Safe Workplace and Safety News

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) Director Stanley "Skip" Pruss today announced the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) has cited V&S Detroit Galvanizing LLC, of Redford, following a fatal accident, with $245,000 in proposed penalties for allegedly failing to adequately protect employees during overhead crane operations.

On Nov. 3, 2009, V&S Detroit Galvanizing employees were attaching parts to be galvanized onto two 1½ ton racks (steel I-beams). The racks were supported by rack stands. A crane operator moved the first rack up and over employees who were hanging parts on the second rack. The crane clipped the rack stands, causing the remaining rack to fall. A temporary employee, Darryl Johnson, was caught and crushed under the weight of the rack, resulting in his death.

"This tragic workplace fatality could have been prevented. V&S Detroit Galvanizing knew their rack system was unstable, and yet they continued to expose their employees to daily hazards during overhead crane operations, which led to the death of this worker," said Pruss. "This failure to protect their workers will not be tolerated. We are sending a clear message to all employers that they must be proactive and consistently protect their workers."

V&S Detroit Galvanizing LLC, of Redford, employs approximately 39 employees, with some employees represented by Teamsters Local 299. The plant is over 50,000 square feet and does hot dip galvanizing of all types of metal parts, for a wide variety of industries.

On Oct. 21, 2008, a V&S Detroit employee received multiple fractures to his left leg in a very similar incident. A rack that was loaded with parts fell on him and crushed his leg as a crane lifted another rack off the same supporting pair of rack stands. "This accident should have been a warning to the company to alter their procedures to protect their workers," said Pruss.

In V&S Detroit's normal racking procedure there are two rackers, a crane operator and a hi-lo operator. This is a permanent operation at the facility and the company had several alternatives available to protect their workers:

* They could have bolted the rack stands to the concrete floor in order to prevent them from moving when the first stand is lifted.
* They could have changed the set up so that only a single rack was supported by a rack stand.
* They could also have required employees to move to the side of the building when a crane was lifting and moving a rack.

General Industry Safety Standard, Part 18, Overhead and Gantry Cranes, is a comprehensive standard that covers the equipment, installation, maintenance, and operation of top running overhead and gantry single and multiple girder cranes in, about, and around places of employment, in order to safeguard employees. It also details the necessary employee training and certification that employers must provide.

From Nov. 3, 2009, to Feb. 11, 2010, MIOSHA conducted the fatality investigation, as well as a companion investigation at V&S Detroit Galvanizing LLC. As a result of these two investigations, MIOSHA is issuing citations for 10 alleged violations of MIOSHA regulations. The combined citations for both investigations include seven Serious and three Willful Serious violations. The combined penalty for both investigations is $245,000.

The responsibility to protect employees lies with the employer. It is anticipated that issuing these citations will cause the employer to strengthen their safety and health efforts by maintaining corrections. (The Summary of Violations for both cases are below.)

"MIOSHA is committed to helping employers who want to do the right thing. Our Consultation Education and Training (CET) Division can help employers build an effective safety and health system," said MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski. "However, MIOSHA will not tolerate employers who place their employees at risk of injury or death and will take appropriate enforcement action to protect workers."

Related Past Posts
Foam Insulation Company Fined For Fatality
What To Do Before There Is A Fatal Accident
National Initiative On Cranes

Labels: hazard prevention, Industrial Safety, safety management, workplace fatalities

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the manufacturer of a machine, that was involved in an industrial accident, can be held liable even though that manufacturer is in the United Kingdom and has no presence in New Jersey or the U.S.

An article on the LAW.COM web site states:

"Justice Barry Albin, writing for the 5-2 majority, said that given the nature of modern international commerce and New Jersey's long-arm rule, there is no reason why a foreign manufacturer cannot be held liable, even if it has barely any contact here."

The accident happened in 2001 and involved the loss of four fingers in a recycling machine.

There were two dissenting judges in the 5-2 decision. The articles reports:

"In her dissent, Hoens said there needs to be more of a nexus to New Jersey than a product just ending up here. 'Repeated quotations and soaring language about the realities of the global marketplace might compel the casual reader to follow what appears to be the majority's relentless logic,' she said. 'But those rhetorical techniques cannot mask the fact that the majority today embarks on a path that stretches our notions about due process, and about what is fundamentally fair, beyond the breaking point.'"

Read the entire article here.

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety regulations, workplace injuries

OSHA has cited Solid Waste Transfer & Recycling Inc. for alleged safety and health violations. Proposed penalties total $212,400.

OSHA initiated an inspection on June 3 as part of its proactive program targeting companies in industries with high injury and illness rates. As a result, the company has been issued citations for four willful violations with a penalty of $198,000 and six serious violations with a penalty of $14,400.

The willful violations address the company's failure to have an adequate lockout procedure and a lack of machine guards. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to, or intentional disregard for, employee safety and health.

The serious violations include blocked exits, inadequate energy control procedures, lack of training, failure to properly mark compressed gas cylinders and effectively close electrical box openings. A serious citation is issued when there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew, or should have known, of the hazard.

"Lockout procedures are designed to safeguard workers from the unexpected startup of machinery and equipment, or the release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance activities," said Phil Peist, area director of OSHA's office in Parsippany, N.J. "It is imperative that the company correct the identified hazards to protect the safety and health of its workers."

"One means of helping ensure worker safety is for employers is to establish an effective safety and health management system through which they and their employees work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazards before they result in injury or illness," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.

The Newark company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This investigation was conducted by OSHA's Philadelphia Area Office; telephone: 215-597-4955.

Labels: Industrial Safety, LOTO, OSHA Citations, safety labeling

Crespac Inc. in Tucker, Ga., has been cited with 34 safety and health violations by OSHA. Proposed penalties total $266,400.

"OSHA began its comprehensive safety and health inspection after learning of two separate incidents resulting in amputations within a 30-day period," said Gei-Thae Breezley, director of OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office. "In both instances, management knew of deficiencies but acted with plain indifference by failing to correct the problems in a timely manner that could have prevented these amputations."

The agency is citing the company with three willful, four repeat, 19 serious and one other-than-serious safety violations, as well as five serious and two other-than-serious health violations. OSHA is proposing penalties of $249,200 for the safety violations and an additional $17,200 for the health violations.

The willful citations result from the company's failure to ensure that all machines had proper safety guards, functional emergency stop cords and usable safety interlock switches installed on machinery. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.

The company is being cited for repeat violations related to having slippery and wet floors, lack of safety guards on machines, machines being operated with broken parts and employees being exposed to electrical shocks.

Serious violations include fall hazards, slipping and tripping hazards, entrapment hazards, failure to provide proper fire training and equipment, failure to properly train forklift operators, electrical hazards, noise hazards, exposure to hazardous chemicals and an insufficient respirator program for employees. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists. OSHA issues repeat violations when it finds a substantially similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any of a company's other facilities in federal enforcement states.

Other-than-serious violations relate to the company's failure to conduct timely inspections of overhead cranes and related equipment and recordkeeping deficiencies in required OSHA incident logs.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The site was inspected by staff from OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office, 2183 Northlake Parkway, Building 7, Suite 110, Tucker, Ga.; telephone 770-493-6644.

Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines

Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data

Read more about this in the Las Vegas Sun

What The GAO Found:

The Department Of Labor verifies some of the workplace injury and illness data it collects from employers through OSHA’s audits of employers’ records, but these efforts may not be adequate. OSHA overlooks information from workers about injuries and illnesses because it does not routinely interview them as part of its records audits. OSHA annually audits the records of a representative sample of about 250 of the approximately 130,000 worksites in the high hazard industries it surveys to verify the accuracy of the data on injuries and illnesses recorded by employers. However, OSHA does not always require inspectors to interview workers about injuries and illnesses—the only source of data not provided by employers—which could assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the records.

In addition, some OSHA inspectors reported they rarely learn about injuries and illnesses from workers since the records audits are conducted about 2 years after incidents are recorded.

Moreover, many workers are no longer employed at the worksite and therefore cannot be interviewed.

OSHA also does not review the accuracy of injury and illness records for worksites in eight high hazard industries because it has not updated the industry codes used to identify these industries since 2002.

OSHA officials told GAO they have not updated the industry codes because it would require a regulatory change that is not currently an agency priority. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also collects data on work-related injuries and illnesses recorded by employers through its annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), but it does not verify the accuracy of the data. Although BLS is not required to verify the accuracy of the SOII data, it has recognized several limitations in the data, such as its limited scope, and has taken or is planning several actions to improve the quality and completeness of the SOII.

According to stakeholders interviewed and the occupational health practitioners GAO surveyed, many factors affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including disincentives that may discourage workers from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses to their employers and disincentives that may discourage employers from recording them.

For example, workers may not report a work-related injury or illness because they fear job loss or other disciplinary action, or fear jeopardizing rewards based on having low injury and illness rates. In addition, employers may not record injuries or illnesses because they are afraid of increasing their workers’ compensation costs or jeopardizing their chances of winning contract bids for new work.

Disincentives for reporting and recording injuries and illnesses can result in pressure on occupational health practitioners from employers or workers to provide insufficient medical treatment that avoids the need to record the injury or illness.

From its survey of U.S. health practitioners, GAO found that over a third of them had been subjected to such pressure.

In addition, stakeholders and the survey results indicated that other factors may affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including a lack of understanding of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements by individuals responsible for recording injuries and illnesses.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to:

1 -require inspectors to interview workers during records audits, and substitute other workers when those initially selected are unavailable.

2 - minimize the time between the date injuries and illnesses are recorded by employers and the date they are audited

3 - update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for records audits

4 - increase education and training to help employers better understand the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA agreed with these recommendations.

Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, OSHA Inspections

Today's issue of Construction Magazine includes an article with the Top Seven Tips
For Effectively Managing OH&S. Although written for the construction industry these are excellent tips for any workplace.

The seven top tips are:

1. Understand your responsibilities
2. Consult your workers
3. Identify, assess and control risks
4. Inform, train and supervise
5. Manage incidents and injuries
6. Keep records
7. Monitor, review and improve

To get the details read this article online at: Seven OH&S Management Tips

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, safety management

An article in the online edition of National Underwriter reports on a recent study done by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) that shows the Workers Compensation costs for obese workers exceed those for other workers by up to a level of being 5.3 times more costly. The article reports that:

..."obese claims are 2.8-times more expensive than non-obese claims at the 12-month maturity, but this cost difference climbs to a factor of 4.5 at the three-year maturity and to 5.3 at the five-year maturity."

Read the complete article on the National Underwriters web site.

The NCCI announce about the study reports:

"There is increasing evidence that obesity contributes to the cost of medical care in workers compensation, and that this contribution is significant in magnitude. For instance, a recent study of workers compensation claims of Duke University employees shows that, for the morbidly obese, the medical costs per 100 full-time equivalent employees are nearly seven times as high as for employees of recommended weight. "

More detailed information, and a complete report on the study is available on the NCCI web site.

Past Blog Postings:
Obesity Rates Take Toll On Employers
Preventing Worker Foot Injuries
Older Workers Mean Greater Safety & Productivity

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, Workers' Comp

This new safety video uses 3-D animation to show how accumulations of combustible dust at industrial workplaces can provide the fuel for devastating explosions that kill and maim workers, shut down plants, and harm local economies. Excellent quality - 30 minutes in length.



Related Past Posts
OSHA Issues New Combustible Dust Instruction
Combustible Dust Standards

Labels: hazardous materials, Industrial Safety, Safety Training, safety videos, workplace safety

These are some videos from the past week's fire school training at TEEX (Texas Engineering Extension Service).

Labels: Industrial Safety, Safety Training, safety videos

With young people starting summer jobs and import skill many of them need to be taught is how to lift objects. Also, as the workforce grows older, and more easily injured, this is something we need to keep fresh in the minds of our regular workforce. So for this holiday weekend we present two videos about lifting. One historic, the other current. But no matter the age of the video, the message is the same.

This is a short video (40 seconds) from 1966 that shows the proper posture for picking up objects.


This video (2:47) provides detailed, step-by-step instructions for evaluating, picking up and carrying an object.

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, Safety Training

The following was issued by Dupont for World Day for Safety and Health at Work:

As organizations mark World Day for Safety and Health at Work today, safety leaders at DuPont share 10 ways individuals can personally reduce injuries at work. World Day for Safety and Health at Work is an international campaign to promote safe, healthy and decent work.

"You can’t be safe if your workplace is unsafe, but even a safe workplace will not keep you from harm if you do not take personal responsibility," said Jim Weigand, vice president and general manager of DuPont Safety Resources, the company's consulting and training business that has worked with thousands of organizations globally to improve workplace safety. "The vast majority of injuries are due to the unsafe actions of people.”

Here are 10 reminders for individuals to help prevent injuries:

1. Be aware. Being aware of your surroundings, potential hazards and your fellow colleagues is one of the best ways to prevent injuries. Distractions cause accidents. Anticipating versus reacting will help keep you safe and bring you home to your family.
2. Think it through. Before you start a task take a couple of minutes to think through what you’re about to do. Do you know the correct procedure, the protective equipment required, and the potential hazards to you and to others?
3. Address unsafe actions and conditions when you see them, for your safety and the safety of others. Don’t be afraid to speak up when you see something unsafe – you could be preventing an injury.
4. Use personal protective equipment as prescribed. The proper gloves, glasses, clothing, shoes and respirators are an important part of keeping you safe, but only if they are used and worn as intended. And they are your last line of defense, not a substitute for removing a hazard.
5. Be aware of your body position. Move your body in the right way. Keep out of the way of hazards, such as moving equipment and sharp objects. Using the right gloves is important, but gloves do not protect hands from being crushed or punctured. And don’t forget that repetitive motions can cause injuries.
6. Use the right tool for the right job. The proper tools and equipment help you avoid hazards and prevent risk. For example, when you’re using a ladder, make sure the ladder is set properly to prevent it from tipping. Be careful not to overreach. And have another person assist you when necessary.
7. Follow procedures for safe work. It may take a little extra time, but shortcuts put you at risk. Locking-out machinery and using guards helps keep you safe from moving parts. Don’t cut corners and by-pass these important safeguards.
8. Stay in shape. Keeping your core muscles in shape – whether you have a desk or physical job -- is important to prevent injuries. Core muscle strength helps maintain balance, flexibility and strength. Take a few moments to stretch, make sure you know the limitations of your body and maintain good posture.
9. Watch your step. Ice, water, and spills are the most common causes of slips, trips and falls. And steps can be particularly dangerous, so make sure you always use a handrail.
10. Practice safe driving. Many people get hurt driving on the job by not obeying traffic laws. And distractions such as cell phones are responsible for the rising number of automobile accidents. Visit the April is Driving Safety Month webpage or click here to watch a video for more information.

For more information, visit:
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/worldday/index.htm.

Related Posts:
New OSHA Guidance Document Focuses on PPE
Emphasis On Reducing Lead Exposure

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety

While the increase in older workers in the American workforce could suggest a corresponding decrease in workplace productivity and increase in accident claims, the opposite has proven to be true. Older workers are a benefit to the companies that employ them. However, injuries to older adults tend to be of higher severity, so U.S. companies should consider making workplace modifications that prevent injuries.

These conclusions were published in a new white paper by the PMA Companies, "Capitalizing on an Aging Workforce." The paper, which is the first in a quarterly series by the PMA Companies called PMA Insights, can be viewed at www.pmagroup.com.

Authored by Ken Nogan, Risk Control Consultant at PMA Insurance Group, the paper reports that since 1977, the number of people 65 and older in the workforce has increased more than 100 percent. In addition:

• It is estimated that workers in the age groups 65-74 and 75 and up will grow more dramatically than any other workforce age group - more than 80 percent.
• More than half of older workers are working full-time, up from 44 percent in 1995.

"Not surprisingly, as people age, their skills and faculties, including strength, range of motion, motor skills, sensory acuity and ability to heal, diminish," Nogan wrote. "While this may suggest that older workers would have a negative effect on workplace productivity and safety, statistics prove otherwise."

In fact, the paper notes that as over-55 workers increase in the workplace, so does productivity and overall workplace safety. However, when older workers do experience injuries, severity can be significant, which is an issue that must be considered by safety professionals.

These findings lead to two conclusions, according to the paper: one, older workers are a benefit to the company that employs them and, two, it pays to make modifications to work environments to prevent injuries and limit the severity of injuries commonly sustained by older workers.

Key Preventative Measures

The chief risk management concerns that were identified in the paper for older workers are increased falls, increased fatality rates, longer healing times, greater overall severity of injuries and more severe musculoskeletal disorders. The paper recommends that companies consider implementing risk control measures designed for the needs of older workers. Among the specific recommendations are:

• Slip and fall prevention - Falls alone account for more than one-third of all injuries sustained by workers 65 and older, and it takes an older worker two to three times longer to recover from an injury than a younger counterpart.
  
  
• Ergonomics - Ergonomic evaluations of workstations and workspaces can identify causes of fatigue and strain for older workers.
  
  
• Safe driving - Death rates for work-related roadway crashes increase steadily beginning at around age 55, and older drivers (55 and above) are more likely than other drivers to have a crash at an intersection or when merging or changing lanes on a highway.
  
  
• Return to work - Because claim statistics reflect a connection between increased healing time and age, there is a need for highly responsive return to work efforts for older workers.

Related previous posts:
Adult ADHD Is A Risk To Workplace Safety
Top Ten Most Disabling Injuries

Labels: fall protection, Industrial Safety, safety management, Vehicle Safety

An article in Abeceder/Independent Minds discusses recent research that indicates that adult ADHD may be a factor in workplace safety. The article opens with the following statement:

"Some people just seem to be accident prone. Well now that we understand more about childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) maybe we should be asking what happens to those children when they grow up and go to work, and what about the undiagnosed adults currently in the workforce."

The research showed that: "Based on the extra sick leave the staff with ADHD took and their lower work performance, the researchers estimated that each staff member with ADHD was costing their employer $4336 a year in lost revenue."

Read the complete article here.

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, safety statistics, Safety Training, workplace safety

Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety has released the 2008 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index which includes a list of the top ten most disabling workplace injuries. The opening sentence states that "The estimated direct U.S. workers compensation costs for the most disabling workplace injuries and illnesses in 2006 were $48.6 billion. This finding and many others are presented in the 2008 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index."

The complete report is available here.

The most recent information is for 2006. The top ten causes of the most disabling workplace injuries in 2006 were:

Overexertion - 25.7%
Fall On Same Level - 13.3%
Fall To Lower Level - 10.8%
Bodily Reaction - 10.0%
Struck by Object - 8.9%
Struck Against Object - 5.1%
Highway Incident - 4.9%
Caught In/Compressed By - 4.4&
Repetitive Motion - 4.0%
Assaults/Violent Acts - 0.9%

Labels: hazard identifcation, Industrial Safety, safety management, workplace safety

"Workplace safety processes must be in place at all times," American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHMM, of Fairborn, Ohio, said today. "hey are even more critical during business downturns."

Brown is referring to recent reports of some companies cutting safety processes hoping to reduce costs.

"If companies believe they will save money by reducing or ignoring safety for their workers, customers and communities they do business in, they are mistaken," Brown said. "The ongoing positive results are in and have been for companies that have a strong safety culture and continually invest in and implement effective safety processes. Not only does their bottom line benefit positively, but their company reputation stays intact, employees stay safe and healthy reducing health care, workers comp, training and turnover costs not to mention keeping customers, the communities they do business in, vendors and employees happy. Safety is good business."

Members of the 97-year-old ASSE -- occupational safety, health and environmental professionals located worldwide -- caution employers against cutting back on workplace safety in time of economic difficulty.

President-Elect of the ASSE South Carolina Chapter Laura Comstock said, "Some safety related purchases and testing can be deferred, but other purchases, such as those for employee personal protective equipment (PPE) like hardhats, safety glasses and respirators, are critical to operations."

It is especially important for companies to show support for their employee safety during challenging economic times, she notes. "Employee morale may be low and employees may be carrying additional workloads, such as working additional hours or doing unfamiliar tasks due to cutbacks," she notes.

Comstock added, "In order to remain viable long-term, a company must maintain a solid safety process even through difficult times. The most successful companies in the long term also have the strongest safety performance."

"We realize these are tough times, but during economic down-turns, employers seeking to cut expenses may target variable operating costs such as travel, training and safety," Brown said. "Money cut from safety processes now could have an enormous cost later; this can be from injury and health care costs, fines, lost production time, employee morale, or worst of all, employee injury or even death. There are better and smarter ways to protect the bottom line."

The South Carolina ASSE chapter suggests employees can also take measures to help companies save money such as by: following safe working procedures and practices to prevent injuries, related downtime and expenses such as costly fines; by properly using, cleaning and caring for protective equipment such as hardhats and respirators; reusing gloves whenever possible for as long as possible; and by keeping track of safety glasses and reusable hearing protection.

Investing in safety pays and contributes positively to a company’s bottom line. Businesses spend about $170 billion a year on costs associated with workplace injuries and illnesses and pay almost $1 billion every week to injured employees and their medical providers. In addition, a recent investment firm study in Australia showed valuation links between workplace safety and health factors and investment performance. It found that companies who did not adequately manage workplace safety issues underperformed those that did.

Comstock also reminds employers, "When considering training reductions, some safety related training is driven by regulation, is time sensitive and cannot be delayed. Safety training related savings can be generated by streamlining and implementing simple solutions including using online or electronic safety training services, rather than face-to-face classroom safety training."

"We need to work together during these difficult times, but reducing or ignoring workplace safety should not be a strategic or budget option," Brown said. "The costs – both tangible and intangible – are far too high and hard to recoup."

Labels: ASSE, Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, workplace safety

"A recent survey conducted by Kimberly-Clark Professional found that 89% of safety professionals polled have observed workers failing to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when they should have been. This is the third consecutive year that the Kimberly-Clark survey has revealed a high rate of PPE noncompliance. In 2007, 87% of respondents said they had observed PPE noncompliance in the workplace, while 85% answered yes to this question in 2006."

The above is from the blog for Today's Facility Manager magazine.

The following is the press release from Kimberly-Clark:

U.S. workers are risking workplace injuries by not complying with important safety procedures, according to a survey released today by Kimberly-Clark Professional. The survey found that 89 percent of safety professionals polled at the 2008 National Safety Council (NSC) Congress have observed workers failing to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when they should have been.

"We find it disheartening that people continue to put themselves at risk by failing to wear PPE when undertaking hazardous tasks," said Randy Kates, general manager of the safety business for Kimberly-Clark Professional. "Despite the importance of PPE, there is still an unacceptably high rate of noncompliance in the workplace."

This is the third consecutive year that the Kimberly-Clark survey has revealed a high rate of PPE noncompliance. In 2007, 87 percent of respondents said they had observed PPE noncompliance in the workplace, while 85 percent answered yes to this question in 2006.

Given the high rate of noncompliance over the past three years, it is not surprising that when asked to name the top workplace safety issue in their facilities one third of respondents cited worker compliance with safety protocols. Next was insufficient management support and/or resources for health and safety functions (27 percent). Under-reporting of workplace injuries and illnesses was third (14 percent), followed by training a multilingual, multicultural workforce (7 percent) and escalating worker compensation costs (5 percent).

Is the Economy a Factor?

One potential explanation for continuing problems with compliance could be the economy. Thirty-four percent of respondents said the economy had affected worker safety training programs or resources. Fifty-nine percent said it had not. Of those who said the economy had impacted safety training or resources, the survey found that:

• 63 percent said it had led to less money for education and training.
• 42 percent said it had resulted in reduced personnel to handle safety training tasks.
• 33 percent said the faltering economy had led to business concerns taking precedence over safety concerns.

This year’s survey also polled safety professionals about the steps they have taken or intend to take to encourage greater PPE compliance. The top response was "improving existing education and training programs," followed by "purchasing more comfortable PPE." Increased monitoring of employees was third, followed by tying compliance to individual performance evaluations and purchasing more stylish PPE.

"Work-related injuries in the U.S. cost more than $50 billion a year," said Kates. "Our research has shown that comfort and style are major drivers for compliance with PPE protocols. In the current economic climate it is more important than ever to invest in PPE that workers will want to wear."

Focus on Environmental Sustainability

The environment was another topic covered in this year’s survey. Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported that their companies had formal corporate sustainability goals, while 22 percent said they did not. (Twenty percent said they did not know the answer to this question.)

Respondents from companies with corporate sustainability goals were asked what their facilities were doing to become more environmentally responsible. The top choice was reducing the waste generated by a facility’s processes. It was followed by:

• Reducing energy consumption.
• Reducing the waste associated with supplies and other items that they purchased.
• Reducing water consumption.

All respondents were asked what their facilities had done to encourage or require suppliers to assist them in becoming more environmentally responsible. The top selection was increasing the amount of recycled content in the products supplied to them (39 percent). Tied for second place were: reducing packaging materials for the products supplied to them and having suppliers "demonstrate or state/warrant that they have environmentally responsible business practices" (29 percent). Close behind was delivering more products at one time to reduce fuel usage (27 percent).

Only 6 percent of respondents said environmental responsibility was not a major concern for their organizations. (For this question, respondents were allowed to select more than one answer.)

Health Concerns

When asked if they were concerned about the potential health and safety issues for their workers posed by oil, grease, heavy metal residues or toxic elements on re-usable rental shop towels, 63 percent of respondents answered yes. This compares with 73 percent of respondents answering yes to the same question in 2007.

When asked what might encourage them to switch from re-usable rental shop towels to
disposable wipers, the survey found:

• 35 percent of respondents cited concerns about the health and safety issues
mentioned above.
• 28 percent chose a closed loop solution for disposable wipers, in which used wipers
are recycled or converted to energy and diverted from landfills.
• 10 percent were concerned about water pollution from laundering re-usable rental
shop towels.
• 29 percent said they did not use rental shop towels.

Safety Philosophy

This year respondents were asked to describe their personal safety philosophy from a list of choices. Two responses tied for first place: "Safety doesn’t cost it pays" and "Organizations must create safety based cultures" (43 percent each). Only 10 percent selected the statement "Safety begins and ends at the top" and just two percent chose "Safety is a pain, but so is my boss."

"These results did not surprise us," said Scott Gaddis, global safety leader for
Kimberly-Clark Professional. "Workplace safety must be managed like every other strategic business objective that is important to an organization’s success."

Survey Methodology

The survey was undertaken at the NSC Congress in Anaheim, Calif., on September 23,
2008. The survey questionnaires were filled out by 153 safety professionals who reported being responsible for purchasing, selecting or influencing the purchase or selection of, or compliance with, PPE. The respondents included safety directors and managers, industrial hygienists, environmental managers and purchasing professionals. For full survey results, visit www.kcprofessional.com/us/mkt/2008nscpressrelease .

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, safety management, Safety Training, workplace safety

A total of 252,784 nonfatal injuries and illnesses were reported by private industry workplaces in Texas during 2007. The resulting rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time employees marks a five-year low. The rate of injuries and illnesses reflects a 15% decrease from 4.0 in 2003, when data collection began under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The Texas rate is below the national rate of 4.2 for 2007; the national rate for 2006 was 4.4.

The 2007 injury and illness data are the latest available from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses conducted by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (TDI-DWC) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The occupational injury and illness rates are based on a statistical sample of approximately 10,000 private employers in Texas.

Workplace injury and illness rates vary widely among private sector industries (Table 1).

• The goods producing industries reported an overall 7% decrease from 2006. Within this group, mining showed the largest decrease (29%) of all sectors, matching the rate in 2003 and 2004. Manufacturing slightly decreased from 2006 and is down by 17% from 2003. Meanwhile, construction remained the same and the industry maintained a 14% decrease from 2003.
  
  
• The service providing industries also showed a decrease of almost 6% from 2006. Health care and social assistance reported the largest decrease (20%).
  
  
• In 2007, the manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, utilities, financial activities, educational services and health care and social assistance (7 of 16) sectors experienced their lowest nonfatal injury and illness rate in the last five years (since collecting the data under NAICS).

Workplace injury and illness rates varied among the major industries with the 10 highest rates in 2007 (Table 2).

• Wood product manufacturing (7.1) recorded a notable 17% increase from 2006 (5.9) and beverage and tobacco product manufacturing (6.6) experienced a slight increase (6.4). These two industries replaced transportation equipment manufacturing (5.0), which had a significant 26% decrease from 2006; and furniture and related product manufacturing (5.6), which experienced a substantial 22% decrease.
  
  
• The remaining industries also experienced decreases from 2006. The largest decreases were in air transportation (13%) followed by nursing and residential care facilities (10%).
  
  
• Within the goods producing group, industries that experienced the highest rates were primary metal manufacturing (7.2), wood product manufacturing (7.1) beverage and tobacco product manufacturing (6.6), food production (6.5) and animal production (6.5).
  
  
• Air transportation (10.5) and couriers and messengers (10.2) continued to report the highest rates in all industries, followed by warehousing and storage (7.4).

The TDI-DWC collects survey data in order to assist employers, safety professionals, and policymakers in identifying safety and health issues in the state. Visit the TDI website at http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/wc/safety/index.html .

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety statistics, workplace safety

Nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses among private industry employers in 2007 occurred at a rate of 4.2 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers—a decline from 4.4 cases in 2006.

Similarly, the number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses reported in 2007 declined to 4 million cases, compared to 4.1 million cases in 2006. The total recordable case injury and illness incidence rate among private industry employers has declined significantly—by 0.2 cases per 100 workers—each year since 2003, when estimates from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) were first published using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Key findings of the 2007 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

• The total recordable case injury and illness incidence rate in 2007 (4.2 cases per 100 workers) was the lowest among private industry employers since 2002, when recordkeeping requirements were revised. The decline is similar to that seen from 1972 to 2001, prior to the recordkeeping revisions.


• Incidence rates and numbers of cases for injuries and illnesses combined declined
  significantly in 2007 for several case types: total recordable cases; cases with days away from work, job transfer or restriction; cases with days away from work; and cases with job transfer or restriction. The incidence rate and number of cases for other recordable cases remained relatively unchanged.


• Both the incidence rate and the number of injuries alone declined significantly in 2007 compared to 2006—5 percent and 2 percent, respectively.


• The incidence rate and the number of illnesses alone each declined significantly in 2007 compared to 2006—mainly the result of declines among skin diseases and disorders and all other illness categories, which accounted for 89 percent of the decline in illness cases.


• The total recordable case injury and illness incidence rates declined among 5 of the 19 private industry sectors: agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting; mining; construction; manufacturing; and health care and social assistance—in 2007 and remained statistically unchanged in the remaining 14 industry sectors.


• Manufacturing was the only industry sector over the decade spanning 1998 to 2007 in which the rate of job transfer or restriction cases exceeded the rate of cases with days away from work.


• The total recordable case injury and illness incidence rate was highest among mid-size establishments (those employing between 50 and 249 workers) and lowest among small establishments (those employing fewer than 11 workers) compared to establishments of other sizes.


• Similar to 2006, 14 detailed industries, each reporting at least 100,000 injury and illness cases, combined to account for nearly 1.8 million cases (45 percent) of the 4 million total cases reported nationally in 2007. General medical and surgical hospitals (NAICS 6221) reported more injuries and illnesses than any other industry in 2007—more than 253,500 cases.

The overall decline in the total recordable case (TRC) incidence rate among private industry employers in 2007 was driven primarily by declines among all goods-producing industry sectors: agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting; mining; construction; and manufacturing together reporting 111,500 fewer cases compared to 2006.

Comparatively, while not a statistically significant increase, service industry sectors together reported nearly 29,000 more cases in 2007 than a year earlier. Health care and social assistance was the only service industry sector to show a decline in the TRC rate, falling from 5.8 to 5.6 cases per 100 workers between 2006 and 2007.

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety

I mostly go to the same places over and over, year after year. Some are exciting and far away, such as an annual trip to Russia. But most are close to home. Today, however, I had the opportunity to visit a paper mill I had not been in for 18 years.

I was surprised, not much had changed. The main office building was closed and I had to check in at the front gate. That was different. But the refiners were the same, the paper machines the same, the storage tanks looked the same. The boilers I had inspected 18 years ago were worn out and were just now being replaced, but everything was pretty much the same except...

...there were labels and signs everywhere. 18 years ago labels and signs were not used nearly as much.

But here is what really caught my eye...

Most mills have banners exhorting employees to improve safety or productivity. Here the maintenance shop had a banner I loved: LABELS, Read Them, Heed Them.

It's an important safety message.

This is obvious to us. Pay attention to labels. Although after 18 years the contrast was noticeable to me, for those who work there (in any industrial environment) it is easy for the labels and signs to become a part of the background. We need a constant reminder to pay attention to the labels and signs in our work place. And we also need to have labels and signs that clearly communicate their message. Effective visual communication is critical to safety.

Labels, Read Them, Heed Them... it's a message to pay attention to.

For more information about labels:
Pipe Markers
RTK Labels
Arc Flash Labels
Wire Markers

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety signs

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA), a leading developer of standards and codes, is today launching a two-year pilot project to increase accessibility to CSA Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) standards by offering users access to online viewing. The View Access initiative has been developed in collaboration with federal, provincial and territorial OSH governmental agencies. It will allow registered users to access OHS standards referenced in various Canadian jurisdictions and view the full content through CSA's website www.ohs.csa.ca

"Appropriate occupational health and safety practices can mean the difference between life and death," says Suzanne Kiraly, President, Standards, Canadian Standards Association. "This initiative will especially help small and medium-sized organizations improve workplace safety. By making these documents available we hope that companies will know and apply occupational health and safety standards."

CSA is a not-for-profit, membership-based association that develops standards and provides education and training to ensure standards are applied. This collaboration with government representatives for Labour is the first of its kind in CSA's history and is driven by the pressing need to improve workplace safety.

"Every year more than 1,000 Canadians die as a result of workplace injuries and disease. We can and should do more to protect the lives of workers. We need information, best practices and safer products to make a difference. CSA believes this new project will serve to raise awareness of OHS products and services and will help reduce workplace injuries and fatalities in Canada," says Kiraly.

For more than 55 years, CSA has worked with the experts to develop occupational health and safety standards to help safeguard Canadian workers. View Access is a source for employers to learn more about their rights and obligations under the law related to OHS and it provides additional resources that can help employers understand and apply OHS standards. CSA believes this type of stakeholder collaboration is fundamental to the safety of working Canadians.

Federal, provincial and territorial OSH governmental agencies are funding the development and maintenance of the initiative as a two-year pilot project and will continue to monitor the overall usage and impact in cooperation with CSA over the project period. Users can now log into the View Access website directly at www.ohs.csa.ca

About CSA

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is a membership association serving industry, government, consumers and other interested parties in Canada and the global marketplace. As a leading solutions-based standards organization providing standards and codes development, application products, training and advisory services, CSA aims to enhance public safety, improve quality of life, preserve the environment and facilitate trade. The Canadian Standards Association is a division of CSA Group, which also consists of CSA International, which provides testing and certification services for electrical, mechanical, plumbing, gas and a variety of other products; and OnSpeX, a provider of consumer product evaluation, inspection and advisory services for retailers and manufacturers. For more information visit www.csa.ca

Labels: Canadian Safety Standards, Industrial Health, Industrial Safety

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), representing 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental professionals, provided a statement for the record to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions’ Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety for their hearing held July 29 titled “Dangerous Dust – Is OSHA doing enough to protect workers?” ASSE urged caution in moving ahead to address hazardous dust risks legislatively without developing a deeper understanding of current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, their enforcement by OSHA, and the approach taken through national consensus standards.

The ASSE statement said, following the February 2008 combustible dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia, that killed 13 workers and injured 40, it understands the urge to find a legislative solution, as reflected in the “Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008” (HR 5522) introduced by House Committee on Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller. ASSE supports much in Chairman Miller’s approach, including the bill’s assurance that any new OSHA rule concerning combustible dust will not be less effective than the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) voluntary consensus standards.

Several other issues related to managing combustible dust should also be addressed by the legislation, ASSE said. Most important is the lack of adequate OSHA’s resources to conduct inspections, which contribute to missing dangerous workplaces by OSHA and can result in inspections that are hurried or done without an adequate basis in training. ‘If only 50 of OSHA’s 1029 inspectors had “extensive dust training,’ as Assistant Secretary for OSHA Edwin Foulke, Jr., told 60 Minutes recently, ‘then a bill requiring more standards without the adequate capability to enforce them will not be adequate to address this hazard when workers’ lives are at stake.’

Further, ASSE advised that, due to the complex technical and policy issues involved, Congress should require OSHA to address the issue through negotiated rulemaking, which mirrors the voluntary consensus-building process used by industry and the occupational safety and health community to address combustible dust.

ASSE also expressed concern over setting unrealistic dates for OSHA to issue an interim final standard within 90 days of enactment followed by a final standard within 18 months. The complexities posed by the current statutory obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBRFA) and the required regulatory and economic impact analyses lead ASSE to conclude that completion of a final rule within 24 months is a more realistic goal. Reasonably more time would allow Congress working with OSHA and the occupational safety and health community to address what may be the key underlying difficulty with the current regulatory approach to combustible dust. With 17 different OSHA regulations impacting combustible dust risks, it is reasonable to expect difficulties in employers’ efforts to establish a cohesive and effective combustible dust hazard management program in a workplace.

ASSE noted the 17 existing OSHA standards in place to address combustible dust hazards in addition to Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act (General Duty Clause) : 1910.22, housekeeping; 1910.38, emergency action plans; 1910.94, ventilation; 1910.119, process safety management; 1910.132, personal protective equipment; 1910.146, permit-required confined spaces; 1910.157, portable fire extinguishers; 1910.165, employee alarm systems; 1910.176, handling materials – general; 1910.178, powered industrial trucks; 1910.263, bakery equipment; 1910.265, sawmill operations; 1910.269, electric power generation, transmission, and distribution; 1910.272, grain handling facilities; 1910.307, hazardous (classified) locations; and 1910.1200, hazard communication.

While no simple answer to the complexities involved in managing combustible dust exists, a more organized, comprehensive approach by OSHA is needed to facilitate compliance. ASSE’s primary concern is that an answer to the current difficulties involving combustible dust risk management be based on sound science and done in a way that affords all stakeholders due process, without any undue delay.

Founded in 1911, the Des Plaines, IL-based ASSE is the largest and oldest professional safety organization and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment.

Labels: hazard prevention, Industrial Safety, OSHA, SHARP

When responding to or fighting a fire, firefighters are in a dangerous situation. They know they are in a dangerous situation, yet firefighters do not always follow the proper safety procedures. An article in yesterday's issue of Fire Rescue 1 magazine looks into this behavior and presents conclusions that are useful to all of us.

The article states:

"Working safely makes sense. Firefighter death and injury statistics don't. Within the fire service, activists are well aware of the issues. They have created programs for defensive driving, seat belt awareness, safety officer training, wellness, and a host of others. The programs are internationally supported and recognized. But still death and injury statistics are relatively unchanged. How can that be the case? We have the information we need to prevent many of these situations so what is in the way?"

"One would think that the chance of serious injury or death would be enough to motivate safe practices. Since the stats prove this isn't always the case, we have to explore other reasons for failure to comply with safety recommendations. That brings us to the idea of workplace culture and whether proactive attitudes toward safety planning and action are automatic."

Read the entire article online. It is titled: A Workplace Culture Based on Safety.

Labels: fire safety, Industrial Safety, workplace safety

An article in The Independent (United Kingdom) stimulated some thoughts about a subject I had not considered previously. The article is called "The End of Playtime?" Here are the opening paragraphs:

"Play time is over for children, with up to half of youngsters banned from climbing trees, playing conkers or riding their bikes by over-protective parents who are terrified that they might get hurt.

ICM research for Play England shows that half of seven to 12-year-olds are banned from climbing trees. Four in 10 were banned from playing in their local park or recreational area without an adult present and one in three cannot ride a bike without parental supervision."

What does children's playtime have to do with workplace safety?

Children's playtime does more for children than just being a source of fine. During playtime children learn life skills. If kids are kept from challenging situations during playtime, they will not learn skills they need later in life.

I remember, when I was very young, that I climbed a tree and fell out of the tree. There where no broken bones but it was a lesson about gravity that I've remembered for 50 years. I didn't become afraid of heights, but when I was working as an engineer on new power plant construction during my "invincible years" (late teens and early twenties) I was always sure to use the proper safety equipment when working in high places.

The result of children are being protected from all possible harm is that we'll see new workers coming to the workplace without the "fear" and knowledge they would have gotten from playtime. They will not have the safety skills learned in the safe environment of a playground. Skills they will then need to learn them in the workplace.

As safety professionals this is a trend we need be aware of and be prepared to identify and address in our workplaces.

Here is another quote from the article:

"Josie Gleave, of Play England, argued that the low probability of accidents made playgrounds one of the safest places for children to be. The risk of a fatal playground injury is approximately one in 30 million and three-quarters of injuries sustained on the playground consist of minor cuts or bruises.

'The research shows that children need to experience challenging play in order to develop important life skills and to better manage risk and challenge in their daily lives,' she said."

Note: This article mentions the sport of "conkers". See our previous post about safety and the game of conkers.

Labels: fall protection, home safety, Industrial Safety, Safety Training

On Tuesday, July 29, 2008, a hearing was convened in the Dirksen Office Building of the U. S. Senate, by the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The subject of the hearing was “Dangerous Dust: Is OSHA Doing Enough to Protect Workers?” The panel was led by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), joined by Subcommittee Members Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) as an invited panel member.

Among the witnesses who provided expert testimony at the hearing was Richard W. Prugh, Senior Process Safety Specialist, Chilworth Technology, Inc. The testimony of the Chilworth representative may be observed at the following link: http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2008_07_29/2008_07_29.html. A copy of the full written testimony is available from Chilworth by emailing safety@chilworth.com.

The other witnesses at the hearing were Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), John S. Bresland, Chairman and CEO of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board, Amy Spencer, Senior Chemical Engineer, National Fire Protection Association and Graham H. Graham, Vice President for Operations, Imperial Sugar Company.

Below is Richard Prugh’s Testimony at the U.S. Senate Hearing on Dust Explosion Hazards.

Introduction

The “fire triangle” shows the necessary components of a fire. Similarly, the “explosion pentagon” shows the necessary components of a combustible-dust explosion.

The concentration of fuel in the oxidant is very important. For example, the Lower Flammable Limit (the “lean” limit) for gasoline is about 1% in air, and the Upper Flammable Limit (the “rich” limit) is about 6%; if the concentration is not between these limits, the mixture will not burn.

There is also a lower limit for combustible dusts, and it is termed the Minimum Explosible Concentration. For example, the lower limit for many dusts corresponds to two pounds of very-fine dust suspended in a 10’x12’x8’ room, like a small bedroom.

There is a “rule of thumb” for explosible-dust concentrations. If you can see the thumb at the end of your outstretched arm, the concentration of dust is too low to propagate combustion; that is, too low to cause an explosion or a flash-fire.

All materials that are combustible can explode, under “the right” set of conditions.

The Right Concentration

Concentrations above the Minimum Explosible Concentration occur in many items of process equipment, and in dust collectors when the collected dusts are shaken or blown-back from the filters.

Very high concentrations of dust within rooms or buildings can occur when accumulations of dust are dispersed: from mechanical shock, a blast of air, dumping bags of powder, and vigorous sweeping.

Dense dust clouds also can occur when accumulations of dust at high elevations in rooms or buildings are disturbed by a “primary” explosion, and ignition of the descending and suspended dense dust cloud can result in a damaging “secondary” explosion.

High-elevation accumulations of dust can result from use of compressed air for cleaning equipment and surfaces. This results in lofting of very small particles to upper elevations, where they may settle onto horizontal surfaces. Such accumulations are a secondary explosion “waiting to happen”.

A Sufficient Source of Ignition

If the energy of an ignition source is not sufficient, propagating combustion cannot be initiated. For many combustible dusts, the Minimum Ignition Energy is very low, such that the electrostatic energy on the human body can cause propagating combustion. Other ignition sources are electrical arcs, flames, hot surfaces, and the electrostatic energy on ungrounded equipment.

Confinement of Combustion

If the combustion of a mixture of dust and air is confined, the resulting hot combustion gases can generate very high pressures. Such pressures can rupture equipment, destroy walls and ceilings of rooms and buildings, and threaten personnel.

Preventing Explosive Combustion of Dust/Air Mixtures

- The oxidant (the oxygen in air) can be forced out of process equipment by an inert gas (such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide).
- An inert powder or mist can quench or suppress the combustion.
- The process equipment can be constructed to “contain” the maximum pressure that could be developed by a dust/air explosion.
- Local exhaust ventilation can be provided at equipment openings where dust is generated or released.
- The explosion can be vented, to minimize the pressure generated by the combustion gases.

Unconfined Combustion

When combustion of a small dense dust cloud occurs in an unconfined space, the result can be a flash-fire. Persons inside the flash-fire are at risk of serious injury, particularly if they are wearing combustible clothing. Thus, persons who handle dusty combustible powders should be wearing flame-resistant clothing.

Models for Control of Combustible-Dust Hazards

At the present time, there exist several legislated and guidance documents that could serve as models for Federal rules for dust-hazard controls.

- The General Duty Clause is often used by OSHA when there is no specific standard that applies to a recognized hazard in the workplace.
- OSHA frequently cites “housekeeping” standards, but these standards do not address the need for preventing and removing accumulations of dusts on elevated surfaces or address many important ignition sources, such as hot surfaces, static electricity, and open flames or welding sparks.
- The OSHA Process Safety Management Standard does not address combustible dusts. However, this standard provides good guidance and could be applied to control of combustible-dust hazards.
- The OSHA Grain Handling Facilities standard could be modified to serve as guidance for control of combustible-dust hazards.
- The “Combustible Dust” NFPA 654 standard provides very good guidance for controlling combustible-dust hazards.
- The Georgia Rules and Regulations of the Safety Fire Commissioner list 76 NFPA Codes and Standards, many with the statement “Facilities . . . shall comply with this standard as a mandatory requirement.”

Key Points in the Prevention of Combustible-Dust Explosions

A. The Problem

1. A very high percentage of dusts are combustible, including solid hydrocarbons (such as polyethylene), carbohydrates (such as grains), and many metals (such as aluminum).
2. Every combustible material will create an explosion with the right conditions.
3. Limited generic data are available concerning the properties of combustible dusts; data may need to be developed through testing.
4. At present, all 50 states “administer” the International Building Code, which contains extensive requirements for explosion protection for combustible dusts, but there is very modest enforcement of this Code

B. The Solution

1. Companies that produce, process, or handle combustible dusts and powders need to determine the explosibility properties of their materials. These data should then be formally communicated within their organizations and to their customers.
2. Plant operators should assess the hazards that are associated with processes that are operating in their plant.
3. Existing today are the technology and knowledge; codes, standards, and guidelines; and engineering expertise that are needed to protect personnel and property from combustible-dust explosions.
4. An objective of the proposed Federal legislation should be to require plant operators to adopt and abide by the above guidance toward solution of the existing dust-explosion “problem”.

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety management

The Toronto Star reports that hiding workplace injuries produces financial rewards for companies.

An investigation by the Toronto Star revealed that job safety numbers are under-reported in order to cut employer costs. The article in Sunday's edition states:

"The provincial government's highly touted campaign to improve workplace safety is rewarding companies for hiding injuries and rushing the wounded back to work.

A Toronto Star investigation has found that since 2000, companies have reported thousands of seriously injured Ontarians as having missed no time off work.

Some companies pressure or bribe workers not to report major injuries at all.

Some pay the wounded full salary to do degrading make-work jobs.

Others, such as construction giant Aecon Group Inc., have lied to make injuries look less serious."

Read the entire article at: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/451322

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, workplace safety

News from Australia concerns the dangers of high pressure water lances. The Illawarra Mercury News reports on the death of a worker using a high pressure water lance and the supsequent union ban on the use of similar equipment. The article reports:

"Mr Kolomaka, 39, died after he was hit in the chest by an ultra high-pressure stream of water while cleaning a catchment sump at BlueScope's Springhill site last Thursday.

Wollongong Police Inspector Mark Lavers said Mr Kolomaka lost control of the hose while breaking up sediment at the bottom of a large pit in an area known as the 21 Dump.

'His colleague was standing 5m to 7m behind him controlling the water flow by a foot-activated pedal,' Insp Lavers said."

Do you see anything wrong with what happened as described above? Use this link to read the entire article.

Labels: Construction Safety, Industrial Safety, workplace fatalities, workplace safety

In an article for Today's Facility Manager Gary Ganson provides an overview of how to establish a health and safety plan, and have compliance with that plan. He begins by pointing out that:

"Compliance begins with commitment to a health and safety program that’s tailored to fit the company. It must blend with its operations and culture so it can help employers maintain a system that continually addresses a focus on prevention of workplace injuries and illnesses."

He then addresses the need to involve employees in health and safety policy making and he follows this with a discussion of an initial and ongoing workplace safety audit and analysis.

He goes on to talk about continually reviewing workplace health and safety to control or prevent workplace hazards.

The article concludes with a discussion about the need and value of training.

You can read the article at Today's Facility Manager.

Labels: hazard prevention, Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, Safety Training, workplace safety

The following is a press release that was issued today by Factory Mutual.

Insurer FM Global Makes Its Premium Risk Prevention Data Available at No Cost For First Time in 170 Years

Release of unique source of property protection information reflects changing global risk environment

JOHNSTON, R.I., USA—For the first time in its 170-year history, FM Global, one of the world’s largest commercial and industrial property insurers, today announced its decision to release thousands of pages of its previously exclusive property loss prevention engineering guidelines at no cost through its Web site www.fmglobaldatasheets.com.

FM Global’s Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets provide large-scale businesses, facility and risk managers, as well as the architects, consultants and contractors who work for them, a valuable tool to help prevent property damage and maintain business continuity due to threats posed by fire, weather conditions, and failure of electrical or mechanical equipment.

The engineering guidelines contain a wealth of risk prevention information on hundreds of topics, ranging from building construction and fire prevention, to industrial equipment maintenance and natural disaster preparedness. Users who download the content also receive automatic notification via e-mail when data sheets are updated. FM Global is the only commercial property insurer in the world that develops and provides this type of premium technical data, all of which is based on scientific research and nearly two centuries of loss prevention experience.

FM Global’s decision to make its loss prevention data available at no cost reflects the changing risk profiles of its clients around the world, especially the increasing interdependence of businesses brought about as a result of globalization and technology.

“Companies are now so intertwined and geographically dispersed, that to help them reduce risk and prevent loss, it is beneficial to make our intellectual property widely accessible,” said Tom Lawson, FM Global’s senior vice president, engineering and research. “FM Global is always developing new ways to prevent risk, and we feel this complete access to our engineering recommendations can be invaluable to helping businesses manage the evolving risk environment in this increasingly interconnected world.”

Subjects covered by FM Global’s data sheets include:

• Construction
• Sprinklers
• Water Supply
• Extinguishing Equipment
• Electrical
• Boilers and Heating Equipment
• Hazards
• Storage
• Human Factors
• System Instrumentation and Control
• Pressure Vessels
• Mechanical
• Welding

Labels: Industrial Safety, Safety Training

NewsDay Today reports that New Jersey will be "mandating regular reviews for safety upgrades at the 89 most dangerous chemical plants, oil refineries, water treatment plants and industrial facilities in the state."

The article states: "'The only way to make plants safer is to deal with the operations themselves, instead of more guards, gates and guns,' said Rick Engler, executive director of the state Work Environment Council. Engler has led a coalition of labor unions, environmental groups and community organizations pushing for the new DEP rules that went into effect last week. Plants have 120 days to prepare their reviews, if they have not already.

For example, a Schweitzer-Mauduit paper mill four miles east of the New Jersey Turnpike in Spotswood was the sixth most dangerous facility in the state a year ago. The poisonous chlorine gas used at the plant had to be shipped in 90-ton rail cars through town, and the plant's worst-case catastrophe could have endangered more than a million people within 14 miles.

In advance of the new rules, though, the paper mill switched to a chlorine dioxide bleach that can be generated on site as needed. In June last year, the company stopped all shipment and storage of chlorine at the site. "

Labels: hazard identifcation, hazardous materials, Industrial Safety

Yesterday was the beginning of the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. The following was adapted from an announcement from the American Society of Safety Engineers.

Due to the efforts of many, millions of people go to and return home safely from work every day. However, in the U.S. alone, 5,840 workers died from on-the-job injuries in 2006 and millions more suffered workplace injuries and illnesses. These can be prevented.

During the annual North American Occupational Safety and Health Week (NAOSH) this May 4 – 10th, the American Society of Safety Engineers' (ASSE) along with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering (CSSE), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and 72 corporations and associations representing all industries, plus 150,000+ businesses and millions of people will provide tools, best practices and solutions on how accidents can be prevented and illustrate how safety is good business.

The 32,000 ASSE SH&E professionals work day in and day out identifying hazards and implanting safety and health advances in all industries and at all workplaces, aimed at eliminating workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. Businesses who have adopted safety into their core business strategy continue to see how safety contributes positively not only to their bottom line, but to the company's brand and reputation and employee and vendor morale. Workplace safety also contributes to a reduction in health insurance and workers compensation costs and provides a safe working environment for employees and for the community they do business in. Society as a whole benefits when there are fewer accidents and on-the-job injuries increasing everyone's quality of life.

Poor Workplace Safety Costs...

· businesses spend about $170 billion a year on costs associated with occupational injuries and illnesses – it is estimated that U.S. employers pay almost $1 billion every week to injured employees and their medical care providers;

· each year families, friends, and co-workers of victims of on-the-job accidents suffer intangible losses and grief, especially when proper safety measures could have prevented worker injury or death;

· ASSE has recognized that a safe and healthy workplace positively impacts employee morale, health, and productivity; and

· a recent study done by Goldman Sachs JBWere showed valuation links between workplace safety and health factors and investment performance – they found companies who did not adequately manage workplace safety and health issues underperformed those who did -- suggesting that workplace safety and health factors have potentially greater effectiveness at identifying underperforming stocks.

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, workplace safety

The Charlotte Observer is continuing to keep the pressure on OSHA with their latest workplace H&S article. On Saturday they reported on a physicians conference last week in New York. The articles opens with this statement:

"A leading group of occupational doctors is taking the unusual step of speaking out publicly against pressure from companies to downplay workplace injuries."

"To outline their concerns, the physicians have sent a letter to federal workplace safety regulators and held a conference session in New York City on Monday. They're also planning to testify before Congress."

The article presents a series of testimonials from physicians describing instances in which they feel they have been pressured to not "treat injuries in a way that would make them reportable".

You can read the article at: http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/587539.html

Labels: electrical safety, Industrial Health, Industrial Safety, Workers' Comp

The following is based on press release issued by Behavorial Science Technology.

BST testifimony at the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee hearing on serious OSHA violations states that safety program effectiveness is influenced by the culture that leaders create.

In a hearing yesterday before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, Behavioral Science Technology, Inc. (BST) testified that organizational leaders strongly influence the effectiveness of injury reduction programs through the cultures they create. Data show that safety outcomes markedly improve in companies that take a holistic approach to improvement activities that includes giving leaders an active role in safety functioning.

BST executive consultant Carmen Bianco cited results from more than 150 client sites in North America to show that companies reduce injuries more effectively with a comprehensive employee-engagement approach than with traditional safety programs alone. Companies in the study group achieved an average 25% reduction in injury rate after the first year, increasing to an average 65% improvement after five years.

"Traditional safety programs are essential but not sufficient for excellence," says BST chief operating officer Scott Stricoff. "Business systems, management decisions, and the culture as a whole all influence how effectively safety systems perform. Engaging executives, managers, and
supervisors helps companies align the business to work with, not against, the safety objective."

According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, work-related accidents injure more than four million workers, and cause more than 5,000 worker fatalities, every year. Workplace injuries are estimated to cost U.S. businesses in excess of $120 billion dollars annually.

For a copy of BST's testimony or additional information on culture, leadership, and workplace safety, contact Rebecca Nigel or visit http://www.bstsolutions.com/about/press_room.shtml.

BST is a global safety consulting and solutions firm headquartered in Ojai, California.

Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, politics, workplace safety

The United Kingdom's Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 takes effect next month on April 6th. This new law states:

"An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a person’s death, and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased."

In other words, under this law if there is a fatal accident there will be a police investigation and a corporation can be prosecuted for homicide. The U.K. Ministry of Justice puts it this way:

"The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act introduces a new offence, across the UK, for prosecuting companies and other organisations where there has been a gross failing, throughout the organisation, in the management of health and safety with fatal consequences."

The U.K. Health and Safety Commission (HSC) states:

"Prosecutions will be of the corporate body and not individuals, but the liability of directors, board members or other individuals under health and safety law or general criminal law, will be unaffected. And the corporate body itself and individuals can still be prosecuted for separate health and safety offences."

"The Act also largely removes the Crown immunity that applies to the existing common law corporate manslaughter offence. This is welcome, and consistent with Government and HSC policy to secure the eventual removal of Crown immunity for health and safety offences. The Act provides a number of specific exemptions that cover public policy decisions and the exercise of core public functions."

Safety and Health Practitioner magazine had an article covering this new law in last week's edition. You can read about the background and this new law at: http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=features&article_id=7232

The conclusion of this article is that "the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a long-awaited piece of legislation. It takes its context from well established legal principles, and targets corporate failure at senior level within an organisation, which led to the death of persons where there was an established duty of care."

"In order to deliver the duty of care, and thereby prevent a charge of corporate manslaughter, organisations should ensure the effectiveness of the own health and safety management system, proactively identify and rectify shortcomings, remain up to date with developments in health and safety legislation, good practice and guidance, and seek competent specialist advice where necessary."

What do you think? Do you think similar legislation will be enacted in the U.S.?

Labels: Industrial Health, Industrial Safety

Agoura Hills, CA - HASP Online announces JSABuilder -- the first free online tool for conducting Job Safety Analysis (JSA).

JSA, also known as Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), is a proven and effective technique of identifying potential job hazards and implementing the controls necessary to eliminate or reduce them. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) recommend that a JSA be done to determine the proper work safety procedures.

The JSA process consists of:

• Breaking the job or task into a sequence of logical steps;
• Identifying the hazards associated with each step;
• Understanding the consequences of these hazards if not properly controlled; and
• Identifying the necessary
  • engineering controls (e.g., safety devices, special tools, structures, barriers, or baffling),
  • administrative controls (e.g., work or job safety procedures, safety practices, work permits),
  • personnel protective equipment (PPE),
  • and/or special training (e.g., electrical safety, respiratory safety, lock out/tag out) necessary to eliminate or minimize theses hazards.

JSABuilder is fast, easy-to-use, and comprehensive. Developed by health and safety professionals, information is quickly entered through a series of screens by selecting from pre-programmed lists and entering text specific to the user's job or project. Once all information has been entered, users can download and print the JSA worksheet as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document for use in pre-job safety meetings, training sessions, or to store for future reference.

HASP Online is the first commercially available online health and safety plan development and management tool for HAZWOPER sites. HASP Online is a joint venture between EnviroSolve Corporation and Safety Unlimited, Inc.

"Many jobs are performed without the benefit of a job safety analysis, resulting in injuries that should have been easily prevented by a careful analysis and discussion of potential hazards," says EnviroSolve president John Batchelder. Adds Jules Griggs, president of Safety Unlimited, "Our goal is to ensure that anyone assessing job hazards has the best possible tools to easily perform a job safety analysis."

"We feel strongly," says Griggs, "that by sharing this free health and safety planning tool, we're helping safety professionals, managers, supervisors, foremen and task leaders to prevent injuries. We're pleased to be able to give this away as a service to the safety profession."

Additional information about EnviroSolve can be found at http://www.envirosolve.com. Additional information about Safety Unlimited can be found at http://www.safetyunlimited.com.

Information from HASP Online andthe JSABiulder web site.

Labels: Industrial Safety, workplace safety

The National Post in Canada reported today that "A Quebec paving-stone manufacturer is set to appear for a sentencing hearing today after becoming the first company in Canada to be convicted of criminal negligence causing death as the result of a workplace accident."

This case results from the death of laborer Steve L'Ecuyer who was crushed in 2005 as he tried to clear a backlog of stones on a production line. This is the first conviction under the Canadian Federal Criminal Code that was amended in 2004 to make it easier to prosecute employers for health and safety code violations.

You can read the entire article at: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=334374

In other news from Canada, The Lawyers Weekly reports today on a story they've titled "Creative Sentencing Gains Ground For Occupational Safety Violations". It describes a different approach to penalties for workplace safety code violations. The article states:

"Creative sentencing involves replacing the traditional justice system process with an agreement by all parties as to how violators will be dealt with — and how communities will benefit. 'It's an efficient way to do things. Issues get settled quickly,' Dianne Whalen, minister of transportation and works in Newfoundland and Labrador, said in an interview."

Creative sentencing is seen as a way to give back to the community. The article describes the creative sentence given to Crosbie Industrial as the result of an explosion that injured two workers.

"In this case, that agreement called for Crosbie Industrial to pay $10,000, which was divided among the three closest high schools to where the incident occurred and which offer what is called the Workplace Safety course. The amount of funding each school received is proportional to the number of students attending the course."

You can read this article at: http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=628

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety, workplace safety