Safety Lines

The Newsletter of Minnesota OSHA
Number 44 Summer 2004

Teens at work: Awareness, extra care helps keep young employees safe on the job
By Gary Robertson, MNOSHA Training Officer

School is out for the summer and many enthusiastic Minnesota teenagers are working at summer jobs, oftentimes their first work experience. About 70 teenagers die each year in the United States due to work-related injuries, according to the National Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Another 77,000 teen workers require an emergency room visit. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry reported $19,500 in employer penalties from citations for minors who were injured while working last year. According to NIOSH, the four major reasons youth workers get hurt are: 1. Doing work for which they are not trained, sometimes without being asked. 2. Inappropriate supervision. 3. Working with dangerous tools. 4. Performing tasks that violate youth employment laws. Construction work is especially hazardous for young employees. Although the construction industry employs less than 3 percent of all youth workers, it ranks third in the number of work-related youth fatalities (14 percent of all occupational deaths to those younger than 18). There is a lot to consider when hiring youth employees: • Age is a major factor. The tasks associated with the work that will be performed must be appropriate for a worker's age. • Know your federal and state labor laws. Both federal and state Fair Labor Standards Acts have declared some jobs as hazardous and employees younger than 18 are prohibited from performing them. Examples of prohibited jobs include: • operation of power-driven woodworking machines (including drills and nailguns); • operation of forklifts, cranes, hoists and elevators; • operation of power-driven metal forming, punching and drilling machines; • operation of power-driven circular saws, band saws and guillotine shears; • wrecking and demolition operations; • roofing operations; and • excavation operations.

When hiring youth employees awareness is the key word. Be aware they will require a special effort in training and supervision. Even after the initial training, do not assume they know all of the work-related hazards. Require youth employees to demonstrate what was taught. Observe their work and demonstrate the correct, safe methods of tasks whenever necessary. Continually stress safety. Make sure youth employees only perform the work for which they were trained. Assure that supervisors provide adequate supervision for these young workers. Never leave a young worker to work alone. Supervisors need to set a good example by having positive safety attitudes and safe work habits. Youth employees are worth the effort. With proper safety training and appropriate supervision, they are an excellent resource to fill seasonal employment needs. There are many resources for employers employing youth workers. Below is a resource list for youth work-related questions you may have or for any additional safety concerns.

Information resources: keeping teen-workers safe
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry U.S. Department of Labor

443 Lafayette Road N., St. Paul, MN 55155 (651) 284-5005; 1-800-342-5354 • Labor Standards – Minnesota labor laws, including child labor standards, minimum wage, overtime, termination and more • Minnesota OSHA Compliance – committed to helping Minnesota workplaces improve safety and health • Workplace Safety Consultation – provides free consultation services, on request, to help employers prevent accidents and diseases, through several employer-assistance programs.

Federal OSHA • training information and handouts
NIOSH safety publications • safety handouts and CD-ROMs about safety programs for young workers
Office of Occupational Safety and Health Nursing/DSTM

(202) 639-2548 – Robert Nester • Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, for demonstration purposes, about safety for the young worker.

Safety Lines


Summer 2004

Minnesota OSHA participates in state's emergency-preparedness exercise
By Patricia Todd, Director of MNOSHA Compliance

The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, represented by Minnesota OSHA, recently took part in a "tabletop" exercise coordinated by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DPS/HSEM). The objectives of the exercise were to: establish and maintain communications critical to supporting a response, and coordinate the activities of all agencies involved in the emergency response. Like all states, Minnesota is subject to major disasters and emergencies that can pose a significant threat to public safety and health. The four general types of such events are: natural disasters, technological hazards, civil emergencies and national security events. Specific hazards include: floods, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts, release of hazardous materials, high-level radioactive waste transportation accidents, emergency levee/dam failures, pipeline leaks, explosions, forest fires, terrorism, critical infrastructure failures, health threats and civil disturbances. DPS/HSEM is responsible for coordinating Minnesota's disaster and emergency preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. Fullscale exercises, involving both emergency-operation-center (EOC) activation and field activities by state and local personnel, will be conducted as required. Appropriate evaluation criteria and advance materials will be provided to federal evaluators. Scenarios will vary, so major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are evaluated regularly. A critique will be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise. At the state-government level, DPS/HSEM will assume responsibility for ensuring exercise deficiencies are corrected. At the local-government level, the county board of commissioners or county emergency management director will have that responsibility. Exercise scenarios will include or make provisions for: basic objectives, date, time period, place, participating organizations, real and simulated events, time schedule for all events, narrative summary that describes initial activities, and – as needed – activities developing during the exercises, arrangements for qualified observers and communications between the nuclear facility, state and local EOCs, and field assessment teams.

Safety Lines


Summer 2004

Performance measures indicate MNOSHA has far reach
By Patricia Todd, Director of MNOSHA Compliance

When it comes to workplace safety and health, • The number of days to resolve contested cases Minnesota is a state-plan state, which is a state that was reduced from 191 days in FFY02, to 153 days has elected to operate its own occupational safety in FFY03 (the national average is 170 days). and health (OSH) program – MNOSHA. • The in-compliance rate was maintained at 31 Federal OSHA monitors MNOSHA annually and percent. quarterly, and requires publication of an annual report at the conclusion of each federal fiscal-year • The average number of days to respond to an (Oct. 1 through Sept. 30). The annual report provides employee complaint was 4.6, undercutting the goal information about how MNOSHA performed relative of nine days by almost five. to its strategic plan. Reports for the past two years are available at • There were more than 40,000 hits to MNOSHA's main Web site, more than double FFY02's The end of federal fiscal-year 2003 (FFY03) 19,500. concludes MNOSHA's first five-year strategic plan. Key indicators of overall performance include the • MNOSHA handled more than 11,000 compliance following. assistance phone calls. • A 15 percent reduction of lost-workday injuries and illnesses (LWDII) in four of the six areas defined (meat products, structural wood products, primary metal industries, fabricated metals, transportation equipment and nursing homes). Claims for indemnity benefits (for lost wages, functional impairment or death) were reduced by a minimum of 21 percent and a maximum of 78 percent in all of the six areas defined. • In construction, MNOSHA did not see a reduction in LWDII. However, there was a 16 percent reduction in indemnity claims. • The number of inspections increased to 2,601 in FFY03, up from 1,674 in FFY02. • The lapse time from opening conference to issuance of citations decreased in: – Safety, from 44 days in FFY02, to 25 days in FFY03 (the national average is 47 days); and – Health, from 70 days in FFY02 to 57 days in FFY03 (the national average is 63 days).
Safety Lines 4

The MNOSHA program continues to maintain and improve day-to-day key indicators, as well as work toward overall strategic goals. The strategic management plan for 2004 through 2008 is online at

Customer service ...
• Each month, MNOSHA experts field about 1,000 phone calls and 100 e-mail messages, usually from employees, employers and consultants. Nearly 98 percent of customer inquiries are answered within one day. • MNOSHA provides its Construction Breakfast seminars approximately five times a year and offers many other training options each year. Visit events.html for a complete list. • Visitors seeking MNOSHA safety and health information generate about 5,500 Web hits each month. Visit oshainfo.html to find all the information and materials that are available online.

Summer 2004

Managing ergonomics in the workplace
By Philip Jacobs, Ergonomics Program Coordinator Workplace Safety Consultation

According to the most recent statistics, approximately 40 percent of all cases with one or more days away from work in Minnesota are classified as ergonomic or work-related musculoskeletal disorders (see related story, page 6). Although many kinds of injuries could be said to have some kind of ergonomic component, these types of disorders are distinguished by their relatively slow onset and long healing time. Responding to recommendations of the 2002 Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) Ergonomics Task-force (see, DLI and the Minnesota Safety Council have teamed up to present a series of half-day seminars throughout the state, focused on the business case for controlling work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). Aside from avoiding the direct financial costs of injuries, Minnesota employers have learned that optimizing the fit between workers and the workplace can have many other paybacks, such as: • improving employee morale and productivity; • increasing the quality of products produced or service provided; • reducing absenteeism and turnover; and • minimizing product damage and waste. The half-day seminars are intended to provide managers with a better understanding of their role in controlling work-related musculoskeletal disorders, including: • current obligations under Minnesota laws and regulations; • an overview about WMSD injury costs in Minnesota; • perspectives on medical and case management for WMSD claims; and • case studies about how Minnesota companies learned that good ergonomics makes business sense. With average wage-replacement costs of more than $12,000 for each WMSD indemnity case, attending one of these seminars will be one of the smarter returns on the cost and time invested. For complete information about the seminars, go to or contact the Minnesota Safety Council by phone in the metro area at (651) 291-9150 or toll-free at 1-800-444-9150, or by e-mail at For free on-site assistance or training about ergonomics, contact: • in the metro area – Philip Jacobs, (651) 284-5060; • in outstate Minnesota – Dave Ferkul, (218) 733-7832; or • by e-mail –
Safety Lines 5 Summer 2004



40 percent of all Minnesota days-away-from-work cases

By Brian Zaidman, Research Analyst Research and Statistics

The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), recently released the 2002 survey statelevel estimates for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). These statistics are based on cases with at least one day away from work (DAFW) collected as part of the annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. The data shows there were approximately 13,300 DAFW cases with WMSDs in Minnesota in 2002, accounting for 40 percent of all DAFW cases. Because of changes by OSHA to its recordkeeping requirements, the data for 2002 is not comparable with data for prior years. (The recordkeeping changes are explained at the end of the article.) BLS defines WMSDs as disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs that are not caused by slips, trips, falls, motor-vehicle accidents or other similar accidents. The BLS tables provide data for private industry in the country as a whole and for each state that participates in the BLS survey. Information about WMSD cases involving state and local government employees are available for some states, including Minnesota. Figure 1 shows: • There were an estimated 13,310 WMSD cases in Minnesota in 2002. Between 2000 and 2001, the overall number of WMSD cases decreased from 16,340 to 13,150. • The estimated number of cases in 2002 is similar to the estimate for 2001. Because of the recordkeeping changes, it is unclear whether actual changes in job safety occurred or whether there was an effect from the recordkeeping itself.
Figure 1: Number and incidence rate1 of musculoskeletal disorders in Minnesota involving days away from work Year Private industry Number 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

State government Number 360 230 230 200 210 Incidence rate 46.0 33.3 37.9 31.5 35.5

Local government Number 1,240 1,290 1,240 1,130 1,070 Incidence rate 71.0 68.7 68.7 55.1 53.5

Incidence rate 76.4 80.5 80.5 66.7 68.7

13,550 14,520 14,870 11,830 12,030

Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses per 10,000 full-time workers. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Safety Lines


Summer 2004

Figure 2 shows, for private employers in 2002: • The percentage of DAFW cases that were WMSDs was similar in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, and was slightly above the national rate. These percentages were nearly unchanged from the previous year. • The rate of WMSD injuries in Minnesota was above the national rate, slightly above Iowa’s rate and 13 percentage points below Wisconsin’s rate. • Minnesota WMSDs had a lower median number of days-away-from-work than the neighboring states and the national average.
Figure 2: WMSDs in the United States, Minnesota and neighboring states, private employers, 2002 Minnesota Total DAFW cases Number of WMSDs Percent of all DAFW cases WMSDs per 10,000 FTEs Median days-away-from-work: all injuries all WMSDs carpal tunnel syndrome

Iowa 15,740 6,180 39.3% 64.2 5 7 18

Wisconsin 38,430 15,170 39.5% 81.5 6 7 38

United States 1,436,200 488,000 34.0% 55.3 7 9 30

29,380 12,030

40.9% 68.7 5 6 27

Days-away-from-work (DAFW) cases occur when workers miss at least one day away from work after the day of the injury. WMSD injuries are only identified among DAFW cases. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Recordkeeping changes

The OSHA recordkeeping changes affect which injuries and illness are recordable, how injuries and illnesses are categorized, and how days away from work are counted. These changes make direct comparisons between the 2002 results and those for earlier years unreliable. Data from earlier years is provided to show the trend during the previous years. Some of the recordkeeping changes that affect the number of WMSD cases are: • An aggravation of a case where signs or symptoms have not been resolved is not a new case, even if the aggravation was caused by a new event or exposure. Previously, each new event or exposure was treated as a new case. • Under the previous requirements, a cumulative trauma disorder was considered a new case if no care was received for the previous 30 days. The new requirements have no such criteria. In the absence of a new work-related event or exposure, the reappearance of signs or symptoms may be treated as part of the previous case. • WMSDs are recordable when general recording criteria are met. Previously, WMSDs were recordable under the general criteria or when identified through a clinical diagnosis or diagnostic test. For more Bureau of Labor Statistics survey information about WMSD cases, contact Brian Zaidman by e-mail at
Safety Lines 7 Summer 2004

Hazwoper a primer
By Diane Amell, MNOSHA Training Officer

HAZWOPER – Many of us have heard the term, but do you know what it means? When you hear it, do you think of leaky drums of chemicals? Fortyhour training courses? A big fish? “HAZWOPER” is an abbreviation of the name of federal OSHA standards 1910.120 and 1926.65, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. The first standard covers general industry, while the latter applies to construction operations. The requirements within both standards cover: • mandatory and voluntary clean-up of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and classified as uncontrolled hazardous waste sites (e.g., state and federal Superfund sites); • licensed hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facilities; and • emergency response operations to control the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. In the standards, paragraphs "b" through "o" apply to clean-up operations, paragraph "p" to TSD facilities and paragraph "q" to emergency response. Of the three applications, Minnesota OSHA (MNOSHA) investigators most often deal with emergency response programs and their possible deficiencies.
Clean-up operations

The heart of the requirements for hazardous waste clean-up is paragraph "b," the requirement for a comprehensive, site-specific safety and health program. The written program must include: a) an organizational structure section that includes the chain of command, identification of the site’s general supervisor and the site's safety and health supervisor, and the specific responsibilities of supervisors and employees. b) a comprehensive work plan that includes anticipated work activities and normal operating procedures; work tasks and objectives; personnel requirements; training; information dissemination regarding worker and contractor chemical exposure; and medical surveillance.
Safety Lines 8 Summer 2004

c) a site-specific safety and health plan that includes hazard analysis; training assignments; personal protective equipment (PPE); medical surveillance; monitoring and sampling of air, personnel and environment; site control measures; decontamination procedures; emergency response planning; confined space entry procedures and spill containment. Paragraph "b" also requires pre-entry briefings and subsequent briefings to keep employees informed about the site safety plan and its implementation. Further inspections must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the safety plan and to correct any deficiencies. Paragraphs "c" through "o" further define the required elements of the total site-specific safety and health program, including: • • • • • • • site characterization and analysis; • training; • engineering controls, work practices and PPE; • informational programs; • decontamination; • illumination; • implementation of new technology. site control; medical surveillance; monitoring; drum and container handling; emergency response; sanitation; and

TSD facilities

TSD facilities under paragraph "p" of the standards are also required to establish a written safety and health program. The program is similar to the A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction (AWAIR) program, because it must describe how hazards will be identified, evaluated and controlled. The plan also must address emergency response and – as appropriate – site analysis, engineering controls, maximum exposure limits, hazardous waste handling procedures and the use of new technologies. Other requirements for TSD facilities include Employee Right-To-Know and TSD operations training, medical surveillance, decontamination procedures and material handling procedures.
Emergency response

Paragraph "q" covers emergency response to hazardous substance releases and applies to the greatest number of workplaces. While many people would immediately associate such a release with a refinery or chemical plant, emergency response is an issue wherever a large release of chemicals may occur; for instance, anhydrous ammonia from a large refrigeration system in a food processing plant or chlorine from a water treatment plant are risks. As with the other sections of the standards, the cornerstone of the emergency response requirements is the written program, the emergency response plan. Required elements of the plan include: • pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties, such as the local fire department or regional HAZMAT team; • safe distances and places of refuge; • evacuation routes and procedures; • personnel roles, lines of authority, training and communication; • emergency recognition and prevention; • site security and control; • decontamination;

• emergency alerting and response procedures; • emergency medical treatment and first aid; • critique of response and follow-up; and • PPE and emergency equipment. Employers that elect not to have their employees respond to emergency releases, and plan to simply evacuate their employees from the area, do not need to establish a written emergency response plan; this is provided that they have established an emergency action plan, meeting the requirements of 1910.38 and have made formal arrangements with the local fire department or other outside responders to control the chemical release. Other requirements of the standards include procedures for handling an emergency response, use of skilled support personnel, designation of specialist employees, training and trainer qualifications. Training requirements vary depending on the role taken during emergency response operations, from a general understanding for first responder awareness to a minimum of 24 hours plus certification in additional areas of competency for the on-scene incident commander. The emergency response program requirements do not apply to routine spills of small quantities of hazardous substances that do not present a serious safety and health hazard to employees, and do not have the potential to result in an emergency situation within a short period of time. However, clean-up of these “incidental releases” must be addressed as part of Employee Right-To-Know training. MNOSHA has a new booklet that further delineates between emergency and incidental releases. It's online at To learn more about how to comply with the HAZWOPER standard, visit the federal OSHA "Hazardous Waste" page at and the OSHA "Emergency Preparedness and Response Page" at emergencypreparedness/index.html.

Doug Swenson awarded MNOSHA's Arthur E. McCauley award
Minnesota OSHA's annual Arthur E. McCauley, Jr., Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Leadership Award recipient is Doug Swenson, director of field training for Associated General Contractors of Minnesota. Swenson was nominated in part for the work he did with MNOSHA to forge a successful, major, safety partnership designed to reduce the number of injuries, illnesses and fatalities in participant construction-industry employers. The Arthur E. McCauley, Jr., award honors a safety or health professional who is an example of safety excellence. At right: Doug Swenson, center, accepts the award from Gov. Tim Pawlenty, left, and Department of Labor and Industry Commissioner Scott Brener.

New MNSHARP flags flying at three Minnesota businesses

Minnesota Freezer Warehouse

Murphy Warehouse Company

The Department of Labor and Industry recently recognized three Minnesota businesses for becoming Minnesota Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (MNSHARP) worksites: Minnesota Freezer Warehouse Company, Albert Lea; Murphy Warehouse Company, Minneapolis; Malco Products, Inc., Annandale. Find complete information about MNSHARP at

Malco Products, Inc.
Safety Lines 11 Summer 2004

Research highlights

Minnesota Workplace Safety Report
By Brian Zaidman, Research Analyst Research and Statistics

Workplace injuries and illnesses continue to be a major concern both in Minnesota and nationwide. The latest occupational injury and illness figures show that about 330 Minnesotans are hurt at work or become ill from job-related causes each day. An average of 75 Minnesotans a year were killed on the job from 1998 through 2002. These injuries, illnesses and deaths exact a toll on workers and their families and also affect business costs and productivity. Workers' compensation in Minnesota cost $1.3 billion in 2002. In 2001 (the most current data available), the average cost of an insured claim was more than $5,540. There are many other costs of workplace injuries and illnesses that are more difficult to measure, such as delayed production, hiring and training of new workers, pain and suffering, and those economic and non-economic losses to injured workers and their families that are not covered by workers' compensation. In May, the Department of Labor and Industry released its annual Minnesota Workplace Safety Report detailing injury and illness rates and workplace fatalities for 2002. The report is based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses and the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Because of changes by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to its recordkeeping requirements, the data for 2002 is not comparable with data for prior years. The report is available on the Department of Labor and Industry Web site at The following are highlights from the report.
Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses

• An estimated 120,500 nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses were reported in Minnesota’s private industry and public sector workplaces during 2002, resulting in a rate of 6.0 cases per 100 full-time-equivalent (FTE) workers. • An estimated 62,000 cases in 2002 resulted in days away from work, job transfer or restrictions. The rate for these injuries was 3.1 cases per 100 FTE workers. • The rate of cases with days away from work was 1.7 per 100 FTE.

• The rate of restricted-work-activity-only cases was 1.4 per 100 FTE workers. • Minnesota’s private sector total and lost-workday case rates were below the total U.S. rates until the early 1990s, but have been above the U.S. rates since 1993. For the private sector in 2002, the total case rate was 6.2 for the state versus 5.3 for the nation. The private sector rate of cases with days away from work, job transfer or restriction was 3.1 for the state versus 2.8 for the nation in 2002. • Minnesota’s rate of cases with days away from work was roughly equal to the national rate starting in 1996. In 2002, the private sector rate of cases with days away from work was 1.7 for the state and 1.6 for the nation. • Minnesota’s industry divisions with the highest total injury and illness rates per 100 FTE workers were the same as in previous years: agriculture, forestry and fishing (10.8); construction (9.4); and manufacturing (8.0). • Five of the 10 industries with the highest total case rates were in the manufacturing division. (See figure on next page.) Four of the top 10 industries were not on this list last year. Additional statistics about the characteristics of the injured workers, the characteristics of their injuries and the duration away from work are available for cases with days away from work. • Sprains and strains accounted for 41 percent of the cases with days away from work. The second-highest category was soreness and pain, accounting for 12 percent of the cases. • The back and the upper extremities were the most commonly injured body parts. • Overexertion – often while lifting people or objects – and falls were the most common injury events. • The injured worker’s own motion or bodily position was the most frequent source of injury, followed by floors and ground surfaces.
Fatal occupational injuries

The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries covers all fatal work injuries in the private and public sectors, regardless of program coverage; thus, it includes federal workers and self-employed workers, along with all others. However, fatal illnesses (such as asbestosis) are excluded. • In 2002, 81 Minnesotans were fatally injured on the job.

• Among industries, agriculture, forestry and fishing recorded the highest number of worker fatalities, with 22. This was an increase of six fatalities from 2001, and is the highest number of agricultural fatalities since 1996. The higher number of agricultural fatalities was due to an increase in fatalities resulting from highway accidents. Construction had the second-highest number of fatalities, with 15 cases, a decrease of two cases from last year. • The most frequent causes of Minnesota’s fatal work injuries for 1998 through 2002 were: transportation accidents (54 percent); contact with objects and equipment (25 percent); and falls (11 percent).

Highest total case rate industries, 2002
Cases per 100 full-time-equivalent workers

Industry Transportation equipment mfg. Furniture and fixtures mfg. Agricultural production – livestock *Primary metal industries mfg. *Stone, clay and glass products mfg. *Agricultural production – crops Local govt. health services Rubber and misc. plastics mfg. General building contractors *Heavy construction, except building

Total case rate 18.3 16.2 15.6 15.1 12.8 12.0 11.4 11.1 11.1 10.8

*These industries were not on the 2001 list.

Safety Lines


Summer 2004

MNOSHA assists in occupational medicine physician training
By Alden Hoffman, OSHA Management Team Director

Since 1991, Minnesota OSHA has participated in the practical training of future occupational medicine physicians through a program that permits physicians to accompany field inspectors and consultants on work-site inspections. Each year, two to three medical residents in the Occupational Medicine Residency Training Program, based at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., spend a month with MNOSHA staff members, getting a firsthand look at MNOSHA procedures and work-site health and safety concerns. More than 30 physicians have gone through the program; residents also spend time with partners in the private sector, including 3M, General Mills and Northwest Airlines. "The residents have really enjoyed their Dr. W. Kent Brunell reviews the guarding on a power shear during his experiences at MNOSHA," said Dr. Beth rotation with Minnesota OSHA while a participant in the Occupational Baker, incoming program director, taking Medicine Residency Training Program. In June, Brunell completed his residency program in occupational medicine with Regions Hospital, over from Dr. Michael McGrail, "and I St, Paul, Minn. think the rotation is invaluable." Minnesota OSHA investigators enjoy the interaction and perspectives offered by the physicians as well. Dr. Bill Lohman, current medical consultant to the Department of Labor and Industry, initiated the interaction with MNOSHA when he was program director at Regions Hospital from 1990 through 2000. The goal of the two-year residency program is to prepare graduates to fill leadership roles as occupational physicians in industry, government, university and other practice settings. Residents are trained in clinical occupational medicine, epidemiology, research methods, toxicology, industrial hygiene, injury prevention and management. Residents become acquainted during their training with the role of the occupational medicine physician in each of these varied settings and with the roles of other occupational health professionals as well. They learn to cooperate with other professionals in joint efforts to improve worker health and safety. The Occupational Medicine Residency Training Program is part of the Midwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety, which is an Educational Resource Center (ERC) sponsored by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The residency in occupational medicine has been offered since 1977. The program was fully accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1980, and the first residents were graduated from the program in 1981.
Safety Lines 15 Summer 2004