Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)Vol. 11, No. 3 Summer 2007

Cont. on Page 18

M&W IndustriesMIOSHA Fines M&W Industries of Detroit $236,890 for Failureto Protect Employees from Amputations and Other Safety Hazards

Bad example: Failure to properly guard band saws led to employeeamputation injuries. Guards on band saws need to be adjusted to 1/4-inch of material being cut.

On June 28th, Michigan Department of La-bor & Economic Growth (DLEG) Director KeithW. Cooley announced the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) hascited M&W Industries of Detroit with $236,890in proposed penalties for allegedly failing to ad-equately protect employees from amputationsand other safety hazards, and failing to complywith commitments to improve overall safety andhealth for employees.Six Employee Amputations

Six amputations have occurred at M&W In-dustries since June 2006:

On 01/05/2007, an employee amputatedthe first three fingers on his left hand while hewas operating a hydraulic press;

On 12/19/2006, an employee amputatedhis left ring finger while he was operating a hy-draulic squaring shear;

On 09/23/2006, an employee nearly sev-ered his left hand (partial amputation) while he

was operating a horizontal band saw;On 06/28/2006, an employee amputated

her left index finger while she was operating ahydraulic press;

Also on 06/28/2006, another employeeamputated his right index finger while he wasoperating the same hydraulic press as above;

On 06/07/2006, an employee amputatedhis left index finger while he was operating a hori-zontal band saw.

“M&W Industries has been given ample op-portunity to correct the serious hazards which areendangering the health and well being of their em-ployees. Their failure to protect their workers willnot be tolerated,” said Cooley. “Not only didM&W Industries not comply with MIOSHA re-quirements, their continued disregard for employeesafety led to six employees suffering amputationinjuries since June 2006. We are sending a clearmessage to all employers that they must be proac-tive and consistently protect their workers.”

MIOSHA InspectionsIn 2005, the MIOSHA

General Industry Safety andHealth Division conducted aplanned, wall-to-wall inspec-tion at the 13550 Helen Streetlocation that resulted in 20 Se-rious, one Willful, eight Repeat-Serious, and 13 Other-than-Se-rious violations. Because theinspection findings includedWillful and Repeat-Serious vio-lations, it is agency practice toconduct a follow-up inspectionto ensure that items are cor-rected and corrections are main-tained.

Between March 5, andApril 9, 2007, MIOSHA con-

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

Herman Miller MVPP Award 3

Maco Concrete Sentencing 4

Teen Workers Campaign 4

Safety & Health Systems Pay 5

Wood Truss Bracing 6

Heat Hazard Case Study 7

MI Rubber Ergonomic Success 8

Isocyanates Case Study 9

Chemical Facility Regulation 10

WEB Update 10

MIM W.C. Fund Alliance 11

Michigan Safety Conference 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

MIOSHA News Quiz 17

2

From the

MIOSHA

Director’s

DeskBy: Douglas J. Kalinowski

John Henshaw, the former head of the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (OSHA) and life-long safety and healthprofessional often said, “When OSHA is responding to an acci-dent, it is too late!” I truly appreciate that statement. Althoughthe ultimate responsibility for worker safety and health lies withboth employers and employees, the efforts of MIOSHA, the otherstate-run OSHA programs and federal OSHA are meant to helpprevent workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities.

This applies to both enforcement and outreach activities. Agoal of zero work-related injuries and illnesses is extremely chal-lenging, and creates an expectation that everyone who is associ-ated with a workplace shares responsibility for safety and healthand should assume some accountability for prevention.Protecting Workers is the Law

The cover article in this issue addresses a number of allegedviolations for M&W Industries, a southeast Michigan employer– many of which are classified as failure-to-abate and repeat. Asignificant number of them were serious machine guarding andlock-out violations. MIOSHA field staff also identified six ampu-tations at their plants from June 2006 to April 2007. This numberof amputations is disturbing considering the total workforce isless than 600 at these facilities, including management and officestaff that were not likely to be exposed to these hazards.

The loss to the employees, and their families, that experiencedthe amputations or other injuries is immeasurable. Many of thethings that we routinely do with our hands every day require allof our fingers and we take them for granted. Assuming a certaindegree of recovery, the inability to use their hands undoubtedlylasted for many months. (I know because I needed surgery on abroken thumb a few years ago and it was not useful for quitesome time.)

The total monetary costs to the employer are also significant.These include the direct costs associated with workers’ compen-sation. The indirect costs, which multiply the work-comp figuresby a factor of five to ten, include the permanent or temporary lossof trained employees, the training of replacement workers and thepotential to negatively affect all of their employees’ morale.

The intent of a significant penalty under MIOSHA (as well asin other state and federal OSHA programs) is not to be punitiveor to make up for the workers’ injuries. The intent is to get thespecific employer’s attention. The penalties should also get theattention of other employers who might believe the costs of work-ers’ injuries and illnesses are simply a “cost of doing business.”

Two Successful Michigan CompaniesThe most successful companies in Michigan, both manufac-

turing and non-manufacturing, are almost always the leaders inprotecting their employees from safety and health hazards that arelikely to cause serious injuries. We see it repeatedly through ourMichigan Voluntary Protection Program (MVPP), our MichiganSafety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP),and other MIOSHA award-winning sites. Not only is protectingemployees “the right thing to do,” it significantly impacts everyemployer’s bottom line.

Two employers, highlighted in this issue as well, have demon-strated that protecting their workers is not only the “right thing todo,” but it makes good business sense. Herman Miller’s Mid-west Distribution Center in Holland was the 20th Michigan em-ployer to receive MVPP Star status. This facility has implementeda very strong safety and health program with the results demon-strated in injury and illness rates that are less than one-quarter ofthe state average for their type of business. (See page 3.)

SKD Automotive Group’s Jonesville facility, employs 360workers – and has gone more than three million hours without alost time accident! The facility uses a “systems approach” to workersafety that compliments other systems designed to enhance pro-ductivity and quality. SKD estimates that the return on their in-vestment in workplace safety is $15 to $1! SKD has made thecorporate decision to spend money on protecting their workers –rather than on the significant direct and indirect costs of work-place injuries and illnesses. (See page 5.)Making a Difference

An old friend of mine has often said, “Gee, when you talkabout workplace accidents, injuries and fatalities, you sure seemto take it personally!” Well, I do!

Every time MIOSHA responds to such situations or wheneverwe are studying the statistics, I ask myself, the MIOSHA staff andother stakeholders, “Is there something that we should have beendoing differently or should change in the future to help preventsuch accidents?” We cannot help improve the conditions forMichigan’s workers unless we continually ask such questionsand make changes to deal with them.

We all have responsibility to help protect the working menand women of Michigan. It is only by working together that wecan “Make a Difference” to help prevent workplace injuries, ill-nesses and fatalities.

Successful

Michigan

Employers

Are Proactive

Summer 2007

3

The Midwest Distribution Center’s day shift employees participated in theMVPP celebration, and all shifts were served a buffet lunch.

Midwest Distribution Team Leaders (front row) were joined by stateand local dignitaries to celebrate their safety and health achievement.

Congratulations Herman Miller!Herman Miller’s Midwest Distribution Center Receives State’s Highest Safety and Health Award

On June 20th, Herman Miller’s MidwestDistribution Center received the Michigan Vol-untary Protection Program (MVPP) Star Awardfrom the MIOSHA program for workplace safetyand health excellence.

This is the third Herman Miller facility inMichigan to achieve Star status. The GreenHouseSeating Operation received the award in 2005,and the Spring Lake 171st Avenue facility re-ceived the award in 2006. The Midwest Distri-bution Center was named a Rising Star companyon May 17, 2005.Changing Workplace Landscapes

“Herman Miller is one of Michigan’s ‘BestCorporate Citizens’ and we are honored to rec-ognize them for their workplace safety andhealth excellence,” said DLEG Director KeithW. Cooley. “Their outstanding ethic of innova-tion and design has made them an internationalleader in furniture manufacturing”they havechanged the interior landscape of workplacesworldwide.”

MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski pre-sented the MVPP Star Award to Kevin Tibbetts,General Manager of Logistics for Herman Miller,Inc., who accepted on behalf of all employees.State and local elected officials, corporate leadersand MIOSHA representatives were on hand tocongratulate employees and management on theiroutstanding achievement.

“We are honored to be the third HermanMiller facility to receive the prestigious StarAward,” said Tibbetts. “Every Midwest Dis-tribution team member is focused on creating asafe and healthy work environment and everyteam member is to be congratulated for thisoutstanding achievement.”

Creating Safety &Health Excellence

This is the mostprestigious safety andhealth award given inMichigan. MIOSHAestablished the MVPPprogram in 1996 to rec-ognize employers ac-tively working towardachieving excellence inworkplace safety andheal th . Since 1999,Michigan has recog-nized 20 MVPP Starcompanies.

The incidence rates atthe Midwest DistributionCenter are well below the industry average fortheir NAICS code 49311– General Warehousingand Storage. Their total case incidence rate(TCIR) was 3.8 in 2003, 2.8 in 2004, and 2.5 in2005-compared to the Bureau of Labor Statis-tics (BLS) industry average of 10.1 in 2003, 9.3in 2004, and 8.4 in 2005. The total day’s away/restricted cases (DART) rate was 2.9 in 2003,1.4 in 2004, and 1.3 in 2005-compared to theBLS industry average of 7.5 in 2003, and 5.6 in2004 and 2005.

“National VPP sites experience 60 to 80 per-cent less lost work day injuries than would beexpected of an average site in their industry,” saidKalinowski. “Not only does the MVPP programsignificantly reduce injuries and illnesses–it alsohas a tremendous impact on the bottom line.”

The Midwest Distribution Center employsabout 275 workers, and is the company’s main

warehousing and distributioncenter for office furniture. TheMIOSHA review team con-sisted of Doug Kimmel, CETMVPP Specialist & TeamLeader; Cindy Zastrow, M.S.,CET Industrial Hygienist; andKristin Osterkamp, CSP/CIH, CET Industrial Hygien-ist. The team conducted 36 for-mal and 12 informal interviewsduring the site visit. The teamexamined each of the requiredelements of their safety andhealth management system, andfound them to effectively ad-dress the scope and complex-ity of the hazards at the site.

Becoming an Industry LeaderHerman Miller’s corporate mission is to cre-

ate great places to work. A key element of theirmission is to create a safe, healthy and produc-tive work environment for their own employees.Midwest Distribution employees participate inthe facility’s safety and health efforts throughteams, committee membership, a suggestion pro-gram and physical inspections.

Areas of excellence include:Stellar housekeeping;Vehicle safety and pedestrian walkways;Alarmed gates at loading docks; andErgonomic checklists that provide valu-

able information for ergonomic improvements.Herman Miller helps create great places to

work, heal, learn, and live by researching, design-ing, manufacturing, and distributing innovativeinterior solutions that support companies, orga-nizations, and individuals all over the world. Thecompany’s award-winning products, comple-mented by furniture management and strategicconsulting services, generated over $1.73 billionin revenue during fiscal 2006.

Herman Miller is widely recognized both forits innovative products and business practices,having been named recipient of the prestigiousNational Design Award for product design fromthe Smithsonian Institution’s Cooper-Hewitt,National Design Museum.

In 2007, the company was again included inCRO magazine’s “100 Best Corporate Citizens”and was cited by Fortune magazine as the “MostAdmired” company in its industry. The companytrades on the NASDAQ market under the sym-bol MLHR.” For additional information visitwww.HermanMiller.com.

4

Emergency rescue workers responded to the Maco Concretetrench collapse where worker Jeffrey Padot was fatallyinjured in a cave-in.

Company Pleads No Contest to Felony Charge of aMIOSHA Violation Causing Death and Pays $10,000 Fine

Maco Concrete SentencingTeen Workers Campaign

Young workers experience higher rates ofwork-related injuries than other workers. TheNational Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) estimates that at least 100,000young workers nationwide seek treatment in anemergency room for a work-related injury everyyear. Annually, at least 70 young people are killednationwide on the job, which is double the fatal-ity rate of adult workers.

The 2007 MIOSHA “Extreme Safety” cam-paign focuses on three high-hazard industrieswhere young workers often find employment –the construction, food service and lawn care in-dustries. Fact sheets for each of these industrieshave been developed.Construction

The construction fact sheet identifies re-stricted activities and those typically performedby teens. Primary hazards including working fromheights, electrical shock, working around movingor rotating equipment, chemical and thermal burns,lifting and temperature extremes are outlined andsolutions provided.Food Service

The food service fact sheet outlines typicalwork activities and age restrictions for certain jobs.Eleven categories of primary hazards includinglifting and carrying heavy objects, slippery floors,use of sharp knives and equipment, deep fat fry-ers, electrical shock, cleaning chemicals, work-place violence and noisy environments are identi-fied. Recommendation for avoiding injury andstaying safe are provided.Lawn Care industries

The lawn care industries fact sheet also pro-vides typical activities performed by young work-ers, the primary hazards associated with workactivity, and solutions for avoiding hazards. Thefact sheet provides solutions to typical hazardsincluding cuts, heat stress, lighting, eye injuries,use of chemicals and pesticides, insect bites andnoisy environments.

On June 1, 2007, a special mailing was sentto high schools throughout the state encouragingtheir support by providing the fact sheets andthe special MIOSHA “Extreme Safety: Impor-tant Facts for Working Teens” brochure to stu-dents interested in seeking work.

The fact sheets and the “Extreme Safety” bro-chure are posted on the MIOSHA website atwww.michigan/gov/miosha. In addition, thewebsite includes a 31-slide PowerPoint program,“Extreme Safety,” providing basic safety andhealth information.

On April 19, 2007, in Oakland County Cir-cuit Court, Maco Concrete Inc., of St. Clair Shores,pled no contest to the felony charge of a MIOSHAviolation causing death, for the workplace fatal-ity of Jeffrey Padot. On May 31st, the com-pany was sentenced to pay the maximum fine of$10,000, which was given to the victim’s youngsurviving son.

“Maco Concrete employee Jeffrey Padotworked unprotected in an eight-foot trench thatcollapsed and killed him,” said DLEG DirectorKeith W. Cooley. “Employers will be held ac-countable for their actions. If Maco Concrete hadprovided adequate safeguards and fulfilled theirobligation to provide a safe work environmentfor their employees, this tragedy could have beenprevented.”Fatal Trench Cave-in

The Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (MIOSHA) investigatedthe cave-in and found that Maco Concrete vio-lated the most basic provisions of the MIOSHAtrenching standard.

On April 23, 2006, Maco Concrete was dig-ging an excavation of a new sewer line in AddisonTownship. Padot and another employee werelaying sewer pipe in an unprotected excavationapproximately eight feet deep, with sides thatwere nearly vertical.

The MIOSHA investigation revealed that thecompany had at least three non-fatal trench cave-in incidents within two months prior to the fatalcave-in that took place on April 23rd.To ensure worker safety at excavationsmore than five feet deep, walls must besloped or shored, or trench shields orboxes must be used, to prevent seriousinjuries or fatalities.

Trench sloping and support sys-tems are required by the MIOSHAConstruction Safety Standard, Part 9,Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring.This standard covers the digging of ex-cavations and trenches that an em-ployee is required to enter, and the sup-porting systems used on constructionoperations. Part 9 also requires atrained and experienced “qualified per-son” to evaluate excavation hazards.Criminal Prosecution

On Dec. 18, 2006, MIOSHA citedMaco Concrete, Inc., with $103,600 inproposed penalties for allegedly fail-ing to adequately protect employeesfrom trenching and excavation hazards.

The company received a combined total of threealleged willful violations with a proposed pen-alty of $99,400; and two alleged serious viola-tions with a proposed penalty of $4,200.

Based on provisions in the MIOSH Act, Pub-lic Act 154, as amended, every willful violation,which is connected to a fatality, is referred to theMichigan Attorney General’s Office for criminalinvestigation and/or prosecution. On Dec.19,2006, criminal charges were filed against MacoConcrete, Inc., by the Attorney General’s Office.

“Employers have a responsibility to ensurethe physical safety of their workers. When anemployer fails to follow the law and our state’ssafety regulations, there must be consequences,”said Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.MIOSHA Awareness Campaign

Because of the recognized higher hazards inexcavation and trenching, these work operationsare a focus in the MIOSHA five-year strategicplan. MIOSHA is coordinating an awareness cam-paign to remind employers that employee train-ing is required – and to provide training opportu-nities through the Consultation Education andTraining (CET) Division.

Companies can contact the CET Division at517.322.1809 for construction consultation, edu-cation and training services. For more informa-tion on MIOSHA standards and excavation andtrenching hazards, companies can contact theConstruction Safety and Health (CSH) Divisionat 517.322.1856.

Summer 2007

5

In March, SKD Automotive Group’s Jonesville facility celebratedmore than 3,000,000 work hours without a lost time accident.

Safety and Health Systems PayBy: Quenten Yoder, Safety ConsultantConsultation Education and Training Division

SKD Jonesville Estimates a $15 to $1 Return on Safety Investment!

In March 2007, I had the good fortune tovisit a company that serves as an excellent ex-ample of management commitment to workersafety and health.

The SKD Automotive Group Jonesville fa-cility produces automotive stampings and sub-assemblies. SKD Automotive Group is headquar-tered in Troy, and is a tier one supplier of metalstampings, components and weldments to theautomotive industry in North America.

I was invited, along with CET Division Su-pervisor Bill Lykes, to join in celebrating a re-markable milestone in the history of the SKDJonesville plant. The plant had achieved workinga total of 3,138,000 hours without incurring anylost time accidents. This amounts to 1,320 dayswithout a lost time accident!Successful Systems Approach

In the Winter 2007 MIOSHANews, I published an article, “ProblemSolving: A Systems Approach.” The ar-ticle discussed the need to develop acomprehensive safety and health sys-tem that complements, rather than con-flicts, with the other systems designedto enhance quality and production.What we witnessed during our visit toSKD Jonesville was the result of suc-cessful systems integration.

How did this plant employing 360people accomplish this feat? It wasthrough strong, ongoing safety andhealth efforts that started with firmmanagement commitment.

If you have been a regular reader ofthe MIOSHA News, you are mostlikely familiar with the five elements ofa successful safety and health system: manage-ment commitment, employee involvement,worksite analysis, hazard prevention and con-trol, and safety and health training. All of theseelements are vital to an effective system.

However, if you have management commit-ment, all the other elements will fall into place.There is no doubt that this is the case at SKD.Safety & Health Systems Pay

There were a number of speakers at the cer-emony including Jim Barry, President of Na-tional Materials LP, an affiliated company thatsponsors an annual safety award that Jonesvillehas previously received, and Jeff Daniel, VicePresident of Operations for SKD. Interestingly,a number of representatives were there repre-

senting SKD’s customers. Barry addressed theimportance of their safety system and stated itwas not to be compromised by production orquality concerns. “It just makes good businesssense,” he stated.

The celebration included a steak dinner for allemployees, and prize drawings, including a com-plete home computer system. The total cost ofthe event was approximately $20,000. When Iasked about this cost, I was informed by RossPechta, Human Resources Manager, and TomSchneider, Safety and Workers CompensationManager, that they estimate that the cost of thecelebration, as well as the cost of maintainingtheir safety system, returns about fifteen dol-lars for every dollar spent! And this is just forthose costs related to workers’ compensation.

Steve Orey, Plant Manager for SKDJonesville, echoed this thought. His commitmentis evident in their pre-shift managerial meetings.

In these meetings, safety problems are discussedbefore dealing with quality and production is-sues. This interfacing of safety, quality and pro-duction ensures system compatibility.Systems Approach Strong Points

Employees at SKD are involved in theirsafety effort in a number of different ways. Themost obvious is through participation in the safetycommittee. This committee meets monthly andis comprised of 21 staff, including the Plant Man-ager, the Operations Manager, the Human Re-sources Manager, the Safety and Workers’ Com-pensation Manager, and supervisor and hourlypersonnel representatives.

The safety committee reviews occurrencesand near misses, discusses and implements cor-

rective actions and posts the corrective actions,complete with pictures when appropriate, forgeneral employee review. The committee alsoconducts regular workplace audits designed touncover rule violations and other potential haz-ards. Consequently, this group is heavily involvedin worksite analysis activities.

Recommendations on the selection and useof personal protective equipment (PPE) are an-other role of the committee. PPE for all employ-ees and visitors consists of a hard hat, steel-toedshoes, safety glasses, hearing protection and armguards. Even though a visitor would not ordi-narily come into contact with the sharp edge of apart, arm guards are required. This PPE was re-quired of guests at the celebration as they walkedthrough the plant, because it would set a badexample to make an exception.

Training is another strong point of their safetysystem. Pechta and Schneider stated that over

the past year they have conductedsafety programs in 34 distinct areas.Each year the Human Resources de-partment creates a spreadsheet withdates and subjects of the proposedtraining. This serves as a training recordand plan. SKD also has an extensivenew employee orientation program thatgoes beyond training required byMIOSHA standards.Integration Equals Success

My previous MIOSHA News ar-ticle stated, “If all systems are func-tioning optimally accidents and illnesseswill not occur.” Further, “…all sys-tems are interrelated.” And, finally“…if systems conflict, all impactedsystems will be compromised.”

From my experience with SKDJonesville, it is obvious that significant

efforts are made to resolve problems and integra-tion in areas of machine guarding, machine instal-lation and MIOSHA rule interpretation. This doesnot mean that difficulties do not arise.

In order to be relevant, systems must evolveand be perfected. It is a never-ending task. SKDhas not been free of MIOSHA citations. Theyhave not been free of recordable injuries. Nor,have they been free of restricted workdays andjob transfer cases.

But, it is apparent that they have a proactiveapproach to dealing with system inconsistenciesand failures. Their efforts are an excellent exampleof management commitment, and the success oftheir safety and health system is definitely en-hancing their bottom line.

6

Residential ConstructionWo o d T ru s s B r a c i n gBy: Richard Kawucha, Senior Safety OfficerJeremy Hidalgo, Safety OfficerConstruction Safety and Health Division

Residential construction is an area of the con-struction industry that is receiving an increasedemphasis from the MIOSHA Program.

The construction industry is one of the mosthazardous industries in Michigan. Only aboutfour percent of Michigan’s workforce is employedin construction–however, construction fatalitiesaccount for nearly 50 percent of all fatal work-place accidents.

Many residential contractors are small op-erators. These contractors do not have the re-sources to hire staff with health and safety ex-pertise, and frequently have little expertise inhealth and safety themselves. However, whenwe review MIOSHA accident and fatality inves-tigation activity, it becomes clear there are haz-ards that need to be addressed.

In an effort to show a greater presence in thisarea, the MIOSHA Construction Safety andHealth Division (CSHD) is focusing more re-sources toward inspections in residential con-struction. This emphasis includes single-familydwellings and multiple family units.Modern Wood Trusses

Metal plate connected wooden trusses havebeen a tremendous boon to the housing industry.

Previously, a team of carpenters would takedays to layout, cut, and assemble long lengths of2x8s and 2x10s to form the framework supportingroofs and floors. Now, the modern trusses are pre-fabricated off-site, under controlled conditions, andcreating closer tolerances.

From a builders’ standpoint modern woodtrusses have five distinct advantages:

1. Engineered trusses are extremely strong.2. Constructed from short lengths of 2x4

lumber, there is a tremendous cost savings. (Aside benefit being better use of natural resources.)

3. With Computer Aided Drawing(CAD) facilities, custom-built shapessuch as cathedral ceilings are becomingcommonplace and less costly.

4. Trusses can span large distanceswith all the weight transmitted to theexterior walls. This makes the non-loadbearing interior walls more flexible andeasily moved.

5. Metal plate connected woodentrusses are also quickly installed.

For all their strengths, metal plateconnected wooden trusses also havesome distinct disadvantages. Maximumstrength and stability is only obtainedwhen all the components of the structurebeing built have been properly installed(e.g. sheathing, permanent bracing).

Taking shortcuts in these areas is arecipe for disaster. Unacceptable short-cuts include:

1. Inadequate temporary bracing(1x4s instead of 2x4s, only betweentwo trusses, short pieces of 2x4s fortop chords, not enough exterior groundbracing, only one nail per truss insteadof two, lack of both diagonal and lateralbracing).

2. Overloading the trusses orpoint-loading the trusses.

3. Installation of damaged/improp-erly repaired trusses.

4. Unauthorized changes tothe trusses.

5. Inadequate connections to truss supportstructures (no nails, nails too small, not toe-nailed).

Until the final nail is driven in place, the mod-ern truss assembly must depend on “bracing”(temporary/permanent) being properly installed.MIOSHA Investigation Case Studies

Below are two recent MIOSHA investiga-tions of accidents where employees have beenseriously injured or died, which illustrate the haz-ards in wood truss bracing.

Case Study #1: Three carpenters were align-ing 35 metal plate connected wood trusses theyhad just finished setting. A fourth carpenter wason the ground cutting bracing lumber for them.The building’s four exterior walls were not bracednor were there any interior walls that might havebraced them. No diagonal bracing was installed,some lateral bracing was in place and only 27-inch long “spacers” were used (all bracing con-sisted of 1x4s with one nail on each end).

All the trusses collapsed sending three em-ployees to the hospital with back injuries, contu-sions, and broken bones. The employer was citedfor lack of training for the employees in trussinstallation procedures, inadequately bracing thetruss support walls, and not following the trussdesign engineer and Wood Truss Council require-ments for truss installation (included with thetruss shipment).

Case Study #2: Three carpenters were align-ing metal plate wood trusses on the walls of abuilding. There was insufficient bracing on thetruss support walls, and inadequate lateral anddiagonal bracing (internal/external) on the trusses.When the trusses collapsed, one carpenter waskilled and a second received lacerations and bruises.

The employer was cited for lack of trainingfor the employees in truss installation procedures,not recognizing the hazards associated with inad-equately braced truss support walls, and not fol-lowing the truss design engineer and Wood TrussCouncil requirements for truss installation (in-cluded with the truss shipment).

In most truss collapses there is usually oneof two reasons for the accident:

1. The trusses did not have adequate erec-tion (temporary) bracing installed (lateral and/ordiagonal).

2. The structure supporting the trusses, iseither structurally unable to carry the loads, oritself is not braced adequately.Proper Wood Truss Bracing

Trusses can only do the job for which theyTaking unacceptable shortcuts when installing wood trussbracing is a recipe for disaster.

Bad Example: These “spacers” are too short and have onlyone nail at each end. “Spacers” should never be used fortemporary bracing.

Cont. on Page 18

Summer 2007

7

Cont. on Page 19

Workplace Heat HazardsCase Study: Restaurant IndustryBy: Lynn Totsky, Industrial HygienistGeneral Industry Safety & Health Division

The automatic dishwashers, ovens, fryers, and burners in this kitchenall contribute to the heat hazards faced by the workers.

Hot environments in a wide range of indus-tries present serious hazards to employee safetyand health. Heat stress, the combination of heat,humidity and physical labor, can lead to seriousillness and even death.

Long exposure to extreme heat or too muchactivity under a hot sun causes excessive perspi-ration, which can lead to heat exhaustion. Symp-toms include headache and a feeling of weaknessand dizziness accompanied by nausea and vom-iting, there may also be cramps.

In heat exhaustion there is excessive perspi-ration. By contrast, in heat stroke, there is anabsence of perspiration; an extremely high bodytemperature; hot, dry skin; confusion; and lossof consciousness and/or convulsions. An ex-tremely high body temperature can cause death.

Treatment for heat exhaustion includes:Move the person to a cool environment

(i.e. a well-ventilated or shaded area).Remove or loosen their clothing.Increase the consumption of fluids. (Do

not force an unconscious person to drink.)For heat stroke or if the person is uncon-

scious:Reduce the body’s temperature as rap-

idly as possible via a cool water or sponge bath;fan the body surface.

Contact a physician immediately.

Case Study: Restaurant IndustryIn July of 2006, MIOSHA received an em-

ployee complaint regarding heat stress in a res-taurant. The complaint alleged that employeeswere working in 95-degree temperatures, theyfelt dehydrated, the temperature may have af-fected an employee’s breathing, an employee wassent to the emergency room for heat exhaustion,and the conditions were unworkable.Investigation Background

While there are no MIOSHA regulations re-quiring temperatures to be kept under a certaindegree, Section 11(a) of Act 154 (the GeneralDuty Clause) requires the employer to furnishto each employee, employment and a place ofemployment which is free from recognized haz-ards that are causing, or are likely to cause, deathor serious physical harm to the employee.

Work operations involving high air tempera-tures, radiant heat sources, high humidity, andstrenuous physical work activities have a highpotential for inducing heat stress in employees

engaged in such operations. The work operationsidentified in this investigation involved employeescooking at a grill in the kitchen, chefs cooking in thedining room, and workers dishwashing in thekitchen of a restaurant. Employees had developedand experienced heat-induced disorders such as heatexhaustion, fainting and heat fatigue, for approxi-mately two weeks prior to the investigation.Investigation Measurements

During the investigation wet bulb globe tem-perature (WBGT) measurements were obtained.WBGT offers a useful, first-order index of theenvironmental contribution toheat stress; it is influenced byair temperature, radiant heatand humidity, but does not ac-count for all the interactions be-tween an employee and the en-vironment.

During the investigation theWBGT measurements indicatedemployees were exposed toreadings ranging from 77.9 to96.3 °F on July 28, 2006, andfrom 82.4 to 93.2 °F on August2, 2006. It was noted there wereoutdoor record high tempera-ture of 96 °F on July 31, 2006,and 97 °F on August 1, 2006.Heat Stress Violations

The investigation of em-ployee exposure to heat stress in this workplaceresulted in a citation of the General Duty Clausebeing issued, based on known industry standards.

The American Conference of GovernmentalIndustrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) provides gen-eral controls to deal with heat stress from air tem-perature, as well as the interactions between em-ployees and the environment. The interactionsbelow were investigated during the inspection.

Heat Reduction – During the investigationit was noted that employees were exposed to ra-diant heat during the cooking process and wereexposed to steam while dishwashing. The em-ployer had not provided shielding, the ventilationabove the dishwasher designed for removal ofsteam was not functioning, and cooling garmentsand portable air chillers were not utilized.

An employer should shield employees fromradiant heat sources, and reduce process heat andwater-vapor release. Cooling garments (vests, ban-danas) can be worn to reduce the heat exposure toemployees and portable air chillers can be used.

Ventilation – During the investigation it wasnoted that air conditioning was provided in the

dining room and office areas, but there was no airconditioning supplied to the kitchen area for cook-ing and dishwashing. It was also noted that theair conditioning in the dining room was not func-tioning at the time of the inspection. Circulatingfans were used in the kitchen areas; however, itwas not effective since air that exceeds 95 °F canincrease the heat load on the body.

An employer should provide general airmovement through use of supply and exhaustventilation.

Administrative Controls – During the in-

vestigation it was noted that breaks were not takenby employees according to the ACGIH® recom-mendations for frequency found in Table 2 of theHeat Stress section of the Threshold Limit Val-ues (TLV) booklet. Employees were not allowedsufficient recovery time for heat exposure. Breaksthat were taken by dishwashers and dining roomchefs were taken outdoors in a hot environment,not in a cool area.

An employer should set acceptable exposuretimes to heat, should allow sufficient recoveryfor employees exposed to heat, and should limitphysiological strain by reducing heavy activity.As metabolic rate increases from work demand,an employee’s exposure to heat stress can resultin an excessive heart rate and elevated body coretemperature by not allowing for proper recoveryfrom heat exposure for the body.

Training – During the investigation it wasnoted that employees were not trained on thesigns of symptoms of heat stress and were notpermitted to practice self limitation to exposure.

Employers should train employees and su-

8

A group of Michigan Rubber Products production team membersaccepted the Ergonomic Success Award on behalf of all employees.

Michigan Rubber ProductsExemplary Company Receives State’s Highest Ergonomic Award

Michigan Rubber Products of Cadillac re-ceived the Ergonomic Success Award fromMIOSHA on April 20th.

This is the first Ergonomic Success Awardissued to an employer since April 2005.

The ergonomic improvements at the facilityhave significantly reduced the number of repeti-tive motion injuries for its employees – from sevenin 2004 to one in 2005.Ergonomic & Economic Success

DLEG Director Keith W. Cooley andMIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski presentedthe award to General Manager Dennis Robertsand a group of production team members, whoaccepted on behalf of all employees. Rep. Dar-win Booher (District 102) and other state andlocal officials congratulated Michigan Rubber onthe success of their ergonomic improvements.

“Michigan Rubber Products is at the fore-front of the rubber and plastics industries. It is anhonor to recognize both their ergonomic achieve-ments and their economic success,” said Cooley.“They are helping lead Michigan’s economic re-covery by their outstanding commitment to prod-uct improvement through research, technologyand innovation.”

MIOSHA’s Consultation Education & Train-ing (CET) Division issues the Ergonomic Suc-cess Award to employers for instituting ergonomicimprovements and substantially reducing trau-matic strain and sprain injuries and cumulativetrauma disorder illnesses.

The criteria for the award are stringent andinclude the following:

An incidence rate below the rate for theirNAICS Code,

At least a 25 percent reduc-tion of injuries,

Improvement achieved throughengineering controls, and

Employee input.“I’m extremely proud of our team

here at Michigan Rubber Products,”said Roberts. “We work very hard atour safety program and it paid off bybeing the first company since April2005, to receive this prestigious awardfrom the state of Michigan.”Safety & Sustainability Recognition

The North American IndustryClassification System (NAICS) codefor Michigan Rubber is 326299 – AllOther Rubber Product Manufactur-ing. The company has lowered theirtotal case incident rate (TCIR) from

10.65 in 2004, to 4.7 in 2005, which is below theindustry average of 10.3 for 2005. The companyis also ISO 14001 registered for operating in anenvironmentally sustainable manner and ISO/TS16949 registered for automotive specific qualitystandards.

Michigan Rubber has made extensive ergo-nomic improvements throughout their facilities,which has significantly reduced musculoskeletalinjuries. Ergonomic improvements help employ-ees work safely without needing to over-lift, over-reach, sit or stand too long, or use awkward pos-tures. They received the MIOSHA ErgonomicInnovation Award on October 17, 2005. CETSafety Consultant Tony Neroni has providedconsultation and training services to the company.

Michigan Rubber’s ergonomic changes in-clude:

Electric presses – Slide rails were installedto move the parts and an automated punch outplate is used to remove the parts. The new pro-cess eliminates lifting and reduces pushing, pull-ing and twisting.

Compression presses – The mold movesautomatically, rather than by chain hoists, swing-ing plates, crow bars, and safety bars; eliminatinglifting, pulling, pushing, and improving body po-sition.

Extrusion department – Adjustable workstations were installed. These stations can be ad-justed to individual operators and improves bodyposture and reduces repetition and static holdingand gripping.

Splice mold area – The part was mountedon a movable frame to eliminate pushing, pullingand bending over.

Autoclave track area – The track was re-designed to eliminate lifting into the autoclave.

Injection presses – A robot was installedin the injection plant, eliminating the need for theoperator to manually lift the parts.

Verification machines – This new machineautomatically inserts sensors into the parts, elimi-nating twisting and turning.

“Work-related musculoskeletal disorders ac-count for nearly 60 percent of workers’ compen-sation cases each year in Michigan,” saidKalinowski. “Companies like Michigan Rubberthat effectively address ergonomic hazards in theworkplace reap the economic benefits of increasedquality and productivity – while they protecttheir workers.”Cutting Edge Products

For more than 30 years, Michigan RubberProducts (www.michigan-rubber.com) has pro-vided components, systems, and solutions of thehighest quality to the automotive, heavy truck,recreation, appliance and industrial markets uti-lizing cutting edge technologies and a thoroughintegration of industrial disciplines.

With 390 employees, Michigan Rubber manu-factures engineered rubber products for the auto-motive industry in four categories: engine air in-duction hoses and assemblies, noise vibrationdampers, tubing components, and static seals andgaskets. They manufacture more than 400 prod-ucts utilizing rubber extrusion and injection, com-pression, and transfer molding.

Michigan Rubber provides customers withfull service capabilities from engineering and CADsystems, solid modeling design of new compo-nents, to a fully equipped laboratory for research,

development, and new material com-position. With the facilities and equip-ment to handle the most demandingproduction schedules, they have thecapabilities to exceed all customer re-quirements for quality, cost, and on-time delivery.

Michigan Rubber is part of MyersIndustries, Inc., an international manu-facturer of polymer products for in-dustrial, agricultural, automotive, com-mercial, and consumer markets. Thecompany is also the largest wholesaledistributor of tools, equipment, andsupplies for the tire, wheel andundervehicle service industry in theUnited States. Myers Industries,www.myersindustries.com, had recordnet sales of $780 million in 2006.

Summer 2007

9

By: Tommy Kesterson, Industrial HygienistGeneral Industry Safety and Health Division

Exposure to IsocyanatesCase Study: Spray Painting

This ventilated spray booth is used for painting operations, and hasbeen recently extended in order to handle larger parts.

Isocyanates are compounds containing theIsocyanate group (-NCO). They react with com-pounds containing alcohol (hydroxyl) groups toproduce polyurethane polymers, which are com-ponents of polyurethane foams, thermoplasticelastomers, spandex fibers, and polyurethanepaints. Isocyanates are the raw materials thatmake up all polyurethane products.

Jobs that may involve exposure to isocyan-ates include painting, foam-blowing, and spraycoating. Employee exposures to isocyanates mayoccur during the thermal degradation of polyure-thane products and also during manufacturing ofmany polyurethane products such as, polyure-thane foam, insulation materials, surface coatings,car seats, furniture, foam mattresses, under-car-pet padding, packaging materials, shoes, lami-nated fabrics, polyurethane rubber, and adhesives.Health Effects of Isocyanates

Isocyanates can cause asthma. Symptoms canoccur soon after exposure or several hours later.Isocyanates can also cause hypersensitivity pneu-monitis, a lung disease whose symptoms includefever, body aches, shortness of breath, and coughwith phlegm or sputum. Exposure to isocyanatesmay also cause irritation of skin and mucous mem-branes, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing.

Isocyanates are “sensitizers.” About one outof 20 people who work with isocyanates becomes“sensitized” to them. Being “sensitized” to iso-cyanates means that you may have an asthmaattack any time you are exposed to them, even toextremely small amounts. Sensitivity to isocyan-ates can be permanent.The Painting Operation

This case deals with a spray-on polyurethanecoating. Spray-on polyurethane coatings havemany product applications due to their high ten-sile strength, abrasion resistance, chemical andcorrosion resistance and waterproof nature.

The operation involved spray painting largeparts used on machines designed for the foodpackaging industry. The paint in question waschosen for its chemical and corrosive resistanceand waterproofing qualities. It contained 1-5%Methylene Bisphenyl Isocyanate (MDI) and 45-70% MDI based Polyisocyanate. All sprayingoperations were conducted inside an enclosed andventilated spray booth.

Due to the large size of parts being sprayed,the company added an additional eight feet to thespray booth. The spray painter transferred the

paint directly into the small potthat was part of the spray gun.At the time of the investigation,the employee’s worktable waslocated at the far end of thespray booth away from the ex-haust ventilation. The em-ployee would spray small partson fixed/stationary racks whilethe large parts (some weighingseveral tons) were maneuveredthrough the doors at the end ofthe spray booth.

Employees were requiredto wear a half-face or a full-facerespirator with cartridges andpre-filters. There was a writtenrespiratory protection program, but it was notspecific to the operations at the site and did notestablish respirator cartridge change schedules.Employees interviewed indicated that they wouldchange cartridges when breathing resistance in-creased significantly or after prolonged periodsof use.

This is not appropriate, since isocyanates havepoor warning properties and exposures can occurif the cartridges are not changed in accordance withan established change schedule. Other personalprotective equipment included latex gloves, tyveksuits and hoods, a face shield or goggle if half-facerespirators were used, and duct tape to seal allopening around the gloves and boots.The MIOSHA Investigation

Air monitoring for MDI was conducted byMIOSHA for the master painter at the facility.This employee was responsible for applying theIsocyanate containing paint onto the various parts.The Ceiling Limit of MDI is 0.2 mg/m3. The re-sults of the initial sampling were as follows:

Sample #1 (while performing paint trans-fer and set up operations) 0.16 mg/m3.

Sample #2 (while performing paint spray-ing operations) 0.25 mg/m3.

Sample #3 (while performing paint spray-ing operation) 0.30 mg/m3.

Based on the air monitoring results and in-vestigation findings, citations were issued for thefollowing violations:

Exposing an employee to a concentrationof MDI in excess of the Final Rule Limit of 0.2mg/m3 which is listed in Table G-1-A under Ceil-ing column of the Air Contaminant Standard, Part301, Rule 3(a)(iii) and not implementing feasibleengineering, administrative and work practice

controls to reduce the employee’s exposure.Not developing and implementing a writ-

ten respiratory protection program where respi-rators were necessary to protect the health ofemployees (spray booth operators) per Respira-tory Protection Standard, Part #451,1910.134(c)(1).

Not ensuring that spray booth operatorsusing a tight-fitting face piece respirator passedan appropriate qualitative or quantitative fit testas stated in paragraph (f) of the Respiratory Pro-tection Standard, Part #451, 1910.134(f)(1).

Not ensuring that employees receivedannual training in accordance with (k)(5)(I)through (k)(5)(iii) of the Respiratory ProtectionStandard, Part #451, 1910.134(k)(5).

Not providing effective information andtraining to employees on isocyanates in their workarea at the time of their initial assignment, as speci-fied in the Hazard Communication Standard, Part#430, 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1), (2), and (3).

Corrective Actions by the EmployerIn response to the investigation findings and

MIOSHA recommendations, the following cor-rective actions were instituted by the employerin the spray-painting operations:

The painter was instructed not to placehis body between the exhaust ventilation and thepart being sprayed and that he should always beupwind of the point of operation.

The small parts racks were reconstructedto allow the painter to manipulate the angle anddirection of the parts to maintain the sprayingoperation between his body and the exhaust ven-tilation.

The painter was instructed to spray theCont. on Page 19

10

WEB UpdateBy: Amber Sweeney, SecretaryGeneral Industry Safety and Health Division

To meet the varying demands of Michigan’scitizens, safety and health complaints can besubmitted online or forms can be printed andmailed to the MIOSHA office.

Every year, MIOSHA receives approxi-mately 3,000 complaints. Of those, roughly35 percent are received online. According tothe MIOSHA Field Operations Manual, com-plaints filed online are most likely to behandled via telephone call or letter to the em-ployer, not an actual onsite investigation. Eventhough there are no citations issued in thesecases, the employer is still required to correctany violations of MIOSHA regulations.

Written complaints received and signed bya current employee have the most likelihoodof resulting in an onsite investigation.MIOSHA may also use discretion to autho-rize onsite investigations for complaints re-porting:

Imminent danger situations;Injuries resulting in permanent disabili-

ties or illnesses that are chronic or irreversible;Alleged hazards covered by an empha-

sis program; orA company that has a history of in-

stance-by-instance, willful, or failure-to-abatecitations.

For construction operations, complaintsare also received via telephone, due to the rapidpace of jobsite change in the construction in-dustry.

When filing a safety and health complaint,regardless if it is filed online or written, theidentity of a complainant will be kept confi-dential unless the complainant wishes to maketheir identity part of the public record.

To file a complaint online or to print acopy of the MIOSHA complaint forms, pleasevisit our website at www.michigan.gov/mioshacomplaint. Employee Discriminationcomplaint forms may be printed from thewebsite as well.

Chemical FacilityAnti-terrorism Regulation

By: Michael T. Mason, Safety & Health ManagerGeneral Industry Safety and Health Division

On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) released aninterim final regulation that imposes for thefirst time a comprehensive federal securityregulation for high risk chemical facilities.

The regulation requires owners or op-erators of chemical facilities housing cer-tain quantities of specified chemicals tocomplete a preliminary screening assess-ment that determines the level of risk asso-ciated with the facility.Chemical Security Assessment

A chemical facility is any establishmentthat manufactures, uses, stores, or distrib-utes a chemical listed in “Appendix A:Chemicals of Interest” at or above theScreening Threshold Quantity. The newregulation does not apply to maritime ves-sels and port facilities, water treatmentplants, wastewater treatment plants, anyfacility owned/operated by the U.S. Depart-ment of Defense or the U.S. Department ofEnergy, and any facility subject to NuclearRegulatory Commission regulations.

All chemical facilities are required tocomplete and submit a Top Screen usingDHS’s Chemical Security Assessment Tool.If the DHS determines that a chemical facil-ity qualifies as high risk, its owners or op-erators will be required to prepare and sub-mit both a security vulnerability assessmentand a site security plan.

A security vulnerability assessment isthe process of determining the likelihood ofan adversary successfully exploiting a vul-nerability, and the resulting degree of dam-age or impact. A site security plan is a docu-ment that describes an owner’s or operator’s

plan to address security issues and relatedevents, including security assessment andmitigation options.

DHS requires all facilities to electroni-cally submit all required documentationthrough its online, web-based system. Inaddition, the DHS requires that only an of-ficer of the corporation can submit infor-mation to the DHS, and the corporate of-ficer must l ive in the United States ofAmerica.Order of Compliance

The new regulation preempts all stateand local chemical facility anti-terrorismlaws.

DHS can issue an Order of Compliancefor any instance of noncompliance, such asa chemical facility’s refusal to complete andsubmit the required Top Screen, failure toallow the DHS to conduct an inspection, orfailure to update a site security plan.

For repeated patterns of noncomplianceor for egregious instances of noncompliance,the DHS has the authority to seek compli-ance through the imposition of civil penal-ties of up to $25,000 per day during whichthe violation continues. DHS can also ordernon-compliant chemical facilities to ceaseoperations.

The DHS has established a category ofinformation, called “Chemical-terrorism Se-curity Vulnerability Information,” that willprotect certain chemical security informa-tion from inappropriate public disclosure.The Chemical-terrorism Security Vulnerabil-ity Information will include security vul-nerability assessments, site security plans,and other sensitive information and docu-mentation related to the development ofsecurity strategies.DHS & OSHA Regulatory Overlap

Because a potential overlap exists be-tween the new DHS security regulation andthe regulations enforced by other federalagencies, including OSHA, the DHS indi-cates that it will work closely with theseother federal agencies to ensure that regu-lated facilities can comply with applicableregulations while minimizing any duplication.

The DHS does not intend for their newregulation to impede the authority of OSHAor other federal agencies. There is no men-tion in the preamble of the new regulationon how the DHS intends to interact withstates who have their own OSHA program.

For more information on the new regu-lation, go to www.dhs.gov.

Summer 2007

11

Metalworking Industries of Michigan W.C. Fund AllianceMIOSHA and the Metalworking Industries

of Michigan Workers’ Compensation Fund (MIMW.C. Fund) signed a formal alliance on May 3rdto protect the safety and health of Michigan’smetalworking industry workers.

Mark Sledzinski, Fund Administrator,MIM W.C. Fund; and Doug Kalinowski, Di-rector, MIOSHA Program; signed the alliance.Also participating in the signing were the FundBoard of Trustees, which is composed of activeMIM W.C. Fund members.

“Keeping Michigan metalworking industryworkers safe and healthy on the job is the focusof this alliance,” said Kalinowski. “This proac-tive partnership between labor, industry and gov-ernment, can save lives by ensuring that workersafety and health plays an integral role in Fundmember’s workplaces.”

“The members and trustees of the Metal-working Industries of Michigan Workers’ Com-pensation Fund remain fully committed to theprinciples of workplace safety and this alliancesupports that philosophy,” said Sledzinski. “TheMIM W.C. Fund has been an industry leader inmaintaining a focus on education and training.”

The goals of this alliance include:Promoting and improving shop safety by

providing safety awareness and other outreach

activities across the state;Providing training and

education activities and encour-aging member participation;

Sponsoring CET Divi-sion seminars on power presssafety, safety and health man-agement systems, and lockout/tagout; and

Including articles inregular membership mailings onthe alliance, the seminars, andother safety issues.

Rising workers’ compensa-tion premiums in the late 1970sinspired a group of individualsin the metalworking trades to band together andform the Metalworking Industries of MichiganSelf-Funded Workers’ Compensation Program(MIM W.C. Fund) as an alternative to purchas-ing traditional insurance. Since its inception in1981, the group has grown to more than 150member companies, representing in excess of$6,000,000 in estimated premiums, with an aver-age experience modification of just 0.81.

The MIM W.C. Fund utilizes specializedunderwriting requirements which enable it to en-roll only metalworking companies that are ac-

tively managing their loss control and safety pro-grams to reduce claims costs. The Fund feels thata strong safety education and claims managementcommitment at the corporate level equates to lowclaims exposure for the entire group. This allowsthem the opportunity to potentially make largerreturns of surplus premiums.

For more information about forming an alli-ance or partnership with MIOSHA, please checkour website at www.michigan.gov/miosha or con-tact the Consultation Education and Training(CET) Division at 517.322.1809.

77th Annual Michigan Safety ConferenceThe Michigan Safety Conference (MSC) welcomed nearly 5,000 attendees to their 77th annual conference April 17th and 18th at DeVos Place & Amway

Grand Hotel in Grand Rapids. This new exciting location, with a bigger convention center, accommodated more exhibitors and conference amenities.The theme for this year’s conference was, “We teach what we live,” and attendees were encouraged to make safety an integral part of their lives. On

April 16th, AJ Hale, President of the 77th Annual MSC and EHS Engineer at Tenneco, presented the MSC annual awards to two outstanding volunteers.

Darryl C. Hill, MSC Distinguished ServiceAward; AJ Hale, President, 77th Annual MSC;and MaryAnn L. Northcote, MSC SafetyProfessional of the Year.

Safety Professional of the Year Distinguished Service AwardDarryl C. Hill, CSP

Safety & Health OfficerABB North America

Maryann Northcote has served a long anddistinguished career in safety. She was employedat St. Joseph Mercy Hospital as Director ofSafety and Security from 1978-1989.

Since 2001, she has served as Director of LossControl for the fourth largest U.S. Catholichealthcare system and has led the workers’ com-pensation, ergonomic, needlestick prevention, andsafe patient lifting teams. In addition, she pro-duces and implements template loss control pro-grams for ergonomics, slip and fall prevention,defensive driving, drug testing, smallpox preven-tion and return to work.

MaryAnn is a member of the national SafetyCouncil, National Fire Protection Association,American Society for Industrial Security and theMSC. She is a local and national speaker, due toher expertise in the field of safety and healthcare.

Darryl Hill has been active in the MSC since1995. He has served in each officer capacity andwas President in 2006. He has served on theMSC Board of Directors since 1998. He has beena member of the Industrial Division for 12 yearsand served as chair for four years.

Darryl is a member of the Promotion and Pub-licity Committee and the Scholarship Committee.He introduced the concept of conference spon-sors, and developed guidelines for session descrip-tion levels: basic, intermediate, and advanced.

Darryl is ABB North America Safety &Health Officer and is responsible for over 20,000employees and contractors. He is a frequentspeaker at national, state, and local safety con-ferences. He serves on the ASSE Executive Com-mittee and was named ASSE National Safety Pro-fessional of the Year in 1997.

MaryAnn L. Northcote, CPP, CHSP, CEADirector of Loss Control, Trinity HealthInsurance and Risk Management Services

12

CET AwardsMIOSHA recognizes the safety and healthachievements of Michigan employers andemployees through CET Awards, which arebased on excellent safety and healthperformance.

Employees at Acument Global Technologies – Goodrich Operationscelebrated receiving the Bronze Award from the MIOSHA Program.

The SYGMA Network’s Detroit Center employees’ safety achievements wererecognized with the MIOSHA Bronze Award.

Acument Global Technologies – Goodrich The SYGMA Network – Detroit CenterOn May 1st, Acument Global Technologies, Inc. – Goodrich Opera-

tions received the Bronze Award from the MIOSHA program for an out-standing safety and health record.

“We are proud to recognize Acument Global Technologies GoodrichOperations for its outstanding efforts to create a safe and healthy workenvironment,” said DLEG Director Keith W. Cooley. “They are to becongratulated for creating an environment where all employees accept re-sponsibility for workplace safety and health.”

MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski presented the award to GoodrichPlant Manager Greg Dyke, who accepted on behalf of the plant’s employ-ees. Local officials congratulated the company on its outstanding achieve-ment. Invited guests, management personnel and employees attended thepresentation and luncheon.

“Safety, quality, delivery, and profitability – in that order – are thecornerstones of our company, with safety ranking ahead of the others,”Dyke said. “Our employees truly embrace the importance of creating a safeworking environment for each other. Their actions have enabled us to dra-matically reduce recordable injuries and the risks that lead to them. Today’srecognition would not have been possible without the passionate involve-ment and participation of employees throughout our facility.”

The Goodrich facility established a safety and health system that usessafety performance indicators (SPI) as the basis for their annual EHS plan.Each Acument facility conducts a formal culture survey each year, anddevelops an action plan from the results. Each department at Goodrichconducts weekly EHS inspections, and findings and corrective actions aredocumented.

Acument’s Goodrich plant employs more than 60 workers and pro-duces fine-blanked automotive seating, power train, and suspension com-ponents for principally North American automotive OEMs and Tier sup-pliers.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., USA, Acument Global Technologies,Inc. is a leading provider of value-based fastening solutions. With about9,000 employees in 16 countries worldwide, the company suppliesfastening products, systems, and services to customers in more than150 countries.

May 31st, The SYGMA Network, Inc., Detroit Center, located inMonroe, received the Bronze Award from the MIOSHA program for anoutstanding safety and health record.

“We are honored to present this award to the employees and manage-ment of The SYGMA Network’s Detroit Center for their dedication toworkplace safety and health,” said DLEG Director Keith W. Cooley.“This award recognizes their outstanding efforts to protect their workers,while still meeting the challenge facing businesses today of being economi-cally competitive.”

MIOSHA Deputy Director Martha Yoder presented the award toGary Toth, Vice President and General Manager; and Melinda Buell,Human Resources Manager; who accepted on behalf of all employees.

“SYGMA Detroit has always been a leader in safety and health man-agement within the SYGMA system and prides itself on that fact,” saidToth. “Safety is truly part of the culture here at SYGMA Detroit and all ofour associates Walk the Talk every day.”

SYGMA-Detroit’s approach to workplace safety and health hasmade them a leader in Monroe County. They have fully integrated theSYGMA-Safe program into the culture of the SYGMA-Detroit organi-zation.

SYGMA-Detroit has also implemented several ergonomic interven-tions that have specifically helped to reduce injuries associated with orderselectors retrieving product from the storage racks. CET consultants havereviewed the ergonomic solutions and innovations developed by SYGMAemployees.

The SYGMA-Detroit Center employs 162 workers, and is a custom-ized chain distribution facility currently serving Michigan, Indiana, Ohioand Pennsylvania. All SYSCO facilities are committed to the highest integ-rity and ethics in serving their customers, partnering with their suppliersand working with their associates/employees.

The SYGMA Network, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SYSCOCorporation, a Fortune 100 company, and one of the largest foodservicedistributors in the United States. For the calendar year 2006, the companygenerated $33.9 billion in sales. For more information about SYSCO visitwww.sysco.com.

Summer 2007

13

Education & Training CalendarDate Course MIOSHA Trainer

Location Contact Phone

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.michigan.gov/miosha.

August22 MIOSHA Recordkeeping and Work-Comp Strategies Richard Zdeb

Auburn Hills Donna Preston 248.391.608122 MVPP and MSHARP Application Workshop Doug Kimmel

Plymouth Gloria Coffman 734.354.330222 & 23 Continuous Safety Improvement Linda Long

Flint Marlene Nicol 810.600.144028 Confined Space Entry Karen Odell

Southfield Jack Mihalko 248.858.8830September11 Mechanical Power Presses: Safety and Health Linda Long

Midland Gordon Burnside 989.837.233211 & 12 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Patrick Sullivan

Bloomfield Hills Patricia DuFresne 248.972.113313 Supervisors’ Role in Safety and Health Richard Zdeb

Auburn Hills Donna Preston 248.391.608113 Extreme Safety: Youth Worker Initiative Karen Odell

Howell Janie Willsmore 517.546.392019 Health Issues in the Healthcare Industry Dave Humenick

Holland Brian Cole 616.331.718025 Supervisors’ Role in Safety and Health Barry Simmonds

Escanaba Brent Madalinski 906.789.690225 & 26 Two-day Mechanical Power Press Seminar Jeff Kelley

Warren Holger Ekanger 586.498.410025 & 26 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Midland Gordon Burnside 989.837.233227 Industrial Robotic Safety Jeff Kelley

Warren Holger Ekanger 586.498.4100October3 Avoiding Electrocutions in Construction Patrick Sullivan

Bloomfield Hills Patricia DuFresne 248.972.11333, 10 & 17 Fundamentals of Safety and Health Micshall Patrick

Grand Rapids Wendy DeShone 616.698.11674 Powered Industrial Truck Train-the-Trainer Jennifer Clark-Denson

Monroe Barry Kinsey 734.384.41279 Avoiding Electrocutions in Construction Patrick Sullivan

Warren Deb Ross 586.498.411611 When MIOSHA Visits and Top 25 Serious Violations Lee Jay Kueppers

Warren Deb Ross 586.498.411617 Lockout and Machine Guarding Richard Zdeb

Warren Deb Ross 586.498.411623 & 24 MIOSHA 10-Hour Construction Course Patrick Sullivan

Warren Deb Ross 586.498.411625 Excavations: The Grave Danger Patrick Sullivan

Ann Arbor Larry Pickel 734.677.5259

14

Construction SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. D. Lynn Coleman

Mr. Patrick “Shorty” Gleason*Mr. Gregg A. Newsom

Mr. Larry RedfearnManagement

Mr. Donald V. StaleyMr. Peter Strazdas

Ms. Valerie J. Bradley**Vacant

General PublicVacant

General Industry SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. Dwayne F. Betcher*

Mr. William L. BorchMr. Karl E. Heim

Mr. Jeffrey RadjewskiManagement

Mr. Dennis M. Emery**Mr. Thomas J. Pytlik

Mr. George A. ReamerVacant

General PublicVacant

Occupational HealthStandards Commission

LaborMr. James B. CiancioloMr. Andrew J. Comai

Ms. Margaret Robinson Faville*Chief Ricardo L. Longoria

ManagementMr. David L. Glynn**

Mr. John E. MillerMr. Ronald J. Torbert

VacantGeneral Public

Mr. Satyam R. Talati

*Chair **Vice Chair To contact any of the Commissioners or the Standards Section, please call 517.322.1845.

Standards UpdatePart 39 – Design Safety Standard for Electrical SystemsMajor Revisions to General Industry Safety Standard

Bad example: Cover doors on electrical panelboxes must be kept closed during normalwork operations.

MIOSHA General Industry Safety StandardPart 39, Design Safety Standard for ElectricalSystems, has been revised to reflect the changesannounced in the Federal Register, publishedFebruary 14, 2007, as a final OSHA rule revi-sion.

The MIOSHA rule changes were filed withthe Michigan Secretary of State on June 11,2007, and take effect on June 27, 2007.

OSHA revised its electrical installation stan-dard in Subpart S in order to reflect the mostcurrent practices and technologies in the indus-try. The revised standard strengthens employeeprotections and adds consistency betweenOSHA’s requirements and many state and localbuilding codes which have adopted updated Na-tional Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E,which is based on the 1999 edition NationalElectrical Code.

“These are the first changes to the electricalinstallation requirements in 25 years, so it is important the standard reflects the most currentpractices and technologies in the industry,” said Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety andHealth Edwin G. Foulke Jr. “The revised standard strengthens employee protections and addsconsistency between OSHA’s requirements and many state and local building codes.”

Changes to OSHA’s general industry electrical installation standard focus on safety in thedesign and installation of electric equipment in the workplace. The updated standard includes:

A new alternative method for classifying and installing equipment in Class I hazardouslocations;

New requirements for ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs); andNew provisions on wiring for carnivals and similar installations.

The final rule updates the general industry electrical installation requirements to the 2000edition of the NFPA 70E, which was used as the foundation of the revised standard. The final rulealso replaces the reference to the 1971 National Electrical Code in the mandatory appendix to thepowered platform standard with a reference to OSHA’s electrical installation standard.

Hexavalent Chromium StandardPortland Cement Settlement Agreement

On April 6, 2007, federal OSHA signed a hexavalent chromium settlement agreement with theBuilding and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, et al., concerning Portland cement,which is not covered by OSHA’s hexavalent chromium standard. Under the agreement, OSHAwill implement new Portland Cement Inspection Procedures at all construction sites wherecompliance officers find employee exposures to Portland cement.

This settlement is an agreement to essentially highlight and enforce existing applicable stan-dards that were in place prior to the hexavalent chromium standard and establishing a trackingmechanism for projects using Portland cement. Those applicable standards include provisions forair contaminants, personal protective equipment, sanitation, hazard communication andrecordkeeping that apply to operations involving Portland cement.

Federal OSHA is developing a compliance directive to implement the settlement agreement.MIOSHA will review the directive and develop enforcement guidance for Michigan.

Summer 2007

15

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 05. Scaffolding (Joint w/GI-58 & CS-32) ........................................................ RFR approved by SOAHRPart 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers ...................................................................... Amended, effective 5/15/06Part 17. Refuse Packer Units .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 19. Crawler, Locomotive, & Truck Cranes ..................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 20. Underhung Cranes & Monorail Systems .................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 39. Design Safety Standards for Electrical Equipment ................................... Final, effective 6/27/07Part 58. Vehicle Mounted Elev. & Rot. Platforms (Joint w/GI-5 & CS 32) ............ RFR approved by SOAHRPart 62. Plastic Molding .......................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 76. Spray Finishing .......................................................................................... Final, effective 5/24/07Part 79. Diving Operations ...................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ..................................................................................... At Advisory Committe

ConstructionPart 01. General Rules ............................................................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 02. Masonry Wall Bracing .............................................................................. At Advisory CommitteePart 12. Scaffolds & Scaffold Platforms .................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 22. Signals, Signs, Tags & Barrucades .......................................................... Final, effective 11/20/06Part 26. Steel Erection ............................................................................................. Final, effective 3/29/07Part 28. Personnel Hoisting in Steel Erection ........................................................ Final, effective 3/29/07Part 29. Communication Towers ............................................................................. At Advisory CommitteePart 31. Diving Operations ...................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 32. Aerial Work Platforms (Joint w/GI 58) .................................................... RFR approved by SOAHR

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 301. Air Contaminants for General Industry .................................................... RFR approved by SOAHRPart 315. Chromimum (VI) for General Industry ...................................................... Final, effective 8/7/06Part 316. Diisocyanates ............................................................................................. RFR approved by SOAHRPart 451. Respiratory Protection .............................................................................. Final, effective 2/8/07Part 504. Diving Operations ...................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 526. Open Surface Tanks .................................................................................. Revised, effective 5/24/07Part 528. Spray Finishing Operations ...................................................................... RFR approved by SOAHRPart 529. Welding, Cutting & Brazing ..................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ..................................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePending Latex ........................................................................................................... At Advisory Committee

ConstructionPart 601. Air Contaminants for Construction .......................................................... RFR approved by SOAHRPart 604. Chromimum (VI) for Construction ............................................................ Final, effective 8/7/06

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of June 27, 2007)

The MIOSHA Standards Section assists in the promulgation of Michigan occupational safetyand health standards. To receive a copy of the MIOSHA Standards Index (updated March2006) or for single copies and sets of safety and health standards, please contact the StandardsSection at 517.322.1845, or at www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.

RFR Request for RulemakingSOAHR State Office of Admn. Hearings and RulesLSB Legislative Services BureauJCAR Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

16

V a r i a n c e sV a r i a n c e sFollowing are requests for variances andvariances granted from occupational safetystandards in accordance with rules of theDepartment of Labor & Economic Growth,Part 12, Variances (R408.22201 to 408.22251).

Published July 27, 2007

Variances Granted Construction

Variances Requested Construction

Variances Revoked General Industry

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 10 – Lifting & Digging Equipment:R408.41023a (1), Rule 1023a (1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to operate excavation equip-ment closer to 110/220 volt insulated service con-ductors than the clearances prescribed in table 1,provided certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerDalessandro Contracting GroupLocation for which variance is requestedDavison Rd. between Belsay Rd. & Vassar Rd., Burton

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 10 – Lifting & Digging Equipment:R408.41025, 1025a (12)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to make Multi-Lifts of up tofour bundles of re-steel at one time provided cer-tain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerColasanti Specialty Services, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGreektown Expansion Project

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 1 – General Rules: R408.40115, rule 115 (4)& (5) and Part 11 – Fixed and Portable Ladders:R408.41113, Rule 1113 (5) (6) (8) & (14), andR408.41115, Rule 1115 (8)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to paint steel lattice and poletowers ranging from 120 kV to 345 kV in theInternational Transmission Company territory (SeeExhibit A) located in Southeastern Michigan. Thework would commence immediately following thevariance approvals and continue until the end ofthe 2007 painting season.Name and address of employerMorris Painting, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedVarious Locations in Southeastern MI

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 32 – Aerial Work Platforms: R408.43209,Rule 3209, Rule 3209 (8) (b), Rule 3209 (8) (c),and Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure scaffold planksto the top of the intermediate rail of the guardrailsystem for use as a work platform, provided cer-tain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerAllied Ventilation, Inc.Location for which variance is requested

GM Powertrain Lab Consolidation, PontiacName and address of employerBristol Steel & Conveyor Corp.Location for which variance is requested2010 MY Phoenix Engine Program, Chrysler-Tren-ton Plant, TrentonName and address of employerConti ElectricLocation for which variance is requestedGM Powertrain Engineering Consolidation, PontiacName and address of employerDe-Cal Mechanical Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGM Powertrain Engineering Consolidation, PontiacName and address of employerDenn-Co Construction, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGM Powertrain One Lab, PontiacJ P Morgan Chase Data Center, BellevilleName and address of employerDependent Insulation Company Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSt. John Hospital, DetroitName and address of employerJohnson Controls, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGM Powertrain Engineering Consolidation, PontiacName and address of employerPace Mechanical Services, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Powertrain, PontiacName and address of employerPontiac Ceiling & Partition Co., LLCLocation for which variance is requestedUnited States Postal Service, Pontiac

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 32 – Aerial Work Platforms: R408.43209,rule 3209 (29)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to operate an aerial work plat-form from the deck of a floating vessel providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerAnlaan CorporationLocation for which variance is requestedUS 31 Bridge, Grand HavenName and address of employerMilbocker & Sons, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedLincoln Bridge over Cheboygan River, Cheboygan

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 10 – Lifting & Digging Equipment: Rule 1015a(2) (d)(f)(g)(h)(i), 1015a (3), 1015a (4); 1018a(1)(2)(21); 1019a (1); and 1021a (4)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the use of a suspended work platform tohoist or suspend personnel or to provide access toelevated work areas in a manner that exposes em-ployees to the least hazard practicable. All require-ments of Construction Safety Standard, Part 10.Lifting and Digging Equipment except Rule 1015a

Part 1, General Rules; Rule 34(3)Zurn Industries Inc., KalamazooPart 1A, Abrasive Wheels; Rule 122(1)Hovis Screwlock Co., WarrenPart 7, Guards for Powered Transmission; Rule716Brothers Inc., HermansvillePart 7, Guards for Powered Transmissions;Rule 763(1)Hamill Mfg. Co., Division Firestone Tire & Rub-ber, WashingtonPart 17, Refuse Packer Units; Rule 1732(1)Steelcase Wood Furniture, KentwoodPart 23, Power Presses; Rule 2321Allied Products Corporation, HillsdaleCanady Tube & Metal Fabricating Co., DetroitStorage Systems Div., Web Rack Co., Port HuronPart 27, Woodworking Machinery; Rule 2730(1)Deklomp, HollandPart 38, Hand & Portable Powered Tools; Rule2832(1)Champion Spark Plug Co., Rubber Room, DetroitChampion Spark Plug Co., Pressing Dept., DetroitDetroit Rubber Company, Detroit, MI 48204Elastodyne, Unit of ITT Blackburn Co., Spring LakeEx-Cell-O Corporation, Holland

(2) (d)(f)(g)(h)(i), 1015a (3), 1015a (4); 1018a(1)(2)(21); 1019a (1); and 1021a (4)Name and address of employerHamon Custodis, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMonroe Power Plant, Monroe

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 32 – Aerial Work Platforms: R408.43209,Rule 3209, Rule 3209 (8) (b), Rule 3209 (8) (c),and Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to firmly secure scaffoldplanks to the top of the intermediate rail of theguardrail system for use as a work platform in ac-cordance with certain stipulations.Name and address of employerAnn Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., LLCLocation for which variance is requestedMGM Grand Casino, DetroitName and address of employerWm. Crook Fire Protection Co.Location for which variance is requestedFord Van Dyke Transmission Plant, Sterling HeightsName and address of employerDenn-Co Construction, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMGM Casino, DetroitName and address of employerLimbach Company LLCLocation for which variance is requestedSt. John Hospital, DetroitName and address of employerVentconLocation for which variance is requestedGM Powertrain Lab Consolidation, Pontiac

Summer 2007

17

Topic: Excavations and Trenching

Questions

M I O S H A N e w s Q u i z

Answers

By: Paul J. WrzesinskiSafety Section SupervisorConstruction Safety & Health Division

1. True or False – Employees are work-ing in a trench 6 feet deep and 10 feet wide atthe bottom. The soil is a mixture of clay andgranular soil. It is okay for the sides of thisexcavation to be vertical with no shoringbecause employees can get far enough awayfrom a wall collapse due to the width of thetrench at the bottom.

2. True or False – During an excavationto uncover a leaking underground gasolinestorage tank, employees must enter the ex-cavation to disconnect some undergroundpiping from the tank. As they enter, theynotice a strong smell of gasoline. The em-ployees should exit the trench, put on what-ever respirators they have available and re-enter the excavation.

3. True or False – An excavation less than5 feet in depth must be effectively protectedwhen examination of the ground indicateshazardous earth movement may be expected.

4. True or False – The employer mustconsider all of the following factors to deter-mine the angle of repose and the design ofthe supporting system for a side of an exca-vation:

A. Depth of cut and type of soil.B. Possible variation in the water content

of the material while the excavation is open.C. Anticipated changes in the material due

to exposure to air, sun, water, or freezing.D. Load imposed by structures, equip-

ment, overlying material, or stored material.E. Vibration from traffic, equipment, or

blasting.5. True or False – A trench only needs to

be inspected by a qualified person after arainstorm.

6. True or False – The employer mustidentify the location of all underground utili-ties before beginning an excavation. MISSDIG may be contacted for this purpose. Af-ter the appropriate amount of time haspassed, the employer should contact MISSDIG a second time to ensure that all the ap-propriate utility companies have responded

to the MISS DIG notice, and have been tothe site to mark their particular utility. If autility has not yet responded, they shouldbe contacted directly.

7. True or False – I have contacted MISSDIG and they have marked all the utilities soit’s okay to start excavating with my powerequipment, as long as I stay a couple of feetaway from the marks.

8. True or False – I have hit an under-ground electric cable and exposed an ener-gized conductor. As long as I stay a coupleof feet away I can still continue to install thesewer line until public utility personnel ar-rive to address the situation.

9. True or False – I can put my spoil pilenext to the excavation as long as it is nomore than 2 feet high.

10. True or False – I have a trench that is10 feet deep, 30 feet long and 3 feet wide. If Ibench the sides then I can cut the lowerbench at 5 feet from the bottom of the trench.

11. True or False – I can have my em-ployees stay inside the trench box when Imove it as long as they are on the oppositeend from where the excavator is pulling it.

12. True or False – An excavation 48 ormore inches in depth and occupied by anemployee must be provided with either a lad-der extending not less than 3 feet above thetop as a means of access or with an earthramp. The lateral travel along the wall of atrench to a ladder or other means of egresscannot exceed 25 feet.

1. False – The trench must be sloped,shored, or a protective system (e.g., trenchbox) provided in accordance with Part 9, Ex-cavation Trenching and Shoring. Part 9, Rule941(1) states; “The side of an excavation morethan 5 feet deep shall be sloped as prescribedin table 1, unless supported as prescribed inthis part.”

2. False – Part 9, Rule 943(a) states;“Where an oxygen deficiency (an atmo-sphere that contains less than 19.5% oxy-gen) or a hazardous atmosphere exists, suchas in excavations in areas where hazardoussubstances are stored nearby, the atmo-sphere in the excavation shall be tested be-

fore employees enter excavations that aremore than 4 feet (1.22 m) deep.” Once theatmosphere is tested, if the hazard that existscannot be eliminated by engineering controls(e.g., ventilation), then respirators appropri-ate to the contaminant and contaminant lev-els must be provided. Flammability of thecontaminant must also be considered. Theemployer must meet all applicable require-ments of MIOSHA Part 451, Respiratory Pro-tection.

3. True – See Part 9, Rule 941(2).4. True – See Part 9, Rule 942(1).5. False –Part 9, Rule 932(5) states; “…Af-

ter every rainstorm or other hazard-produc-ing occurrence, an inspection shall be madeby a qualified employee for evidence of pos-sible slides or cave-ins. Where these condi-tions are found, all work shall cease until ad-ditional precautions, such as additional shor-ing or reducing the slope, have been accom-plished.”

6. True – It is the employer’s responsibil-ity to identify all under ground utilities be-fore beginning an excavation. See Part 9, Rule931(1).

7. False – If underground utilities are tobe exposed or are likely to be exposed, onlyhand digging shall be employed. See Part 9,Rule 931(2).

8. False – The employer must evacuatethe employees from the immediate area andnotify the public utility. See Part 9, Rule 931(3).

9. False – Excavated material must bestored not less than 2 feet away from the edgeof the excavation, regardless of the height ofthe pile. See Part 9, Rule 933(2).

10. False – Part 9, Rule 944(3) states;“When benching a side of a trench, the heightof the lower bench shall not be more than thelesser of 5 feet or the width of the trenchmeasured at the bottom.” Therefore, the lowerbench must be 3 feet or less from the bottomof the trench.

11. False – Part 9, Rule 945(3) states; “Anemployee shall not be allowed in shieldswhen shields are being installed, removed ormoved.”12. True – See Part 9, Rule 933(5). An earthramp must meet the requirements of Part 9,Rule 933(6).

18

Cont. from Page 1M&W Industries

were designed when properly installed, this in-cludes proper bracing both during erection andafterwards.

Like all industries, in construction, time equatesto money. The longer it takes to build something,the less profit there is – which sometimes leads tounacceptable shortcuts. Typically it is the diago-nal bracing that is omitted. Short lengths (approxi-mately 27-inches long) of 1x 4 or 2x 4 lumber areused as “spacers” between the trusses (typicallywith one nail at each end). Longer lateral braces areonly installed after the “spaced” trusses are movedto their final position on the bearing walls.

During this time there is a pair of carpentersworking within or on top of these “spaced”trusses. The Building Component Safety Infor-mation (BCSI) 1-03 requires all bracing to be aminimum of 2x4 lumber and installed with a mini-mum of two nails per truss.

Wood trusses are just like dominoes. Pushone over and they all collapse! Using short spac-ers with or without lateral bracing will ensuretwo things. When the trusses collapse, they willall fall – and when they are on the ground, theywill all be equally spaced.

Other hazards that employers need to beaware of when erecting trusses are energized powerlines, such as distribution, individual service andstreet lighting. There is specific language in BCSI1-03 alerting contractors to the potential for elec-trocution. A few years ago in St. Clair Shores, aload of trusses were off-loaded under energizedpower lines. Two employees were electrocutedwhile hooking up the crane’s load line to a truss.Help is Available

Groups such as the Wood Truss Council ofAmerica and the Truss Plate Institute were formedto help building designers and contractors takeadvantage of the wooden trusses and eliminatethe guesswork in their installation. Their recom-mendations are published in the booklet com-monly known as BCSI 1-03.

Critical erection information from this book-let is included in every truss delivery made in theUnited States. Every contractor receiving woodtrusses receives a basic diagram of the trussesthat indicates where permanent bracing has to beinstalled; and a group of B-series Summary Sheetsthat give examples and guidance for the tempo-rary bracing for the trusses being installed.

All residential builders are encouraged to con-tact the Construction Safety and Health Divisionat 517.322.1856 if they have questions regardingworksite health and safety or compliance issues.

The Consultation, Education and Training(CET) Division provides training and onsite ser-vices for residential builders at the employer’srequest, free of charge. The CET Division canbe contacted by calling 517.322.1809, or visit-ing the website at www.michigan.gov/cet.

Wood Truss BracingCont. from Page 6

Bad example: The blade on a shear machine must be guardedto 1/4-inch of the material being worked on.

Bad example: All three stations on this ironworker machinemust be guarded.

ducted four inspections at two M&WIndustries sites. Despite a settlementagreement from the 2005 inspection,the follow-up inspections found thatthe firm failed to abate identified haz-ards. Specifically, the company failedto: install needed guards, provide re-quired employee training on worksitechemicals, provide audiometric test-ing and training, train employees onthe safe operation of overhead andgantry cranes, and enforce the use oflockout.

In addition, during the follow-upinspection, new violations were notedincluding: two Willful violations forlack of hydraulic power press pointof operation guarding and training for employeesoperating press brakes; three Serious violationsrelated to metalworking machinery; four Repeat-Serious violations for previously cited items, in-cluding personal protective equipment, lack oftraining on lockout, lack of training for machineoperator, and not enforcing use of lockout; andtwo Other-than-Serious violations for injury/ill-ness recordkeeping (with no monetary penalties).MIOSHA Violations

Inspection Citations – 13550 Helen Street2 Follow-up Inspections

9 Fail-to-Abate Notices $79,2901 Planned Partial Inspection

3 Repeat-Serious $24,000 Inspection Citations – 20101 Hoover Street1 Employee Complaint

2 Willful $112,0003 Serious $12,0001 Repeat-Serious $8,0002 Other-than-Serious $1,600

Total Proposed Penalties: $236,890A Willful violation is one committed with an

intentional disregard of the requirements ofMIOSHA regulations, or plain indifference toemployee safety and health. A Serious violation

exists where there is a substantial probability thatserious physical harm or death can result to anemployee. An Other-than-Serious violation is acondition that would probably not cause death orserious physical harm but would have a directand immediate relationship to the safety and healthof employees.

MIOSHA scheduled inspections target estab-lishments with high injury/illness rates and a highincidence of lost workday cases, based on Michi-gan data. The intent of the scheduled inspectionsis to identify hazardous conditions, so that thehazards can be corrected before injuries and ill-nesses occur.Worker Protections

“Taking the time to follow MIOSHA regula-tions can not only protect workers”it can greatlyenhance a company’s bottom line,” said MIOSHADirector Doug Kalinowski. “Successful Michi-gan companies have shown that a strong safetyand health program contributes to increased pro-duction, improved quality and greater profits.”

The MIOSHA Consultation Education andTraining (CET) Division has nearly 40 safetyand health consultants that can help provideabatement advice to companies, as well as fur-

nish information on building an ef-fective safety and health manage-ment system.

M&W Industries started in1981, and employs about 575 work-ers at four plants in the Detroit area.The company manufactures metalparts for the defense, automotive, andmaterial handling industries. Theirmajor product lines include defenseweldments (assemblies whose com-ponent parts are joined by welding),material handling products, and othermetal welded components.

The company has 15 workingdays from receipt of the citations andnotices to contest the alleged viola-tions and penalties.

Summer 2007

19

Cont. from Page 9Exposure to Isocyanates

pervisors by providing accurate verbal and writ-ten instructions about heat stress, including self-determination of exposures. Employees shouldbe aware of the signs and symptoms of heat stressand should be encouraged to detect these signs inthemselves and in coworkers. Employees shouldalso be permitted to practice self limitation ofheat exposure based on these signs.

Heat Stress Hygiene Practices – Duringthe investigation it was noted that most employ-ees did drink water, but were not monitored orencouraged to drink cool water every 20 minutes.Additionally, aside from the clothing worn by dish-washers, employees were required to wear uni-forms that through fabric and style (high collars,neckties, and chef’s hats) limited evaporation.

Employers should encourage fluid replace-ment and the use of proper clothing. Employeesshould drink small volumes (approximately 1cup) of cool liquid every 20 minutes. Free move-ment of cool, dry air over the skin’s surface maxi-mizes heat removal through evaporation of sweatfrom the skin; water-vapor-impermeable or ther-mally insulated clothing restricts heat removal.

Medical Surveillance – The investigationrevealed the employer did not screen employ-ees to identify those employees more suscep-tible to heat.

Employers should allow pre-placementscreening to identify those employees suscep-tible to systemic heat injury. Employees whotake medications that may compromise normalcardiovascular, blood pressure, body tempera-ture regulation, renal or sweat gland functions;and those employees who abuse alcohol, mayhave an increased susceptibility to heat stress.Employers can also encourage healthy life stylesand ideal body weight.

Acclimatization – During the investigation

it was noted the employees were acclimated tothe heat exposure.

Acclimatization is a gradual physiologicaladaptation that improves an individual’s abilityto tolerate heat stress. Full-heat acclimatizationrequires up to three weeks of continued physicalactivity under heat-stress conditions similar tothose anticipated for the work, with a loss occur-ring after four days. Employers can develop aplan to expose employees to heat at graduallyincreasing rate over a five-day period.Company Abatement

The employer submitted the information be-low as actions taken to address the issue:

Air conditioning equipment in restaurantwas repaired.

Cooling vests and cooling bandanas werepurchased for employees.

Temperature monitoring control deviceswere purchased and place in the kitchen and din-ing room.

A temperature monitoring and trackingprocedure was implemented.

Management attended a MIOSHA safetyin the workplace seminar.

Signs were posted educating the staff aboutheat stress and how to recognize the symptomsin themselves and others.

Employees were given access to cool bev-erages.

Major renovations of the building whichwould include replacing HVAC equipment wereplanned.CET Division Services

If you have any questions on heat stress, orneed a workplace evaluation, please call theMIOSHA Consultation Education and Training(CET) Division at 517.322.1809, or visit ourwebsite www.michigan.gov/miosha.

An article on heat stress hazards was in theSummer 2006 issue of the MIOSHA News.

Workplace Heat HazardsCont. from Page 7

large parts beginning at the end nearest the ex-haust ventilation and work his way to the back.This ensured the spraying operation was betweenthe employee and the exhaust ventilation.

The worktable located in the spray boothwas moved near the exhaust ventilation to reducethe employee’s exposure during the transfer ofmaterial and the cleaning of equipment.

The employer hired a ventilation contrac-tor to make changes to the spray booth to ac-count for the additional length added to the spraybooth and to increase overall ventilation.

A new magnehelic gauge was installed anda preventive maintenance schedule was createdfor filter changes for the spray booth based uponthe gauge reading.

Hand pumps were added to solvent con-tainers to reduce exposure to chemicals duringtransfer operations.

Paint was delivered in 1-gallon cans toreduce exposures and waste encountered whenusing open containers for transferring paint. Painthad been previously delivered in 5-gallon cans.

The employer required the use of respi-ratory protection at all times within the spraybooth. Employees wore a full face respirator withcartridges for preparation and cleaning activities,and a supplied air respirator for all spray paint-ing activities.

The employer developed and imple-mented a site-specific respiratory protection pro-gram that included filter change schedules, fit test-ing and training.

Employees involved in the painting op-eration were placed in a medical surveillance pro-gram that included work and medical history ques-tionnaires, physical exams by a physician, andlung function testing.

Employees were given specific trainingon the health effects of isocyanates on the bodyand the proper methods and equipment neededto protect them from this chemical.Conclusion

After the engineering and work practice con-trols had been implemented, the employer con-tacted the MIOSHA Consultation, Education andTraining (CET) Division to perform air monitor-ing to reevaluate the painter’s exposure to MDI.The results of the air monitoring showed thatemployee exposures were well within the Ceilinglimit of 0.2 mg/m3 as follows:

Sample #1 - 0.050 mg/m3.Sample #2 - 0.006 mg/m3.Sample #3 - 0.024 mg/m3.Although employee exposures were well be-

low the Ceiling limit of 0.2 mg/m3 for MDI, thecompany is continuing to require the use of thesupplied-air respirator and the medical surveillanceprogram due to the hazards associated with isocy-anates. Because of the employer’s prompt actions,the case was closed within a few weeks.

Congratulations Associated General Contractors of Michigan!MIOSHA is proud to recognize, along with our alliance partner the AGC of Michigan, theMichigan recipients of the 2006 National AGC Safety Award. MIOSHA Construction Safetyand Health Division Manager Patty Meyer was the keynote speaker for the award ceremony.“Everyone in this room has set the bar high for safety and health programs,” said Meyer.

20

Director: Doug Kalinowski

The MIOSHA News is aquarterly publication of theMichigan Occupational Safetyand Health Administration(MIOSHA), which is responsiblefor enforcing the MichiganOccupational Safety and Health(MIOSH) Act.

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

Printed under authority of theMIOSH Act, PA 154 of 1974, asamended. Paid for with the stateSET Fund and federal OSHA funds.

Editor: Judith M. Shane

Michigan Department ofLabor & Economic GrowthDirector: Keith W. Cooley

Michigan Department of Labor & Economic GrowthMichigan Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationP.O. Box 306437150 Harris DriveLansing, Michigan 48909-8143

(25,000 copies printed at a cost of $11,158 or $0.45 per copy.)

Website: www.michigan.gov/miosha

How To Contact MIOSHA

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

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDLANSING MI

PERMIT NO 1200

MIOSHA HotlineFatality/Catastrophe Hotline

General InformationFree Safety/Health Consultation

Injury & Illness Recordkeeping

800.866.4674800.858.0397517.322.1817517.322.1809517.322.1848

517.322.1817 Doug Kalinowski517.322.1817 Martha Yoder

DirectorDeputy Director

DIVISION

Appeals

Construction Safety & Health

Consultation Education & Training

General Industry Safety & Health

Management & Technical Services

517.322.1297 Jim Gordon

517.322.1856 Bob Pawlowski

517.322.1809 Connie O’Neill

517.322.1831 John Brennan

517.322.1851 John Peck

OFFICE PHONE MANAGER

Asbestos Program

CET Grant Program

Employee Discrimination Section

Management Information Systems Section

Standards Section

517.322.1320 George Howard

517.322.1865 Louis Peasley

248.888.8777 Jim Brogan

517.322.1851 Bob Clark

517.322.1845 Marsha Parrott-Boyle

PHONE DIRECTOR

The Department of Labor & Economic Growth is an equal opportunity employer/program.This newsletter will be made available in alternate formats on request.