Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)Vol. 6, No. 1 Winter 2002

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

Periodic Lockout Inspections 3

Ergonomics: Controlling MSDs 4

Working Women 5

Liberty Mutual Study 6

The Bottom Line 7

Work-Related Asthma 8

Workplace Surveillance 9

2000 CFOI Survey 10

Korea OSHA Visitors 11

Wage & Hour News 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

Defibrillators 19

Cont. on Page 18Ground Zero at the World Trade Center was a search site like fewothers after a major disaster.

G r o u n d Z e r oBy: Kenneth Wolf, Ph.D., and Marilyn Knight, M.S.W.Center for Workplace Violence Prevention, Incident Management TeamNote: The authors were crisis management consultants to U.S. Army Infantry personnel assisting withemergency support functions. They were at Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island andobserved the impact this event had on emergency responders. They have a MIOSHA CET Grant and helpcompanies and governmental entities develop comprehensive crisis management programs.

September 11, 2001 was a turning point forlife in the United States. It was perhaps the mostwitnessed crime in history; it changed ournation’s psyche; it forced a re-evaluation of manyaspects of business operations, safety planningand employee well being. Our assumptions aboutthe invulnerability of our nation were destroyed.

Corporate, governmental and union lead-ership were confronted with situations for whichthey were unprepared. All of their training,knowledge and experience did not address theirroles of helping their employees and their orga-

nizations cope with, and recover from, a traumaof this magnitude. The response to the terroristattacks created both an organizational crisis anda personal crisis for many leaders who always“knew what to do.”

Most leaders were forced to reassess tradi-tional practices. Many are now developing moresophisticated business continuity and contingencyplans for catastrophic acts of violence which af-fect business survival, people, operations, litiga-tion and organizational image. “Consequent man-agement,” health and safety, and employee psy-

chological stress and resilience ofthe workforce, have become as im-portant as the bottom line and prof-itability. It became apparent thatwhile many companies had disasterplans which focused on operations,proprietary data, and physical facili-ties–these plans typically did notaddress the traumatic impact of cri-sis events and their potential for af-fecting managers and employees.Ground Zero

Ground Zero at the WorldTrade Center was a search site likefew others after a major disasterevent. Multiple sources of hazardswere everywhere. There were shardsof steel piled upon steel, a two-mil-lion-ton pile of debris, red hot steelbeams still being pulled from theearth, crevasses, holes, unstableground, still burning fires, possibleasbestos exposure, and causticfumes that may have contained mix-tures of benzene, methane gas and

World Trade Center & Pentagon Terrorist Attacks: Implications for Workplace Crisis Intervention

22222

From the

Bureau

Director’s

DeskBy: Douglas R. Earle, DirectorBureau of Safety & Regulation

Workplace

Protection

for First

Responders

In the Summer 2001 issue, I concluded my column with an ex-pression of concern regarding biological hazards in the workplace.Although I didn’t specifically include bioterrorism, it is clearly amongthe issues that I was, and remain, concerned about.

Following the events at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon,and a Pennsylvania farm field, there has been escalating concern inour nation over bioterrorism, particularly in the workplace. Because ofthis I believe it important to devote my column to this emerging threatto workplace safety and health.

In response to numerous anthrax scares, government officials areworking to protect citizens from acts of terrorism. It is imperative anequally high priority is placed on the safety of the workers who re-spond to these incidents. I urge all employers with first responder re-sponsibilities in bioterrorism events to become familiar and complywith the worker safety and health requirements of MIOSHA.Anthrax Exposure

Less than three months ago, employee exposure to anthrax wasreferenced in historical files as “Wool Sorters Disease.” With the ex-ception of veterinarians, the only employees at risk were those thathandled untreated animal hair. Today’s reality has greatly changed thescope of workplace anthrax exposure.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S.Postal Service, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-tration (OSHA), and the FBI have all developed guidelines for busi-nesses and the general public if they encounter suspicious mail and/orpackages. In each of the guidelines, after making sure the material isisolated and that all exposed persons have washed their hands–theyadvise that local law enforcement authorities be called immediately.

These first responders, including police, firefighters, and emer-gency medical services workers may be exposed to anthrax. The Michi-gan State Police (MSP) has developed a protocol: Assessment Guid-ance for Incidents Involving “Suspicious” Packages/Powders, whichI understand has been distributed to all MSP units and made availableto fire service and police departments throughout Michigan.

The purpose of the protocol is to help responders assess the situa-tion and determine when trained hazardous materials technicians shouldbe involved. The protocol can help local law enforcement and other re-sponders determine if there is a “credible threat” and how to proceed.MIOSHA First Responders Requirements

MIOSHA rules are designed to help protect first responders whenthe release or potential threat of release of biological, chemical or radio-logical agents has occurred. Specifically, Part 432. Hazardous WasteOperations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER), applies.

If the first responder determines there is a “credible threat” (perFBI and/or MSP criteria), under Hazwoper, a HAZMAT team withpersonnel trained to at least the technician level must be involved inpackaging the item. An item deemed as a “credible threat” must betriple bagged, appropriately decontaminated (i.e., the exterior, or third,

package) and identified as a “biohazard.” Upon completion of packag-ing and decontamination, the item may then be released by the HAZMATteam for transport to the Michigan Department of Community Health forfurther evaluation.

A suspicious item that is not deemed as a “credible threat” may becollected by law enforcement officials for investigation and potentialuse in prosecution proceedings.OSHA Resources

On Nov. 16, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao announced a newOSHA model to assist employers and employees in dealing with pos-sible workplace exposures to anthrax in mail handling. The AnthraxMatrix guides employers in assessing risk to their workers, providingappropriate protective equipment and specifying safe work practices forlow, medium and high risk levels in the workplace.

“Most employers and employees face little or no risk of exposureto anthrax and need only minimal precautions,” Chao said. “But somemay have to deal with potential or known exposures, and we want tomake sure they have all possible information available to protect Ameri-cans at their workplace.”

OSHA developed the matrix in consultation with the U.S. PostalService, the CDC and the National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH), the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI.OSHA expects to continually update information on anthrax and otherterrorism threats as new guidance becomes available.MIOSHA Response

We want to make it clear that MIOSHA is attempting to provideinformation and guidance for Michigan employers–we are not creatingnew workplace standards or requirements. In the short term, we are col-lecting information from a variety of sources, and then disseminating thatinformation to, and training, our internal staff. This will help our safetyand health consultants answer employer questions on bioterrorism andanthrax.

In the long term we are creating an outreach packet for generalindustry. That packet will include information on: bioterrorism, mailhandling procedures, building and ventilation security, evacuation plans,and personal protective equipment. Once this material is complete, aseries of training seminars will be scheduled. We must emphasize thatwe plan on being flexible and may change this information dependingupon future events.

For further information on the outreach packet, contact the Con-sultation Education & Training Division at 517.322.1809. Informa-tion is also available on our Website at: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr.

We must all take the reasonable and necessary steps to assure thesafety of American workers. We must remain rationale and not panic.Terrorism must and will not be allowed to gain at the expense of theAmerican worker.

Winter 2002

33333

�

Have you inspected your lockout-tagoutprogram recently? The MIOSHA General In-dustry Safety Standard, Part 85, Control ofHazardous Energy Sources (commonly referredto as the lockout-tagout standard), requires pe-riodic inspections of energy control procedures.

The periodic inspection is an importantcomponent of an effective lockout-tagout pro-gram. It is intended to continually verify theeffectiveness of the company energy controlprocedures and to be certain that company pro-cedures are being properly followed.

One employer, responding to a citationfor lack of periodic inspections, wrote to tellus that conducting the periodic inspections wasvaluable. He was surprised by the results. Theinspection revealed that six of the company’sauthorized employees did not remember theywere required to lockout when working on theidentified piece of equipment.

Two other authorized employees discon-nected the power but failed to use a lock whenworking on a piece of equipment identified asrequiring lockout during service and mainte-nance. As a result, the employer retrained thoseemployees in the inadequacies identified dur-ing the inspection and also retrained all au-thorized employees on the company lockoutprocedures.

Periodic InspectionsPeriodic InspectionsPeriodic InspectionsPeriodic InspectionsPeriodic InspectionsUnder the lockout-tagout standard, “peri-

odic” means that the employer must conduct aninspection at least annually to review the energycontrol procedures for equipment and machinesinvolved in the lockout-tagout program.

The inspection must be performed by an au-thorized employee other than the authorized em-ployee utilizing the lockout procedures. The in-spection should include a review between the in-spector, authorized employees, and any other af-fected employees.

At a minimum, periodic inspections mustinclude a demonstration of the procedures andmay be implemented through random audits andplanned visual observations. Typically, periodicinspections include:

� Review of current energy controlmethods;

� Correct energy source identification;� Proper lockout device usage;� Methods used to release stored energies;� Review of employee responsibilities and

procedures used;� Employee complaints regarding concerns

with the lockout/tagout program.LockLockLockLockLockout Prout Prout Prout Prout Procedurocedurocedurocedurocedureseseseses

For periodic inspections of lockout proce-dures, the employer’s inspection must include areview of each authorized employee implement-ing the procedure with that employee. While in-dividual inspections provide the most comprehen-sive assessment, a group meeting between the au-thorized employee who is performing the inspec-tion and all authorized employees who implementthe procedure is an acceptable alternative.TTTTTagagagagagout Prout Prout Prout Prout Procedurocedurocedurocedurocedureseseseses

For periodic inspections of tagout proce-dures, the employer must conduct the reviewwith both employees authorized to perform thetagout, and employees identified as “affected”in the standard. Affected employees are those em-ployees whose job requires them to use a ma-chine or equipment on which servicing or main-tenance is being performed under lockout ortagout, or whose job requires them to work in anarea in which such servicing or maintenance isbeing performed.InfrInfrInfrInfrInfrequent Prequent Prequent Prequent Prequent Procedurocedurocedurocedurocedureseseseses

Energy control procedures used less fre-quently than once a year need to be inspectedwhen used.CertificationCertificationCertificationCertificationCertification

Following the inspection, the employer mustdocument or certify that the inspections have

LOCKOUT–TAGOUTIs it Time for a Periodic Inspection?

been performed. The certification must include:� Names of the employees included;� Date of the inspection;� Person performing the inspection;� Machine or equipment on which the en-

ergy control procedure was being utilized.EmploEmploEmploEmploEmployyyyyee Retrainingee Retrainingee Retrainingee Retrainingee Retraining

As a result of the inspection, the employermay identify areas where employees do not fol-low procedures as intended or identify whereprocedures must be enhanced. If deficienciesin performance or changes in procedures aremade, employees must be retrained.

The standard also requires the employerto provide retraining whenever the employerhas reason to believe there are deviations fromor inadequacies in the employer’s knowledge oruse of the energy control procedures. Retrain-ing will re-establish employee proficiency and/or introduce new or revised control methodsand procedures, as necessary.CET CET CET CET CET AssistanceAssistanceAssistanceAssistanceAssistance

Assistance in establishing or strengthen-ing your company lockout-tagout program isavailable by contacting the Consultation Edu-cation and Training (CET) Division at517.322.1809. CET has safety and healthconsultants available to work with employ-ers in their workplace at no cost. In addition,an excellent resource, the Lockout-TagoutCompliance Guide, SP-27 is available whichcontains sample inspection and trainingforms.

By: Martha B. Yoder, ChiefGeneral Industry Safety Division

Do it Right–The Lockout-Tagout Standard requiresperiodic inspection of energy control procedures.

The “Periodic Inspection Certification” iscontained in the CET Lockout/TagoutCompliance Guide, SP-27.

44444

By: Sheryl S. Ulin, Ph.D., CPEThomas J. Armstrong, Ph.D., CIHThe University of MichiganCenter for Ergonomics

This is the first of a two-part series. Backgroundinformation and work documentation of MSDs willbe covered in this article. In the Spring 2002 issue, theauthors will cover job assessment and design toreduce MSDs.

ERGONOMICS ControllingWork-Related MSDs

This job requires these foundry workers to lean over a conveyor and removedefective 40-70 pound castings with a hand hook.

Ergonomics in the occupational settinghas been defined as the science that seeks toadapt work or working conditions to suit theworker. Ergonomic design is the applicationof this body of scientific knowledge to thedesign of tools, machines, systems, tasks,jobs, and environments for safe, comfortableand effective human use. Failure to ad-equately deal with these design issues canresult in musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).Characteristics of MSDs

Musculoskeletal disorders are disor-ders of the soft tissues caused by repeatedexertions and movements of the body. Al-though these disorders can occur in nearlyall tissues, the most frequently reporteds i tes a re the nerves , t endons , t endonsheaths, and muscles.

Some of the common characteristics as-cribed to these disorders are:

� They are related to the intensity ofwork.

� They involve both biomechanical andphysiologic mechanisms.

� They may occur after weeks, months,or years on the job.

� They may require weeks, months or

years for recovery.� Thei r symptoms of ten are poor ly

loca l ized and nonspeci f ic .� They may have both occupational and

nonoccupational causes.Because there often is a long time be-

tween beginning work and the onset of MSDs,because they are not immediately life-threat-ening and may go unreported, and becauseworkers change jobs and employers, it is dif-ficult to determine the exact disease patterns.Epidemiologic studies have been conductedwhich isolate jobs, tools, areas, plants, orindustries with excessive risk.

The occurrence of discomfort and paindoes not necessarily mean that a worker hasdeveloped a musculoskeletal disorder. Dis-comfort and other adverse performance effectsmay result from localized fatigue and be aconsequence of normal work. Localized fa-tigue has qualities similar to MSDs, but ittends to develop and recover much morequickly.

Persistence of symptoms from day to dayor interference with activities of work or dailyliving may indicate something more seriousthan fatigue. Workers experiencing suchsymptoms should be evaluated by a profes-sional health care provider.Ergonomics Program

An on-going ergonomics program definesthe framework for successful job analysis andjob design control measures. The key ele-ments in an ergonomics program include:

� Written document including: statementof management commitment, goals, respon-sibilities, and a timeline for intervention

implementation;� Participation of

a l l a f fec ted pa r t i e s ,such as managers, su-pe rv i so rs , workers ,safety and health, andengineers;

� Active and pas-sive medical surveil-lance;

� Management ofaffected workers;

� Worksite analy-sis;

� T ra in ing fo rmanagers, supervisors,workers , eng ineers ,and maintenance per-sonnel; and

� Periodic program evaluation.Most MSDs are identified after the fact.

An effective ergonomics program identifiesrisk factors prior to injury and/or illness–andseeks to control or eliminate those risk fac-tors. The most commonly cited occupationalrisk factors for MSDs include:

� Repeated and sustained exertions,� Forceful exertions,� Localized contact stress,� Specific postures,� Vibration, and� Low temperatures.

Job DocumentationThe first step in ergonomic job analysis

is job documentation. Before ergonomicstresses can be identified and work changesimplemented to control disorders–what theworker does must be documented. This workdocumentation requires six steps.

The Work Objective–is the reason thejob is performed, such as to put wheels oncars, to enter data into a computer, and toremove fat from hams. Often the job title willreflect the objective.

The Work Standard–is an expression ofthe quantity and quality of work expected ina given period. Manufacturing work standardsusually are expressed in numbers of assem-blies or parts. In office settings, they may beexpressed in terms of key strokes, numbersof documents, transactions, or other tasks.

Standards are based on the concept of afair day’s work and should be within the workcapacity of 95 percent of the work force. Inaddition to the base standard, there may beincentives or bonuses by which workers canearn additional income for working above thestandard. In some cases these are based onindividual performance and in others on groupperformance. Work incentives also should bedocumented.

The Work Method–is the procedure usedto accomplish the work objective and is de-scribed as a sequence of steps or elements.Generally, there are many ways in which agiven job can be performed; however, thework standard is based on the assumption ofa “standard method.” The work standardshould include a description of the standardmethod on which it is based. As a practicalmatter, the method employed by the workermay, in fact, be significantly different fromthe standard method. These differencesshould be documented.

Cont. on Page 17

Winter 2002

55555

WORKING WOMENWomen’s Safety & Health Issues at Work

Women currently make up almost half of the general U.S. workforce.

Working women compose an increasinglylarge proportion of the U.S. workforce. Theyalso face high risk from job-related stress,musculoskeletal injuries, violence, and otherhazards of the modern workplace. In manyrespects, the risks are higher than those formale workers.

As the only federal agency mandated toconduct research to prevent injuries and ill-nesses in the workplace, the National Insti-tute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH) has an expanding research programto address the occupational safety and healthneeds of working women.

On March 23, 2001, NIOSH issued a factsheet, “Women’s Safety and Health Issues atWork,” about women in the workforce. Thefact sheet contains information on workingwomen, the hazards they may face, andNIOSH research in areas of particular con-cern to women.Musculoskeletal Disorders

Women workers are at disproportionatelyhigh risk for musculoskeletal injuries on thejob–suffering 63 percent of all work-relatedrepetitive motion injuries. Sprains and strains,carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, and othermusculoskeletal disorders account for 52 per-cent of the injuries and illnesses suffered byfemale workers, compared to 45 percent formale workers.

Further research is needed to determinethe factors that place women at greater riskfor musculoskeletal disorders. Research willexamine if physical differences between menand women, or differences in the jobs theyhold, contribute to this increased risk forwomen.

NIOSH is conducting research on mus-culoskeletal disorders among women in thetelecommunication, health care, service, anddata entry industries.Job Stress

Stress at work is a growing problem forall workers, including women. In one survey60 percent of employed women cited stressas their number one problem at work. Fur-thermore, levels of stress-related illness arenearly twice as high for women as for men.

Many job conditions contribute to stressamong women. Such job conditions includeheavy workload demands; little control overwork; role ambiguity and conflict; job inse-curity; poor relationships with coworkers andsupervisors; and work that is narrow, repeti-

tive, and monotonous. Other factors, such assexual harassment and work and family bal-ance issues, may also be stressors for womenin the workplace.

Job stress has been linked with cardio-vascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders,depression, and burnout. NIOSH is conduct-ing studies to identify workplace factors thatare particularly stressful to women, and po-tential prevention measures.Reproductive Hazards

Three-quarters of women of reproductiveage are in the workforce. Over half of the chil-dren born in the United States are born toworking mothers. Hazards such as radiation,glycol ethers, lead, andstrenuous physical laborcan affect a woman’s re-production health, includ-ing pregnancy outcomes.

NIOSH is conductingboth basic research andpopulation-based studiesto learn whether womenmay be at risk for repro-ductive health hazards re-lated to their work envi-ronment.Violence in theWorkplace

Violence is also a spe-cial concern for womenworkers. Homicide is theleading cause of job-re-lated death for women inthe workplace. Homicide accounts for 40 per-cent of all workplace death among femaleworkers. Workplace homicides are primarilyrobbery-related, and often occur in grocery/convenience stores, eating and drinking es-tablishments, and gasoline service stations.

Over 25 percent of female victims ofworkplace homicide are assaulted by peoplethey know (coworkers, customers, spouses, orfriends). Domestic violence incidents that spillinto the workplace account for 16 percent offemale victims of job-related homicides.

Female workers are also at risk for non-fatal violence. Women were the victims innearly two-thirds of the injuries resulting fromworkplace assaults. Most of these assaults (70percent) were directed at women employedin service occupations, such as health care,while an additional 20 percent of these inci-dents occurred in retail locations, such as res-

taurants and grocery stores.Women in Non-traditional Employment

Increasingly, women are moving into oc-cupations once held exclusively by men, suchas the construction trades. In such instances,physiological differences between womenand men can translate into occupational haz-ards, as when women operate equipment de-signed for male workers of larger stature.

Women in non-traditional employmentmay face health and safety risks due to theequipment and clothing provided to them attheir workplace. Personal protective equip-ment (PPE) and clothing (PPC) are oftendesigned for average-sized men. The protec-

tive function of PPE/PPC (such as respira-tors, work gloves, and work boots) may bereduced when they do not fit female workersproperly.

Women who work in nontraditional em-ployment settings may also face specific typesof stressors. For instance, they may be ex-posed to sexual harassment and gender-baseddiscrimination.Cancer

An estimated 180,000 new cases ofbreast cancer and 12,000 new cases of cervi-cal cancer were diagnosed in 2000. Work-place exposures to hazardous substances mayplay a role in the development of these typesof cancer. NIOSH is studying several hazard-ous substances to determine whether thereis a link to cancers that affect women, suchas cervical and breast cancer.

Cont. on Page 17

66666

Liberty Mutual Survey Shows 61 Percent of Executives Say $3 or More Saved for Each $1 Invested in Workplace Safety

Workplace Safety Index

Top 10 Leading Causes ofWorkplace Injuries & Illnesses

These are the leading causes of workplaceinjuries and illness resulting in employeesmissing five or more days of work in 1998.These incidents account for 86 percent ofthe $38.7 billion in direct wages and medicalpayments paid by employers.

Accident Cause DirDirDirDirDirect Costect Costect Costect Costect CostOverexertion $9.8 billionFalls on Same Level $4.4 billionBodily Reaction* $3.6 billionFalls to Lower Level $3.6 billionStruck by an Object $3.4 billionRepetitive Motion $2.3 billionHighway Accidents $2.1 billionStruck against an Object $1.9 billionCaught by Equipment $1.6 billionTemperature Extremes $0.3 billionAll All All All All Accident CausesAccident CausesAccident CausesAccident CausesAccident Causes $38.7 billion$38.7 billion$38.7 billion$38.7 billion$38.7 billion

* Injuries resulting from bending, climbing, lossof balance and slipping without falling.

Ninety-five percent of business executivesreport that workplace safety has a positive im-pact on a company’s financial performance, ac-cording to the findings of The Executive Sur-vey of Workplace Safety announced Aug, 28,2001, by the Liberty Mutual Group, thenation’s leading provider of workers compen-sation insurance. Of these executives, 61 per-cent believe their companies receive a returnon investment of $3 or more for each $1 theyinvest in improving workplace safety.

The survey also reveals executives realizethe benefits of workplace safety go beyond thecompany’s bottom-line, with 70 percent report-ing that protecting employees is a leading ben-efit of workplace safety.

The survey also helps shed light for busi-nesses on the two types of costs associated withworkplace accidents: Direct costs, or paymentsto injured employees and their medical care pro-viders, and Indirect costs, such as lost produc-tivity, overtime costs, etc. Ninety-three percentof executives surveyed see a relationship be-tween these costs, with 40 percent of them re-porting $1 of direct cost generates between $3and $5 of indirect costs.

Workplace Safety IndexBy comparing the findings on indirect costs

with its own research on the direct costs ofworkplace accidents and illness, Liberty Mu-tual calculates U.S. businesses are paying astaggering $155 billion to $232 billion on work-ers compensation losses annually. The LibertyMutual Workplace Safety Index announcedthis spring provided the first-ever ranking ofthe 10 leading causes of workplace accidentsbased on the direct cost of each accident cause.The Index estimated the total direct cost of allworkplace accidents was $38.7 billion in 1998,the most recent year for which data was avail-able at the time. (See sidebar.)

Moreover, the survey findings reveal thatbusiness executives may be focusing attentionon certain causes of workplace accidents at theexpense of others, and may need to realign theirworkplace safety priorities.

For example, executives reported “Repeti-tive Motion” is the most important cause ofworkplace accidents and they will focus work-place safety resources on this cause. However,five other accident causes produced greater di-rect costs for companies in 1998, according tothe Safety Index. Workplace injuries caused by“Repetitive Motion” produced $2.3 billion indirect costs for employers in 1998, about a quar-ter of the $9.8 billion of the leading accidentcause, “Overexertion.”

Similarly, executives may place less pri-ority on accident causes that have greater po-tential financial impact. For example, surveyparticipants reported “Falls on the Same Level”as the seventh most important cause of work-place accidents. However, the Index ranked thiscategory as the second most important accidentcause.

“Workplace safety has a ripple affect, ei-ther positive or negative, on so many aspects ofU.S. business operations today,” said JosephGilles, Liberty Mutual Executive Vice Presi-dent, Commercial Insurance. “The first step forexecutives is to take preemptive measures toprevent employee pain and suffering caused byworkplace injuries.”

According to Gilles, “Identifying the acci-dent causes that have the greatest impact ontheir company and focusing workplace re-sources on these will help a company reducecosts and achieve strategic corporate goals–suchas assuring employee satisfaction and health,positioning the company as a low-cost provider,shortening production and delivery time, andimproving product quality. Given the impor-tance of workplace safety, companies should

make sure their efforts are directed at thoseaccident causes that have the greatest potentialimpact on their operations and employees.”

Survey results are based on interviews with200 executives responsible for workers com-pensation and other commercial insurances at125 mid-size firms (100 to 999 employees) and75 large companies (over 1,000 employees) rep-resenting a range of geographic locations andindustries.Benefits of Workplace Safety

� 95 percent of respondents believe work-place safety has a positive impact on a company’sfinancial performance.

� 86 percent feel workplace safety pro-vides a return on investment.

� 61 percent feel that $3 or more is savedfor each $1 invested.

� 93 percent report a close relationship be-tween the direct and indirect costs associatedwith a workplace accident.

� 40 percent feel that between $3 and $5dollars of indirect costs exist for each $1 of di-rect costs.

� 82 percent feel their company currentlyplaces a priority on workplace safety.

� 70 percent report that protecting employ-ees is a leading benefit of workplace safety.

� 49 percent report that protecting employ-ees from the human and financial costs is thetop benefit.Elements of Effective WorkplaceSafety Programs

� 25 percent of respondents report that em-ployee training is the most important element ofan effective workplace safety program.

� 22 percent believe that managementcommitment is the most important element.

� 98 percent feel that direct employee par-ticipation is necessary for effective workplacesafety.

� Respondents report that benchmarkinga company’s workplace safety performance is animportant tool.

� 71 percent indicate that they comparetheir company’s workplace safety performanceto other companies.

This Executive Survey is part of LibertyMutual’s ongoing focus on Workplace Safety.It follows the Spring 2001 release of the Work-place Safety Index, the first ranking of acci-dent causes by direct costs to employers usingLiberty Mutual claims data, combined withfindings from the Bureau of Labor Statisticsand the National Academy of Social Insur-ance. Both studies are available atwww.libertymutual.com.

A Majority of U.S. Businesses Report WorkplaceSafety Delivers a Return on Investment

�

Winter 2002

77777

Workplace Safety and HealthMakes Good Business Sense

This column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensiveThis column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensiveThis column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensiveThis column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensiveThis column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensivesafety and health program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free worksafety and health program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free worksafety and health program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free worksafety and health program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free worksafety and health program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free workenvironment is not achieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthyenvironment is not achieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthyenvironment is not achieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthyenvironment is not achieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthyenvironment is not achieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthyworkplace takes as much attention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefitsworkplace takes as much attention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefitsworkplace takes as much attention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefitsworkplace takes as much attention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefitsworkplace takes as much attention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefitsinclude: less injuries and illnesses, lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production,include: less injuries and illnesses, lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production,include: less injuries and illnesses, lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production,include: less injuries and illnesses, lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production,include: less injuries and illnesses, lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production,increased employee morale, and lower absenteeism.increased employee morale, and lower absenteeism.increased employee morale, and lower absenteeism.increased employee morale, and lower absenteeism.increased employee morale, and lower absenteeism.

The Bottom L ine

Teresa Clark, shown here running an automated leak tester, has beenwith Hutchinson for 5 & ½ years and is very pleased with the company’sfocus on safety.

Hutchinson FTS - Jonesville PlantHutchinson FTS is the world’s largest independent supplier

of automotive air conditioner refrigerant fluid transfer systems.The company operates five major production facilities inJonesville and Reading, Michigan, and Byrdstown andLivingston, Tennessee, and has a total of nearly 975 employees.

The FTS headquarters in Troy, MI, houses extensive re-search and development laboratories, a large prototyping andsample making unit, and the product engineering center. FTSdesigners and engineers have the ability to rapidly develop acomplete air conditioner refrigerant fluid transfer system forvirtually any vehicle in the world–going from concept to work-ing prototype system within three to four weeks.

FTS President and CEO Paul Campbell believes that asa world leader in automotive air conditioner fluid transfer sys-tems–the company should place a high priority on the safetyand health of every FTS employee. This leadership from thetop allows the five FTS plant managers to incorporate employeesafety in all aspects of their operations.The FTS JThe FTS JThe FTS JThe FTS JThe FTS Jonesvil le Plantonesvil le Plantonesvil le Plantonesvil le Plantonesvil le Plant

The FTS Jonesville Plant serves a unique function in theFTS group by supplying automotive air conditioning productsfor service, which are sold through dealerships. Their special-ity is complexity–they make fluid transfer systems for auto-motive models that are no longer in production.

Their 60 employees operate 800 machines, making 1,900final part numbers. A typical automotive supplier in their fieldwould probably make a maximum of 30 final parts. TheJonesville plant is very people oriented. The complexity of theirmanufacturing operation requires skilled, knowledgeable em-ployees. The Jonesville plant has outstanding quality servicenumbers, particularly given the wide range of parts produced.Unique SafUnique SafUnique SafUnique SafUnique Safety ety ety ety ety ApprApprApprApprApproachoachoachoachoach

The Jonesville plant’s approach to health and safety inthe workplace is an extensive safety audit system. Accordingto Plant Manager Mark Ries, they do a safety audit once aquarter. In order to view their plant with a “fresh set of eyes,”the FTS plant managers do a complete safety audit on eachother’s plants.

In another quarter, they will do a “safety blitz” of oneparticular operation. This allows them the opportunity to takean intense look at one area and all it’s components and make

sure the operation if conducted as safety as possible.They will also do a safety walk-through with several dif-

ferent associates, again to get a fresh perspective on their op-erations. During these audits, they will make a thorough listof any potential problems and then devise action items to cor-rect those problems. In the last six months, they have closed206 action items.

The company also uses a variety of employee safety in-centive programs to encourage their employees to work safely.And their emphasis on safety is paying off. They have not hada lost-time accident since Oct. 6, 1999. And they haven’t hada recordable accident since June 23, 2000.

Human Resources Manager Ron Freese said they are ableto attract the quality employees they need because they placesuch a high value on the safety and health of every employee.Freese said they are pleased that the MIOSHA program offersfree safety and health services.

CET Safety Consultant Quenten Yoder recommended theJonesville plant for this column. He has conducted safety au-dits with the company and has provided them with other safetytraining services. “I am very impressed with their total em-phasis on the safety of their employees,” said Yoder.

88888

WORK-RELATED ASTHMAfrom Di i socyanates & Other Al lergens

By: John H. Peck, CIH, ChiefOccupational Health DivisionWilliam A. Lykes, Industrial HygienistConsultation Education & Training Division

Work-related asthma continues to be a sig-nificant occupational illness in Michigan. Stud-ies suggest that work exposure is the cause ofasthma in 20 percent or more of the adults withasthma. Various estimates put the total numberof adults in Michigan with work-related asthma(WRA) between 4,600 and 59,800.

In 1988, the Department of Consumer andIndustry Services (the Department of PublicHealth prior to 1996) instituted a surveillanceprogram for WRA with financial assistance fromthe National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health (NIOSH). We have confirmed 1,638cases of WRA since 1988.Occupational Allergens

Through interviews with WRA patients andinvestigations of more than 500 establishments,a variety of occupational agents have been iden-tified as probable allergens that caused work-related asthma in an individual. The departmenthas identified more than 100 allergens for Michi-gan workers; there are about 350 documentedagents known to cause WRA. A comprehensivelisting of allergens, industries, and some occu-pations can be found at: www.remcomp.com/asmanet/asmapro/asmawork.htm#star.

The top seven allergens identified in Michi-gan account for over half of the WRA Michiganpatients. They include: isocyanates (18.0%),metal-working fluids (12.1%), unknown sourcesin a manufacturing setting (6.5%), unknownsources in an office environment (6.1%), clean-ing solutions (5.7%), exhaust/smoke/fumes(5.4%), and welding fumes (5.0%).

Michigan workers are potentially exposedto diisocyanates in plastic, rubber, and foammanufacturing, during installation of foam in-sulation, and other occupations. Isocyanates usedin manufacturing processes include: methyl iso-cyanate (MIC), toluene diisocyanates (2,4-TDIand 2,6-TDI), methylene bisphenyl isocyanate(MDI), hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI),isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI), meta-tetramethylene diisocyanate (TMXDI), methyl-ene bis(4-cyclohexylisocyanate (MCHI), variouspolyisocyanates, and polymeric isocyanates.

MIOSHA regulates some of these com-pounds through 8-hour time-weighted average(TWA) exposure limits, ceiling limits that maynot be exceeded, or 15-minute short-term expo-sure limits (STEL) in Part 301, the OccupationalHealth Standard for Air Contaminants.

Pilot Diisocyanates ProjectThe Occupational Health Commission is

considering a diisocyanates standard to requirean education and training program for compa-nies that work with diisocyanates. TheDiisocyanates Voluntary Compliance PilotProject was created by the Consultation, Edu-cation and Training Division (CET) and Occu-pational Health Division (OHD) to collect in-formation that could be used to support the Oc-cupational Health Commission’s efforts to pro-mulgate the proposed standard in Michigan.

The requirements of the proposed standardfocus on implementing an effective education andtraining program covering: the hazards, engineer-ing controls, personal protective equipment, workpractices, and emergency procedures related toemployee exposure to diisocyanates.

The pilot diisocyanate outreach programwas conducted with six Michigan employers toevaluate worker exposure and hazard communi-cation training for MDI, HDI, and TDI, and totest the potential effectiveness of the proposeddiisocyanate standard. CET industrial hygienistsWilliam Lykes and Sherry Walker coordinatedthe pilot project.

CET industrial hygienists reviewed all writ-ten programs, Log 200, and conducted employeeinterviews, before the training was conducted.During the plant survey, air monitoring was con-ducted if appropriate, or a review was done ofany existing air monitoring data.

CET staff provided training to employeeswho were potentially exposed to diisocyanatesduring various manufacturing processes. Thetraining topics included:

� Diisocyanates as potential allergens,� Symptoms of asthma,� The relationship between smoking and

existing asthma or allergies,� The specific areas and processes in the

facility where diisocyanates are used,� Results from air monitoring,� Health effects to various organs,� Chemical and physical properties of the

diisocyanates in use in the plant,� First aid measures,� Exposure control methods,� Work practice controls, and� Spill or leak procedures.The training information provided was di-

rectly related to how and where the diisocyanateswere being used at each company. The informa-tion was used to design a site-specific trainingprogram which would bring the employer intocompliance with the proposed standard.

Prior to the training, a pre-test was given to

quantify the employees’ knowledge ofdiisocyanates use in the workplace. Most of theemployees could not identify the appropriatepersonal protection, common health hazardsassociated with diisocyanates exposure, and spillprocedure for uncontrolled releases.

After initial training was completed, CETrevisited the companies to administer a post testto gauge the effectiveness of the training. Thescores showed the employees improved theirknowledge, skills and attitudes regarding haz-ards, and proper use of diisocyanates and asso-ciated processes and equipment.Employer Responsibility

It is important to reduce or eliminate po-tential exposure to diisocyanates and other al-lergens to the extent that is practical. Couldanother substance be substituted for a potentialallergen? How can the operation be isolated?Can local exhaust ventilation be added or im-proved to capture and remove air contaminantsfrom the worker’s breathing zone? If the aboveare not feasible, have workers been providedwith appropriate respirators and personal pro-tective equipment?

OSHA has recently clarified its policy onthe use of air purifying respirators to protect work-ers exposed to diisocyanates. Because the odorthresholds for most diisocyanates are higher thanthe various exposure limits, conventional organicvapor cartridge-type air-purifying negative-pres-sure respirators may not provide adequate pro-tection. Check Part 451, MIOSHA RespiratoryProtection Standard for more information.

If your company would like more informa-tion on the Diisocyanates Pilot Project, or infor-mation on education and training services, contactthe CET Division at 517.322.1809.

Michigan laMich igan laMich igan laMich igan laMich igan law rw rw rw rw requ irequ irequ irequ irequ ires that wes that wes that wes that wes that work-ork-ork-ork-ork-rrrrrelated illnesses melated illnesses melated illnesses melated illnesses melated illnesses must be rust be rust be rust be rust be reporeporeporeporeported–bted–bted–bted–bted–byyyyyphphphphphys ic ians ,ys ic ians ,ys ic ians ,ys ic ians ,ys ic ians , hosp i ta l s , hosp i ta l s , hosp i ta l s , hosp i ta l s , hosp i ta l s , c l in ics , c l in ics , c l in ics , c l in ics , c l in ics , and and and and andemploemploemploemploemployyyyyers–to the state within 10 ers–to the state within 10 ers–to the state within 10 ers–to the state within 10 ers–to the state within 10 dadadadadays.ys.ys.ys.ys.

FFFFFororororor inf inf inf inf information on rormation on rormation on rormation on rormation on reporeporeporeporeporting or toting or toting or toting or toting or toobta in a copobta in a copobta in a copobta in a copobta in a copy of the y of the y of the y of the y of the Occupat iona lOccupat iona lOccupat iona lOccupat iona lOccupat iona lDisease & InjurDisease & InjurDisease & InjurDisease & InjurDisease & Injury Repory Repory Repory Repory Report ft ft ft ft for Phor Phor Phor Phor Physiciansysiciansysiciansysiciansysiciansffffform,orm,orm,orm,orm, cal l the Occupational Health cal l the Occupational Health cal l the Occupational Health cal l the Occupational Health cal l the Occupational HealthDivision at 517.322.Division at 517.322.Division at 517.322.Division at 517.322.Division at 517.322.1608.1608.1608.1608.1608.

TTTTTooooo find out mor find out mor find out mor find out mor find out more about we about we about we about we about work-rork-rork-rork-rork-relatedelatedelatedelatedelatedas thma and other occupat iona las thma and other occupat iona las thma and other occupat iona las thma and other occupat iona las thma and other occupat iona li l l nesses , check out the MSUi l lnesses , check out the MSUi l lnesses , check out the MSUi l lnesses , check out the MSUi l lnesses , check out the MSUDeparDeparDeparDeparDepartment o f Medic ine wtment o f Medic ine wtment o f Medic ine wtment o f Medic ine wtment o f Medic ine webs i te :ebs i te :ebs i te :ebs i te :ebs i te :wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.chm.msu.edu/oem..chm.msu.edu/oem..chm.msu.edu/oem..chm.msu.edu/oem..chm.msu.edu/oem.

Did You Know...�

Winter 2002

99999

By: Suellen Cook, Safety ConsultantConsultation Education & Training Division

Tracking Injuries, Illnesses, Accidents, Exposures, & HazardsWORKPLACE SURVEILLANCE

Seong-Kuy Kang, M.D., Ph.D., Director,Center for Occupational Disease Research,Korea OSHA

*Dr. Alexander Langmuir is considered the father ofinfectious disease epidemiology. He became chiefepidemiologist for the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) in 1949, and founded the CDC’sEpidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). The EIS wasestablished in 1951 following the start of the KoreanWar as an early warning system against biologicalwarfare and man-made epidemics.

Surveillance programs serve an importantfunction in identifying old, new and emergingproblems requiring additional research and pre-vention efforts. In January 2001, the National In-stitute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH) published the “NIOSH SurveillanceStrategic Plan” for tracking occupational injuries,illnesses, and hazards. Their mission is to “pro-vide national and world leadership to preventwork-related illness, injury and death by gather-ing information, conducting scientific research,and translating the knowledge gained into prod-ucts and services.”

NIOSH and federal OSHA co-sponsored the“National Conference on Best Practices inWorkplace Surveillance: Identification andTracking of Workplace Injury, Illness, Expo-sures, and Hazards,” Nov. 7-9, 2001, in Cincin-nati. Keynote speakers, Bruce Bernard and BorisLushniak of NIOSH, spoke on the workplace sur-veillance efforts by NIOSH at the World TradeCenter due to the tragic events of September 11th.Also addressed by NIOSH were the importanceof surveillance activities due to the recent anthraxevents and the potential for bio-terrorism that con-tinues to be a threat to worker safety and health.

The goals of the conference were to:� Identify current practices for occupational

surveillance;� Identify research needs, methods, and op-

portunities;� Identify new partnership opportunities;� Promote dialogue, discussion and infor-

mation exchange between participants.MIOSHA is committed to strengthening the

surveillance of high-risk industries and high-riskoccupations for the prevention of occupationalhazards, injuries and illnesses. CET Safety Con-sultants Suellen Cook and Linda Long presented,“MIOSHA’s Strategic Plan for Reducing Am-putations in Michigan” during a session focus-ing on National and State Perspectives.

MIOSHA has developed a strategic plan totarget establishments for inspections that have themost safety and health problems. Implementationof one aspect of the plan began in October 2000,and mandates MIOSHA to use education, targetedoutreach, voluntary assistance and enforcementwith the goal of reducing the number of amputa-tion injuries by at least 15 percent in Michigan by2003. Using a standardized surveillance tool forall onsite interventions, the impact of interven-tions by MIOSHA staff at targeted facilities can

be measured. MIOSHA’s outreach efforts include:seminars, half-day workshops, targeted mailings,articles, and onsite training programs customizedto the employer’s worksite. The impact of theseinterventions will be measured by use of the sur-veillance tools, and data will become availablelater in 2002.

Other participants in the National and StatePerspectives session included OSHA representa-tives from Florida, Maine, the Bureau of LaborStatistics, and South Korea. The Florida Divi-sion of Safety described an ambitious plan thatre-engineered their state’s safety and health pro-gram using best practices of other states and de-veloping specific programs to address Florida’sworkplace injury problems. Databases were de-veloped using workers’ compensation data andtracking systems were implemented to measurethe successes and failures of the project. This newprogram emphasized the inspection of employerswith high injury and illness rates, and targetedthe program’s efforts using consultation, training,education, and safety programs tailored to theemployer’s worksite. A conservative estimate ofthe impact of this outreach program implementedin 1998 represented a savings of approximately$11,105 per disabling compensable claim, withan overall savings of approximately $10.6 mil-lion on 957 claims.

The Maine Department of Labor has pi-lot-tested a concept recognizing the need for prac-tical applications of occupational safety and healthepidemiology for small businesses. In June 2001,Maine began training small businesses on how todevelop safety interventions and conduct interven-tion effectiveness evaluations. The approach in-corporated the used of surveillance data with theHaddon’s Matrix and the PRECEDE Modelsupplementing the conventional OSHA type oftraining that focuses on industry standards andthe use of the hierarchy of controls. Maine willcontinue to collaborate with small employers togenerate case studies of interventions, success sto-ries and best practices for dissemination amongthe safety community and employers.

A presentation by the Korea OccupationalSafety and Health Agency (KOSHA) demon-strated that employee and employer concerns aboutsafety and health in the workplace are similarwhether you are working in a furniture companyin southern Ohio, or in South Korea. KOSHA hasdeveloped a new surveillance system partneringwith allergists to detect occupational asthma. Thisnew surveillance system initiated in 1998 hasproven effective to find new occupational illnesses,especially symptomatic diseases without specific

signs like occupational asthma.The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) out-

lined the systematic approach involved in creat-ing and conducting a special topic survey for res-piratory use and practices. The BLS is currentlyconducting a survey on respiratory use and prac-tices for NIOSH’s Respirator Program to learnabout the prevalence of respirator use in U.S. in-dustries, as well as typical respirator practices inthe workplace. The survey should be completedby March 2002.

The vision by NIOSH for workplace surveil-lance and prevention programs is that effectiveworkplace surveillance with data will drive pre-ventive practices. The nation’s workforce is chang-ing rapidly due to demographics, educational lev-els and social factors–and the nature of work ischanging due to rapid computerization, technol-ogy and out-sourcing of business activities. Allof these changes are impacting the health andsafety of workers right now. The decisions madetoday using current workplace surveillance meth-ods will have a lasting impact on the safety andhealth of workers in the future. To quoteAlexander D. Langmuir*, “Good surveillancedoes not necessarily ensure the making of theright decisions, but it reduces the chances of thewrong ones.” �

1010101010

�

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Michigan Census of Fatal Occupational Injuriesby Major Event or Exposure - 1999 & 2000

Contact withObjects & Equipment

Transportation Incidents

Falls

Assaults & Violent Acts

Electrocutions

Fires & Explosions

Number of Cases

6150

3733

2627

2024

910

186 182

156

Total Cases

19992000

2000 MICHIGAN CENSUS OFFATAL OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES

By: Gordon Spitzley, AnalystMIOSHA Information Division

A total of 156 fatal work injuries were re-corded in 2000, a decline of about 14 percentfrom the 1999 total of 182. This was the lowestnumber of fatalities since 1996, when 155 wererecorded.

Injuries sustained in transportation acci-dents resulted in the death of 50 Michigan work-ers in 2000. This represents 32 percent of the156 workers fatally injured in 2000. Highwayaccidents accounted for 24 fatalities or 15 per-cent of the total. Contact with objects and equip-ment resulted in the death of 37 workers, and 20others were killed as the result of falls. Assaultsand violent acts accounted for 26 deaths.

These findings are from the Census of Fa-tal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) conductedby the MIOSHA Information Division in coop-eration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Censususes multiple sources to identify, verify, and pro-file work injuries that are fatal.2000 CFOI Census Profiles

Major findings of the Michigan CFOI Cen-sus include:

� Transportation accidents led all otherevents and accounted for 32 percent of the 156fatal occupational injuries in 2000. This was fol-lowed by Contact with Objects and Equipmentat 24 percent, Assaults and Violent Acts with 17

percent, and Falls at 13 percent.� Sixty two percent of the fatally injured

Michigan workers were 25 - 54 years of age.� Men comprised 92 percent of Michigan’s

fatally injured workers.� Occupations with the largest number of

worker fatalities were Transportation and Mate-rial Moving Operations, and Construction trades.

� Industry groups with the largest numberof fatal work injuries in 2000 were Construction(29), Manufacturing (25), and Services (22).Definitions

For a fatality to be included in the census,the decedent must have been employed (that isworking for pay, compensation, or profit) at thetime of the event, engaged in legal work activityor present at the site of the incident as a require-ment of his or her job. These criteria are gener-ally broader than the criteria used by federal andstate agencies administering specific laws andregulations. (Fatalities that occur during aperson’s commute to and from work are excludedfrom the census counts.)

Information on work-related fatal illnessesare not reported in the BLS census and are ex-cluded from the attached tables because the la-tency period of many occupational illnesses andthe difficulty of linking illnesses to work makeidentification of a universe problematic.Measurement Techniques

Data for the Census of Fatal OccupationalInjuries are compiled from various state, federal

and local administrative sources–includingdeath certificates, workers’ compensation re-ports and claims, reports to various regulatoryagencies, medical examiner reports and policereports–as well as news and other non-govern-mental reports.

Diverse sources are used because studieshave shown that no single source captures alljob-related fatalities. Source documents arematched so that each fatality is counted onlyonce. To ensure that a fatality occurred whilethe decedent was at work, information is veri-fied from two or more independent source docu-ments, or from a source document and a fol-low-up questionnaire. Approximately 30 dataelements are collected, coded, and tabulated,including information about the worker, the fa-tal incident, and the machinery or equipmentinvolved.Federal/State Agency Coverage

The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuriesincludes data for all fatal work injuries, whetherthey are covered by MIOSHA or other federalor state agencies or are outside the scope of regu-latory coverage. Thus, any comparison betweenthe BLS fatality census counts and those re-leased by other agencies should take into ac-count the different coverage requirements anddefinitions being used.

Several federal and state agencies havejurisdiction over workplace safety and health.OSHA and affiliated agencies in states such asMichigan with OSHA-approved safety programscover the largest portion of the nations work-ers. However, injuries and illnesses occurringin certain industries or activities, such as coal,metal, and nonmetal mining and highway, wa-ter, rail, and air transportation, are excludedfrom MIOSHA coverage because they are cov-ered by other federal agencies, such as the MineSafety and Health Administration, and variousagencies within the Department of Transporta-tion. Fatalities occurring in activities regulatedby federal agencies other than MIOSHA areincluded in the count of fatal work injuries forMichigan in 2000.

Fatalities occurring among several othergroups of workers are generally not covered byany federal or state agencies, including self-em-ployed and unpaid family workers, which ac-counted for about 13 percent of the fatalities.

For further information, please contact theMIOSHA Information Division at517.322.1851.

Winter 2002

1111111111

At the national conference of the Interstate Labor Standards Asso-ciation (ILSA) in October, Wage & Hour Chief Bill Strong was elected toserve as Secretary-Treasurer. Michigan was one of the states that foundedILSA in 1966, and has played a very active role in helping the associationgrow. It is comprised of state labor representatives from 37 states, the Dis-trict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Canada, Taiwan,as well as representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor.

The goal of the association is to encourage and assist in the administra-tion of labor laws; provide fair and equitable delivery of services and protec-tions to wage earners; provide a safe and legal work environment for youngworkers; and assist those employers operating in a fair and just manner byassuring consistent administration of labor standards laws.

The duties of the Secretary-Treasurer include: has charge of all books,papers, records and other documents of the association; receives and hascharge of all dues and other monies; keeps full and complete records of allreceipts and disbursements; keeps the minutes of all meetings of the associa-tion and the executive board; conducts all correspondence pertaining to theoffice; and compiles statistics and other data as may be required. The secre-tary-treasurer, together with the president, presents a detailed written reportof receipts and expenditures to the convention.

Bill is looking forward to protecting and building on the excellent tradi-tions of this organization, as well as leading it into the future.

Recently the Wage & Hour Division conducted a customer survey ofexternal customers–employers and employees. We are very pleased to an-nounce that 94 percent of the respondents found the Wage & Hour staff to beprofessional and courteous.

We are not always able to reach determinations or resolve cases thatresult in a win/win for the employer and employee. In many cases either theemployer or employee feels that the outcome is not in their best interest. De-spite the fact that our customers may not always like the news they get, theyfelt they were treated professionally and with courtesy by division staff.

Some of the surveys included written comments; the positive commentsfar outweighed the negative comments. We will be analyzing the commentsto see if we can continue to improve our services.

Many of our customers are communicating with us through e-mail andvisiting our website to obtain our publications and claim forms. In Septem-ber 2001 alone, we had over 2,500 visits.

Some of the division’s accomplishments toward continuing to provideexcellent customer service include:

� We have eliminated a backlog of over 500 cases.� We have almost cut in half the amount of time that it takes to reach a

determination on cases. Last year, it took an average of 134 days to reach adetermination. Today the average time is 62 days.

� We have significantly increased the amount of wages collected forclaimants. Collections this past fiscal year are up 37 percent from the previ-ous fiscal year, to almost 2.8 million dollars.Robert Pawlowski, OH Regional Supervisor; Jeong Yeol, Yang,

Assistant Manager, KwangJu Reg. Office, KOSHA; Dr. AyalewKanno, CET Deputy Chief; Maryann Markham, CET Chief;Chung, Eun Kyo, Manager, Ergonomics Team, KOSHA;Hong-Jin Jeon, Health Division/Assistant Manager, Seoul Reg.Office, KOSHA; Doug Kalinowski, BSR Deputy Director.

Korea OHSA Visitors WAGE & HOURN E W SBill Strong Elected to ILSA Board

Customer Survey

Wage & Hour Division517.322.1825

www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/wh/home.htm

On Nov. 8, 2001, three representatives of Korea OSHA(KOSHA), Jeong Yeol, Yang, Assistant Manager, KwangJu Re-gional Office; Chung, Eun Kyo, Manager, Ergonomics Team;and Hong-Jin Jeon, Health Division/Assistant Manager, SeoulRegional Office; visited the MIOSHA program.

The KOSHA delegation was in the United States to studysafety and health initiatives in the United States, and specificallyergonomics programs. They were interested in policy and pro-gram initiatives that address the prevention of musculoskeletaldisorders. They attended a course at the Harvard School of Pub-lic Health titled, “Ergonomics and Human Factors.”

While in Michigan, the delegation visited the World Head-quarters of Ford Motor Company. Ford Ergonomist Brad Johnsondiscussed the Ford/UAW Ergonomics program, their joint labor/management committee, and their data management systems.

BSR Deputy Director Doug Kalinowski welcomed theKOSHA delegation to Michigan and gave them an overview ofstate plans in relation to federal OSHA and an overview of theMIOSHA program. Kalinowski also covered the MIOSHA Stra-tegic Plan. Preventing ergonomic injuries is a key element of theplan.

Occupational Health Division Regional Supervisor RobertPawlowski gave them a briefing on the MIOSHA OccupationalHealth compliance program. He also discussed the MIOSHA Er-gonomic Compliance Guidelines for conducting compliance in-spections focused on ergonomic hazards, particularly specific SICCodes targeted by the Strategic Plan.

An overview of Consultation Education and Training (CET)Division services was provided by CET Deputy Chief Dr. AyalewKanno and CET Chief Maryann Markham. They also discussedthe CET Ergonomic Outreach Program, which is designed to helpemployers implement an ergonomics program in the workplace.The CET Division provided them with a complete set of ergo-nomic training materials.

In addition, the delegation was introduced to the Ergonom-ics Awards Program, which recognizes employers who developinnovative ergonomic strategies and achieve a reduction in inju-ries and illnesses in their workplaces.

The delegation was very pleased with the information, pre-vention strategies and accompanying material that was providedto them during their visit. �

1212121212

CET Awards MIOSHA rMIOSHA rMIOSHA rMIOSHA rMIOSHA recognizes the sa fecognizes the sa fecognizes the sa fecognizes the sa fecognizes the sa fety and hea l thety and hea l thety and hea l thety and hea l thety and hea l thach ieach ieach ieach ieach ievvvvvements of Mich igan emploements of Mich igan emploements of Mich igan emploements of Mich igan emploements of Mich igan employyyyyers anders anders anders anders andemploemploemploemploemployyyyyees threes threes threes threes through CET ough CET ough CET ough CET ough CET AAAAAwarwarwarwarwards,ds,ds,ds,ds, which ar which ar which ar which ar which are basede basede basede basede basedon excellent safon excellent safon excellent safon excellent safon excellent safety and health perfety and health perfety and health perfety and health perfety and health performanceormanceormanceormanceormance.....

(Front) Deb Gundry, MIOSHA Safety Consultant; Kathy Gurnee,EH&S Coordinator; Vicki Chase, Safety Committee Member; Dr.Kalmin Smith, CIS Deputy Director; Ken Yungkans, PlantManager. (Back) Stoney Prowell, Danielle Gavin, Tim Russ, JasenThompson, Ryan Kmeciak, Safety Committee Members.

Keykert USA - Webberville PlantOn Oct. 25th, Keykert USA, Inc.’s Webberville plant received the CET Bronze

Award, which recognizes leadership and commitment to safety resulting in significantimprovement of their MIOSHA record.

“Keykert USA is an outstanding economic success story in Michigan,” said CISDeputy Director Dr. Kalmin Smith. “Since 1999, the Webberville plant doubled thesize of its workforce, while at the same time its lost-time injuries were cut in half.”

CIS Deputy Director Smith presented the award to Ken Yungkans, Plant Man-ager. Yungkans credits the efforts of Environmental, Health & Safety Coordinator KathyGurnee, the plant’s Safety Committee and the entire production team for the accom-plishment.

“The safety of our people really is our number one concern here. We’re living proofthat improved quality and improved efficiency, don’t have to come at the expense of ouremployees’ well-being,” said Yungkans.

Keykert USA is a world leader in the manufacture of automotive locks and latch-ing systems. (Afternoon Safety Committee Members, not shown in photo: Jeff Setla,Kevin Munro, Byron Taylor, Dennis Deshler.)

BSR Director Doug Earle (Far L.) presents the CET Plaque toBananza President Larry Kensington (2nd L.), Bananza GeneralManager Ken Brinks (Far R.), and all Bananza employees.

Bananza Air Management Systems, Inc.On Nov. 7th, Bananza Air Management Systems, Inc. of Kentwood received the

CET Plaque for five years of an outstanding safety and health record.“It’s an honor to be here today to present the CET Plaque to Bananza Air Manage-

ment Systems for their outstanding efforts–over a five-year period–to protect the safetyand health of their employees,” said BSR Director Doug Earle.

BSR Director Earle presented the award to Larry Kensington, President, andKen Brinks, General Manager, of Bananza Air Management Systems. All employeesattended the award presentation.

“We are proud to be recognized by MIOSHA for our achievements in employeehealth and safety,” said Kensington. “Our safety record speaks volumes as to employeeparticipation in this accomplishment.”

Bananza Air Management Systems, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of RapidEngineering, Inc. They are dedicated to producing the highest quality gas-fired heatingequipment for commercial and industrial heating and ventilation systems.

CET Supervisor Mike Everett, Carleton Plant Manager DonTullman, BSR Director Doug Earl, Carleton HR Manager BillDougherty, and CET Safety Consultant Jennifer Clark-Denson.

Guardian Industries - Carelton PlantGuardian Industries’ Carelton facility received the CET Bronze Award, which

recognizes leadership and commitment to safety resulting in significant improvement oftheir MIOSHA record, on Dec. 4th.

“I am pleased to recognize the outstanding safety and health achievements of theemployees and management at the Carleton plant,” said BSR Director Doug Earle. “Iapplaud your efforts to make workplace safety your number one concern.”

Earle presented the award to Carleton Plant Manager Don Tullman. Upon Tullman’sarrival in 1998, safety and loss control became their number one priority. “I learnedearly from Guardian mentors that a safe and well-kept plant provides the foundation fora more content and productive workforce,” said Tullman.

The Carleton plant is a major employer in Monroe County, with nearly 500 em-ployees, and specializes in architectural and automotive glass products, including glasscoatings. Guardian Industries Corp. is a leading worldwide manufacturer of float glassand fabricated glass products for the commercial and residential construction indus-tries, based in Auburn Hills.

Winter 2002

1313131313

Education & Training Calendar

Co-sponsors of CET seminars may charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of equipment rental, room rental, and lunch/refreshment charges. Forthe latest seminar information check our website, which is updated the first of every month: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/cet/cet_cal.htm.

Date Course MIOSHA TrainerLocation Contact Phone

February14 Part 74 Fire Fighters Standard Overview Lee Jay Kueppers

Clinton Township Anthony Kowalski 586.498.405519 Bloodborne Infectious Diseases Jenelle Thelen

Livonia Cont. Education Serv. 734.462.444819 MIOSHA Recordkeeping Jerry Swift

Grand Rapids Ravell Trook 616.698.116720 & 21 Mechanical Power Press Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy Desrosier 248.625.566120 & 27 Construction 10-Hour Safety Seminar/Major Fatality Causes Jerry Faber

Southfield Keiyania Mann 248.948.700021 When MIOSHA Visits Dan Maki

Marquette Kellie Barry-Angeli 906.226.659126 When MIOSHA Visits Linda Long

Westland Toni Herron 734.427.520026 Industrial Machine Guarding Jerry Medler

Cadillac Cindy Swiler 231.775.245826 & 27 Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene Bill Lykes

Lansing Sandy Long 517.394.461428 MIOSHA Recordkeeping Workshop Quenten Yoder

Jackson Autumn 517.782.8268March5 Recordkeeping, Accident Investigation & Work-Comp Strategies Linda Long

Dearborn Pat Pitz 313.791.45527 MIOSHA Recordkeeping Seminar Micshall Patrick

Benton Harbor Mary Gustas 800.704.767612 Industrial Machine Guarding Brian Dixon

Clinton Township Teri Gribbin 810.498.400214 Fireworks Safety for Fire Departments Kee Jay Kueppers

Bay City Kay Wagner 989.892.860119, 20, 21 Safety & Health Administrator Course Bob Carrier

Harrison Karen Jesse 989.386.6629April2 Safety & Health for Nursing Homes & Long-Term Care Facilities Suellen Cook

Livonia Schoolcraft College 734.462.444810 Safety Solutions for Healthcare Bob Carrier

Harrison Karen Jesse 989.386.662923 Industrial Accident Prevention & Machine Guarding Linda Long

Westland Toni Herron 734.427.5200May7 MIOSHA Recordkeeping Seminar Jennifer Clark-Denson

Monroe Vicki Sherman 734.384.412714, 15, 16 Safety & Health Administrator Course Jerry Medler

Cadillac Cindy Swiler 231.775.2458

1414141414

Construction SafetyConstruction SafetyConstruction SafetyConstruction SafetyConstruction SafetyStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborMr. Carl Davis**

Mr. Daniel CorbatMr. Andrew LangMr. Martin RossManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement

Mr. Peter Strazdas*Mr. Charles GatecliffMr. Thomas HansenMs. Cheryl Hughes

Public MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberMr. Kris Mattila

General Industry SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborMr. Michael D. Koehs*

Mr. James BakerMr. Tycho Fredericks

Mr. John PettingaManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement

Mr. Timothy J. Koury**Mr. Michael L. Eckert

Mr. Thomas PytlikMr. George A. Reamer

Public MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberMs. Geri Johnson

Occupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung

Ms. Cynthia HollandCapt. Michael McCabeMs. Margaret Vissman

ManagementManagementManagementManagementManagementMr. Robert DeBruyn*

Mr. Michael LucasMr. Richard Olson

Mr. Douglas WilliamsPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic Member

Dr. Darryl Lesoski**

*Chair **Vice Chair*Chair **Vice Chair*Chair **Vice Chair*Chair **Vice Chair*Chair **Vice ChairTo contact Connie Munschy, Chief of the Standards Division, or any of the Commissioners,please call the Standards Division Office at 517.322.1845.

Standards UpdateWorld Class Crane Management Seminar

Part 18 Advisory Committee MembersLabor ManagementSteve Branstrom, Safety Instructor David Holmes, Jr., EngineerOperating Engineers Local 324 JATF Lift Tech CorporationGary Ganton, Co-ordinator Rolf Lovgren, ChairmanIUOE Local 324 ISO TC-96SC5 CranesRichard Taylor, Retired Cesar Ilagan, Senior EngineerGM-BOC Ford Motor CompanyDavid Saksewski, Safety Representative Ted Stanislowski, MaintenanceUAW Crane Partner International

Several members of the General Industry Safety Standards Part 18 Overhead andGantry Cranes Advisory Committee attended the World Class Crane Management Semi-nar that was held October 22-24, 2001, in Seattle, Washington. The purpose of the seminar wasto help companies integrate quality and safety improvement standards, crane design, manufac-turing, service excellence, and leading edge crane information and training systems, to achieveworld-class competitiveness.

Focal points of the seminar included: management strategies, crane safety standards devel-opment, crane technology development, crane maintenance engineering, and education and train-ing. The conference also included a Boeing Everett Factory tour, which is listed as the largestbuilding in the world by volume. Attendees were able to see a crane system where four hoistingmachineries are used to move and rotate airplane structures in the air.

Steve Branstrom, an instructor with the Operating Engineers Local 324 JATF, and ConnieMunschy, Standards Chief, presented programs on the “Role of an Advisory Committee inthe Promulgation of Administrative Rules,” and on “Proposed Amendments to MIOSHA’sPart18.”

Sponsors of the seminar were the Boeing Company, the International Organization ofStandardization (ISO), the University of Michigan-Dearborn School of Management, andCranePartner International, Inc.

Rolf Lovgren, President and CEO of CranePartner International, Inc., and Garry Waissi,Dean and Professor, University of Michigan-Dearborn, moderated the conference. Lovgren is alsoa Part 18 Advisory Committee member, as well as Chairman of ISO TC96-SC5 Cranes. Lovgrenrecognized MIOSHA as a leader in the promulgation of rules that address safety concerns in thecrane industry, and commended the work of the Part 18 Advisory Committee. He also noted thecontributions of Standards Chief Connie Munschy, the Standards staff and General IndustrySupervisor Robin Spaulding.

The proposed amendments to MIOSHA’s Part 18 are intended to meet current OSHA re-quirements, and international requirements, to enhance the safety of employees through train-ing requirements, through inspection and maintenance procedures, and safe lifting and riggingprocedures, and are drawn from national and international standards.

On December 5, 2001, MIOSHA held a public hearing on these proposed rules. All com-ments will be reviewed by the Part 18 Advisory Committee and the General Industry SafetyStandards Commission.

Several conference attendees from other organizations expressed an interest in puttingparts of the proposed Michigan standard in their company operations manuals. (All advisorycommittee members covered their own travel expenses.)

MIOSHARobin Spaulding, Supervisor Connie Munschy,ChiefGeneral Industry Safety Division Standards Division

The mission of the MIOSHA advisory committees is to write rules that are clear, and speakto the provision of a safe and healthy work environment. The most common request of standardsusers are that referenced materials be updated or included, for ready availability to the users.

Winter 2002

1515151515

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers ..................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 18. Overhead and Gantry Cranes ................................................................. Public HearingPart 19. Crawler, Locomotives, Truck Cranes ..................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 20. Underhung and Monorail Cranes ............................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 58. Vehicle Mounted Elevating & Rotating Platforms ................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 74. Fire Fighting/Amendment #2 ................................................................... Final, effective 12/5/01

ConstructionPart 07. Welding & Cutting .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 14. Tunnels, Shafts, Cofferdams & Caissons ................................................ Draft to Commission for reviewPart 18. Fire Protection & Prevention ................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 22. Signs, Signals, Tags & Barricades .......................................................... Final, effective 7/31/01Part 26. Steel and Precast Erection ....................................................................... RFR approved by ORRPart 30. Telecommunications .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewAd Hoc Communication Tower Erection .............................................................. Approved by Commission for review

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Abrasive Blasting ........................................................................................................ Final, effective 6/6/01Air Contaminants ........................................................................................................ Final, effective 5/9/01Bloodborne Infectious Diseases .................................................................................. Final, effective 10/18/01Ergonomics ................................................................................................................... Withdrawn 3/13/01Forging Machines R 3210 ........................................................................................... Rescinded due to duplicationIllumination R4104-4106 (Occupational Health rules only) ................................... Final, effective 7/17/01Medical Services/First Aid R4401 ............................................................................. Final, effective 7/31/01Powered Industrial Trucks R3225 (OH Rules only) ................................................ Rescinded due to duplicationRespirators in Dangerous Atmoshperes (OH Rules only) ....................................... Rescinded due to replacementSanding Machines R 3230 .......................................................................................... Rescinded due to duplicationVentilation for Certain Hazardous Locations R 3110 ............................................. Rescinded due to duplication

ConstructionGases, Vapors, Fumes, Dust & Mist R6201 .............................................................. Informal approval by LSBSanitation for Construction R6615 ............................................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewIllumination for Construction R6605 ........................................................................ Rescinded due to duplicationMedical Services & First Aid for Construction R6610 ........................................... Rescinded due to duplication

Administrative RulesPart 11. Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses .......... At ORR for formal certification

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of December 5, 2001)

The MIOSHA Standards Division assists in the promulgation of Michigan occupationalsafety and health standards. To receive a copy of the MIOSHA Standards Index (updatedMay 2000) or for single copies and sets of safety and health standards, please contact theStandards Division at 517.322.1845.

RFR Request for RulemakingORR Office of Regulatory ReformLSB Legislative Services BureauJCAR Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

1616161616

V a r i a n c e sFollowing are requests for variances and vari-ances granted from occupational safety stan-dards in accordance with rules of the Depart-ment of Consumer & Industry Services, Part12, Variances (R408.22201 to 408.22251).

Variances Requested Construction

Published January 22, 2002

Variances Granted Construction

�

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8 - Material Handling - Rule R408.40833, Rule833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAce Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSEI - Zeeland Power Plant, ZeelandName and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedImlay City Pipe Gallery, Imlay CityGhafari Building #2, SouthfieldNew Hartland High School, HartlandName and address of employerAmerican Iron WorksLocation for which variance is requestedGoodrich Community High School, GoodrichName and address of employerAssemblers, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedTaft Elementary School, DetroitName and address of employerCadillac Iron, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedWilliam Beaumont Hospital, Oak ParkName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedDetroit Symphony Orchestra Hall Expansion, DetroitName and address of employerGeneral Steel Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedThe Bishop Creek Project, NoviLOC Project, PlymouthName and address of employerJohnson Steel Fabrication, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedThe Dow Chemical Company, MidlandName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMSU Animal Health Lab, LansingGDX Automotive, Farmington HillsPinnacle Office Park, NoviRichmond Shopping Center, RichmondName and address of employerR & B Steel CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedAuto Owners Office Addition, LansingName and address of employerSCI/SteelconLocation for which variance is requestedWestern Michigan University, KalamazooName and address of employerSova Steel, Inc.

Location for which variance is requestedParisian Meadowbrooke Village, Rochester HillsName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedCMU Health Professionals Bldg., Mount PleasantName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedG M Powertrain, PontiacWayne State University Welcome Center, DetroitGeneral Motors Media Vehicle Prep. Facility, MilfordSchultz Elementary School, DetroitFord Child Care, Ypsilanti

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 10 - Lifting and Digging Equipment - R408.41025,Rule 1025 (e)(f)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo permit employees to work beneath a suspended loadunder controlled conditions.Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedWilliam Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms - Rule R408.43209, Rule3209 (8)(b) & Rule 3209 (8) (c)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform accord-ing to certain stipulations.Name and address of employerApplegate, Inc.Location for which variance is requested8521 Guinea Road, LansingName and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Tech Center Project, WarrenName and address of employerModern Mirror & Glass Co.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Tech Center, WarrenName and address of employerMotor City Electric Co.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Technical Center, WarrenName and address of employerVentcon, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Corp. Warren Technical Center, Warren

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8 - Material Handling - Rule R408.40833, Rule833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAce Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMountain Grand Lodge & Spa, Grand Rapids

Name and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedRochester High School Addition, RochesterName and address of employerAssemblers, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedCenter for Forensic Psychiatry, York TownshipName and address of employerJohnson Steel Fabrication, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSaint Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann ArborName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedWelch Rd. Center, Commerce Twp.National Corp. Bldg. “C,” FowlervilleBrighton Ford Mercury Body Shop, BrightonMunicipal Employees Retirement System, LansingOakland Towne Square Bldg. A, SouthfieldNSK Corporation, Ann Arbor47th District Court Bldg., Farmington HillsGM Bldg. 105- Proving Grounds, MilfordNew Holt High School, HoltEverest Academy-Kinder Bldg./Powerhouse, ClarkstonSouthfield Public Library, SouthfieldName and address of employerPioneer, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGrand Valley Health Professions, Grand RapidsName and address of employerSova Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedEberspacher Project, NoviMaple Office Building Project, TroyRochester Elementary, Oakland TownshipJackson County Medical Facility, JacksonOptrex, PlymouthName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedJonesville High School, JonesvilleName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedLake Orion Middle School, Lake Orion

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32-Aerial Lift Platforms-R408.43209, Rule 3209 (8)(c)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerDenn-Co Construction, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Tech Center, WarrenName and address of employerMaster Mechanical InsulationLocation for which variance is requestedNorthwest Airlines Midfield Terminal Site, RomulusName and address of employerPace Mechanical Services Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Tech Center, Warren

Winter 2002

1717171717

�

�

NIOSH is conducting studies of womenexposed to the following hazardous substances:

� Ethylene oxide: Ethylene oxide (ETO)is used to sterilize medical supplies. Morethan 100,000 women are exposed to ETO inthe workplace. Hospital workers and work-ers involved in sterilization of medical sup-plies may be at risk of exposure to ETO.

� PCBs: Polychlorinated biphenyl com-pounds (PCBs) were produced commerciallyfor use in the electrical industry until 1977.Banned in 1977, products made with PCBsremain in the workplace and the environment.NIOSH is investigating a potential link be-tween PCB exposure and breast cancer.

� Perchloroethylene: Studies of workingwomen exposed to perchloroethylene (PERC),the main solvent used in the drycleaning in-dustry, will help evaluate its connection withcervical cancer. An estimated half ofdrycleaning workers in the United States arewomen.Health Care Workers

In the growing health care industry,where a complex range of hazards exists,about 80 percent of the workforce if female.Of the 4.3 million nurses and nursing aidesin the U.S., 92 percent are female.

In addition to being at risk for incidentsof musculoskeletal disorders, workplace vio-lence, and exposure to hazardous substances,health care workers face other hazards includ-ing latex allergy and needlestick injuries.NIOSH has established a new initiative tostudy the health and safety of health careworkers.

Needlestick Injuries: Between 600,000-800,000 needlestick injuries occur annuallyin health care settings, mostly involvingnurses. These injuries pose both physical andemotional threats to health care workers, asserious infections from bloodborne pathogens(such as hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus,and human immunodeficiency virus [HIV])may result.

Latex Allergy: Health care workers mayhave an increased risk for developing latexallergy due to their use of latex gloves. Amonghealth care workers who experience frequentlatex exposure, 8-12 percent develop sensi-tivity to latex. Latex sensitivity may lead tosymptoms of latex allergy, such as skin rashes;hives; nasal, eye, or sinus symptoms; asthma;and (rarely) shock.Publications

NIOSH has published numerous docu-ments that are relevant to the health and safetyof women in the workplace. To request anyof these publications, call NIOSH at1.800.356.4674, or visit their Website atwww.cdc.gov/niosh.

Working WomenCont. from Page 5

ErgonomicsCont. from Page 4

Workplace Layout–describes how thework equipment is arranged in the workplace.This description may be verbal, such as“worker seated at work bench,” or the de-scription may be graphic, such as a blueprint.

Work Equipment–is any device used toaccomplish or facilitate accomplishing thework objective. Examples include presses,jigs, hoists, hand tools, document holders, andseating.

In some cases equipment is commerciallyavailable, so it may be necessary only to lookin a catalog to determine exact sizes, weights,and capacities. In other cases the equipmentmay be unique to the job and require com-plete on-the-job documentation. In some casesthe equipment may be modified by the workerand provide insight into ways of reducing er-gonomic stresses.

Materials–include objects that go intothe product. In assembly operations thesemight include parts, lubricants, coatings, andpacking materials; in clerical work, docu-ments and information; in meat processing,pieces of meat and bags of additives.Sources of Information

There are a variety of sources of infor-mation which can be used to conduct the jobanalysis. They include the following sources.

Engineering, Personnel, and Draw-ings–Work standards, methods, process data,and plant layouts often can be obtained fromindustrial, manufacturing, product, facility,and plant engineering departments. Depend-ing on the sophistication of these data, it maybe possible to complete much of the job analy-sis off-site.

Formal job descriptions often can be ob-tained from personnel departments; however,these descriptions tend to emphasize workerqualifications in terms of worker attributessuch as education or strength and dexterity,rather than in terms of job attributes such asreach distances, forces, and work rates.

On-site Inspection–An on-site inspec-tion always should be performed to verify in-formation obtained in job descriptions anddrawings and to collect other informationneeded for the analysis. The on-site visit alsowill afford an opportunity to interview super-visors and workers.

Differences between the publishedmethod and layout and the actual method andlayout are common. Workers often find waysof arranging their work and performing themotions that are faster and easier than thosedesigned by engineers.

In addition, certain pieces of work equip-ment may have difficulties that cause work-ers to abandon them in favor of manual meth-ods. Similarly, there may be differences fromworker to worker owing to differences in bodysize, strength, and skill or to differences inwork equipment.

Supervisor and Worker Interviews–Care must be taken in worker and supervisorinterviews to avoid suggesting responses. Forexample, when a person of authority asks aworker, “Doesn’t that tool hurt your hand?”it suggests that there is something wrong withthe tool.

Whenever possible, questions should beasked in ways that provide choices. For ex-ample, ask “What do you like best about thetool?” Followed by “What do you like theleast?” Follow-up questions can be used toprovide additional information.Summary

Musculoskeletal disorders are a majorcause of lost time in many industries. InMichigan, MSDs account for one-third of allworkers’ compensation costs each year. Oncea job analysis is performed to identify themajor stresses, interventions can be designedby the employer to prevent ergonomic inju-ries and illnesses. To be effective, interven-tions need to be tailored to specific work con-ditions. In the Spring 2001 issue we will coversuggested interventions for the six risk fac-tors listed above.

New MIOSHA Recordkeeping RulesEffective January 1, 2002

Want to get a copy fast?

You can obtain a free copy from our Website:

www.cis.state.mi.us/bsrClick on the “New Initiatives” Link

1818181818

other chemicals.Physical hazards also included heavy ma-

chinery, massive cranes, hot steel, gas cylinders,and shifting piles of debris. There was great con-cern of biohazards from human remains. Duringthe first three weeks after the attack, construc-tion workers, firefighters, police officers and oth-ers received medical attention 6,342 times forburns, broken bones, sprains and breathing prob-lems.

Many emergency and search workers alsoexperienced significant amount of psychologicalstress. Working among 16 acres of destruction,the realization that more than 3,000 people died,the loss of peers, and the search for human re-mains and evidence, was overwhelming for many.The magnitude of the impact of this work causedthe New York City Police Department to ordermental health counseling for all 55,000 its of de-partment members. The New York City Fire De-partment also developed a strategy to counseltheir personnel.Stress Reactions at Disaster Scenes

Workplace disasters like this differ from typi-cal stressful life events by being outside the rangeof usual employee experiences and would bemarkedly distressful to anyone who experiencedthe event, witnessed the incident, and /or whohad to continually expose themselves to the post-incident scene.

The more unusual and terrifying the inci-dent, the greater the risk that those employeeswho experienced the event, directly or indirectly,may experience a range of acute stress reactions.

The greatest risk for post-traumatic stressis for those employees who directly experiencethe visual, auditory, olfactory, and physical im-pact of the traumatic incident. Certainly, the hor-ror of these attacks has affected all of us. Manyof these factors were experienced by thousands

of people, directly and vicariously.In such traumatic events, the following

factors influence the intensity of theemployee’s response:

� Amount of terror, horror, destructionor injury witnessed;

� Whether or not the employee’s life wasthreatened;

� Level of loss;� Employee’s role in the

traumatic incident;� Degree of perceived help-

lessness and powerless;� Seeing/causing another

employee to be killed or severelyinjured;

� Properties of the post-in-cident environment;

� Length of time exposed totraumatic stimuli;

� Availability of psychologi-cal support.Immediate Reactions

During the first hours aftera traumatic incident, employeesmay experience a period of shock,disbelief, emotional numbness, powerless-ness, and hyper-arousal. During the next fewdays and weeks, they may experience a widerange of physical, emotional, and thought pat-tern disturbances.

While most acute stress symptoms willbegin to subside after a few weeks, 20 per-cent or more of employees may continue tohave acute or post-traumatic stress problems.In addition, some individuals who have no im-mediate reactions may begin to show delayedonset symptoms months or even a few yearsafter the incident.Post-Traumatic Stress ReactionsEmotional

Numbness, Anxiety and Fear, Depres-sion, Withdrawal, Lossof Motivation, Perva-sive Vulnerability, Fearof a repetition, Avoid-ance, Sorrow, Gui l t ,Anger/ Rage, and Grief.Physical

Shock, Rest less-ness , Hyper-arousal ,Appetite Change, SleepDifficulties, Inabilityto Relax, and Cryingspells.Mental

Disbelief, Flash-backs, Nightmares ,Painful Memories, Self-Blame, Decreased Con-centration, Confusion,Forgetfulness, and Con-fusion.

Crisis InterventionEarly Intervention by employers, union and

professional mental health personnel is the bestprevention against employees developing moredifficult traumatic stress reactions. Since acutestress reactions usually occur regardless of pre-incident personality, it is important to provide

immediate crisis intervention services to all af-fected employees as a prevention measure. Thisis the ideal strategy for managing the potentialrisk of employees developing stress problemsthat may later interfere with their ability to workand be productive.

Work-Site Crisis Intervention after a trau-matic incident should be conducted by quali-fied mental health, human resource, occupa-tional medicine professionals and in some cases,trained peers. Ideally, some interventions shouldtake place at, or near, the scene if possible,within the first few days or weeks after the eventoccurs.

These activities should include:� Discussions about the impact of the

event on employees;� Attempts to normalize the reactions em-

ployees are experiencing;� Preparation for possible “ normal” stress

reactions;� Additional crisis counseling; and� Follow-up support.It is important that services be provided

first to those at greatest risk. Contact, referraland outreach to other employees, family mem-bers can enhance the preventative nature of thecompany’s response.Crisis Intervention Goals

The goals of work-based crisis interven-tion after traumatic incidents include:

� Provide safety and support to employ-ees involved;

� Encourage emotional ventilation;� Promote recall of the incident;� Explore the personal impact of the

Ground ZeroCont. from Page 1

Author Marilyn Knight at the Fresh Kills Landfill on StatenIsland.

Authors Marilyn Knight (L) and Ken Wolf (C) with two U.S.Army Infantry responders.

Cont. on Page 19

Winter 2002

1919191919

�

�

trauma on the employees;� Normalize stress reactions that they may

experience;� Educate employees about acute stress

reactions;� Suggest coping strategies;� Encourage employees to seek counsel-

ing if stress problems continue; and� Restore stability to company equilibrium.

Leadership Support StrategiesIt is helpful for leadership to acknowledge

that the reactions employees may be experienc-ing, are the normal reactions, normal peoplehave to abnormal event such as this.Supervisor’s and union representative’s supportto bring work groups together in order to givethem the opportunity to verbalize, ventilate andvalidate their emotional reactions can be quitehelpful. These structured settings of team meet-ings can help to reaffirm a sense of unity, mis-sion, and compassion, and to maintain highmorale during periods of uncertainty.

Other strategies for consideration that man-agers and union representatives may want todemonstrate are to:

� Lead by example,� Be available,� Send frequent communications,� Maintain office routines,� Provide hope and reassurance, and� Disseminate information frequently.Certainly, the tragedy of these deliberate

attacks on our country has aroused unsettlingemotions in all of us. By maintaining open com-munications, developing business continuity andcrisis contingency plans for employees as wellas business operations, employers can reaffirmtheir concern for their “work family” and mobi-lize the strength of their organization, to sup-port and to assist all of their employees aftermajor traumatic events.

The New York Police Department EmergencyOperations Center at Ground Zero.

Ground ZeroCont. from Page 18 Osha Encourages Defibrillator Use to

Revive Workers with Cardiac Arrest

Locations& Dates

EscanabaJanuary 30

LivoniaFebruary 19

Grand RapidsMarch 21

CadillacApril 30

The Consultation Education and Training (CET) Division andMichigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) are workingtogether to present full-day Bloodborne Infectious DiseasesSeminars throughout the state.

These seminars are designed to assist employers in complyingwith MIOSHA’s amended Bloodborne Infectious DiseasesStandard. MDCH will provide information related to HepatitisA-E transmission and Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) recommendations for Hepatit is Bvaccinations.

Participants will be informed of the changes to the regulations andpresented with tools to assist in the evaluation, control andprevention of bloodborne infectious diseases in the workplace.The afternoon session will be divided into separate tracks forgeneral industry first-aid providers and healthcare.

In the general industry track, exceptions and special considerationsrelated to bloodborne exposures will be discussed. In the healthcaretrack, additional information will be shared related to the needlestickand sharps injury provisions within the standard and new CDCrecommendations for HBV, HCV and HIV postexposureprophylaxis.

Because the use of Automated ExternalDefibrillators (AEDs) can save the lives of work-ers who experience cardiac arrest while on thejob, on Dec. 17, 2001, OSHA issued a press re-lease encouraging employers to consider mak-ing this equipment available in their workplaces.

AEDs are easy to use and can make thecritical difference in reviving individuals whosuffer a cardiac crisis. Administered within threeminutes, the electric shock (defibrillation) re-stores the normal rhythm to the victim’s heartand can increase survival rates from less thanfive percent to nearly 75 percent. Immediatedefibrillation can revive more than 90 percentof victims.

OSHA has issued a fact card and a techni-cal information bulletin on the use of AEDs,encouraging employers to take advantage of thistechnology. AEDs are lightweight and run onrechargeable batteries. They are designed toanalyze the heart rhythm and automatically in-dicate when to administer the shock. Each unitcosts from $3,000 to $4,500.

Each year 300,000 to 400,000 individu-als die from cardiac arrest. Most of thesedeaths occur outside of hospitals. Cardiac ar-rest is often due to chaotic beating of the heart,which can be restored to normal rhythm iftreated promptly with defibrillation. Witheach minute of delay in defibrillation, 10 per-

cent fewer victims survive.Placing AEDs in workplaces could signifi-

cantly increase survival rates. In 1999 and 2000,815 of 6,339 workplace fatalities reported toOSHA resulted from cardiac arrest. The agencyestimates if AEDs helped restore 40 percent ofthose who suffer a cardiac crisis, as many as 120lives would be saved each year. Workers involvedin shift work, holding high stress jobs, or ex-posed to certain chemicals or electrical hazardsface a higher risk of heart disease and cardiacarrest.

AEDs have proven their value at the U.S.Department of Labor headquarters where theyare strategically placed throughout the building.On Dec. 14th, a Labor Department employeecollapsed. Co-workers called the DOL HealthUnit, and a nurse came and used a nearby AEDto treat the victim. The individual was resusci-tated, sent to the hospital and is now recuperat-ing following heart surgery.

The new OSHA fact card and technical in-formation bulletin are available on OSHA’swebsite at www.osha.gov, and through theagency’s publications office at 800.321.OSHA.

(Note: The purpose of these materials isfor information only and does not impose andis not intended to result in the imposition ofany new legal obligations or constraints on em-ployers.)

Bloodborne Infectious Diseases Seminars

Each seminar runsfrom 8:30 a.m. to 4:00p.m. For furtherinformation or toregister, contact theCET Division at517.322.1809.

2020202020

Consumer & Industry ServicesBureau of Safety & RegulationDirector: Douglas R. Earle

MIOSHA News is a quarterlypublication of the Bureau ofSafety & Regulation, which isresponsible for the enforcementof the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Act (MIOSHA).

The purpose is to educateMichigan employers andemployees about workplacesafety and health. This documentis in the public domain and weencourage reprinting.

Printed under authority of theMichigan Occupational Safety andHealth Act, PA 154 of 1974, asamended. Paid for with the state“Safety Education and TrainingFund” and federal OSHA funds.

Editor: Judith Keely Simons

Consumer & Industry ServicesDirector: Kathleen M. Wilbur

MIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ine 800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674Fata l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ine 800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397Genera l In fGenera l In fGenera l In fGenera l In fGenera l In format ionormat ionormat ionormat ionormat ion 517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814

FrFrFrFrFree Safee Safee Safee Safee Safety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultation 517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809

Consumer & Industry ServicesBureau of Safety & RegulationP.O. Box 306437150 Harris DriveLansing, Michigan 48909-8143

(20,000 copies printed at a cost of $9,510 or $0.48 per copy.)

Website: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr

517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814 Doug EarleDoug EarleDoug EarleDoug EarleDoug Earle

517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817 Deborah GrDeborah GrDeborah GrDeborah GrDeborah Gretheretheretheretherether

517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817 Doug KalinoDoug KalinoDoug KalinoDoug KalinoDoug Kalinowskiwskiwskiwskiwski

PHONEPHONEPHONEPHONEPHONE CHIEFCHIEFCHIEFCHIEFCHIEF

517.322.1297517.322.1297517.322.1297517.322.1297517.322.1297 Diane PhelpsDiane PhelpsDiane PhelpsDiane PhelpsDiane Phelps

517.322.1856517.322.1856517.322.1856517.322.1856517.322.1856 RicharRicharRicharRicharRichard Meed Meed Meed Meed Mee

517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809 MarMarMarMarMaryann Markhamyann Markhamyann Markhamyann Markhamyann Markham

248.888.8777248.888.8777248.888.8777248.888.8777248.888.8777 Jim BrJim BrJim BrJim BrJim Broganoganoganoganogan

517.322.1831517.322.1831517.322.1831517.322.1831517.322.1831 MarMarMarMarMartha tha tha tha tha YYYYYoderoderoderoderoder

517.322.1851517.322.1851517.322.1851517.322.1851517.322.1851 Ron MorRon MorRon MorRon MorRon Morrisrisrisrisris

517.322.1608517.322.1608517.322.1608517.322.1608517.322.1608 JJJJJohn Pohn Pohn Pohn Pohn Peckeckeckeckeck

517.322.1845517.322.1845517.322.1845517.322.1845517.322.1845 Connie MunschConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie Munschyyyyy

517.322.1825517.322.1825517.322.1825517.322.1825517.322.1825 Bill StrBill StrBill StrBill StrBill Strongongongongong

DirDirDirDirDirectorectorectorectorector

Deputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy Directorectorectorectorector

Deputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy Directoectoectoectoectorrrrr

DIVIS IONDIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISION

AppealsAppealsAppealsAppealsAppeals

Construction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction Safetyetyetyetyety

Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & TTTTTrain ingra in ingra in ingra in ingra in ing

EmploEmploEmploEmploEmployyyyyee Discriminationee Discriminationee Discriminationee Discriminationee Discrimination

General IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral Industry Safy Safy Safy Safy Safetyetyetyetyety

InfInfInfInfInformationormationormationormationormation

Occupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational Health

StandarStandarStandarStandarStandardsdsdsdsds

WWWWWage & Hourage & Hourage & Hourage & Hourage & Hour

How To Contact Us

If you would like to subscribe to the MIOSHA News, please contact us at 517.322.1809 andprovide us with your mailing address. Also if you are currently a subscriber, please take thetime to review your mailing label for errors. If any portion of your address is incorrect, pleasecontact us at the above number.

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDLANSING MI

PERMIT NO 1200

recycled paper