools. The agency pursued a two-pronged strategy: (1) enforcing existing standards such as those for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Respiratory Protection, and Bloodborne Pathogens, as well as the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)), and (2) working proactively to assist employers by developing guidance documents addressing how to reduce occupational COVID-19 hazards.

On January 21, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13999 directing OSHA to consider whether "any emergency temporary emergency standards on COVID-19" were necessary (86 FR 7211). On June 21, 2021, the agency promulgated the COVID-19 ETS applicable to healthcare. Because, under the OSH Act, this ETS also served as a proposal for a final standard, OSHA received 481 unique public comments on the ETS during the first open comment period between June 2021 and August 2021 (Docket OSHA-2020-0004).

Following the issuance of the ETS, OSHA received petitions urging the agency to adopt a permanent standard to protect healthcare workers from COVID-19 from the American Nurses Association, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and National Nurses United (NNU) (Document ID 1518; 1519; 1521; 1522; 1524; 2175). Over forty unions and organizations supported the NNU petition urging OSHA to adopt a permanent standard for COVID-19 in healthcare establishments and issue a separate, broader Infectious Diseases standard.

Become a Supporter

On December 27, 2021, OSHA announced on its website that it would be unable to finalize a COVID-19 standard for healthcare "in a timeframe approaching the one contemplated by the OSH Act" and since the end of December 2021, OSHA has not enforced the ETS beyond the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 29 CFR 1910.502(q) and (r). Instead, OSHA has relied on existing standards and the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 654(a)) to protect workers in workplaces previously covered by the ETS. OSHA emphasized in the website announcement that the agency "continues to work expeditiously to issue a final standard that will protect healthcare workers from COVID-19 hazards and will do so as it also considers its broader infectious disease rulemaking."

On January 5, 2022, several labor organizations, including NNU, filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking a writ of mandamus compelling OSHA to issue a permanent COVID-19 standard for healthcare within 30 days and to continue enforcement of the ETS in the meantime. On August 26, 2022, the court issued a decision denying NNU's petition in part and dismissing it in part for lack of jurisdiction, while also noting that the ETS would continue to serve as a proposed rule for the rulemaking proceedings (In re National Nurses United,47 F.4th 746, 754 (D.C. Cir. 2022)). The court determined that while the OSH Act created an obligation for OSHA to follow the issuance of an ETS with a notice and comment rulemaking process, "that process may result in a determination that no permanent standard is necessary."

While the NNU case was ongoing, OSHA continued its efforts to finalize a permanent COVID-19 standard for healthcare. However, after the ETS comment period closed on August 20, 2021, the available COVID-19 scientific literature, approaches to controls, and CDC guidance evolved significantly, based in part on the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants. OSHA determined that it needed to re-open the record to ensure that the agency relied on the best available evidence and that the public could provide and comment on new data and information. On March 23, 2022, OSHA published a Federal Register notice announcing a limited re-opening of the comment period for 30 days (until April 22, 2022) and public hearings beginning on April 27, 2022 (87 FR 16426, March 23, 2022).

The re-opening of the comment period and the hearing and post-hearing comment period allowed OSHA to revise and provide notice of potential changes to policy options and regulatory provisions to reflect up-to-date science, control approaches, and perspectives, as well as supporting analyses required for a final standard. At the closing of the comment period on April 22, 2022, OSHA had received approximately 250 additional comments.

The public hearings were held April 27-29 and May 2, 2022. Participating stakeholders included labor organizations, workers, employers, industry/trade groups, professional associations, public health experts, and concerned individuals, with some 39 organizations or individuals presenting their perspectives in the hearings (Document ID 2153; 2156; 2168; 2171). The presiding Administrative Law Judge permitted stakeholders to submit post-hearing comments and briefs until May 23, 2022. OSHA received nearly 150 additional comments from stakeholders during the post-hearing comment period. Over the three different comment periods, OSHA received 873 timely public comments on this rulemaking.

OSHA submitted a draft final COVID-19 rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 7, 2022. On April 10, 2023, President Biden signed House Joint Resolution 7 into law, which terminated the national emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. While the draft remained under review at OMB, OSHA developed an Infectious Diseases standard for healthcare workers.

Become a Supporter

Basis for Terminating the Rulemaking

OSHA always intended for an infectious diseases standard for healthcare workers to supplant any COVID-19 standard, and a COVID-19 standard would be an interim measure pending the completion of the infectious diseases standard. OSHA concludes that the most effective and efficient use of agency resources to protect healthcare workers from occupational exposure to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases is to focus on completing an Infectious Diseases rulemaking for healthcare rather than a disease-specific standard.

In addition, even if OSHA were to finalize a separate COVID-19 standard at this time, the agency would need to conduct an additional review and possibly supplement the record before issuing a final rule to ensure the rule reflects the most current science. For example, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other experts has changed since OSHA submitted its draft rule to OMB. Moreover, focusing on a separate COVID-19 standard would likely consume agency staff time and other agency resources in a way that would inhibit the promulgation of a more broadly protective Infectious Diseases healthcare standard. For these independently sufficient reasons, OSHA is terminating this rulemaking. The agency will have a more significant impact by adopting a standard protecting healthcare workers from occupational exposure to infectious diseases, including COVID-19 and future variants.

Final Thoughts...

According to critics, OSHA attempted to use its rulemaking authority to influence public health policy in the workplace. While many still argue the pros and cons of this approach, one thing is clear: emergency temporary standards may not always equate to the need for permanent standards, especially when the hazard itself is likely temporary. 

What do you think? Be sure to join in on the conversation by sharing your comments.

Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM has been in the occupational safety & health industry for over 28 years and author of Rethinking SAFETY Culture and Rethinking SAFETY Communications. Blaine is the producer and host of The SafetyPro Podcast and founded the SafetyPro Podcast community site.

The popularity of lithium-phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries with solar panels as a backup source of power marks a significant shift in how households and businesses can address power needs. I have had several LiFePO4 batteries with solar panels for a while now, and I wanted to share what I researched and learned. I want to start with why I decided to go with a LiFePO4 system. I stumbled upon these devices as I was researching whether to go with solar panels on the roof of my home with a battery storage system or install a gas generator for emergency backup power. Also, I was thinking about doing more boondocking (off-grid) camping in our RV.

Ultimately, I decided on solar panels with a LiFePO4 battery. Not only will they power my entire house, but once set up, I can take a spare base unit with an expansion battery and place it in my RV storage area. I can then recharge the battery via the camper solar panels or have the battery charge from shore power at a campsite, acting as a backup generator should we lose power. So why not a gas-powered generator?

With advancements in battery technology, these systems offer cleaner, quieter, and more efficient alternatives to traditional gas-powered generators. While effective, gas-powered generators come with several dangers and inconveniences, especially when used in remote locations or during travel. Their reliance on combustible fuel introduces risks of carbon monoxide poisoning and fire hazards. Additionally, fuel storage and refueling can be cumbersome, especially in isolated areas where supplies may be limited. These challenges highlight the growing appeal of LiFePO4 systems as a safer, more sustainable option.

Become a Supporter

As technology advances and production scales, the costs of these systems are expected to decrease, making them more accessible to a broader range of users. Their versatility in energy sourcing (this is the "generator" part of the phrase 'LiFePO4 Solar Generator' commonly used to describe these systems) —from solar panels, household electricity, or EV charging stations—continues to add to their convenience and long-term cost appeal. However, adopting this technology comes with unique safety challenges that owners must understand.

Depending on various factors, a LiFePO4 battery's efficiency may be limited. For example, some models may not match the sustained high-output demand like gas generators, which are preferred for heavy-duty, prolonged power needs. Additionally, LiFePO4 batteries often require longer recharging than gas generators' refueling process, which can be an inconvenience in extended power outages. However, advancements in solar panel technology now offer higher energy output (generation), potentially reducing recharge times when using solar panels. These improvements make solar charging a more viable option for users relying on alternative energy, especially in sunny or remote locations where grid access is unavailable.

Although LiFePO4 batteries are efficient, some models may not handle the rapid power surges required for certain high-demand appliances as effectively as gas-powered generators. Furthermore, due to the density of their battery cells, LiFePO4 units tend to be significantly heavier, making portability a challenge compared to lightweight gas generators.

Despite these considerations, newer high-output LiFePO4 systems are emerging, offering improved capabilities for more demanding applications. For example, each Anker F3800 has a maximum surge capacity of 9000 watts, demonstrating the ability of newer generators to handle significant power demands and bridge the gap between traditional gas generators and battery-powered solutions.

Another comparison worth pointing out is the convenience and integration these newer LiFePO4 systems offer. Many do-it-yourself (DIY) enthusiasts prefer to build solar and traditiona llithium-ion battery backup systems for homes and RVs using traditional lithium-ion batteries. These setups often require sourcing individual components, such as inverters/converters, charge controllers to regulate solar input, fuses, cabling, and battery management systems to ensure the safe operation and longevity of the batteries. Additionally, DIY builders must ensure that all components are rated for compatibility and are appropriately configured to work together, which can be both time-consuming and complex.

The most common problem posted on various DIY RV Solar groups have to do with troubleshooting all the issues folks have with a solar and battery system they cobbled together from various parts - Blaine J. Hoffmann

In contrast, newer LiFePO4 systems offer a complete, integrated solution with built-in essential components. Alongside inverters/converters, charge controllers, and battery management systems, many models also feature advanced connectivity options such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, allowing users to monitor and control their systems remotely. This all-in-one design eliminates much of the guesswork involved in DIY setups, simplifying installation while ensuring optimal safety and functionality. These systems provide an accessible and efficient alternative for users like me who want reliable backup power without the challenges of assembling a homegrown system.

Become a Supporter

Electrical Safety When Connecting to the Grid

Proper precautions are essential when connecting a LiFePO4 battery to a home or facility's electrical system to avoid hazards such as electrical backfeed, which can endanger utility workers and damage equipment. Homeowners and safety professionals should always ensure the use of a transfer switch to isolate the battery power from the public power grid during operation. This device prevents backfeed, providing safe and compliant usage.

Load management is equally critical. Overloading a battery system can lead to overheating or damage to both the battery and connected devices. It's vital to match the battery's output capacity with the demand of the connected devices. Additionally, when recharging these batteries using a standard 120v outlet, it is essential to ensure the home or business circuit can handle the additional load. Circuits with insufficient capacity may overheat, trip breakers, or even cause electrical fires. Ensuring compatibility protects not only the electrical infrastructure but also helps maintain the battery's optimal functionality.

TIP: Look for models that allow you to change the recharge settings. On my Anker F3800 and F2000 batteries, I can change the AC recharging demand so as not to overload a circuit.

LiFePO4 batteries offer superior stability and safety compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries commonly used in home solar systems, portable tools/equipment, or camping applications. Conventional lithium-ion batteries are more prone to thermal runaway, a phenomenon in which excessive heat leads to uncontrollable chemical reactions, potentially causing fires or explosions. LiFePO4 batteries, on the other hand, are far less susceptible to this risk due to their inherently stable chemical structure, which makes them safer, particularly in applications requiring high energy density and reliability.

In addition, LiFePO4 batteries perform better under lower temperatures. Traditional lithium-ion batteries can lose significant capacity or fail in certain cold conditions. In contrast, LiFePO4 batteries maintain consistent efficiency and functionality even in sub-freezing temperatures. This reliability extends to high-temperature scenarios, where LiFePO4 batteries resist overheating and degradation better than their lithium-ion counterparts. LiFePO4 batteries offer extended cycle life and integrated safety features, making them a preferred choice for users who require durability and performance in various environments.

General Battery Safety

While LiFePO4 batteries may be known for their stability, improper handling can still lead to risks such as overheating, fires, and explosions. Adequate ventilation during operation is crucial to dissipate heat and prevent overheating. Generators should also be kept from direct sunlight or other heat sources to maintain optimal operating conditions.

To mitigate fire risks, use models equipped with built-in thermal management systems and safety certifications for workplace and household applications. Safety professionals and homeowners should ensure that dry powder fire extinguishers rated for electrical fires are readily available near operating generators. Additionally, preventing exposure to moisture and avoiding physical damage to the battery can significantly reduce the risk of explosions. Regular battery damage or swelling inspections are vital to maintaining safety and functionality. 

Appropriate Storage Practices

Proper storage of LiFePO4 batteries is critical for safety and longevity. Batteries should be stored in cool, dry environments between 32°F and 95°F. Extreme temperatures can degrade performance and reduce their lifespan. To preserve battery health during extended periods of non-use, maintain a charge level of approximately 50% to 70%.

When transporting these batteries, it is essential to consider models designed for mobility. These models feature built-in handles, wheels, and durable casings that can withstand rough handling or adverse weather conditions. Batteries with weather-resistant ratings are crucial for outdoor use or in remote locations where exposure to the elements is a concern.

Placement during storage should prioritize stability, keeping the battery on a flat, stable surface away from flammable materials. Routine maintenance, including periodic testing and recharging, ensures the battery remains in optimal condition and is ready for use when needed. These practices help mitigate risks and extend the battery's operational life.

Become a Supporter

Conducting Frequent Inspections

Regular inspections are critical to maintaining the safety and functionality of LiFePO4 batteries. These inspections should include thoroughly checking the battery's physical condition and looking for signs of swelling, corrosion, or other damage that could indicate potential failure or safety risks. Ensuring all connections are secure and free of dust or debris and damage is equally important to prevent electrical malfunctions.

Another essential step is inspecting the battery's ventilation system. Blocked or inadequate ventilation can lead to overheating, reduced performance, and increased fire risks. Owners should also verify that any built-in thermal management systems function correctly to ensure safe operation under varying load conditions.

Frequent checks of the battery's charging system and stored charge levels help ensure it is ready for use when needed. By incorporating these inspections into routine maintenance schedules, safety risks can be significantly reduced, and the battery's lifespan can be maximized.

Additional Best Practices and Final Thoughts

Safety professionals should prioritize workplace training and education to ensure the safe operation of LiFePO4 battery backup systems. Proper training on operation, maintenance, and emergency response procedures is essential. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to manufacturer instructions and safety guidelines can significantly reduce risks. Additionally, businesses and homeowners must stay updated on safety standards, such as the UL, IEC, and NFPA codes governing battery systems and electrical installations.

Integrating a LiFePO4 battery backup systems can offer homeowners a safe and reliable power solution, but understanding the risks is critical. Regularly inspecting connections, ensuring safe storage, and maintaining proper ventilation during operation can significantly reduce hazards. By educating all users on these essential practices, the benefits of these advanced systems can be maximized, providing peace of mind and sustainable energy solutions.

Unlike traditional gas-powered generators, LiFePO4-based systems present unique risks, such as the potential for thermal runaway under extreme conditions or hazards related to incorrect integration with renewable energy sources like solar panels. Furthermore, the high energy density of lithium batteries can pose challenges during transportation or disposal, requiring compliance with regulations specific to hazardous materials. If used in the workplace, including these considerations in emergency response plans and conducting regular drills ensures readiness and reinforces safe practices among users.

LiFePO4 battery backup systems represent a huge leap in portable and backup power options. These devices offer the potential for a more efficient alternative to traditional gas-powered generators. Still, they require careful handling to maximize their benefits and minimize potential hazards.

LiFePO4 battery backup systems are handy in industries with off-grid requirements or where alternative energy solutions are beneficial. Businesses can reduce reliance on traditional fuels by leveraging their compatibility with solar panels. Furthermore, the lower maintenance demands than gas generators result in reduced downtime and long-term operational savings.

Utilizing LiFePO4 battery backup systems provide businesses and homeowners with a reliable and convenient power option. The convenience and safety of integrated systems make them an excellent choice for worry-free energy solutions in the home.

What do you think? Are these devices a safer, reliable, viable competitor to traditional gas-powered generators? Join in on the conversation over at The SafetyPro Podcast community site today!

Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM has been in the occupational safety & health industry for over 28 years and is the author of Rethinking SAFETY Culture and Rethinking SAFETY Communications. Blaine is the producer and host of The SafetyPro Podcast and founded the SafetyPro Podcast community site.