OREGON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER & BUSINESS SERVICES

What’s inside . . .Administrator’s Message .......................................... 3

Mike Greenfield, director of DCBS ............................ 5

Are you ready for the year 2000? ............................. 5

Eye hazards in the workplace ................................... 6

Safety Notes .......................................................... 7-9

Hazard Alert ............................................................ 10

Oregon OSHA’s new agriculture standard .............. 11

How did we do?...................................................... 12

Shared resources help us all .................................. 13

Ask OR-OSHA ......................................................... 14

Article submissions ................................................ 15

Congratulations on a long and successful partnershipOregon OSHA and the American Soci-

ety of Safety Engineers (ASSE) havebeen working together to make Oregon’sworkplaces safe and healthful for over50 years. Representatives from the Co-lumbia-Willamette Chapter of ASSE andOR-OSHA recently gathered on the stepsof the Oregon Convention Center to ac-knowledge this partnership andparticipate in the official kick-off cer-emony for the 1999 Governor’sOccupational Safety and Health Confer-ence, scheduled for March 8-11.

ASSE officers Eric Fullan and KarenBlythe presented a framed certificate toPeter De Luca, Administrator of Oregon OSHA in recognition of Oregon OSHA’s outstanding commitment, partner-ship, and contribution to the Columbia-Willamette Chapter of ASSE. “Oregon OSHA and ASSE will continue todepend upon and trust each other,” said Fullan, “working together toward the common goal of safe and healthfulworkplaces.”

An outreach effortthat workedBy Ellis BraschManagement Analyst, Oregon OSHA

Here’s a story about a decision that evolved in waysthat weren’t planned or set in stone. No one could havepredicted the outcome or the sequence of events thatgrew out of the decision. What’s interesting is how thisdecision became a good one.

Early in 1997, Marilyn Schuster, manager of OR-OSHA’s Standards and Technical Resources Section,decided to target a high-hazard Oregon industry for anoutreach effort. Her intent was to find an industry with ahistory of high injury rates, contact the employers, andoffer to work with them to reduce the rates. TechnicalSection staff sifted through five years of OSHA 200 sur-vey and workers’ compensation claims data, thennarrowed their focus to a handful of industries. Of thoseindustries, producers of manufactured homes, had high

See “Congratulations” page 2

See “Outreach,” page 4

OREGON HEALTH AND SAFETY

RESOURCEFall 1998

ASSE and OR-OSHA representatives gather for kick-off ceremony.

T W O

“Congratulations,” from page 1

HistoryThe first statewide conference was at

the Marion Hotel Conference Headquar-ters in Salem on September 25 and 26,1944. It featured “training sessions,” a“luncheon period,” and “recess.” The“Safer Oregon” publication published bythe State Industrial Accident Commis-sion (now known as Oregon OSHA)stated, “The success of this conferencehas made it certain that others like it willbe held.” This prophetic statement hasproven to be true. Fifty years later theconference attendance continues togrow.

Safety and health conferences in the’40s usually attracted 50 to 100 people.A “training session” met in a room, withparticipants sitting around a conference table. Confer-ences in the ’50s and ’60s grew to 1,000 attendees andincluded specialized programs called “industry sections,”and exhibitors displayed their products and services.Labor and management cooperation was strengthenedduring this time and became a theme for future confer-ences. Safer Oregon magazine published industry-specificrecommendations for workplace safety and health, basedon ideas that came out of the conferences.

Beginning in the ’70s, conferences focused on the newOccupational Safety and Health Administration. TheOregon Governor’s Conference featured AccidentPrevention Division trainers and nationally knownspeakers. Awards were given to companies and individu-als who made significant contributions in the field ofoccupational safety and health, and programs addresseda wide variety of safety and health issues.

GOSH 99Between 1944 and today, the GOSH

Conference became the largest safetyand health conference in the Northwest.In 1997, it attracted more than 4,000safety and health professionals andpractitioners. Oregon OSHA and ASSEcontinue to work together to improveand expand the conference.

The ’99 conference offers 20 full-dayworkshops on agriculture, healthcare,construction, industrial hygiene, emer-gency response, ergonomics, safetycommittee issues, incident investiga-tion, communications, safety and healthmanagement, and training. Attendeescan choose from more than 80 state-of-the art training sessions, and the Exhibit

Hall will house more than 180 exhibitors demonstratingthe latest safety and health products and services. For thefirst time, the conference is offering evening sessions es-pecially for small-business people. ■

Pete De Luca receives awardfrom Eric Fullan

Oregon Governor’s OccupationalSafety & Health Conference

March 8-11, 1999Oregon Convention Center

Portland, Oregon

✦ 20 professional development workshops✦ More than 80 training sessions✦ Over 180 exhibit booths✦ How-to equipment demonstrations✦ 1999 Governor’s Conference Awards

Ceremony and Luncheon

For information contact:(503) 378-3272 (V/TTY)

or (888) 292-5247, option 1Fax: (503) 947-7462

Mail: GOSH, PO Box 5310,Salem, Oregon 97304

E-mail:Oregon.GOSH99@state.or.us

Joint effort of ASSE,Columbia-Willamette Chapter,

Portland and Oregon OSHALeadership into the millennium

T H R E E

Administrator’s Message

Earlier this year, OR-OSHAannounced plans to change the ad-ministrative rules in Division 1.Division 1 contains the proceduralrules by which we operate. It dealswith how OR-OSHA conductsinspections, what penalties are avail-able, and how appeals are made.Other sections of Division 1 deal withinsurers and self-insured employers.

As with any change, the changes inDivision 1 have met with significantconcern for how they’ll change therelationships between OR-OSHA,employers, and their employees.Some of this concern stems fromthe fact that people generally resistchange as a matter of principle.After all, change forces people todo differently those things that havebecome familiar. Still, if the changeswill alter the good relationshipsbetween OR-OSHA and the entitiesit regulates, maybe the changesshould not occur. The relationshipsare very important.

When I began my job as adminis-trator of OR-OSHA, it becameevident to me that we were expend-ing lots of time and energy andmoney on issues that have little ornothing to do with workplace safetyand health. Much of the “discussion”of these issues took place betweenlawyers in hearings.

Some of the discussion resulted incitations being set aside, althoughOR-OSHA’s recent win-to-loss ratein hearings is over 75 percent andOR-OSHA’s historic win-to-lossrate in the Court of Appeals is nearly100 percent.

Many of the proposed changes inDivision 1 are designed to eliminateinsignificant arguments that have di-verted attention from workplacesafety and health. Many otherchanges are designed to make theprocess clearer and easier to follow.The goal of these changes is to refo-cus the discussion on safety andhealth, not to undermine or takeaway substantive rights of employ-ers or employees. As we engage inour discussion of the proposedchanges, if we find places wheresubstantive rights of parties havebeen abridged, we will adjust and re-verse those situations.

The rule process to date has shownus several things. Many peoplethink that we can improve the sys-tem. On the other hand, there aredifferences of opinion about how tochange the system. The process alsoshowed us that we made a mistakeby not involving stakeholders in thediscussions prior to publishing theproposal. We have listened and

heard the concerns that people haveabout being left out of the process.We should have included stakehold-ers sooner, but we will now remedythat situation.

Several individuals and groupshave volunteered to help OR-OSHAdevelop rule changes that wouldhave widespread acceptance. Thisidea has much merit.

The Division 1 rule changecomment period will be extendedto June 30, 1999. We intend tocreate a task force to make recom-mendations for rule changes. Shouldyou or your organization be willingto volunteer time to work on thisproject, please contact MarilynSchuster, (503) 378-3272.

In conclusion, the proposalto change Division 1 rules is anopen and continuing process. OR-OHSA has proposed rule changesto start the ball rolling. We will beseeking more input before we areready to adopt rules. Some changesare needed. But no changes will bemade until more discussion hasoccurred. It is our goal in this pro-cess to accommodate the needs of themajority and not make changes thatwill hurt the parties or the process.

Peter De Luca

F O U R

injury rates and three other charac-teristics that moved them into thewinner’s circle: the largest employ-ment (compared to the otherindustries), the largest concentrationof facilities relatively close to Salem,and primary workers, assemblers,whose injuries accounted for thelargest proportion of total injuries.

During the summer of 1997, GretaCoe, an Oregon State University stu-dent working as an OR-OSHAintern, started the outreach effort.She contacted employers, visitedtheir facilities, and wrote a reportdescribing significant injuries withinthe industry. Later that summer,Technical Section staff met withmanufactured-home representativesto discuss the report and to solicitideas for a future OR-OSHA guide-book on safe work practices for theindustry. That meeting led to twomore meetings before the yearended. The meetings helped OR-OSHA get to know industryrepresentatives, but they weren’tbuilding a sense of direction for thegroup. Fortunately, one of the meet-ing attendees was Don Miner,executive director of the OregonManufactured Housing Association(OMHA). Don was concerned aboutthe industry’s high injury rates andoffered to host a lunch-time safetyforum at the OMHA office in Salemso that everyone could share ideasfor improving workplace safety andhealth.

Representatives from virtually allof the state’s manufactured home fa-cilities attended the firstOMHA-sponsored meeting onMarch 13, 1998. OR-OSHA Techni-cal Section staff began the session

“Outreach,” from page 1with an overview of injury trendswithin the industry and a review ofbasic safety management concepts.Afterwards, attendees discussedwhat they wanted to accomplishthrough future meetings.

Objectives included:■ Hold regularly-scheduled meet-

ings to share ideas on bestpractices

■ Elect officers and record theminutes of each meeting

■ Share safe work practices thatreduce injuries and illnesses

■ Establish an injury/illnessbaseline to evaluate whetherknowledge gained at the meetingswas having an impact at the plantlevel

■ Invite safety/health professionals

to speak to the group on safetyissues

■ Tour attendees’ facilities to ob-serve plant safety practices

The March 13 meeting put the fo-rum on a solid foundation. OMHAcontinues to host the monthly meet-ings and the group has followedthrough on each of its initial objec-tives. Most recently, Palm HarborHomes of Millersberg hosted lunchand a tour of their facility. This suc-cess story demonstrates not only thatthe public and private sector canwork together effectively, but thatthe Oregon manufactured homeindustry was willing to take the leadin improving worker safety andhealth in their facilities. ■

OR-OSHA would like to thank Don Miner,Maureen Kuhlman, OMHA secretary, andrepresentatives from the following firms for asuccessful outreach effort:

Marlette/Shult HomesGolden West Homes

American Home Star Corp./GuerdonFleetwood Homes of OregonWestern Homes/Silvercrest

Palm Harbor HomesSkyline Homes/Homette

Fuqua HomesBlazer IndustriesRedman Homes

F I V E

In just a little more than a yearwe’ll be entering the new millen-nium! You’ve heard about it. It’s inthe newspapers, on television, andthe radio. It’s fuel for politicalcartoons and jokes on late-nighttelevision. Y2K, what is it really andhow does it affect you?

Many older computer systemsstore dates in two-year formats with-out the century and assume that allcenturies are 19 for calculations.Thus, applications will be unreliableif they are not fixed, because theywill treat the year 00 as 1900, not2000. Any calculations using a two-year date will be incorrect. Forexample, if you were born in 1968,on New Years Eve, 1999, an oldercomputer would calculate your ageas 31, but on New Years Day, 2000,you would be 68, and eligible forSocial Security! To solve the prob-lem, dates should be stored with thecentury years and we should use a

full four-digit year in all date pro-cessing calculations.

Almost anything managed or con-trolled by a computer could beaffected. That could mean a personalcomputer (PC), automatic locking/unlocking doors, air conditioningsystems, traffic signals, automobiles,copiers, VCRs, and software pro-grams. Computer databases used formanaging safety and health programsactivities are also subject to Y2Kcompliance. Your first Y2K encoun-ter could be as near as January 1,1999. An older system looking for-ward one year may experiencedifficulty at the first appearance of“99” in a date field, causing process-ing errors or time error faults.

Are you and your business ready todeal with how this computer problemmay affect workplace safety andhealth? What can you do? You canbe aware and not assume that yourcomputer-chip-based equipment and

Are you ready for the year 2000?

Mike Greenfield of Salem is thenew director of the Department ofConsumer and Business Services(DCBS). Greenfield, who most re-cently served as deputy secretary ofstate, replaces Kerry Barnett, wholeft the position in January. The Or-egon Senate approved Greenfield’sappointment in June, and he tookover July 1. The director also servesas state insurance commissioner.

“DCBS programs have an impacton vitually every business in Oregonand play a critical role in servingconsumers and workers from allwalks of life,” Governor JohnKitzhaber said. “Mike knows how tobring together the diverse interestsneeded to keep those programs suc-

Mike Greenfield, director of DCBScessful.” Greenfield served as deputysecretary of state from 1991 until hisappointment as director of DCBS. Hewas legislative administrator from1986 to 1991. He also serves as thechair of the Oregon Commission onChildren and Families and as a boardmember of Howard Street CharterSchool in Salem. DCBS is the state’slargest regulatory and consumer pro-tection agency. The departmentregulates insurance, banking, securi-ties, building codes, occupationalsafety and health, workers’ compen-sation, and real estate appraisers. Italso includes energy conservation,consumer protection, and educationprograms. ■

Mike Greenfield

systems are Y2K-compliant. Make alist and contact equipment manufac-turers.

If you use personal computers inyour business, don’t assume that anew PC is Year-2000 ready. Testyour computer’s century capabili-ties. The U.S. Small BusinessAdministration has published a teston the Web at: www.sba.gov/y2k/indexcheck.html or call 1-800-U-ASK-SBA. Recent legislationsigned by President Clinton createda Web site containing additional in-formation and links to the latestsolutions for consumers, small busi-ness and local governments,www.y2k.gov. ■

Y2K

Eye hazards in the workplaceBy Tracy WeeksEnforcement Analyst, Oregon OSHA

S I X

Of all the major human organs, the eye is perhaps themost vulnerable to occupational injuries. Protectionagainst eye injuries is unquestionably important in occu-pational safety and health. Approximately 1,000American workers injure their eyes in work-related acci-dents each day.

The eye is composed of highly specialized and deli-cate tissue. This tissue does not react to injury in thesame way as other body tissue. The cornea, lens, and hu-mors, for instance, are clear. To maximize theirtransparency, they are nourished by very few blood ves-sels and therefore, do not heal quickly. The retinal tissueis made mostly of nerves, and nerves do not regenerate.

Protective equipment for the eye is simply apparatusto improve or extend the eye’s natural defenses whichare the bony ridge, the blink, and the tear glands. Thesenatural defenses are usually adequate to protect againstsmall foreign objects and to wash away small amountsof mildly toxic liquids, but they cannot protect againstindustrial eye hazards such as high-speed particles orcaustic powders and liquids.

Of physical injuries to the eye, penetration by foreignbodies is the most common. Although an eye injuryfrom a foreign object may seem inconsequential after theobject is removed, there is potential for infection thatcould lead to irreversible damage to the eye.

Chemicals such as strong acids and alkalis may causeserious splash burns to the eye. Caustics (alkalis) aremuch more injurious to the eyes than acids. In general,the higher the pH, the greater the danger to the eye. Af-ter an alkali-splash eye accident, an injured eye maydeteriorate rapidly for several days. An alkali will con-tinue to soak into the tissue as long as it remains in theeye. The end result of an alkali burn is usually a scar onthe cornea.

Where people handle acids or caustics,where there are airborne particles ofdust, wood, metal, or stone, or whereblows from blunt objects are likely, eyeprotection is necessary.

An acid-burned eye’s initial appearance is an accurategauge of the damage, because strong acids tend to pre-cipitate a protein barrier that prevents further penetrationinto tissues. Solutions from pH 7 down to pH 2 cause a

strong stinging sensation when in contact with the eye,but may cause no damage if contact is brief.

Chemical splash injuries to the eye require promptfirst-aid treatment consisting of immediate irrigationlasting at least 15 minutes, with low-pressure water.Such irrigation should be with plain water from standardeyewash fountains, emergency showers, hoses, or anyother available sources. The purpose of emergencyflushing is to dilute and remove harmful substancesunder the eyelid and in contact with the eyeball asquickly as possible to prevent further damage to theeye. Medical assistance should be sought during orimmediately after the irrigation.

It does not take special training to identify mosthazards to worker’s eyes. Where people handle acidsor caustics, where there are airborne particles of dust,wood, metal, or stone, or where blows from bluntobjects are likely, eye protection is necessary.

Employees should know that the first line ofdefense against toxic chemicals and eye irritants isproper eye protection along with equipment guardsand emergency controls. ■

If you have questions about personal protectiveequipment (PPE) requirements for your work-place, call OR-OSHA’s Standards and TechnicalResources Section, (503) 378-3272. If you haveInternet access, visit OR-OSHA’s Web site,www.cbs.state.or.us/osha. You’ll find a fact sheetthat answers common questions about PPE.

S E V E N

Department of Consumer & Business ServicesOregon Occupational Safety & Health DivisionSalem, OR 97310

Fatality ReportAccident type...............................................Asphyxiation

Industry .............................................................. Logging

Employee job title ........................................ Hook tender

SAFETYNOTES

Description of accidentThe hook tender was operating a crawler tractor, pushing logging debris off the landing. He guided the tractor past

the stable landing and onto the built-up brush, which gave way. The tractor proceeded down an 80% slope approxi-mately 30 feet until it came to an abrupt stop when it encountered a pile of brush. The victim was ejected andtumbled another 40 feet; the tractor slid sideways and came to rest on the victim. The weight of the tractor caused thevictim to suffocate.

Investigation findingsThe victim was not wearing a

seatbelt at the time of the accident.The seatbelt on the tractor showedlittle or no signs of use by opera-tors; it was dirty, stiff, and showedno markings or wear indicative ofconsistent use. The employer had apolicy in place regarding seatbeltuse, and employees agreed theywere familiar with the policy. Theemployer also had a written disci-plinary action program. However,the victim had never been disci-plined for violating the seatbeltpolicy, even though it was knownthat he violated the policy on mul-tiple occasions. Furthermore, noemployee had ever been disci-plined for violation of a safetyrule.

This unfortunate accident makesclear that it is not sufficient tomerely create written policies re-garding safety and disciplinaryactions. The policies must be en-forced to ensure a safe workenvironment.

E I G H T

Department of Consumer & Business ServicesOregon Occupational Safety & Health DivisionSalem, OR 97310

Fatality ReportAccident type.......................................... Fall/crush injuryIndustry ............................................................. Trucking

Employee job title ................... Dock worker/forklift driver

SAFETYNOTES

Investigation findings

Description of accidentThe forklift driver was loading

pallets of metal into a trailer thatwas backed into a loading dock.A hostler was directed to removethe adjacent trailer, but mistakenlymoved the one being loaded by thevictim. As the hostler pulled thetrailer away from the dock, theforklift driver drove onto thedocking plate. The plate fell, theforklift followed, the victim wasejected, and the load landed on him.The victim was unconscious and notbreathing; he was resuscitated andtransported to a hospital. He laterdied of complications related tothis industrial accident.

The investigation revealed nopositive means of identifying thetrailers. Docking numbers paintedon the asphalt were worn and indis-tinguishable when dry, and coveredwith pooled water during rainyweather. Docking numbers on thedock fronts were obscured by trail-ers when the docks were in use.

The hostler was not adequatelytrained and did not follow propersafety procedures. Furthermore,chocks were not used to secure thevehicle being loaded; it was com-

mon practice to load vehicles with-out chocking. It was determinedthat supervisors were aware of theunsafe practices and conditions butfailed to take corrective action.

Most employees were unawarethat there was a safety committee.The committee did not meet regu-larly, did not conduct workplaceinspections, did not review their re-gional director’s safety inspection(which identified the chockingproblem), and did not establish pro-cedures for investigation of all

safety-related incidents, despite inci-dents similar to this one.

If the docks had been adequatelyidentified, wheel chocks routinelyused, and employees properlytrained and supervised, this fatal ac-cident would not have occurred. Anidentical accident (at another loca-tion of this employer) occurredapproximately one month after thisincident, resulting in the immediatedeath of a worker.

Fatality ReportAccident type.....................Backed over by lumber carrier

Industry ......................................................... Lumbermill

Employee job title ......................... Lumberyard lead man

Description of accidentThe victim was run over by a

lumber carrier as he crossed thesingle-traffic lane used by thevehicles in the lumberyard. Thecarrier was backing away from aload. The carrier operator believedthat he had hit a block of woodwhen he felt a bump under hisright rear tire; the driver continuedbacking until the front tire hit thesame object. Seeing nothing onthe ground, the driver stopped thecarrier and got off. He then discov-ered that he had run over andapparently dragged the victim forsome distance. The worker died ofmassive blood loss and internalinjuries.

SAFETYNOTES

Department of Consumer & Business ServicesOregon Occupational Safety & Health DivisionSalem, OR 97310

N I N E

Investigation findingsThis accident could have been

avoided if the proper warningdevices had been used on the ve-hicle. OR-OSHA rules requirethat audible warning or otherwarning devices be used at crossaisles and other locations wherevision is obstructed. Also, theemployer is required to providepermanently marked aisles orpassageways for either foot traf-fic or vehicular operation.Neither of these OR-OSHA re-quirements was being followedat the time of the accident.

Additional warning devices suchas overhead strobe lights andbackup warning devices are re-quired when the operator’s viewis obstructed. They are effective inalerting workers to the presence ofvehicle traffic. Rearview mirrorsare helpful if the driver’s view isobstructed. Also, clear spaceshould be designated or marked toprevent workers from enteringlanes where vehicles routinelytravel.

T E N

HAZARDALERT

Department of Consumer & Business ServicesOregon Occupational Safety & Health DivisionSalem, OR 97310

An injury accident involving theuse of an aerial lift bucket workingin close proximity to 120/240-voltresidential services has raised con-cerns about the adequacy ofequipment design, guarding, andsafe operating procedures.

While in the process of moving anaerial lift bucket into position, an in-sulated secondary service linebecame entangled between the outeredge of the bucket and the hydraulictool circuit manifold. The insulationon the service line was damaged, re-sulting in electrical arcing. Ahydraulic tool circuit fitting wasburned through, which allowed hy-draulic fluid to escape and ignite.Fire immediately engulfed the bucket,resulting in second- and third-degreeburns to over 50 percent of theoperator’s body, plus lung damagedue to smoke inhalation.

To prevent recurrence of such anaccident the following recommenda-tions are offered:

❖With assistance and approval fromthe aerial lift manufacturer, evalu-ate all hydraulic fittings close tothe bucket and eliminate potentialcatch hazards.

❖Whenever possible, and with themanufacturer’s approval, coverand appropriately insulate all fit-tings that present a hazard ofcatching a line.

Aerial lift hydraulics fire hazard

❖When operating an aerial lift inthe proximity of potentially ener-gized lines, continually check forproper positioning and possiblecontact with lines.

❖Evaluate the intended use of allaerial lift equipment and, whenappropriate, use hydraulic fluidwith low-ignition potential as rec-ommended by the manufacturer.

❖Turn the tool circuit off when notin use to reduce the flow of hy-draulic fluid and lower thepotential for ignition in the eventof equipment failure or damage.

❖Train all workers to be knowl-edgeable and competent inemergency-response proceduresfor shutting off the flow of hy-draulic fluid.

This hazard alert has beencompiled by Oregon OSHA’sStandards and Technical Re-sources Section to provideinformation to employers andemployees regarding unrecog-nized safety or health hazards,inadequacies of materials, de-vices, techniques or controls.This hazard alert is based on in-formation supplied by field staff,research by the technical re-sources staff and publishedmaterials. The information con-tained in this alert does notreplace the OR-OSHA standardsthemselves.

For further information contactMike Mitchell, (503) 378-3272.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aa a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

E L E V E N

The 1995 Oregon Legislature di-rected Oregon OSHA to assemble apermanent committee of Oregon ag-ricultural employers to tackle issuesof OR-OSHA interactions with theagricultural industry. One of the ma-jor projects undertaken by OregonOSHA at the request of the commit-tee was the total revision of the20-year-old rules for agriculture.The Standards and Technical Re-sources Section of Oregon OSHA isresponsible for the development andmaintenance of the division’s stan-dards, so this assignment was givento the division’s liaison to the com-mittee, Technical Specialist RonPreece. The division and the com-mittee set the following goals for theproject:

■ All rules regarding agricultural becontained in one book, even if itturned out to be a large one

■ Clear language – that the standardbe in plain English as required byOregon law

■ Organization – that the new bookshould be logical and easy to useand include a table of contentsand index

After several months, OregonOSHA issued the first proposal forthe new standard. Public hearingsheld in Rickreall, Redmond,Pendleton, Medford, and Aurora in-dicated that the proposal had majorproblems. It was back to the drawingboard, with help from many groupsand individuals. A partial list ofthose who assisted in the preparationof the new standard include the fol-lowing: The Oregon OSHA SmallAgricultural Employer AdvisoryCommittee; Representative LizVanLeeuwen (R-Halsey) andGeorge Van Leeuwen; DonSchellenberg, Oregon Farm Bureau;Ed Galinant and Vicki Farris, Or-egon Association of Nurserymen;

Oregon OSHA’s new agriculture standardTom McCoy, The Oregon WheatLeague; Thom Nelson, Hood RiverShippers and Growers; Don Moisan,dairy farmer; Karen Golik andDianne Mekkers, Oregon OSHA;and Kirk Lloyd, Risk ManagementResources.

The effective date of the new agri-culture standard was October 1,1998. Major changes to the standardfor agriculture include the following:

■ OR-OSHA is prohibited from en-forcing other standards notspecifically referenced in the agri-culture standard.

■ The safety committee standardaccommodates crew meetings forseasonal or temporary workers.

■ A section on orchard ladders wasadded and standards on portableand fixed ladders were reorga-nized and simplified. A newANSI standard was incorporatedinto the fixed ladder standard toease the requirements for cagesand climbing devices.

■ A section was added about theuse of liquified petroleum gas(propane) or liquified natural gasfor orchard fans and heaters. Thelengthy industrial standards donot apply.

■ Significant changes were made tothe standards for agriculturallabor housing and related facili-

ties (labor camps) followinglegislation and the transfer ofjurisdiction from the Bureau ofLabor and Industries toOR-OSHA.

■ The agriculture fire standard wasreorganized and rewritten.

■ Sections were added on trainingfor forklift operators, training fortractor drivers, and storage ofhazardous chemicals.

■ The section on helicopter opera-tions was rewritten to better fitChristmas tree harvesting.

■ The standard on electricity waschanged to conform to the Na-tional Electric Code and otherstandards that the agricultural em-ployer must follow.

■ Federal changes to the WorkerProtection Standard were incorpo-rated in the new standard.

Most of the items on this list areadditions to the new standard, butaren’t necessarily new requirements.Many were previously enforcedfrom other standards.

OR-OSHA will provide no-costtraining to groups of 12 or more onthe new standard. Call the OR-OSHA Education Section, (503)378-3272, for information aboutworkshops and conferences on thenew agricultural standard. ■

T W E L V E

How did we do?At Oregon OSHA we want to make our rules easy to understand and use. Here’s your opportunity to help. If you’ve used therevised Division 4, Agriculture standard, we’d like you to answer just eight questions.

SURVEY1. In general, how often do you expect to use the revised Division 4 standard to look up a rule?

(CIRCLE the category that comes closest to the number of times you use the regulations.)

Daily A few times each week A few times each month A few times during the year Never

If you circled “Never,” please tell us why

2. In general, when you use the Division 4 standard to look up a rule, how easy is it to find the rule youare looking for? (CIRCLE the category that comes closest to your opinion.)

Very easy Somewhat easy Neutral Somewhat difficult Very difficult

3. In general, when you find the rule you are looking for, how useful is the information in meeting yourneeds? (CIRCLE the category that comes closest to your opinion.)

Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful

4. Think about the last time you used the “Table of Contents” at the front of the revised Division 4standard to look up information. (If you don’t use the “Table of Contents” go on to Question 5.)

How easy was it to find the information you were looking for? (CIRCLE the category closest to your opinion.)

Very easy Somewhat easy Neutral Somewhat difficult Very difficult

5. Think about the last time you used the “Index” at the back of the revised Division 4 standard to lookup information. (If you don’t use the “Index” go on to Question 6.) How easy was it to find the infor-mation you were looking for? (CIRCLE the category that comes closest to your opinion.)

Very easy Somewhat easy Neutral Somewhat difficult Very difficult

6. Did you find any factual errors or omissions in the revised Division 4 standard? Yes No

If you answered “yes,” please fill in the table below.

Enter the paragraph number of the rule in error Briefly describe the error

Example: 437-006-0054 Does not exist in the regulations

7. Did you know the revised Division 4 standard is also on the OR-OSHA Web site?(http://www.cbs.state.or.us/osha) Yes No

8. If you could do just one thing to make the revised Division 4 standard more useful to you, whatwould you do?

I would

Mail this survey to: OR-OSHA, 350 Winter Street NE, Room 430 • Salem, OR 97310-0220 or fax to (503) 947-7461.

The OR-OSHAAudiovisual LibraryThe OR-OSHAAudiovisual Library A R E S O U R C E F O R P R O M O T I N G

H E A L T H & S A F E T Y I N T H E W O R K P L A C E

This is an old story that bears re-peating.

There was a traveler who made along journey through a dark forest.Having found nothing to eat for sev-eral days, he became very hungry.Just as he was seriously consideringthe possibility of digging for edibleroots, he came upon a small town.Eagerly, he went up the main streetand soon saw what he was lookingfor: a large building with manybright windows, a sign over the doorreading “Inn,” and – evenbetter – “All you can eat.”

Inside, the proprietor took hiscloak, led him into the dining hall,and cheerfully told him, “There’s nocharge.” The traveler could hardlybelieve his good fortune. But his joywas short-lived. At a large table be-fore him and many other wearytravelers was the finest banquetimaginable. But it was impossible toeat. Each knife, fork, and spoon hada handle more than two feet long.Unable to feed themselves with suchutensils, the travelers looked help-lessly at the good food.

The traveler thought long andhard. Then his face brightened andhe asked, “What if we feed eachother?” One by one, the facesaround him brightened as the newidea took hold. It was something ofa struggle at first, but soon thesounds of misery were replaced bythe clink of fine china, laughter, andhappy conversation.

Maybe the holidays make mephilosophical, but I think this storyhas much to say about the mission ofOregon OSHA. We’re here because

Shared resources help us allBy Don Harris,AV Librarian, Oregon OSHA

the people of Oregon recognize thata safe and healthy workplace is agood thing, something we should allbe able to enjoy. Oregonians alsorecognize that making workplacesafety and health a reality requiresmore than just wanting it. It requireshard work, cooperation, and thewillingness to share resources.

Such cooperative effort is a pow-erful thing, and this is perhapsnowhere more evident than in Or-egon OSHA’s Resource Center/AVLibrary. Because people are willingto share, we’ve been able to estab-lish and maintain one of the bestoccupational safety and health li-braries on the West Coast. Withmore than 600 safety training videosand 9,000 publications in two largerooms, we have the combinedknowledge of thousands of peopleand centuries of experience in work-place health and safety.

The Resource Center/AV Libraryis more than a storehouse of knowl-edge. Because business labor andgovernment are willing to work to-gether, the Resource Center is anactive lending library. The audiovi-sual section alone ships more than500 videos a month to borrowersacross the state. In turn, thoseserved by the Resource Center/AVLibrary help us by using materialsappropriately, recommending newtitles and subjects, and sharing theirquestions, comments, and concerns.Because of this, our resources con-tinue to expand and develop asindustry in Oregon also expands anddevelops. Each one feeds the other,in a sense, and everyone benefits.

Trying to do it all alone wouldmake us like the hapless diners ofthe story. Our challenge is to be likethe wise traveler and use the vast re-sources available to us throughcooperative effort.

If you have questions about theOregon OSHA AV Library, contactDon Harris by phone, (800) 922-2689; fax, (503) 947-7463; ore-mail, don.j.harris@state.or.us.

If you have questions about theOregon OSHA Resource Center,contact Judy Sugnet by phone, (800)922-2689; fax, (503) 947-7463; ore-mail, judy.a.sugnet@state.or.us. ■

Comingsoon!

The 1999OR-OSHA AV

LIBRARY CATALOG

Order yourfree copy today!

T H I R T E E N

?Ask OR-OSHA

Applying OR-OSHA standards to “real-life” situationsmay not always be “standard” procedure. Sometimes, an-swers and solutions to problems can be tricky. AskOR-OSHA is a regular feature of Resource so that yourquestions concerning OR-OSHA standards and yourbusiness may be answered by experts. So please, AskOR-OSHA by calling the Standards and Technical Sec-tion, (503) 378-3272 or e-mailing your question totech.web@state.or.us. We’ll answer your question(s) asquickly as possible. We’ll also print selected questionsand answers in this newsletter so that the answer to yourquestions may help someone else.

✦

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

F O U R T E E N

QPlease clarify an employer’s requirements tomaintain employee medical records.

A 1910.1020, Access to Employee Exposure andMedical Records, requires that employers must en-

sure that all employee medical records are preserved andmaintained for the duration of their employment, plus 30years. This does not mean that the employer is respon-sible for keeping them; the employer must simplyensure that they are preserved and maintained. How thisis done is up to the employer and the medical providers.

It is important to note that, with the exception of x-rays, medical records can be stored in any manner,including by electronic means and on microfiche, aslong as all of the information is retrievable for the dura-tion of storage. If the records are stored electronically,the employer is responsible for ensuring that the datacannot be lost. If the technology used to retrieve the databecomes obsolete, the employer is responsible for trans-ferring the data into a non-obsolete format.

QIs a materials safety data sheet (MSDS) re-quired for waste oils?

ANo. 1910.1200, Hazard Communications, specifi-cally exempts hazardous waste as defined by the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and wasteoils fall under that definition.

QIs there an OR-OSHA standard prohibiting theassignment of electrical work to unlicensedworkers?

ANo. While the Building Codes Division of theDepartment of Consumer and Business Services

does require certain tasks to be performed by licensed

electricians, OR-OSHA’s focus is making sure thatworkers are adequately trained and qualified to safelyperform the work assigned to them.

All employers are required by OAR 437-001-0760(1)(a)to properly instruct and supervise their workers in thesafe operation of any machinery, tools, equipment, pro-cesses or practices that they’re authorized to use orapply. Because supervisors are employer representatives,the requirements are the same for them. If a standard isviolated, then any citation issued by OR-OSHA will beissued to the company. Employees (including supervi-sors) may not be cited under the Oregon SafeEmployment Act. Division 2, Subdivision S, 1910.333requires workers performing electrical work to be ad-equately trained and qualified for the tasks assigned tothem. To be qualified according to 1910.399, a personmust be familiar with the construction and operation ofthe equipment and the hazards involved. While trainingmay be similar or even identical to that required for li-censing, OR-OSHA’s focus is on the safe performanceof work rather than certification or licensing.

QIs fall protection absolutely necessary on roofswith a 6:12 pitch or greater?

AFall protection is required on all roofs from whichthere is a potential fall of six feet or more, no matter

what the pitch (1926.510(b)(10) and (11)). When per-forming residential-type construction work, such asleading edge work, constructing and setting walls andtrusses, or doing roofing and sheathing work, the fall dis-tance to a lower level may be increased to 10 feet(Oregon exception to 1926.501(b)(13)).

QIs the use of a “spotter” in lieu of lanyardsadequate protection on flat and low-slopedroofs?

AA low-sloped roof is defined by 1926.500(b) as aroof with a slope less than or equal to 4:12. The use

of a safety monitor (spotter) in conjunction with a warn-ing line system is considered adequate protection whenperforming roofing work on low-sloped roofs. On low-sloped roofs 50 feet or less in width, the use of a safetymonitoring system alone is permitted (1926.501(b)(10)).

F I F T E E N

Return to: Oregon OSHA, 350 Winter St. NE, Room 430, Salem, OR 97310-0220

Organization: ___________________________________________________________________

Name: __________________________________________________________________________

Title: ___________________________________________________________________________

Mailing address: ________________________________________________________________

City: ________________________________________ State: ________ ZIP: _____________

Phone: _________________________________________________________________________If the computerized address label is correct, you are on our mailing list already. No response is necessary.

❏ New subscription ❏ Address change

Resource is a newsletter concerning occupational safety and health in Oregon. To subscribeto this free publication or to change your mailing address on your current subscription, fillout and return this form or call (503) 378-3272.

S U B S C R I P T I O N F O R MRESOURCE

Resource welcomes submissionsof articles for publication. Ifyou’d like to share informationabout OSHA-related topics, an-nouncements, or events, pleasesend them to Jani Johnston, OR-OSHA, 350 Winter St. NE, Salem,OR 97310-0220 or e-mail them toher, jani.k.johnston@state.or.us.

Articles will be used accordingto their relevance, timeliness,compatibility with OR-OSHApolicy and practice, and the avail-ability of space. Because Resourceis a quarterly publication (winter,spring, summer, fall), please timeyour submission so that we re-ceive it about six months before

Article Submissions…publication. Please submit articleson diskette in a PC-compatibleformat such as WordPerfect. Or,you may e-mail your article to theaddress above.

Please include your name (asyou would like it to appear in abyline) if the article is one youwrote, a phone number (in casewe have questions), and a fewlines describing you, your job,credentials, or interest in the sub-ject (again, if the article is writtenby you or is an opinion piece).The Resource staff retains theright to edit all submissions forstyle and length. ■

RESOURCEThe Oregon Health and Safety Resource ispublished quarterly by the Oregon Occupa-tional Safety and Health Division, Departmentof Consumer & Business Services.

Information requests should be directed to:Jani Johnston, Editor,at (503) 378-3272 (V/TTY)or 1-800-922-2689.

Department of Consumer& Business Services

Michael Greenfield, Director

Oregon OSHAPeter De Luca, Administrator

EditorJani Johnston

Design and illustrationsPam Piesker

Technical editingDCBS Communications

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division350 Winter St. NE, Rm. 430Salem, OR 97310

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 24

SALEM, OREGON

Questions?OR-OSHA has field offices across Oregon. If you have questions or need in-

formation, call us toll free at 1-800-922-2689 or phone one of the offices listedbelow. (All phone numbers are V/TTY).

BendRed Oaks Square1230 NE Third St.,

Ste. A-115Bend, OR 97701(541) 388-6066Consultations:(541) 388-6068

Salem Central350 Winter St. NE,

Rm. 430Salem, OR 97310-0220(503) 378-3272Fax: (503) 947-7461

Portland9500 SW Barbur Blvd.,

Ste. 200Portland, OR 97219(503) 229-5910Consultations:(503) 229-6193

Eugene1140 Willagillespie,

Ste. 42Eugene, OR 97401(541) 686-7562Consultations:(541) 686-7913

Pendleton721 SE Third St., Ste. 306Pendleton, OR 97801(541) 276-9175Consultations:(541) 276-2353

Medford1840 Barnett Rd., Ste. DMedford, OR 97504(541) 776-6030Consultations:(541) 776-6030

SalemDAS Bldg. 1st. Floor1225 Ferry St. SESalem, OR 97305(503) 378-3274Consultations:(503) 373-7819

Visit us on the InternetWorld Wide Web at:

http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/osha

CONSUMER BUSINESS SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OFDSCB

D

Confidentialhotline

The Oregon Safe Employment Act(OSEAct) was enacted in 1973 to en-sure the occupational safety and healthof Oregon’s workforce. OR-OSHA’scomprehensive enforcement programensures that Oregon’s occupationalsafety and health rules are carried outin the workplace. Enforcement activi-ties include unannounced safety andhealth inspections of both public andprivate-sector worksites. Complianceofficers (COs) also conduct fatal andnonfatal accident investigations.

All inspections are to be conductedin a professional and unbiased man-ner, maintaining a system that is fairto both workers and employers. Thosewho have a concern about an inspec-tion that remains unresolved afterspeaking with the responsible CO orthe CO’s supervisor are invited to callthe OR-OSHA administrative office at1-800-922-2689.