Does color matter?

I wanted to share with you a potential problem that one of our C&C Managers, Laura Nardone solved:

Industry:  Utilities

Customer:  Municipality – Local County

Issue:  Recent near miss when a municipality worker was wearing a Orange mesh safety vest and was mistaken as part of the Kubota backhoe equipment due to the similar vest color and backhoe color, he was caught up in the equipment.

Review: C&C Manager conducted site survey to identify the equipment and work applications in place.  C&C Manager identified an immediate need to change both the color and the type of safety vest.

CL2ML2

Recommendation: C&C Manager presented the MCR Safety 5-Pont Tear-Away safety vest and made a recommendation to convert to the Lime Vest MCR Safety CL2ML2.

Outcome: Local county municipality implemented an immediate change in PPE for this division and committed to review all other operations for PPE improvements.  This MCR Safety recommendation was awarded the “Keeping Us Safe” award at the monthly End User safety meeting.

Annual estimated revenue, $2500, saving lives…priceless……

***Laura Nardone works out of Texas where she regularly assists in finding solutions that protect workers.

OSHA FEDERAL PENALTY SCHEDULE

OSHA citations inform the employer and employees of the regulations and standards alleged to have been violated, and of the proposed length of time set to correct alleged hazards. The employer receives citations and notices of proposed penalties by certified mail. The employer must post a copy of each citation at or near the place a violation occurred for 3 days or until the violation is abated, whichever is longer. These are the types of violations that may be cited and the penalties that may be proposed:

 § Other-Than-Serious Violation — A violation that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm. OSHA may assess a penalty from $0 to $1,000 for each violation. The agency may adjust a penalty for an Other-Than-Serious violation downward by as much as 95 percent, depending on the employer’s good faith (demonstrated efforts to comply with the Act), history of previous violations, and size of business.

§ Serious Violation – A violation where there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result. OSHA assesses the penalty for a serious violation from $1,500 to $7,000 depending on the gravity of the violation. OSHA may adjust a penalty for a serious violation downward based on the employer’s good faith, history of previous violations, and size of business.

§ Willful Violation – A violation that the employer intentionally and knowingly commits. The employer is aware that a hazardous condition exists, knows that the condition violates a standard or other obligation of the Act, and makes no reasonable effort to eliminate it. OSHA may propose penalties of up to $70,000 for each willful violation. The minimum willful penalty is $5,000. When a willful violation is deemed to be ‘egregious’ than OSHA can apply willful violation limits for every violation found or for every employee exposed to hazards.

§ An employer and responsible management individuals convicted in a criminal proceeding of a willful violation of a standard that has resulted in the death of an employee may be fined up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for a corporation or imprisoned up to 6 months, or both. A second conviction doubles the possible term of imprisonment.

§ Repeated Violation – A violation of any standard, regulation, rule, or order where, on reinspection, a substantially similar violation is found and the original citation has become a final order. Violations can bring a fine or up to $70,000 for each such violation within the previous 3 years. To calculate repeated violations, OSHA adjusts the initial penalty for the size and then multiplies by a factor of 2, 5, or 10 depending on the size of the business.

§ Failure-to-Abate – Failure to correct a prior violation may bring a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each day that the violation continues beyond the prescribed abatement date.

Source: OSHA Publication 3000-09R. 2003 Other-Than-Serious Violation

MCR Safety’s  C & C team can help you with PPE compliance.

Click this link to find out more about Consulting & Compliance!

Save Money…Better Compliance…Good Idea?

Opportunity:

A laboratory services company that provides analysis of organic, inorganic, biological, hazardous, and other materials. With these types of materials and chemicals, employees cannot wear contact lenses in the facility. Safety Prescription Eyewear must be used. Also, their work staff has a higher percentage of Prescription Eyewear users than the average factory. These aspects exaggerated the cost of an Rx eyewear program.
With the hiring of a new Safety Manager, she was eager to find new ways to keep employees safer and to look for ways to cut PPE cost. Rx Eyewear was a logical first step.
Alternatives:

Each employee was able to choose their own Rx style from their current Rx provider. Though all lenses and frames choices met  ANSI Z87+ standards, employees had little regard to the coverage and protection of the eyewear they chose. Most eyewear was chosen based on style.

Since everyone had different tastes in style, there was no uniformity. This made it difficult for the safety manager to quickly verify everyone was wearing compliant eyewear.

Solutions:

The Klondike Plus with the KDRX prescription insert solved multiple problems.

1st – The KD3 was designed as protective eyewear, therefore offers better coverage and protection than most Safety Rx frames

2nd – The entire facility can now wear the same style eyewear making it easy for Managers to verify if employees are wearing the proper eye protection

3rd – The cost of a KD310 & KDRX ensemble is much less than average Safety Rx frames.

Implementation:

The company stocks product # KD310 in the storeroom for all employees (Rx or no Rx). Employees that need prescription eyewear receive product # KDRX which they take to the local Wal-Mart where the company pays $55 to have their prescription filled. The KDRX insert is affixed to the inside of the KD310.

Observation:

After the first 6 months of implementing the new program, the safety manager, operations manager, and employees saw many benefits from the KDRX program.

Employees had improved field of vision since the KD310 has a wrap around style. Employees didn’t have to continue using scratched and spattered lenses like before since they could throw the outer KD310 glasses away and get a new one when needed. Employees can now choose different lens tint options like Amber, Light Blue, and Indoor/Outdoor. The purchasing manager is happy because of the cost saving…see chart below.

Cost Analysis:

1 pair of Rx Safety Eyewear every year =  $250.00* average cost per pair

Number of employees = 42

Total cost per year  =  $10,500.00

Total cost every 2 years  =  $21,000.00

Versus

Best Case

1  KDRX Insert every 2 years ($55 + $10) = $65

6 pair of KD310 every year (x 2 years) = $40.80

Total cost every 2 years (x 42 employees) = $4,443.60

Cost savings per 2 years   =  $16,556.40

Worst Case

1 KDRX Insert every year ($65 x 2 years) = $130

12 Pair of KD310 every year (x 2 years) = $81.60

Total cost every 2 years (x 42 employees) = $8,887.20

Cost savings per 2 years  = $12,112.80

Time from initial opportunity to implementation:

3 months

Special Thanks to Jay McNeil, Sales Manager for MCR Safety for this case study.

30% Fewer Hand Injuries!

At MCR Safety it is our desire to work closely with our Distributors and End-Users to reduce injuries in the workplace. Periodically I will post case studies that we have worked with End-Users to assist in reduction of hand injuries and/or a reduction in spending. Here is one that we worked with a key Oil & Gas company:

Opportunity:
In May of 2008, MCR Safety and a worldwide leading Oil & Gas production company began collaborating on the development of a glove that would protect workers, reduce hand injuries and set an industry standard in providing hand safety specifically designed for the Petrochemical Industry.  As a worldwide Oil & Gas producer, several different job functions and applications would need to be considered in developing an Oil & Gas glove.  The company is known for their vast expertise and success in crude oil exploration and production and transportation of crude oil and refining and natural gas exploration.

The Consulting and Compliance team worked closely with MCR Safety Product Development Managers, National Account Managers, the Prospect’s Global Management Team and Global Safety & Health Advisors, and their field personnel to develop trial and implement a mandate for the use of the MCR Safety HV100 Oil & Gas glove.

Obstacles:
Two major obstacles were introducing the HV100 Oil & Gas Glove to the prospect’s Approved Contractors which performed services for the worldwide locations both on and offshore, the second was to identify the industrial distributors that were Approved Providers for the prospect.

Solutions:
The Prospect was instrumental in formulating documentation and notification to the Approved Contractors mandating the hand protection policies that would be required by compliance if contracted to perform services.  MCR Safety C&C team members and National Account Managers collaborated to identify the Approved Providers and set pricing guidelines and terms for those selected MCR Safety authorized distributors.

Implementation:
Implementation of the Oil & Gas Glove and Hand Safety Initiative was implemented for all the Prospects worldwide locations as a mandate to comply with their Hand Safety Initiative on October 10, 2009.

Observations:
The HV100 Oil & Gas glove was developed and introduced to meet the needs of primarily the petrochemical industry and was introduced to the industrial distribution channel in the Fall of 2009.  Since the introduction of the HV100 Oil & Gas glove, several other models have been developed to meet further specifications, such as the HV200, Y200 and Y300 and the B100 models with some of these models now offer sizing up to 3X.  The MCR Safety Force Flex series is gaining recognition throughout the industrial distribution channel and the market and is no longer exclusive to petrochemical industry applications.

Success:
At the 2010 NSC, the Prospect confirmed a 30% reduction in hand injuries specifically related to the HV100 glove and the 2009 Hand Safety Mandate and Glove Safety Initiative.

The HV100 continues to gain market share and acceptance from a wide array of end-users. This is not being used only petroleum business.

***Special Thanks to Laura Nardone of MCR Safety’s Consulting and Compliance Team for this case study.

How can you have this type of success? Visit the Consulting and Compliance web page and let us know how you want fewer injuries resulting in a cost savings.