Safety & Health Effects of Shift Work - ASSE Members

A TECHNICAL PUBLICATION OF ASSE’S 

MANUFACTURING PRACTICE SPECIALTY 

Safely 

MADE 

VOLUME 3 • NUMBER 1 

D 

PAGE 4 

ASSE 

The Next 

100 Years 

D 

PAGE 7 

NEMA 

Premium Exit 

Sign Program 

Safety & Health 

Effects of Shift Work 

BY CHARLOTTE DORRITY 

Aconsiderable amount of 

and gas drilling and production personnel, 

manufacturing personnel and 

research has been done on 

the effects of shift work 

store and restaurant workers. 

on the safety and health With shift work Parker, et al. (2007) state that just 

an established 

of employees who work 

element of modern 

work life, works shift work or extended hours. 

over 27% of the American workforce 

outside the standard work hours of 

6:00 a.m. to 7:00 pm. In modern 

it is necessary With this number of employees 

for employers to 

society, people work 24 hours a day. 

look at ways that 

working outside normal work hours, 

Employees who may be required to the effects can it is important to explore what effects 

work night, evening and rotating 

shifts include public safety personnel, 

such as police officers, medical 

workers, power plant operators, oil 

be mitigated. shift work may have on the health 

and well-being of workers. Does 

continued on page 10 

1 

Safely Made www.asse.org 2011 

D 

D 

PAGE 8 

INTERVIEW 

David Peters 

on Eye & Face 

Protection 

PAGE 25 

NIOSH-NORA 

Manufacturing 

Research 

Agenda 

For a complete 

Table of Contents, 

see page 3 

Thanks to our sponsor

ADMINISTRATOR’S MESSAGE 

Safety By Hope 

Are pieces of your safety and health management system managed 

by hope “I hope nobody gets caught in that machine.” “I 

hope they lock out the equipment before they work on it.” “I 

hope our employee on the graveyard shift who works by himself will 

be okay.” 

I see too much safety by hope, especially on the last issue mentioned. 

Most manufacturing sites have someone who works 

alone, out of contact or out of view of co-workers or the public 

for a period of time. It could be the person repairing the HVAC 

unit on the roof by himself or herself. It could be the lab 

employee who provides quality control. It could be the wastewater 

treatment plant operator on the day shift. It could be the 

warehouse worker or even security on the night shift. Therefore, 

instead of hoping the employee is okay, most manufacturing 

sites need a procedure to safeguard, reasonably, those who work 

alone. 

Most Canadian provinces and Europe have legislation that 

requires employers to safeguard those who work alone. OSHA 

DAVID F. COBLE 

has eight or nine standards that prohibit employees from working 

alone, such as permit confined space entry, hot work, work on 

high-voltage systems, etc., but no specific standard to safeguard those 

who work alone. NIOSH has investigated cases where in its FACE 

report, working alone without safeguards in place was one of the root 

causes. 

Work-alone policies should include elements, such as defining who 

works alone, the risks they face and the amount of time they work 

alone. Once that is determined, procedures for communications, first 

aid, emergency response, check-out/check-in procedures, procedures 

to call in regularly or to check on the employee regularly, mandown 

indicators and training can be implemented. 

During my days as an OSHA inspector, I investigated cases where 

the employee working alone was caught in a machine without a way 

to signal for help; where the forester was working in the woods alone 

and had no way to communicate; where the painter in the tank farm 

was overcome by heat and lay there for several hours. 

What does your work-alone procedure look like What does it 

include How effective is it Let me know. The Canadians and 

Europeans are ahead of U.S. workers on this issue, so let’s share 

best practices. 

Safely MADE 

MANUFACTURING 

PRACTICE SPECIALTY 

OFFICERS 

Administrator 

DAVID F. COBLE 

(919) 466-7506 

davidcoblecsp@aol.com 

Assistant Administrator 

LINDA M. TAPP 

(856) 489-6510 

ltapp@crownsafety.com 

Publication Coordinator 

VINCENT SCOTT 

(828)708-7132 

vscott@mcwane.com 

Executive Secretary 

SIVA THOTAPALLI 

SivaThotapalli@precweb.com 

ASSE STAFF 

Staff Liaison 

KRISTA SONNESON 

(847) 768-3436 

ksonneson@asse.org 

Communications Specialist 

JOLINDA CAPPELLO 

jcappello@asse.org 

Publication Design 

SUSAN CARLSON 

scarlson@asse.org 

SafelyMade is a publication of ASSE’s Manufacturing 

Practice Specialty, 1800 East Oakton St., 

Des Plaines, IL 60018, and is distributed free of 

charge to members of the Manufacturing 

Practice Specialty. The opinions expressed in articles 

herein are those of the author(s) and are not 

necessarily those of ASSE. Technical accuracy is 

the responsibility of the author(s). Send address 

changes to he address above; fax to (847) 768- 

3434; or send via e-mail to customerservice@ 

asse.org. 

Advertising policy 

. . . Whereas there is evidence that products used 

in safety and health programs, or by the public in 

general, may in themselves present hazards; and 

Whereas, commercial advertising of products 

may not depict the procedures or requirements 

for their safe use, or may depict their use in some 

unsafe manner . . . the Board of Directors of ASSE 

directs staff to see that advertising in Society 

publications is warranted and certified by the 

advertiser prior to publication, to assure that 

products show evidence of having been reviewed 

or examined for safety and health problems, and 

that no unsafe use and/or procedures are shown 

and/or described in the addvertising. Such 

requirements and acceptance of advertising by 

ASSE shall not be considered an endorsement or 

approval in any way of such products for any 

purpose. ASSE may reject or refuse any advertisement 

for any reason ASSE deems proper. 

2 

Safely Made www.asse.org 2011

C O N T E N T S 

PAGE 4 

PAGE 8 

VOLUME 3 • NUMBER 1 

THE NEXT 100 YEARS 

By George Pearson 

A message from George Pearson, vice president of ASSE’s 

Council on Practices and Standards. 

THE EVOLUTION OF EYE & FACE 

PROTECTION PRODUCTS 

David Peters, CEO and president of Sellstrom Manufacturing 

Co., explains how eye and face protection products have evolved 

over the years and offers guidelines for selecting properly tested 

and certified products that best meet workers’ needs. 

D 

PAGE 23 

APPROACHABILITY: 

THE LAST DOMINO 

By Jeff “Odie” Espenship 

Nearly every supervisor in the workplace 

feels they can be approached by others, 

but are they really approachable 

PAGE 13 LOSING PRODUCT & PROFITS 

A LOOK AT AIR QUALITY 

By Richard Bennett 

Food manufacturers should take a fresh look at the relationship 

between air quality and contamination. 

PAGE 25 

NIOSH-NORA 

MANUFACTURING 

RESEARCH AGENDA 

By Ken Wengert 

An update on the 

NIOSH-NORA 

manufacturing 

research agenda. 

D 

PAGE 16 KEEPING HAZARDS IN THE BOX 

By Brian Edwards & P.H. Haroz 

The authors provide an update on OSHA’s combustible dust 

national emphasis program and discuss the major actions facilities 

can take to minimize the risks from combustible dust. 

PAGE 20 NFPA 70E: FACT, FICTION OR FAD 

By Michael Kovacic 

Establishing a strong program based on understanding of NFPA 

70E can afford every employee a safe work environment. 

CONNECTION KEY 

Click on these icons for immediate access or bonus information 

Video 

Website 

PDF 

Hot Link 

Ad Link 

D 

Direct Link 

3 


OPPORTUNITIES 

BY GEORGE PEARSON, CSP, ARM 

The Next 100Years 

Volunteer members 

and temporary 

workers are assisting 

with the BOK 

project this summer. 

With the 

growth in membership, 

it is possible 

to accelerate the 

project schedule 

and quantity of 

available content. 

As we now begin our second century, 

ASSE still faces future challenges in 

improving the safety community. 

However, coming out of our 100thanniversary 

Professional Development Conference, I see 

many positive signs that indicate we have a very bright 

future. As the world’s oldest professional society dedicated 

to protecting people, property and the environment, 

there are many heartening indicators, many of which 

come from our council. In fact, I am optimistic, as we 

are poised for the next hundred years, that our ability to 

support our growing membership is strong. 

We are fortunate our Society is vital and growth continues 

as we come out of the economic 

recession. Even more encouraging is 

that membership retention has increased 

5 basis points from 87% last 

year to 92% this year. This proves 

safety professionals realize the value 

in ASSE membership, and we are 

primed for greater progress. As economic 

times improve, our nation’s 

industry base expands and the global 

economy gains momentum. Being in 

a Society leadership role, I look forward 

to the introduction of additional 

opportunities in the areas of global 

growth, value of the profession and 

fruition of our Body of Knowledge 

(BOK) project. 

Membership in the practice specialties 

and branches has grown in 

parallel to the Society, and we have 

every reason to believe that we will 

continue to grow through additional 

membership and participation opportunities. As of May 

2011, we had 21,111 practice specialty members and 

2,180 branch members. The Health and Wellness Branch 

was approved at the Council on Practices and Standards 

(COPS) meeting held at Safety 2011 and should contribute 

to our growth. The Branch will create awareness 

and will educate its members to help shape attitudes and 

beliefs, thinking and behavior through a proactive, holistic 

approach to employee well-being, not just freedom 

from disease. This refers to an active process that aims to 

build and enhance an organization’s employee population, 

promoting habits and behaviors that optimize 

health, social and emotional well-being. Two things will 

contribute to the branch’s success: we are thinking outside 

the box by going beyond traditional ASSE boundaries, 

and we can draw new members not just from 

practice specialties and branches, but also from the 

Society at large. 

There is also a 

value proposition 

here in that 

employers with 

effective health 

and wellness 

programs have 

lower healthcare 

and workers’ 

compensation 

costs. 

Growth in the 

common interest 

groups (CIGs) 

has been exceptional 

and 

beyond expectations. With 5,085 members belonging to 

one or more of our four common interest groups, our 

CIGs are among the most active groups 

in the Society. Safety Professionals and the Latino 

Workforce continues its outreach into Latin America 

with activity in Mexico and Ecuador, and plans to 

expand that into Panama, Columbia, Brazil and 

Argentina. Women in Safety Engineering is completing 

its publication honoring 100 women in safety. Young 

Professionals in SH&E has enjoyed additional memberships 

as graduating student members become regular 

members. Blacks in Safety Engineering has continued 

to grow and was able to award a scholarship at this 

year’s conference. 

The BOK project is on schedule. Keywords have been 

finalized. More than 1,000 keywords have been submitted 

for inclusion and more are to come. Volunteer members 

and temporary workers are assisting with the BOK 

project this summer. With the growth in membership, it 

is possible to accelerate the project schedule and quantity 

of available content. 

Looking forward to the next 100 years, I am positive 

about COPS’s and the Society’s future. Dr. Darryl Hill, 

our departing Society president, reported in a farewell 

message to the board, “Keep your goals very high, have 

a balance and enjoy your family. The future is bright.” 

George W. Pearson, CSP, ARM 

Vice President, ASSE Council 

on Practices & Standards 

4 


EH&S Training Experts since 1981 

Environmental, Health & Safety Training 

www.safetyontheweb.com I 800.842.0466 

The Premier Resource for Environmental, 

Health and Safety Training Solutions 

1030-0094 

Training Solutions: 

Summit Trainingweb ® Online 

Online OSHA 10&30 Hour Training 

Summit Streaming Video 

DVD & Video Courses 

Summit Elements 

Summit Support Materials & Guides 

Over 600 EH&S training programs 

are available in multiple formats 

and languages to help you 

protect employees, property 

and the environment with speed, 

efficiency and economy.

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

Welcome New Members! 

We want to thank everyone who has remained a member of the Manufacturing Practice Specialty (MPS) and 

welcome the following members who recently joined. We are currently at 752 members and growing. 

If you have any colleagues who might be interested in joining MPS, please contact Krista Sonneson 

to request an information packet. 

•Edafe Adams, Survicom Services Nigeria Ltd. 

•Gerald Aguillard, Lion Copolymer Geismar 

•Cody Awhn 

•Joseph Ayers 

•Cloys Bayless, Catalyst Safety Consulting Inc. 

•Stanley Bialowas, Freeport McMoRan 

•William Bilgeshouse 

•Michael Bowers, SC Technical College 

Systems Ready 

•Jeffrey Braunwart, Georgia Pacific 

•Adam Britton, Cargill Deicing Tech 

•Maria Brunel 

•Chadwick Burns 

•Thomas Burns, AIPC 

•John Campbell, Deb USA Inc. 

•Jacquelin Canfield, Nokia 

•Jason Chevallard 

•Paul Clark, Advance Pierre Foods 

•Cathleen Corallo, SUMCO 

•Frank Corwin, AEC Enterprises Inc. 

•Taitiana Costa, Olam 

•Dave Crafton, Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold 

•Michael Dombrowski, Avdel USA LLC 

•Paul Dougherty 

•Maria Dunn 

•Ivoke Emeka 

•Paul Espinoza, Atlas EPS 

Debra Fisher, DMAX Ltd 

•Brian Flaherty, National Safety Council Greater 

Omaha Chapter 

•Roy Funk, Hoj Engineering 

•Mike Gatlin, Allens Inc. 

•Ian Gluck 

•Christopher Gordon 

•James Gray, Grayhawk Safety & Health 

Consulting Co. 

•Tim Greenleaf, Holsum Bakery Inc. 

•Terry Hackett 

•Bonnie Haltom, Dresser-Rand Co. 

•Courtney Harmon 

•Jeremy Heath, Halosource Inc. 

•Chris Heitzer 

•David Henley 

•Susan Hoffman, Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical 

Industries Inc. 

•Dawn Hoffman Lee, American Girl 

•Holleigh Humble 

•Robert Hunter, Georgia Pacific LLC 

6 


•Heather Hunter, Augusta Staffing Associates 

•Doney Ibarguen, Church & Dwight Co. Inc. 

•Zhichao Jiang 

•Erik Johnson 

•Balaji Kamalakannan, Kellogg 

•Jesse King, Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing 

•Salma Kuri, Kraft Foods 

•Thomas Lawless, Electrolux Home Products 

•Charles Lawson, ESAB Welding and Cutting 

•Zachary LeMasters 

•Stuart Malone, Deere & Company 

•Kevin McCarthy, Brady Worldwide 

•Patric McCon, Zurich Services Corp. 

•Aaron McCoy 

•Vincent McPatrick, MDP Solutions Inc. 

•Chad McWilliams, American Valve & Hydrant 

•Kristen Mihalovich 

•Christopher Milici 

•Nicola Milillo, Praxair Electronics 

•Heidi Montanari, Bemis Associates Inc. 

•John Moore, ABB 

•Luz Morales, Kellogg Co. 

•Tina Myers, Eriez Manufacturing Co. 

•Christian Navarro, COSAPI Engineering 

& Construction 

•John Neeley, Valero Energy Corp. 

•E. Palma, Kobelco Compressors America 

•Pantelis Papoutsis 

•John Phillips, Harley Davidson Motor Co. 

•Milton Pleasant 

•David Rose, Marsh Risk Consulting 

•Ryan Russell 

•Hannah Sesay, BAE Systems Inc. 

•Daniel Shaw 

•Roberta Nelson Shea, Safety Compliance Services 

•Shawn Short, DMAX Ltd 

•Brooks Short 

•Adelina Valenzuela 

•Monica Villegas, SureFire LLC 

•John Von Roue 

•Shannon Wallace, Trinity Marine Products Inc. 

•Darrin Wertz, University of Central Oklahoma 

•William Wilson, Temple Inland 

•Brian Woodburn, Trinity Marine Products Inc. 

•Rebecca Zaror 

•Michelle Zimmerman, Alvarado St. Bakery

WORKPLACE SAFETY 

NEMA Launches 

Premium Exit Sign Program 

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) Emergency Lighting Section, launched a 

Premium Exit Sign Program in April 2011, that 

establishes standards for and encourages the use of highperformance 

exit signage. 

Unlike other NEMA premium programs, this effort 

does not focus strictly on energy efficiency. Instead, the 

goal of the NEMA Premium Exit Sign Program is to 

increase visibility and attract attention. The program is 

managed by NEMA and is driven largely by the requirements 

set forth in NEMA EM 1 Exit Sign Visibility 

Testing Requirements for Safety and Energy Efficiency, 

a standard maintained by the Emergency Lighting 

Section. 

Prior to the creation of this program, the only discerning 

mark used on exit signs was that of the Energy Star 

program. That exit sign program, which was based solely 

on energy efficiency, was terminated a few years ago 

after federal mandatory minimum efficiency requirements 

were established. Although new signs were better 

performers, many people tried to buy products that were 

labeled as Energy Star compliant, erroneously thinking 

they were better because of the brand recognition. 

Essentially, anything labeled as such was old stock. 

Now, all exit signs sold in 

the U.S. must consume less 

than five watts of power per 

sign face. This change in labeling 

left a void in the marketplace 

since many consumers 

prefer to acquire and use products 

that are in some way(s) a 

step above others. The NEMA 

Emergency Lighting Section 

responded to this need first by 

writing and publishing NEMA 

EM 1 and has followed through 

by creating a program by which 

high-performance products can be recognized and 

encouraged. 

According to Eric Bailey, chair of the Emergency 

Lighting Section, the NEMA program has established a 

minimum level of visibility almost twice that of the UL 

924 Emergency Lighting and Power Equipment. 

Any exit sign manufacturer may apply to this program, 

regardless of NEMA membership. 

For more information on the NEMA Premium Exit 

Sign program and related programs, click here. 

Manufacturing Practice Specialty Resources 

Mentoring Services 

1) Members Only section 

2) ASSE staff 

Job Search Assistance 

1) Nexsteps 

2) Local chapter site 

Career Resources 

1) Career Resource Center 

2) LinkedIn 

3) Facebook 

4) ASSE’s social media sites 

Technical Advice: 

1) 24/7 online question submission form 

2) Manufacturing Practice Specialty’s (MPS) volunteer 

Advisory Committee 

Publication Opportunities 

1) Submit an article 

2) Topic suggestions 

Educational Resources 

1) MPS website 

2) SH&E Standards Digest 

3) Special Issues & Best of the Best Newsletter 

4) Key Issues publication 

5) Interviews 

6) Business of Safety Committee (BoSC) 

7) Webinars 

Standards 

1) ANSI/ASSE SH&E Standards Information 

Center 

2) New standards 

3) ASSE’s Standards Development Committee 

7 


INTERVIEW 

The Evolution of Eye & Face 

Protection Products 

DAVID PETERS IS CEO AND PRESIDENT OF SELLSTROM MANUFACTURING CO., 

A PERSONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER IN PALATINE, IL. 

In this interview, Peters explains how eye and face protection products have evolved 

over the years and offers guidelines for selecting properly tested and certified products 

that best meet workers’ needs. 

MPS: Provide 

a brief description 

of your 

professional 

background and 

position as CEO 

and president of 

Sellstrom. 

DP: I hold a 

degree in marketing 

from 

Northern Illinois 

University. I 

started at Sellstrom 

in 1976 

and held various 

jobs within the 

DAVID PETERS 

company until I 

became president in 1992. Sellstrom 

is a family-held company that my 

wife Judy’s grandfather started in 

1923. 

MPS: How has protective eyewear 

evolved over the past 10 years 

DP: Over the last 10 years, eyewear 

has evolved in the following 

ways: 

1) New concentration on specialized 

elements and niche markets 

(e.g., cleanroom, ballistic resistance, 

wild land fire, photochromatics, 

polarized lenses). 

2) Continuation of fashion 

emphasis. 

3) Development of special lens 

coatings for indoor/outdoor use, 

better anti-fog and better scratch 

resistance. 

4) Designs for females in the 

workforce. 

5) Temple comfort and fit 

advancements. 

6) Elevated protection performance 

from hazardous impact elements. 

MPS: Over the past 20 years, 

spectacle lenses have changed from 

glass to polycarbonate. Are there 

any special environments where 

glass lenses are preferred over polycarbonates 

lenses 

DP: Very few—advances in coating 

technology along with proper routine 

inspection of the spectacle have 

made polycarbonate the overwhelming 

choice. A polycarbonate substitute is 

even available for cobalt-blue lenses. 

Atmospheres that are heavy with 

solvents or acids will, over time, 

attack polycarbonate. However, with 

a routine examination of the device, 

one can tell relatively easily if there 

is some degradation. If so, discard 

the spectacle. It should be noted that 

polycarbonate is far less expensive 

than a comparable glass lens and still 

offers more impact protection in a 

non-degraded state. 

Some extreme heat applications 

may still require glass for the application, 

but that window is slowly 

closing with advancements in material 

compounds and advancements in 

reflective coatings. 

MPS: What types of lenses are preferred 

for non-plano (prescription) 

safety eyewear 

DP: CR-39 lenses or glass lenses 

must be used for some extreme Rx 

situations, but polycarbonate has 

made great strides in the singlevision 

and most common bifocal and 

trifocal situations. Remember, the 

objective is optics, clarity and protection. 

When polycarbonate can be 

used to achieve optics and clarity, its 

protection factor and weight make it 

the obvious choice. 

MPS: Welding helmets now come in 

different shades. How many shades 

are available, and how can an SH&E 

professional ensure that s/he selects 

the proper shading protection 

DP: Arc welding, as opposed to 

gas welding, shades run from shade 

9 thru 14. Glass and polycarbonate 

plates are available for most of the 

shades. The overwhelming standard 

for arc welding is shade 10. A lesser 

demand exists for shades 9, 11 and 

12 with minimal demand for shade 

13 and 14. 

With the advent of auto-darkening 

filters, many models offer variable 

shades with one electronic filter. The 

welder can adjust the shade to meet 

the requirement of the job without 

the hassle of changing plates. The 

ANSI Z49.1 standard has published 

a selection chart, which recommends 

the proper shade filter for the specific 

type of welding procedure to be 

performed. 

MPS: With respect to nanoparticles 

and eye and face protection, do 

you believe current products are 

satisfactory or do you think changes 

will be made to address nanoparticle 

exposure to the eyes and face 

8 


Photo 1: Old helmet. 

DP: There is always room for 

improvement in regard to PPE products, 

and with the growing knowledge 

in technological fields, we will continue 

to discover new methods of protecting 

users from fine particulates 

and other hazardous health risks. 

MPS: Do you recommend spectacles 

or a full-face shield for laboratories 

or working environments with 

the potential of splash 

DP: Possibly both. Face shields, 

because of their design, cannot offer 

the degree of protection (from an 

impact point of view) as a spectacle 

or goggle. 

Therefore, if there is any chance 

for an explosion, disintegration of a 

grinding wheel, or the possibility of 

any other fragment or high-speed 

projectile occurring in the process of 

using a face shield, a spectacle or 

goggle must be used in conjunction 

with the face shield. In working environments 

where splash hazards may 

exist, goggles with indirect venting 

may be a better product selection. 

MPS: What are your suggestions 

and recommendations for SH&E 

professionals with regard to product 

selection and impact resistance 

What should they look for when 

reviewing product options 

DP: SH&E professionals must 

first have a thorough understanding of 

the task at hand and be able to identify 

any potential hazards in the workplace. 

Without that knowledge, the employee 

may not be protected properly. The 

ANSI Z87.1 standard is a guide for 

product selections for the more common 

hazards that may be 

encountered. 

Also, the safety pro must 

have a strong understanding 

of the product markings on 

the lens of the spectacle or 

goggle. Each lens must identify 

the manufacturer and lens 

type. Again, use the ANSI 

Z87.1 selection chart as a 

guide. The Z87.1-2010 standard 

incorporates many 

changes in the lens markings 

to help in selecting the proper 

lens for the application. 

MPS: Some eye and face protection 

products made overseas may 

carry ANSI markings, but it can be 

difficult to determine if these products 

have passed the testing requirements 

in standards, such as Z87.1. 

If SH&E professionals choose 

to use these products, what steps 

should they take to ensure that the 

products meet applicable testing 

requirements 

DP: The safety pro must identify 

the manufacturer and determine if: 

1) the manufacturer is a “known” 

company; 

2) the manufacturer is a domestic 

company; 

3) the manufacturer conforms to 

current ISO 9001:2008 standards; 

4) the manufacturer maintains a 

full quality control department capable 

of answering technical questions 

about testing and usage. 

All major U.S.-based companies 

understand these requirements. 

When companies buy 

foreign products without proper 

prior testing, they take a huge risk. 

Anyone can mark anything on a 

product. However, if an injury or 

death occurs, will that company be 

able to provide the documented 

records that show proper testing 

has been conducted Plus, do 

they carry the necessary liability 

protection for your company 

Remember, cheap products always 

carry inherent risks. 

MPS: The federal government 

still continues to recognize older 

versions of the Z87.1 instead of the 

most current version. Has this 

caused any issues for Sellstrom as a 

safety eyewear manufacturer 

DP: On occasion, this presents a 

problem. However, most progressive 

companies are aware of the newest 

versions of the Z87.1 standards. 

They understand that even though an 

older standard may be acceptable, 

the faster they can transition to the 

newest standard, the better off they 

will be. A court of law may not care 

that OSHA “allows” products to an 

older standard if the newer version 

prescribes a protector for the same 

hazard that may provide a higher 

level of protection. The court may 

conclude that the employer has a 

duty to provide the employee with 

the best protection available; regardless 

of whether OSHA recognizes 

the new standard or not. 

MPS: How does Sellstrom ensure 

that its products best meet workers’ 

needs Does Sellstrom conduct 

independent research studies or surveys 

to determine what type of eye 

and face protection workers are 

most in need of 

DP: That is a moving target. 

While we conduct product research 

when we introduce new products, the 

market tells us through our sales 

whether or not we have designed our 

products correctly. We constantly 

review the feedback we receive from 

our distributors and their customers. 

Photo 2: Quality control—high-velocity test. 

9 


Photo 3: Sellstrom production team. 

Some new products are born from 

problems that occur with some of the 

newer manufacturing or process 

techniques. 

Sellstrom works with customers 

independently to develop new specialized 

products through research 

studies and material advancements. 

These can be as simple as a change 

request in anti-fog properties or as 

advanced as new field requirements 

due to technological advancements, 

(i.e., firefighting, autoclaving, 

gamma radiation, etc.). 

MPS: Has Sellstrom ever needed 

to create eye or face protection to 

protect against injuries that were 

previously nonexistent or once rare 

in the workplace 

DP: Probably not create; however, 

we have tweaked a few existing 

products to fulfill a unique requirement 

for a special situation. 

MPS: How does Sellstrom test its 

products to ensure proper fit and 

level of protection 

DP: We follow the requirements 

of most of the existing standards for 

eyewear throughout the world. We 

have our own lab on premises and 

have all of the equipment “certified 

for accuracy” at prescribed intervals. 

We are an ISO 9001:2008-certified 

company. We are constantly refining 

all of our systems and processes that 

go into making our testing and quality 

system credible. 

MPS: What are the components of 

Sellstrom’s quality management 

system 

DP: The quality management 

system consists of processes that 

pursue customer satisfaction with the 

underlying goal of quality improvement 

in all phases of our operation— 

marketing/sales, research/design, 

purchasing, manufacturing, quality 

control and logistics of products. 

MPS: How does Sellstrom ensure 

that it continually meets or maintains 

the requirements of ISO 

9001:2008 certification 

DP: We are audited by an ISOcertifying 

body twice a year. The 

requirements to maintain this certificate 

are defined and must be demonstrated 

to our auditor at any time. 

We do our own internal audits and 

issue recommendations to each 

department to ensure that we perform 

to a prescribed level. The new 

standard demands continuous improvement 

as well as measuring a 

degree of customer satisfaction 

with our entire process. Continuous 

training of our personnel and empowering 

them to build products 

conforming to applicable standards 

of performance are critical to our 

quality program’s success. 

David Peters is CEO and president of 

Sellstrom Manufacturing Co., Palatine, IL. 

Peters holds a marketing degree from 

Northern Illinois University. 

Safety & Health Effects of Shift Work 

continued from page 1 

working shift work schedules impact the health of workers 

and the frequency of accidents, and how do the 

impacts differ for older workers and for women 

A common thread for all employees is the toll that 

shift work takes on them mentally and physically, leading 

to increased potentials for illnesses and for occupational 

injuries. According to Bird and Mirtorabi (2006), 

shift work contributes to the world’s worst industrial 

accidents and costs employers $206 billion annually, 

including more than $70 million for shift work-related 

accidents and $15.9 billion for medical treatment. 

Negative health effects for shift workers include 

increased incidence of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal 

illnesses, obesity, cancer and diabetes. Additionally, 

circadian rhythm adjustment and fatigue associated with 

shift work are reported to increase the accident and 

injury frequencies, both on night shifts and on day shifts. 

Many of the adverse health and safety effects can be 

tied back to employee’s sleep and waking schedules being 

unsynchronized with their natural circadian rhythms, causing 

immediate and acute fatigue. Fatigue causes slower 

reaction times and loss of mental acuity and may contribute 

to hypertension, diabetes and other ailments. With 

shift work an established element of modern work life, it 

is necessary for employers to look at ways that the effects 

can be mitigated. This may include adjusting the duration 

and direction of rotating shifts, the length of work shifts 

and the number of breaks incorporated, the balance of 

scheduled work shifts and time off and even work scheduling 

and illumination. Making an effort to minimize the 

adverse impacts of shift work may be seen as providing a 

safe place to work under the OSHA general duty clause. 

Additionally, Dembe (2009) predicts that “it would not be 

surprising to see an increasing number of claims for workers’ 

compensation benefits for cardiovascular diseases, 

cancer and other ailments that have been associated with 

long working hours.” 

HEALTH EFFECTS OF SHIFT WORK 

According to Roan (2008), “As much as 15% of 

human genes function on a schedule, with highly regulated, 

oscillating patterns of activity. These clocklike 

genes are common features of most cells and can be 

found in every major organ in the body. They, in turn, 

affect the schedule of scores of biological functions, 

from metabolism to cell division to cognitive processes.” 

These oscillating patterns are known as circadian 

10 


hythms, a 24-hour rhythm that makes most people want 

to sleep between midnight and 6:00 a.m. (Scott, 2010) 

and be most active between noon and 6:00 p.m. (Bird & 

Mirtorabi, 2006). When an individual works night shifts 

or rotating shifts, these rhythms become out of sync with 

what the person is doing, resulting in a loss of synchronicity 

between the body’s schedule and the worker’s 

schedule. This results in impaired sleep and because “the 

circadian clock controls the body temperature, hormones, 

heart rate and other bodily functions” (Scott, 

2010), shift workers are more prone to a variety of illnesses. 

Bird and Mirtorabi (2006) list these health issues 

associated with shift work: sleep disruption and sleep 

deprivation, cardiovascular disorders (including high 

cholesterol and triglycerides); gastrointestinal disorders, 

diabetes, epilepsy and asthma. 

Some studies even indicate that night workers may be 

more impacted by exposure to toxic substances and chronic 

infections (Dembe, 2009). Cancer has also been implicated 

as a possible effect of shift work. According to Roan 

(2008), “the evidence for an increased cancer risk is so 

compelling that the International Agency for Research on 

Cancer, a unit of the World Health Organization, declared 

that shift work is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’” 

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR 

OLDER WORKERS & FEMALE WORKERS 

The subjects of many studies have been primarily 

male, but research has indicated that women working 

shift work may also be susceptible to an increased risk of 

breast cancer due to suppression of melatonin during 

night shifts (Ross, 2009) and to reproductive problems 

(Dembe, 2009). According to Bird and Mirtorabi, female 

shift workers have an increased incidence of irregular 

menstrual cycles, spontaneous abortions, premature 

delivery and low-birth-weight babies. Ross also notes 

that some evidence of shift work is linked to preeclampsia 

or convulsions resulting from high blood pressure in 

pregnancy, which can endanger both mother and baby. 

Overall, men have a higher incidence of cardiovascular 

diseases (including hypertension), but women shift 

workers have a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal, 

genitourinary, endocrine (diabetes and thyroid) and 

blood disorders (anemia) disorders. 

A second element of the population who may be 

more affected by working shift work than other workers 

in terms of health and well-being is the aging workforce. 

Costa and Sartori (2007) state, “In many epidemiological 

studies, the critical factor for reduced tolerance to shift 

work reported to be between 40 and 50 years old.” They 

attribute this to a decreased ability for the circadian clock 

to adjust to night work and an increase in sleep disturbances 

because of lowered responsiveness to light. Costa 

and Sartori (2007) indicate that health deterioration with 

age is more prevalent in shift workers due to chronic 

fatigue and sleep disturbances. 

Specifically, Costa and Sartori (2007) point to epidemiological 

studies to demonstrate that the relative risk 

for coronary disease is 1.3 times as high for shift workers 

than daytime workers, but the risk is 1.6 times for 

men and 3.0 times higher for women shift workers 

between the ages of 45 and 55. 

THE IMPACT OF SHIFT WORK ON ACCIDENT FREQUENCY 

Many experts have weighed in on the impact of shift 

work and consequent sleep deprivation. Schmid (2011) 

says that it can make a driver “as impaired as someone 

with enough alcohol in his blood to be considered a 

drunk driver.” Scott (2010) says that research studies 

show that nurses experience significant 

decreases in alertness when on 

night shift and that the medical error 

rate for healthcare works increases 

by 6%, 17% and 35% on the first 

three successive shifts. In a study of 

nuclear power plant operators 

(2008), task performance ability was 

shown to depend on the time of day 

and that shift work “[aggravates] the 

nocturnal decline in cognitive abilities 

. . . due to a chronic sleep debt 

that shift workers carry over to the 

night shift and also to day shifts following 

early morning shift.” 

Further, in 2006, it was reported that about 25% “ . . . 

of all train accidents are related to fatigue and long working 

hours among rail crews” (Dembe, 2009). Accident frequencies 

related to shift work have been reported to be due 

to disruption of circadian rhythms and lack of quality 

sleep. Ross (2009) supports this stance with his research 

that indicates significantly higher rates of serious injury for 

nights compared to days, particularly when shifts exceed 

12 hours and that loss of as little as one hour of sleep a 

night can impair alertness. Parker, et al. (2007) hypothesize 

that people on rotating shifts are twice as likely to report 

accidents or mistakes and that rotating shift work is shown 

to be associated with lapses of attention, longer reaction 

times and increased error rates. They attribute these trends 

to fatigue, stating that “fatigue undermines intellectual and 

emotional functioning.” 

EMPLOYER ACTIONS TO MITIGATE 

THE EFFECTS OF SHIFT WORK 

Shift work is necessary for public safety, medical 

care, power production, manufacturing and other industries. 

However, employers can take steps to mitigate the 

safety and health effects, including scheduling design, 

workload distribution, environmental factors and wellness 

programs. Employers can explore the best rotational 

schedule, including length of shift, forward or backward 

rotation and amount of time between shifts. 

Studies indicate that the length of shifts, forward versus 

backward rotation and the length of time off have a 

significant effect on employees’ ability to adapt, prevent 

Employers and 

employees can take 

steps to mitigate 

the effect of shift 

work, the most 

important being 

careful design of 

shift schedules. 

11 


Shift work is 

here to stay, but 

it should be recognized 

as an occupational 

health and 

safety issue and 

should be mitigated 

to provide a safe 

working environment 

for employees 

who work outside 

the normal work 

hours of 6:00 a.m. 

to 7:00 p.m. 

or minimize fatigue and maintain their health. According 

to NIOSH (1997), night workers never really have the 

opportunity to adapt because most maintain a typical 

daytime schedule on their days off. Rotating shifts may 

be an option to allow workers to share the difficult shifts, 

and 8-hour rotations may be better then 12-hour shifts 

due to increased fatigue and adverse health effects related 

to the longer shifts. This is a special consideration 

when workers are older because they are more impacted 

by longer shifts (Ross, 2009). 

Workload distribution and consideration of environmental 

factors are additional considerations for the 

employer. NIOSH (1997) recommends that heavy or 

safety-critical work be performed during day shifts 

whenever possible and not toward the end of a 12-hour 

shift. NIOSH also states that “shift workers may be especially 

sensitive to toxic substances because circadian 

rhythm changes make the body more sensitive to toxic 

exposures at certain times of day.” This would indicate a 

need to consider the work environment for shift workers. 

Other environmental factors that 

may help mitigate hazards and poor 

health for workers include adequate 

lighting, temperature controls, a 

place to prepare warm and nutritious 

foods and even workout equipment 

for shift workers. 

Employee wellness programs that 

address sleep deprivation and fatigue 

for shift workers may be helpful in 

reducing the effects of shift work. 

The wellness program should 

include employee education and 

awareness programs and should 

encourage physical activity and 

proper eating habits to minimize 

sleep disturbances. 

CONCLUSION 

Shift work is a fact of life for 

many people. It can cause sleep deprivation, 

dyssynchrony of the circadian 

rhythms and fatigue. Adverse 

health effects can include a myriad 

of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, female 

reproductive problems, asthma and others, with worse 

effects more common for women and older workers. In 

addition to health problems, the fatigue and dyssynchrony 

of circadian patterns have been implicated in 

impairment of judgment, decreased reaction times and 

increased accident rates and severity. 

Employers and employees can take steps to mitigate 

the effect of shift work, the most important being careful 

design of shift schedules. Recently, confronted with an 

incident in which an air traffic controller fell asleep on 

the job, Federal Aviation Administration announced that 

it would change schedules which are most likely to 

cause fatigue. Employees are advised by several studies 

to do whatever they can to get enough sleep, stay physically 

fit, eat healthy foods and avoid caffeine and alcohol. 

Employers can support their efforts with effective 

wellness programs and education. 

Shift work is here to stay, but it should be recognized 

as an occupational safety and health issue and should be 

mitigated to provide a safe working environment for 

employees who work outside the normal work hours of 

6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

REFERENCES 

Bird, R.C. & Mirtorabi, N. (2006). Shiftwork and the 

law. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 

27(2), 383-429. 

Costa, G.G. & Sartori, S.S. (2007). Aging, working 

hours and work ability. Ergonomics, 50(11), 1914-1930. 

Dembe, A. (2009). Ethical issues relating to the health 

effects of long working hours. Journal of Business 

Ethics: Supplement, 84, 195-208. 

Galy, E.E., Melan, C.C. & Cariou, M.M. (2008). 

Investigation of task performance variations according to 

task requirements and alertness across the 24-hour day in 

shift workers. Ergonomics, 51(9), 1338-1351. 

NIOSH. (1997). Plain language about shiftwork. 

Retrieved April 10, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/pdfs/97-145.pdf. 

Parker, S.R., Pettijohn, C.E. & Rozell, E.J. (2007). 

Shift work and accident rates: Are they really related 

International Journal of Business Research, VII(3), 

194-201. 

Roan, Shari. (2008). Sleep-deprived pay the price for 

shift work. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http:// 

articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/24/health/la-he-sleep24 

-2008mar24. 

Ross, J.K. (2009). Offshore industry shift work: 

Health and safety considerations. Oxford Journal of 

Occupational Medicine, 59(5), 310-315. 

Schmid, R.E. (2011). Odd work schedules pose risk 

to health. Associated Press on MSNBC.com. Retrieved 

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42633432/ns/health 

-behavior. 

Scott, D.E. (2010, April). Surviving shift work. 

Retrieved April 10, 2011, from http://www.navigate 

nursing.org/PDFs/Fact%20Sheet%20surviving%20shift 

%20work.pdf. 

Charlotte Dorrity works as a regional health and safety manager 

in the geothermal power industry for Calpine Corp. She has a 

background in chemistry and more than 20 years’ experience in 

environmental, health and safety. She has also been a professional 

member of ASSE since 2005. Dorrity holds a master’s in organization 

development from Sonoma State University and is working 

toward an M.S. in Occupational Health and Safety and Environmental 

Management. 

12 


AIR QUALITY 

BY RICHARD BENNETT, CIH 

Losing Product & Profits 

A Look at Air Quality 

Food safety is the greatest concern to the image 

and profitability of a food manufacturer. The 

smaller mom-and-pop shops can find themselves 

out of business in a short period of time if news 

gets around that they have unsafe products. Fortune 500 

companies are a little more adept and stable than their 

smaller counterparts, but can find millions of dollars of 

profit lost with the reverberation of bad press and government-forced 

recalls. Production managers and quality 

control often have been frustrated and exhausted by 

issues of contamination and product loss after using the 

most extensive and complete surface hygiene procedures. 

So what do you do if you have exhausted every 

means of eradicating spoilage and product adulteration 

An often underexamined item in finding the culprit is to 

take a fresh look at the process of the relationship 

between air quality and contamination. 

Since the late 1800s, various acts have been passed 

with the purpose of protecting consumers from harmful 

food manufacturing practices that transmit bacteria. This 

often is focused extensively on surface hygiene. With the 

globalization of economies and interdependence of countries, 

we find strict surface hygiene guidelines adopted 

worldwide. The Internet has reduced the world economy 

to an observable ecosystem in each of our backyards. 

Punishment is swift as news is brought to our door, even 

if we do not want it to be. 

While surface hygiene procedures have rapidly 

evolved, a little-recognized segment has lagged behind 

in the food production industry—airborne contamination. 

Why will air quality make a difference Let’s take a 

look. 

Traditionally, air quality has been passively observed, 

but needs to be investigated further and procedures targeted 

to potentially offer a different answer. The definition of 

insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting 

a different result. If you are continually traveling down 

the road of unknown product loss and cannot find the connection 

to the source of contamination, take the first right 

turn. Try something different. Take the opportunity to hear 

something from a different stance. 

Four components are observed in relationship to each 

other in deriving the quality of air and in finding a potential 

answer at a manufacturing site. 

1) AIR QUALITY 

Air quality has two components. The first is air 

changes per hour (ACH). ACH is the measurement of 

the volume of air supplied by the HVAC system to the 

interior of the building in relationship to the volume of 

the building. Generally, six changes per hour are considered 

acceptable. For the sake of illustration, if your 

building volume is 1,000 cubic meters, then your HVAC 

system would need to push 6,000 cubic meters of air 

through the building each hour. 

The second component of air quality is the percentage 

of make-up air supplied by the HVAC unit from the outside 

to the inside. For the purpose of illustration, if we 

set this at 30%, we would need in the previous example 

to have 1,800 cubic meters of the total air changes per 

hour (6,000 cm) to be supplied from the outside. In our 

experience, we have found that certain manufacturers do 

not have HVAC systems at their site. 

That would make this first component 

a nonissue; however, it increases 

the significance and impact of the 

next three components. 

2) AIR FILTRATION QUALITY 

Use of high-efficiency particulate 

air filters (HEPA) or ultra-low particulate 

air filters (ULPA) within the 

building envelope or in line with the 

current HVAC system supplied to 

the interior of the building envelope 

will change the quality of the air 

within. Different manufacturing 

types will require different standards 

of filtration. This is fairly obvious but adds to the ongoing 

maintenance procedures of the building in making 

sure that the filters are changed at regular intervals and 

that they are installed correctly in the filter banks. 

3) DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE 

Measuring the pressure of the building and adjacent 

manufacturing areas relative to the outside and to each 

other is critical. Establishing positive pressurization 

within the finished (packing or sterile) side of the building 

is a culprit overlooked and not easily remedied. 

When the pressure of the building is measured relative to 

other parts of the building and the outside, we start to 

discover the likely movement of air in relation to the 

manufacturing process from “dirty to clean” instead of 

“clean to dirty.” 

4) OVERLAY 

This is the analysis of all information received in the 

three previous steps in relation to the buildings specific 

While surface 

hygiene procedures 

have rapidly evolved, 

a little-recognized 

segment has 

lagged behind in 

the food production 

industry—airborne 

contamination. 

13 


footprint and envelope. Generating a plan involves testing 

pressures and air quality at different parts of the 

building during each phase of the production cycle and 

making corrections to the air quality by implementing 

controls to minimize the likelihood of airborne contamination. 

The raw side or “dirty” side will cause predictable 

disturbances in heat, humidity, air flow and 

microbe movement in the air that are specific to that 

process and relative to the finished side. The finished 

side for packing will experience changes in relation to 

the hot side and areas of egress where air is likely to 

meet because of product movement. This model works 

on large-scale operations as surely as on smaller ones. 

These data should be gathered over a specific period 

of time, taking into account the different cycles of the 

manufacturing process. It requires an understanding of 

the subtleties associated with different microbes and 

their propensity for movement and actions associated 

with different environments. 

If you need a different set of eyes to see what is going 

on in your manufacturing environment or to address an 

unresolved issue of product contamination, consult a certified 

industrial hygienist who specializes in food manufacturing 

environmental air quality. You just may be 

seeing a more profitable future. 

Richard Bennett, CIH, is chief science officer of Risk Tech, a 

South Carolina-based company that focuses on product loss due to 

indoor air quality in the food manufacturing process. He may be 

contacted at rbennett@risktechintl.com or (800) 968-3565. 

ASSE and the Manufacturing Practice Specialty 

(MPS) would like to thank our leaders, Dave 

Coble (administrator) and Linda Tapp (assistant 

administrator) for all they have done to keep the 

group progressing. Coble and Tapp have volunteered 

to lead the group for another 2-year term. 

ASSE and MPS members value the time and 

energy they contribute to the group to make a 

lasting impact on the safety and manufacturing 

community. 

Additionally, the following appointed volunteers 

have also agreed to remain on the MPS 

Advisory Committee for at least the next year: 

•Publication Coordinator – Vincent Scott 

•Executive Secretary – Siva Thotapalli 

•Awards & Honors – Mike Phillips 

•Membership Development – Ken Wengert 

•Conferences & Seminars – Dave Evans 

Special Thanks 

•Website Development – 

Michael Coleman 

•Webinars – Carl Huckaby 

•Body of Knowledge – Ryan 

Kirkpatrick 

•White Papers – 

Daniel Hammond 

•Special Projects – 

Tom Culross & Todd 

Mills 

•Nominations – 

David Coble 

•Member at Large 

– Melanie Sanders 

If you would like to 

get more involved and work with this great group 

of volunteers, click here for more information. 

ASSE and the Manufacturing Practice Specialty 

(MPS) would like to congratulate Ken 

Wengert, CSP, ARM, who received the MPS Safety 

Professional of the Year award. Wengert is safety 

director of North American manufacturing for 

Kraft Foods. He currently serves as MPS membership 

chair. In this role, Wengert consistently reaches 

out to members and develops strategies for 

member retention. He has also created a brochure 

and PowerPoint presentation to help market MPS 

at local ASSE meetings. In addition, his support 

was instrumental during the Manufacturing 

Congratulations 

Branch’s transition 

to a practice 

specialty. 

Wengert’s contributions, 

great ideas and 

positive attitude 

have 

made him a 

model volunteer 

and contributor to the safety community. 

14 


Safety 2011 MPS Recap 

Safety 2011 was a huge success, with record 

attendance and special events to celebrate 

ASSE’s 100th anniversary. The Manufacturing 

Practice Specialty (MPS) held its annual face-toface 

meeting, during which we discussed manufacturing 

issues and our focus for 2011-12. MPS 

also sponsored a session on hazard recognition 

and led a roundtable discussion on changes in 

manufacturing industries affected by the economy. 

MPS leadership attended the biannual 

Council on Practices and Standards meeting 

where growth and technological engagement 

were discussed. MPS also sponsored a kiosk in 

the exhibit hall, and MPS volunteers helped 

answer questions at the practice specialties 

booth where free practice specialties were raffled, 

complimentary newsletters were available 

for all 28 groups and mouse pads were distributed. 

If you were unable to attend Safety 2011, 

please mark your calendar now for Safety 2012 

in Denver, CO, June 3-6, 2012. 

15 


RISK MANAGEMENT 

BY BRIAN EDWARDS, P.E. & P.H. HAROZ 

Keeping Hazards in the Box 

Minimizing the Risks of Combustible Dust 

It has been more than 3 years since OSHA issued 

the combustible dust national emphasis program 

(NEP). The NEP has been effective in at least one 

goal—to increase industry awareness of the hazards 

of combustible dust. However, dust fires and 

explosions continue to occur at an alarming rate. One 

possible reason for the continued occurrence of dust 

incidents is the lack of clear and concise rules by 

OSHA. The NEP provides background information on 

the hazards of combustible dust and gives inspection 

guidelines for compliance safety and health officers 

(CSHOs), but it does not clearly define what an employer 

must do to protect its employees and processes. 

This article provides an update on OSHA’s ongoing 

activities and discusses the major actions facilities can 

take to minimize the risks from combustible dust. 

Preventing the dangerous 

accumulation 

of dust inside 

facilities is often an 

endless, seemingly 

unwinnable battle. 

STATUS OF OSHA’S 

COMBUSTIBLE DUST RULEMAKING 

In late 2009, OSHA released an 

advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR), officially beginning 

the process to create a regulation 

specifically addressing combustible 

dust. The ANPR provided data about 

combustible dust and requested 

information from industry. However, 

it did not include any details on what 

OSHA plans to include in the rule. 

Since the ANPR was published, OSHA has held three 

stakeholder meetings on the topic of combustible dust. 

OSHA wanted to gather information from industry, labor 

and experts to be used in developing the proposed rule. In 

addition, OSHA held a web chat June 28, 2010, with the 

same goal. The most recent step taken by OSHA was an 

expert forum on combustible dust held May 13, 2011. 

The expert forum was held to discuss possible options 

for developing a comprehensive rule to address the hazards 

associated with combustible dust. OSHA’s stated 

intent was to both protect employees and be cost-effective 

for employers. It is impossible to predict exactly 

how OSHA will use the data, but a few main points 

made by the experts are summarized here: 

•The scope of the rule should cover all facilities that 

generate and handle combustible dusts. 

•The rule should make preventing hazardous levels of 

fugitive dust accumulation a priority. This should be 

achieved by proper engineering and maintenance of equipment 

and dust collectors, safe housekeeping and training. 

•The rule should require some level of hazard/risk 

assessments. 

16 


Photo 1: Dust accumulating on overhead surfaces. 

•Some engineering controls should be required 

retroactively, but there should be some flexibility in how 

facilities decide what controls are required. 

•The rule must contain multiple types of controls, 

both administrative and engineering, to be effective in 

reducing the hazards associated with combustible dust. 

PREVENTING HAZARDOUS LEVELS 

OF FUGITIVE DUST ACCUMULATION 

A major discussion point during the OSHA expert 

forum was that the greatest hazards from combustible 

dust stem from the accumulation of fugitive dust in the 

work environment. By one expert’s account, more than 

90% of serious injuries and deaths associated with combustible 

dust occur from flash fires and explosions fueled 

by fugitive dust. Because of this, the OSHA rule is certain 

to focus on minimizing the amount of dust that 

accumulates on surfaces outside of process equipment. 

Already, OSHA has issued many citations for excess 

dust accumulation. According to OSHA’s Status Report 

on Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program, 20% 

of the citations issued under the NEP were for inadequate 

housekeeping. 

The most severe hazard associated with combustible 

dust comes from the threat of secondary explosions. 

Secondary explosions occur when a primary explosion, 

often inside process equipment or in an isolated area, 

sends pressure waves through a facility that dislodge fine 

dust that has accumulated on floors, walls and overhead 

surfaces. This fine dust then forms a cloud that spreads 

into a large area. If this dust cloud is ignited, a large, 

potentially devastating flash fire or explosion can occur. 

Preventing the dangerous accumulation of dust inside 

facilities is often an endless, seemingly unwinnable bat-

tle. Housekeeping programs are the most common 

method used to combat this, but this can require much 

labor and are often not effective. Also, the act of housekeeping 

can present many hazards by creating dust 

clouds while cleaning and by requiring work in elevated 

and confined areas. 

Many serious industrial accidents have begun when 

dust clouds created by housekeeping activities were 

ignited. One such incident occurred at CTA Acoustics, 

Inc. in Kentucky. According to the U.S. Chemical Safety 

Board’s investigation report, a dust cloud created by line 

cleaning was ignited by a nearby oven. This was followed 

by a devastating series of dust explosions throughout 

the plant, resulting in 7 deaths and 37 injuries. 

The first step in reducing fugitive dust accumulations 

should not be housekeeping; rather, it should be containment 

and collection of dust. Keeping the dust inside the 

equipment and using well-designed dust collection systems 

to capture any dust that escapes significantly 

reduces the housekeeping effort needed. In other words, 

the goal should be to keep the hazard inside the box 

(inside equipment) where explosion protection controls 

are much more effective. 

Using mechanical design to reduce dust emissions 

from process equipment has been proven to be an effective 

control. In OSHA’s respiratory protection rules, 

engineering controls are the preferred method to reduce 

employee exposures to toxic chemicals. The same holds 

true for combustible dust, but unlike industrial hygiene, 

the goal here is to reduce the risk of exposing employees 

to flash fires and secondary explosions. It is often 

stressed that increased housekeeping and increased 

maintenance can be used to reduce the hazards in an 

area. However, the last part of that statement (increased 

maintenance) is often overlooked. Think about it, where 

is the dust coming from It is normally ineffective seals, 

poorly maintained equipment and often improper design. 

“Improper design,” in this context, does not necessarily 

mean bad engineering. Many process systems have 

great designs in terms of productivity and efficiency, but 

Photo 2: Dust leaks at a material transfer point in a wood planer mill. 

they were not 

designed with fugitive 

dust prevention 

as a high priority. 

Too often, facilities 

look at dust releases 

from process equipment 

as only “lost 

money” either due 

to lost product or 

increased labor. 

They do not see 

dust leaks as significant 

process 

hazards. 

When dealing 

with flammable liquids 

and gases, a 

loss of containment 

is a huge concern, 

and it is understandable 

that plant engineers 

are not as 

worried about dust 

emissions. In most cases, fugitive dust releases are not an 

immediate hazard. It may take days, weeks or maybe 

even months for a hazardous level of dust to accumulate 

in the work environment. It is nothing like flammable 

vapors and gases where a leak can result in imminent 

danger. 

A major issue lies in the plants where dust is constantly 

accumulating, where housekeeping just cannot 

keep up. Plants will often move directly to electrical 

classification as the solution without looking at the root 

cause—dust leaks. Electrical classification (i.e., installing 

electrical equipment rated for safe use in areas with 

flammable or combustible liquids, vapors, dust or flyings) 

is important in hazardous locations, but electrical 

classification alone does not remove all ignition sources. 

A primary explosion inside a piece of equipment can 

generate sufficient energy to disturb accumulated dust 

and ignite it. In addition to limited effectiveness, electrical 

classification can be extremely expensive, especially 

for existing equipment. 

The most effective course of action is to remove the 

source of fuel by preventing the fugitive dust leaks into 

the work environment. Often, this requires less equipment 

than plant engineers fear, and the return on 

investment goes beyond just increased safety and 

reduced housekeeping—it can pay off in higher efficiency 

and less product loss. 

The first step is to evaluate where fugitive dust is 

being released. There are many “usual suspects.” Some 

types of equipment to pay special attention to include: 

•pneumatic and mechanical conveying systems; 

•sifters and screens; 

•bins and silos; 

17 


Figure 1 

Diagram Showing Dust 

Accumulation Levels in a 

Manufacturing Operation

Photo 3: Phenolic resin dust accumulation due to inadequate 

dust collection. 

•material feeders and transfer points; 

•dryers and coolers; 

•grinders and hammermills; 

•bag loading and unloading; 

•truck and railcar loading and unloading. 

Once the sources of fugitive dust have been identified, 

each piece of equipment must be evaluated to determine 

how the leaks can be eliminated. This is typically accomplished 

by mechanical redesign of existing equipment, 

but sometimes it might require changing the type of 

equipment used. For example, a vibrating screen might 

need to be replaced with a centrifugal separator. 

For some processes and equipment, eliminating the 

release of dust is not possible. Therefore, properly 

designed and maintained dust collection systems are 

essential to capture dust that cannot be contained in the 

equipment. It is imperative that properly designed pickup 

points, hoods, ductwork and dust collectors are used. 

Inadequate airflow, overloaded dust collectors and 

improperly sized ducts can prevent efficient dust collection. 

The major culprit for bad dust collection is facility 

expansion. The most common occurrences are new ducts 

tied into existing systems or existing ducts being 

blanked-off, resulting in bad airflow in the lines. 

ADDRESSING THE HAZARDS IN THE EQUIPMENT 

Even if a facility is able to eliminate fugitive dust in 

the work environment, combustible dust hazards will 

continue to exist inside equipment. Contained fires and 

primary explosions in process equipment pose a significant 

risk to employees and property, so addressing secondary 

explosion hazards alone cannot be the only 

answer. To fully understand the hazards at a specific 

facility, a detailed hazard analysis is required. The entire 

nature of the process and the layout of the equipment, 

structures and utilities need to be evaluated. 

Once the hazards in the equipment have been 

identified, appropriate fire and explosion prevention 

and protection controls should be selected. Many 

types of controls are available, so it is important to 

have qualified professionals prepare the selection 

and design of the protection systems. Often, this 

will require several layers of protection. 

As an example, consider the protection required 

for a baghouse dust collector connected to a hammermill 

(a high-likelihood ignition source). The 

first layer of protection would be a spark detection 

and suppression system to extinguish a spark before 

it reaches the dust-laden air in the baghouse. A second 

layer of protection could be deflagration vent 

panels in the baghouse. A final layer of protection 

could be isolation devices, such as backblast dampers 

or fast-acting slide gates, installed on the 

upstream ducts to prevent a deflagration in the baghouse 

from propagating throughout the facility. No 

one layer of protection completely eliminates the 

combustible dust hazard, but by combining multiple 

layers of protection, the risk associated with the system 

has been lowered to an acceptable level. 

CONCLUSION 

OSHA is working diligently to develop a formal rule 

that addresses combustible dust. This rule will certainly 

place significant emphasis on minimizing dust accumulation 

in the workplace. By far, the most cost-effective 

means of reducing dust accumulation is to contain and 

capture the dust before it is released. Modifying and 

maintaining equipment and dust collection systems so 

that dust does not accumulate in the work environment 

can eliminate the need for electrical classification and 

can greatly reduce the amount of housekeeping required. 

Fire and explosion protection systems will often be needed 

to eliminate the hazards in some equipment, but if 

the potential for uncontained fires and secondary explosions 

can been reduced, the level of risk at a facility will 

drop dramatically. 

Brian Edwards, P.E., is director of engineering for Conversion 

Technology Inc., Norcross, GA, where his responsibilities include 

managing SH&E-related projects for clients, with a focus on 

process hazard analysis and fire and explosion protection design. 

He holds a B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the 

Georgia Institute of Technology. 

P.H. Haroz is president of Conversion Technology Inc., Norcross, 

GA, where his responsibilities include business development, project 

management and mechanical design of material handling, processing 

and combustion systems. He holds a B.S. in Mechanical 

Engineering from the University of Texas and an M.S. in Mechanical 

Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

18 


ELECTRICAL SAFETY 

BY MICHAEL KOVACIC 

NFPA 70E: Fact, Fiction or Fad 

Knowledge, and 

the desire and 

ability to implement 

that knowledge, 

saves lives 

and prevents injury. 

Afew months ago, I was giving several short sessions 

on NFPA 70E at a national safety conference. 

One of the attendees, whom I have known 

for years, saw me outside the conference room 

in between sessions and said, “Are you still talking about 

70E” I quickly responded, “Of course! Employees are 

still being injured and killed by electricity, aren’t they” 

But I thought about that comment for weeks . . . what 

did he mean, still talking about it And then, a comment 

from a customer a few weeks ago put it into the perspective 

I was missing: “I wish we would get over this 70E 

fad already!” 

I realized that “NFPA 70E” and “arc flash” have 

become such buzz words that many employers and 

employees who do not understand the 

core of what NFPA 70E is trying to 

accomplish see it as simply the latest 

safety fad. And some people even 

promote “fiction” in an effort to sell 

more product or services. So, what 

are the basic facts about NFPA 70E 

Fact: NFPA 70E is not a new 

standard; the first NFPA 70E committee 

was established in 1976 and 

the first edition of NFPA 70E was 

published in 1979. The primary focus of what NFPA 

70E is, electrical safety-related work practices, made an 

entrance with the 1981 edition 30 years ago. 

If you do not currently own NFPA 70E, it is time to 

get a copy. If you have never looked at NFPA 70E, the 

National Fire Protection Association has the text available 

to view (you cannot copy or print from the viewer) 

on its website. 

Fact: Arc flash and arc blast are not new electrical 

hazards made up by sales people to sell PPE. The book, 

Electrical Injuries—Their Causation, Prevention and 

Treatment, by Charles A. Lauffer, M.D., was first published 

in 1912. The first chapter discusses the cause, prevention 

of and treatment of arc flash injuries. So, arc 

flash hazards have been discussed for at least 100 years. 

Numerous statistical and research organizations have 

produced various studies about workplace injuries over 

the last few years, but they all conclude the same general 

information. Between five and 10 arc flash incidents 

occur in electrical installations in the U.S. every day, representing 

a significant number of injuries and fatalities 

each year. Workplace electrical injuries represent a significant 

cost to employers each year, and lockout/tagout 

and electrical regulations continue to make OSHA’s top 

ten most cited regulations each year. 

Fact: OSHA has not adopted NFPA 70E. Sections 

1910.331-.335 of Subpart S of the OSHA regulations 

essentially mirror NFPA 70E. In many ways, Subpart S is 

the “protect your workers” regulation, 

and NFPA 70E is the how-to 

guide. OSHA does, and will continue 

to, reference and enforce 

NFPA 70E in its compliance and 

consultation activities, so if you 

have been waiting for OSHA to 

adopt NFPA 70E before you start 

implementation at your facility, 

you can stop waiting and start 

implementing. 

UNDERSTANDING & IMPLEMENTING 

NFPA 70E FOR A SAFER WORKPLACE 

Chapter 1 of NFPA 70E, titled “Safety-Related Work 

Practices,” addresses the electrical safety-related work 

practices and procedures necessary to safeguard employees 

from hazards arising from the use of electricity in the 

workplace. The chapter provides a progressive guide to 

implementing safe work practices in your workplace. 

KNOWLEDGE IS KEY 

Knowledge, and the desire and ability to implement 

that knowledge, saves lives and prevents injury. OSHA 

documentation shows that it is often unsafe work practices 

that lead to electrical injury and death, while additional 

investigation data indicate that employees who 

used unsafe work practices often did not have knowledge 

of safety-related work practices. 

Chapter 1 of NFPA 70E addresses employee training 

requirements quickly. Section 110.6, titled “Training 

Requirements,” outlines the need for training “employees 

who face a risk of electrical hazard not reduced to a safe 

level by the applicable installation requirements [National 

Electrical Code and OSHA 1910.301-.308].” As almost 

every workplace uses electricity, this one simple statement 

tells employers that all employees need a level of training 

adequate to understand the “specific hazards associated 

with electrical injury,” the relationship between electrical 

hazards and possible injury,” and the “safety-related work 

practices and procedural requirements necessary to provide 

protection from those electrical hazards.” 

The section also addresses the specific training necessary 

for “qualified” persons and provides a basis for 

establishing who actually is qualified. One of the most 

important changes to the 2009 edition was the addition 

of Section 110.6(D)(1)(e), which requires that persons 

considered “qualified” be able to demonstrate the appropriate 

use of a voltage detector. The added requirement 

helps clarify that additional and specific skills and 

knowledge are necessary for an employee to be considered 

“qualified.” 

This section of NFPA 70E closely corresponds with 

20 


W 

STANDARDS 

Electrical 

Safety in the 

Workplace 

the requirements of OSHA 1910.332, as well as providing 

retraining guidelines and training documentation 

requirements. 

PROVIDING PRACTICES & PROCEDURES 

What is training without procedures to follow NFPA 

70E gives responsibilities to both the employee and the 

employer when it comes to safety-related work practices. 

The employer must provide safety-related work practices 

for employees (Section 110.3) and while it is necessary to 

implement safety-related work practices found throughout 

the standard, Section 110.7, Electrical Safety Program, 

specifically requires that the employer “implement and 

document an overall electrical safety program.” The section 

lays out a minimum basis for a written electrical safety 

program, including the need to audit the program to 

ensure that the program works [Section 110.7(H)]. Having 

a written program that does not address safe work practices 

or a program that employees do not even know exists, 

does not accomplish the overall goal of providing a safe 

work place. 

ESTABLISHING AN ELECTRICALLY 

SAFE WORK CONDITION 

If electrical energy is removed from the equipment, 

all hazards are also removed and employees can work 

safely. Most employers have an established lockout/ 

tagout (LOTO) program in one form or another. Very 

often, this program has been based on the requirements 

of OSHA 1910.147, The Control of Hazardous Energy, 

which is generally accepted as OSHA’s primary regulation 

when discussing LOTO. What is often overlooked 

about 1910.147 is the scope: 

“1910.147 – Control of Hazardous Energy 

(a) Scope, application and purpose. 

(a)(1) Scope 

(a)(1)(ii) This standard does not cover the following: 

(a)(1)(ii)(C) Exposure to electrical hazards from work 

on, near, or with conductors or equipment in electric utilization 

installations, which is covered by Subpart S of 

this part.” 

NFPA 70E, Article 120, in connection with 1910.333- 

(b), establishes additional requirements specific to employees 

exposed to electrical hazards while working on 

equipment. NFPA 70E goes above and beyond 1910.333 

by providing a specific six-step process necessary to establish 

an electrically safe work condition, with the most significant 

difference being the need to actually use test 

equipment to verify a truly deenergized condition. 

There is no need to establish a completely new program 

to address electrical lockout/tagout; however, 

NFPA 70E and 1910.333(b) requirements must be integrated 

into existing programs for complete compliance 

and safe work practices. 

WORK INVOLVING ELECTRICAL HAZARDS 

The last section of Chapter 1 of NFPA 70E, Article 

130, addresses those scenarios where it may not be possible 

to deenergize equipment. Because significant 

injuries and fatalities related to electricity primarily 

occur during such times, this section seems to have 

become the focus of what NFPA 70E is all about, often 

referred to as the “arc flash standard.” 

NFPA 70E is about a complete safe work practices 

program, which includes protecting employees during 

the most dangerous of work. Article 130 establishes the 

requirements for energized work, when deenergizing 

would present a greater hazard or is infeasible. Those 

requirements include, but are not necessarily limited to: 

•justification for the work; 

•established safe work practices, including, but not 

limited to PPE, job briefings, protection of unqualified 

persons; 

•a shock hazard analysis; 

•a flash hazard analysis; 

•approval by management or similarly authorized 

personnel. 

NFPA 70E does not, as many believe, exclude testing, 

troubleshooting, voltage measuring and visual inspections 

as energized work tasks. Article 130 establishes 

that these tasks are considered energized work, but 

excludes these tasks only from the requirements for an 

energized work permit; all other safe work practices 

must be followed. 

NFPA 70E does not deviate from OSHA requirements 

or provide for additional requirements not supported by 

OSHA, as many believe. 1910.132(d)(1) requires that “the 

employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards 

are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate 

the use of PPE,” while 1910.335(a)(1)(i) requires that 

“employees working in areas where there are potential 

electrical hazards shall be provided with, and shall use, 

electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the 

specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work 

to be performed.” NFPA 70E provides the specifics of how 

this is to be accomplished through a flash hazard analysis 

and PPE for each body part. 

21 


CONCLUSION 

So, what is fact, what is fiction 

and what is fad By using NFPA 

70E to create a strong electrical 

safety-related work practices program, 

you can differentiate the 

fact from the fiction, while 

emphasizing for yourself and 

employees that this is not a fad. 

What is your action plan 

•established and documented electrical safety training 

program for all employees; 

•written electrical safety program; 

•lockout/tagout program, which includes establishing 

an electrically safe work condition; 

•energized work procedures and equipment; 

•energized work justification and approval; 

•shock hazard analysis; 

•flash hazard analysis; 

•PPE and insulated tools. 

By leaving behind the “fad factor” and establishing 

a strong program based on understanding of NFPA 

70E, every employee can be afforded a safe work 

environment. 

Michael Kovacic is president of TMK and Associates Inc., a 

Cleveland, OH-based safety consulting firm specializing in 

electrical and lockout/tagout safety. For questions or comments 

about this article, call (866) OSHA-ZONE, e-mail Kovacic at 

mkovacic@oshazone.com or visit www.oshazone.com. 

Read an Excerpt From Z244.1 

The following is an excerpt from the standard, “Control 

of Hazardous Energy—Lockout/Tagout and Alternative 

Methods” [ANSI/ASSE Z244.1-2003 (R2008)]. To purchase 

the full standard, click here. To view all of our standards, 

click here. 

4. DESIGN 

4.1 Manufacturer, Integrator, Modifier, and Remanufacturer 

Responsibilities. Machines, equipment and 

processes shall be designed, manufactured, supplied, and 

installed so that the user can comply with the control 

methodologies of this standard. Modifications affecting 

energy isolation shall comply with this standard. A risk 

assessment shall be performed during the engineering 

design stage of development to determine the need for 

and design sufficiency of appropriate energy isolating 

devices and systems. (See Annex A) 

4.1.1 Exposure Minimization. Manufacturers, integrators, 

modifiers, and remanufacturers shall design 

machines, equipment, and processes to be reliable, therefore 

requiring a low level of intervention. The machine, 

equipment or process should be designed so that personnel 

are not exposed to hazardous energy during routine 

and repetitive servicing and maintenance activities. 

NOTE: This can be accomplished by positioning controls 

outside hazardous areas, adding controls at appropriate 

locations, providing external lubrication points, or 

providing guarding. 

4.1.2 Partial Energization. For those functions when 

partial energization is necessary, the manufacturer, integrator, 

modifier, or remanufacturer shall perform a risk 

assessment similar to that outlined in Annex A to determine 

the safest method of machine, equipment or 

process access. When it is necessary for machines, equipment 

or processes to remain partially energized (e.g. in 

order to hold parts, save information, retain heat, or provide 

local lighting), alternative control methodologies 

shall be provided for personnel safety. 

4.2 Energy Isolating Devices. Machines, equipment 

and processes shall be designed, manufactured, supplied, 

and installed with energy isolating devices to enable compliance 

with the requirements in 5.3. Consideration shall 

be given to the intended use of the machine, equipment 

or process. Devices shall be capable of controlling or dissipating 

hazardous energy, or both. The devices should be 

an integral part of the machine, equipment or process. 

When these devices are not integral to the machine, 

equipment or process; the manufacturer shall include in 

the installation instructions recommendations for type 

and location of energy isolating devices. 

4.2.1 Location. Energy isolating devices shall be accessible 

and, when practical, be conveniently located to facilitate 

the application of lockout devices during service and 

maintenance. 

NOTE: Energy isolating devices are best located outside 

any hazardous areas, at a convenient manipulating height 

from an adjacent walking area (i.e., not overhead, on ladders, 

or under machinery). 

4.2.2 Identification. All energy isolating devices shall 

be adequately labeled or marked unless they are located 

and arranged so that their purpose is clearly evident. The 

identification shall include the following: 

a) machine, equipment, or process supplied; 

b) energy type and magnitude. 

NOTE: The potential for error will be reduced if personnel 

are not expected to rely on memory or experience 

as to which isolating devices apply to which machines, 

equipment or processes. When machine, equipment or 

process placarding or posting contains the required energy 

isolating device identification, individual devices may 

be marked or coded and their identity referenced on the 

placard or posting information. 

Where conditions such as security are warranted, 

coded identification is acceptable. 

Examples of labeling or marking (e.g., tags, embossing, 

engraving, stenciling, etc.) language are as follows: 

Main Power Press 3 (480V); Natural Gas-Process Line 2; 

Hydraulic Pump Discharge (800 psi); Bay A Compressed 

Air (100 psi). 

Copyright ©2008 by ASSE. All rights reserved. No part of this 

publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic 

retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission 

of the publisher. 

22 


ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 

BY JEFF “ODIE” ESPENSHIP 

Approachability: 

The Last Domino 

Nearly every supervisor in the workplace feels they 

can be approached by others, but are they really 

“approachable” What does “intervening” in the 

workplace mean to you as a supervisor or foreman 

What does it mean to the one being supervised 

This article examines the final moments of three 

aviation accidents in an attempt to get at what makes 

approachability in the field so difficult. How can we 

become more approachable from the bottom up, from 

the top down and from peer to peer 

When the dominoes begin falling, accident investigations 

often reveal that someone on the job could have 

intervened with a critical piece of information but either 

did not speak up or was not listened to. 

The purpose is to not pick apart each falling domino, 

but simply to look at the final moments, the end game, 

“the last domino”—approachability. 

Reflect inward and ask yourself, what does “approachability” 

really look like, sound like or feel like in the field 

What you may find is that being approachable and intervening 

on the job is not as clear cut as you might think. 

•Air Florida Flight 90: crashed into the icy Potomac 

River in January 1982 (74 fatalities). 

•Comair Flight 5191: departed from the wrong runway 

in Lexington, KY, in August 2006 (49 fatalities). 

•PanAm and KLM 747 crash on the island of 

Tenerife: worst aviation accident in history in March 

1977 (583 fatalities). 

In each example, the pilots (workers) had the power 

to stop the work before disaster but failed to do so. 

Why 

Let us look at the final dominos of Air Florida 

Flight 90. 

COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER TRANSCRIPT 

Co-Pilot: God, look at that thing. That don’t seem 

right, does it Uh, that’s not right. (Referring to engine 

gauges) 

Captain: Yes it is, there’s 80. (Referring to airspeed) 

Co-Pilot: Naw, I don’t think that’s right. Uhhh, 

maybe it is. 

Captain: 120. (Referring to accelerating airspeed) 

Co-Pilot: I don’t know 

Now barely airborne, the sound of the “stickshaker” 

(warns pilots of impending stall) heard continuously 

until impact. 

Captain: Stalling! We’re falling! 

Co-Pilot: Larry! We’re going down, Larry! 

Captain: I know it! 

When employees in the field are unsure of what they 

are seeing or experiencing they either will not speak up 

for fear of looking stupid, or if they do speak up (which 

is the case with Air Florida), they may not be able to 

articulate exactly what they can or cannot see. It is difficult 

to clearly explain a bad feeling you are having, especially 

to a supervisor. So beware, approachability in the 

workplace may look or sound something like: 

“Hey, this doesn’t seem right, does it” 

“This light is, uh, isn’t this light usually off The 

power is off, right” 

“These uh, are these the right fittings for this pipe” 

Be on the lookout for the rhetorical question, the 

vague statement or the unsure utterance. It might be your 

last domino. 

In the Comair Flight 5191 accident, three experienced 

pilots in the cockpit departed from the wrong runway in 

Lexington, KY, in August 2006, which resulted in 49 

fatalities. 

It is early morning and still dark out as the captain 

taxis the airplane to depart on Runway 22 (Figure 1). 

Instead, he mistakenly turns onto Runway 26, a runway 

that is too short for the required takeoff roll. How could 

this happen to a highly experienced captain at the tiller, 

to a normally alert co-pilot sitting next to him and to 

another pilot sitting in the jumpseat 

Be on the lookout. Approachability might not come 

from a person, but from the job itself. We fail to act on 

numerous nonverbal hints and clues when working. It 

might be a missing part on a machine; a broken wire; 

equipment behaving strangely; or lights that are normally 

on are off. The Comair Flight 5191 crew was no different. 

Runway 26 had no runway lights on, which Federal 

Aviation Administration regulations require for night 

operations. The runway itself was attempting to tell the 

crew that something was not right. 

As the crew began the takeoff roll down the unlit, 

darkened runway, approximately 12 seconds into the 

work, the first officer said, “That is weird with no lights.” 

“Yeah,” confirmed the captain. No response from any 

crew member again until 15 seconds later. The captain 

exclaimed, “Whoa!” as the end of the short runway 

appeared. The sounds of the crash followed shortly 

thereafter. 

As we read this, we might be thinking, “How could 

they be so stupid Why didn’t the pilots stop” Intervention 

is not always cut and dry. 

Situational awareness is the measuring stick for our 

perception of reality versus actual reality. Taxiing an air- 

23 


Figure 1 

Blue Grass (LEX) 

Airport Diagram 

plane onto the correct runway can be perceived as a lowrisk 

event. Pilots always get it right. This perception 

lured all three crewmembers into a trap; they failed to 

verify the correct runway. Now, their perception of reality 

is lethally different than their actual reality. 

The lack of runway lights was trying to intervene, but 

the pilots failed to listen. Why Simply because when 

hints, clues or suggestions from our surroundings begin 

to show us that actual reality is different from our perception 

of reality, it is human nature to rationalize away 

and to not listen. The Comair crew knew construction 

was underway at Lexington airport. Perhaps the runway 

lights were off for that reason We will never know. We 

do know they continued the takeoff, wanting to maintain 

their perception of reality as being real. In these cases, 

we want to be right, but if the job is hinting that “something 

is not right,” listen to the clues. It might be your 

last domino. 

The final accident is perhaps the saddest. It stands 

today as the worst aviation accident in history. Five hundred 

and eighty-three people lost their lives when two 

747 Jumbo jets collided on a fog-enshrouded runway 

at Tenerife island in March 1977. 

I personally interviewed Capt. Robert “Bob” 

Bragg, the only surviving pilot of this tragedy. 

Capt. Bragg was the co-pilot onboard the Pan 

American 747 airplane when the KLM 747 emerged 

out of the fog, at more than 150 mph, in an attempt 

to take off. It failed to get airborne high enough 

and slammed into the top of Capt. Bragg’s Pan 

American jet. I asked him to listen to the cockpit 

transcripts of the KLM 747 crew and to discuss the 

final dominos. 

KLM Captain: We’re going. 

KLM Engineer: Is he not clear then 

KLM Captain: What do you say 

KLM Engineer: Is he not clear, that Pan 

American 

KLM Captain: Oh yes (emphatically). 

In reference to this transcript, Capt. Bragg said 

of the KLM captain, “I think he got in too big of a 

hurry, trying to get back on schedule. He mistook 

his route clearance for a takeoff clearance. He then 

failed to listen to his engineer.” 

Being in a hurry on a foggy runway and misunderstanding 

the control tower led to degradation in 

overall cockpit situational awareness. The overbearing 

captain (supervisor), with a new co-pilot (new 

hire) and an unsure engineer (peer-to-peer) made a 

complete recipe for workplace disaster. 

This tragedy laid the foundation for cockpit resource 

management for airline pilots. The lessons 

we have learned is now applied to businesses around 

the world. 

Bottom-up approachability can be difficult for 

the one who feels threatened or intimidated by 

another’s experience, skill and knowledge. Supervisors, 

actively listen when others have questions. It 

might be you who is mistaken. No one wants to look stupid 

in front of the boss or peers, so be sure to thank 

those who have the guts to bring up concerns. Take the 

time to listen to ambiguous, odd or vague statements. 

This encourages open communication. Ask probing 

questions. Make sure everyone has a high level of situational 

awareness. Never assume. Lastly, watch for clues 

from the job itself. It might be a light, a switch, a piece 

of equipment, a tool or a procedure that is speaking up. 

It is always better to slow down and spend a few seconds 

of your life than to lose your life in a few seconds. 

Jeff “Odie” Espenship is the founder of TargetLeadership. He 

holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University 

of Georgia and participated in the Air Force ROTC program. After 

6 years of service in the Air Force, Espenship became an airline 

pilot. He began his career with Delta Air Lines in 1992, where 

he currently flies international routes out of Atlanta, GA. Amid 

his tenure as an airline pilot, Espenship also flew a 1943 T-6 

“Texan ” on the airshow circuit. A tragic accident took the lives 

of his brother and a pilot. This event led Espenship to create 

TargetLeadership. 

24 


WORKPLACE PRACTICES 

BY KEN WENGERT 

NIOSH-NORA Manufacturing 

Research Agenda 

NIOSH is the federal agency responsible for conducting 

research and making recommendations for 

the prevention of work-related injury and illness. 

NIOSH’s mission is to generate new knowledge in the 

field of occupational safety and health and to transfer that 

knowledge into practice for the betterment of workers. To 

accomplish this mission, NIOSH conducts scientific 

research, develops guidance and authoritative recommendations, 

disseminates information and responds to requests 

for workplace health hazard evaluations. 

NIOSH provides national and world leadership to prevent 

work-related illness, injury, disability and death by 

gathering information, conducting scientific research and 

translating the knowledge gained into products and services, 

including scientific information products, training 

videos, and recommendations for improving safety and 

health in the workplace. 

NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL RESEARCH AGENDA 

The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) 

is a partnership program to stimulate innovative research 

and improve workplace practices. Unveiled in 1996, 

NORA has become a framework for guiding occupational 

safety and health research in the U.S. Diverse parties 

collaborate to identify the most critical issues in the workplace. 

Partners then work together to develop goals, 

objectives and an implementation plan for addressing 

these issues. 

MANUFACTURING 

In 2007, more than 16 million U.S. workers were 

employed in 21 manufacturing subsectors ranging from 

food, beverages, tobacco and textiles to petroleum, 

chemical, metals, machinery, computers, transportation 

equipment and furniture manufacturing. The largest subsectors 

were transportation equipment manufacturing, 

fabricated metal products manufacturing and food manufacturing. 

Thirty percent of the manufacturing sector 

workers were women and about 30% were minorities 

(15% Latino, 10% African-American and 5% Asian). 

In 2007, 393 manufacturing sector workers died from 

work-related injuries. The leading causes of death were 

contact with objects and equipment (140), transportation 

incidents (102) and falls (48). The U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) reported 783,100 recordable injury or 

illness cases in manufacturing industries in 2007, with 

more than half of these requiring days away from work, 

job transfer or restriction. The leading causes of days 

away from work cases were contact with objects or 

equipment (70,210), overexertion and repetitive motion 

(52,120) and falls (26,160). Fourteen industries reported 

more than 100,000 nonfatal occupational injuries and 

illnesses to BLS in 2007; three of these were in the 

manufacturing sector: transportation equipment manufacturing 

(120,000), fabricated metal product manufacturing 

(112,800) and food manufacturing (102,000). 

Although the data on occupational illnesses are limited, 

manufacturing had the highest numbers and rates of 

occupational illnesses in 2007. More than one quarter of 

these were hearing loss. The data on occupational illness 

morbidity and mortality are sparse, but we know that 

exposure to dusts, gases, mists, 

vapors, fumes, chemicals, fibers, 

shift work, and job strain can affect 

health outcomes ranging from cancer 

to chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease to cardiovascular disease and 

many others. The extent of exposure 

and disease in manufacturing is a 

major gap in our knowledge due in 

large part to the often long latent 

period between exposure and the 

onset of disease. As a result, occupational 

diseases are often missed by 

traditional occupational health surveillance 

systems. This provides verification 

for the importance and 

relevancy of a national research 

agenda in partnership with the manufacturing 

stakeholders. 

The manufacturing sector is categorized 

by 473 different six-digit North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (31-33). 

These industry segments are grouped and described by 

21 subsectors, three-digit NAICS codes. Federal statistical 

agencies use NAICS to classify business establishments 

for the purpose of collecting, analyzing and 

publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business 

economy. 

A goal of the NORA Manufacturing Sector Council 

is to identify the most salient needs of this large and 

diverse sector. It seeks to facilitate the most important 

research, understand the most effective intervention 

strategies and learn how to implement those strategies to 

achieve sustained improvements in workplace practice. 

The NORA Manufacturing Sector Council has devel- 

Although the data 

on occupational illnesses 

are limited, 

manufacturing had 

the highest numbers 

and rates of 

occupational illnesses 

in 2007. 

More than one 

quarter of these 

were hearing loss. 

25 


Strategic Goal 5 

Reduce the number of respiratory conditions and diseases 

due to exposures in the manufacturing sector. 


Reduce the incidence and prevalence of cancer due to 

exposures in the manufacturing sector. 


Reduce the incidence of injuries, illnesses and fatalities 

among understudied and vulnerable populations in 

the manufacturing sector, such as contract workers, 

younger and older workers, immigrants and pregnant 

and nursing workers. 

The NORA Manufacturing Sector 

Council has developed 10 

strategic goals designed to 

address the most prevalent 

occupational safety and health 

issues and to promote the 

greatest opportunities for 

elimination and reduction of 

the incidence of occupational illness, 

injuries, hazardous exposures, 

and fatalities within the 

manufacturing workplace. 

oped 10 strategic goals designed to address the most 

prevalent occupational safety and health issues and to 

promote the greatest opportunities for elimination and 

reduction of the incidence of occupational illness, 

injuries, hazardous exposures, and fatalities within the 

manufacturing workplace. 


Reduce the number of injuries and fatalities due to 

contact with objects and equipment among workers in 

the manufacturing sector. 


Reduce the number of injuries and fatalities resulting 

from falls among workers in the manufacturing sector. 


Reduce the number and severity of musculoskeletal 

disorders among manufacturing sector workers. 


Reduce the incidence of occupationally induced hearing 

loss in the manufacturing sector. 


Reduce the incidence of injuries, illnesses and fatalities 

within small businesses (fewer than 100 employees) 

and specific subsectors within the manufacturing sector. 


Enhance the state of knowledge related to emerging 

risks to occupational safety and health in manufacturing. 


Reduce the number of catastrophic incidents (e.g., 

explosions, chemical accidents or building structural 

failures) in the manufacturing sector. 

For additional details on these goals, click here. 

FALL 2011 CONFERENCE 

While NIOSH is serving as the steward to move this 

effort forward, it is a national partnership. The NORA 

Manufacturing Sector Council and the University of 

Cincinnati, Department of Environmental Health and 

Education and Research Center in partnership are sponsoring 

a conference as a national call for action to identify 

and develop partnerships to improve occupational 

safety and health in manufacturing. 

The goals of the conference are to: 

•identify the greatest opportunities to reduce injuries, 

illnesses, hazardous exposures and fatalities in the manufacturing 

sector; 

•share information about innovative research and successful 

partnerships; 

•explore potential research collaborations and partnerships 

to improve occupational safety and health. 

The conference will be held Sept. 7 and 8, 2011, at 

the Hyatt Regency Cincinnati. For more information, 

click here 

Ken Wengert, CSP, ARM, is director, safety and environmental, 

for Kraft Foods. He may be reached at kwengert@kraft.com. 

26 


SAFETY TRAINING 

Isn’t Just Something We Do, 

It’s EVERYTHING We Do! 

Summit Training Source produces world class training content, delivered 

in multiple formats, that will help you reduce accidents and injuries, 

improve your DART rate, and most importantly, protect your employees. 

✔ Online Training 

✔ Video/DVD Training 

✔ Streaming Video Training 

✔ Online OSHA 10 & 30 Hour 

✔ Summit Elements 

✔ Support Materials 

TRUST YOUR TRAINING PROVIDER. 

Contact us today www.safetyontheweb.com or call 800.842.0466 

for more information on our effective training solutions. 

“I feel that Summit Training 

Source is not just a “training 

service provider,” but more 

accurately a “business 

partner”. It is comforting to 

know that there are still 

companies out there with 

old fashioned values and 

traditional customer service 

of the days before the bottom 

line became the sole criteria 

in driving business decisions.” 

Linda Brown, MBA, SPHR 

HR Generalist/Trainer 

The Salvation Army, Western Territory 

1030-0038

Safety & Health Effects of Shift Work - ASSE Members

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?