Serving Michigan...Serving YouConsumer & Industry Services

Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)Vol. 5, No. 1 Winter 2001

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

Amputations 3

Workplace Safety Culture 4

Safety & Health Programs 5

MRBA Partnership 6

Construction Update 6

The Bottom Line 7

Nursing Homes: Best Practices 8

Nursing Homes: Strategies 9

CET Awards 10

Accident Surveillance 11

Recordkeeping 11

Canadian Conference 12

Winter Warning 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

Owner Guilty in Worker’s DeathOwner Edmond Woods and Midland Environmental Services, Inc., Plead Guiltyto Attempted Involuntary Manslaughter in an Explosion which Killed One Worker

On Nov. 1, 2000, Michigan Department ofConsumer and Industry Services (CIS) DirectorKathy Wilbur announced the resolution of thecriminal prosecution against Edmond D. Woods,Owner, and Midland Environmental Services,Inc., in the 1994 fatality of employee, MickielJ. Rennenberg. This case is unprecedented be-cause it is the first criminal case in Michiganhistory where an owner was held criminally re-sponsible for a workplace fatality.

Sentences were handed down in GladwinCounty Circuit Court against Edmond Woods andMidland Environmental Services, Inc. on Dec.19,2000. Woods received: Five year’s probation,payment of the full statutory fine of $17,500,and 200 hours of community service. The cor-poration also was required to pay the full fine of$17,500, for a combined total of $35,000. BothWoods and the corporation were also requiredto abide by all MIOSHA and DEQ (Departmentof Environmental Quality) laws, and must alsoabide by all the terms of the MIOSHA Settle-ment Agreement. The guilty pleas carried a maxi-mum criminal fine of $35,000 combined, and amaximum possible prison term of five years.

“It can’t be stated strongly enough: Michi-gan employers are ultimately responsible for thesafety of their workers on the job,” said Direc-tor Wilbur. “Edmond Woods consistently andblatantly ignored basic MIOSHA regulations,and refused to provide a work environment freefrom hazards. This case should be a clear signalto employers that they are legally obligated toprovide a safe and healthy work environment.”

The CIS Bureau of Safety and Regulationis responsible for administering the MichiganOccupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA).

In Gladwin County Circuit Court EdmondD. Woods and Midland Environmental Servicesentered the following guilty pleas:n To attempted involuntary manslaughter,

on behalf of Woods personally,n To attempted involuntary manslaughter,

on behalf of the Corporation,n To the charge regarding the MIOSHA

Willful Criminal, on behalf of Woods personally,n To the charge regarding the MIOSHA

Willful Criminal, on behalf of the Corporation.“We are deeply saddened by the needless

death of Mickiel Rennenberg and hope this reso-lution will offer some con-solation to the family,”said Wilbur. “We also hopeit will help prevent futureworkplace injuries and fa-talities, which is the ulti-mate goal of the MIOSHAprogram–by alerting em-ployers that we will not tol-erate the placing of workersin harm’s way.”Accident Details

Edmond D. Woods,President, and MidlandEnvironmental Services,Inc., conduct the businessof removal and demoli-tion/dismantling of under-This service truck was damaged when Midland Environmental Service

employees were thrown into it by the force of the tank explosion. Cont. on Page 18

22222

From the

Bureau

Director’s

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

Employer

Responsibility

for W orkplace

Safety & Health

MIOSHA representatives often ask themselves when investi-gating a fatality or serious injury accident why the MIOSHA lawdidn’t prevent this tragedy? On occasion family members, represen-tatives of the accidents, or politicians also want to know why MIOSHAdidn’t prevent “that” from happening. “If only MIOSHA had inspectedthe worksite,” is often the implication. We have a tremendously dedi-cated staff. We can, however, only contribute to and compliment theefforts of employers and employees to attain a safe and healthfulwork environment. Whether it is a MIOSHA standard, a complianceinspection, a consultation visit, safety and health education and train-ing programs or materials–the responsibility for a safe and health-ful worksite by law is that of the employer.

Both MIOSHA and federal OSHA laws are premised on theemployer being primarily responsible for workplace safety and health,not the governmental organization that administers the occupationalsafety and health requirements and services. Two recent cases pro-vided renewed focus on employer responsibility; the first case dealtwith a construction fatality; the second with a manufacturer who refusedto safeguard dangerous machinery, following MIOSHA interventions inthe form of compliance inspections and consultation services.A Construction Case – Contractor Criminally Liable

As we reported on page 1, the MIOSHA fatality investigation ofMidland Environmental Services resulted in the issuance of severalcivil citations for willful violations of MIOSHA requirements. Anemployee was killed and two others seriously injured while remov-ing and opening an underground petroleum storage tank. The case, asare all fatality investigations that result in willful serious citations,was referred to the Attorney General for consideration regarding pos-sible criminal liability under MIOSHA and/or the general state crimi-nal statutes. The Attorney General’s office found that there were suf-ficient grounds for charging the company, as well as the owner, withcriminal violations of MIOSHA and state criminal statutes.

The charges were brought in the Gladwin County Circuit Court.The outcome of the case was a guilty plea by the employer on behalfof himself and the corporation to two counts of attempted involuntarymanslaughter and two counts of violations of Section 35a(5) ofMIOSHA, which is the criminal sanction for willful violations thatcause the death of an employee. The sentencing took place on Dec.19, 2000. The owner received five years probation and 200 hours ofcommunity service. The owner and the corporation paid the full com-bined statutory fine of $35,000, and were required to abide by allMIOSHA and DEQ laws. The employer also agreed to pay a reducedcivil penalty and to additional conditions, including reporting worksiteoperations to MIOSHA.Manufacturing – Section 45 Cease Operations Order

In the case of manufacturing, MIOSHA conducted an accidentinvestigation at Copco Door Co., Ferndale, based on an arm amputa-tion. Because of serious plant conditions the inspection was expanded

to a “wall-to-wall” investigation of the entire facility. Several seriousmachine guarding violations were cited. Initially the employer appealedthe citations and requested an extension of the abatement dates. Afterseveral unsuccessful attempts by MIOSHA to obtain compliance andabatement of the hazards it was recommended that a “cease operationsorder” be issued pursuant to Section 45 of MIOSHA.

While many are familiar with “imminent danger cease operationorders” under Section 31 of MIOSHA, few realize that the Section 45cease operations order authority exists. For good reason it has been littleutilized in the history of the modern MIOSHA law. It provides that in acase where there continues to be a refusal to comply on the part of theemployer, MIOSHA representatives may seek approval to issue a ceaseoperations order. Unlike Section 31 regarding imminent danger ceaseoperation orders, Section 45 does not place similar specific constraintson the issuance of orders under its provisions. We have, however, adoptedthe same processes in the issuance of Section 45 orders as are requiredby law under Section 31. Primary among the internal procedures, is theacquisition of the Department Director’s approval for issuing the Sec-tion 45 cease operations order before it is served on the employer.

In this case, on Sept. 11, 2000, CIS Director Kathy Wilbur autho-rized the issuance of a Section 45 cease operations order that resulted inMIOSHA representatives “tagging out” 12 power presses with “ceaseoperations” order tags and serving the employer with a “cease opera-tions order.” The employer was notified that they could not operate themachines until the hazards were eliminated by properly guarding themto avoid employee exposure. The employer also received additional fail-ure to abate citations along with a substantial civil penalty. The ceaseoperation order, however, was based upon the citations issued in theinitial accident and wall-to-wall investigation, which had become final(not subject to any further appeal). Within a few days representatives ofthe company contacted MIOSHA and informed us that they believedthey were now in compliance. They requested that we return and con-firm their compliance and remove the cease operation tags from themachines. At this writing all but two of the machines are properly guardedand the cease operation tags have been removed by MIOSHA.

These two recent cases highlight the underpinnings of the MIOSHAlaw that provides that the employer has the ultimate responsibility toassure a safe and healthful workplace. Under MIOSHA the law alsoprovides that employees also have a duty to comply with MIOSHA re-quirements, however, civil sanctions under the law apply only to em-ployers - not employees. MIOSHA provisions, whether regulatory orvoluntary services, are intended to encourage and support the employer’sresponsibility to maintain a safe and healthy work environment. Bottomline–the employer and employees at a worksite determine whether it issafe–not MIOSHA.

Winter 2001

33333

M P U T A T I O NA SThese Accidents Can Be Prevented

“It felt like I stuck my fingers in a lightsocket. I held the artery. A guy came over tohelp, but... he passed out. I managed to getmyself to the office and was taken to the hospi-tal.” This is how Earl Flynn describes the ac-cident that crushed his left wrist between thedie posts of a power press resulting in the am-putation of his left hand.

In 1998, Michigan employees suffered 416workplace-related amputations. Earl’s devas-tating accident was completely preventable, asare the majority of all workplace amputations.The power press Earl was operating was beingfed by hand, activated with a foot pedal, andhad no guards or devices in place. This is thetype of accident that MIOSHA’s Strategic Planhas targeted to reduce, if not eliminate.

Physicians describe Earl’s condition as the“perfect amputation,” because what remains isthe perfect amount of arm to take a prosthesis.I hope we all agree that the only condition thatis perfect is one where everyone goes home eachday with all their fingers, hands, arms, feet,and toes. MIOSHA Strategic Plan Goal 1.1Amandates that MIOSHA use a combination ofenforcement, outreach, voluntary assistance,and innovative partnering with industry to re-duce the number of amputations 15 percent by2003. MIOSHA cannot accomplish this impor-tant goal without the involvement and coop-eration of the Michigan employers and employ-ees. Interestingly enough, there is a simple for-mula that can be used to accomplish this goal.A Formula to Prevent Injuries

Act 154, the MIOSHA act, presents a for-mula to prevent injuries which has been proveneffective time and time again. The first factorrequires that employers provide a means to besafe. This includes things like guards, devices,personal protective equipment, programs andprocedures (lock out, unjamming, etc.). Thesecond factor requires that an employer ad-equately train employees how to work safely.Training must be specific to the steps of thejob, the hazards (amputation), and the safe-guards. Good training requires that employeesdemonstrate that they can do the job safely. Thethird and fourth factors go hand in hand, asthey require that there be adequate supervi-sion to ensure that employees utilize the equip-ment and comply with the training.

It’s evident that Earl’s amputation occurred

By: Linda LongCET Safety Consultant

because the point of operation on the press wasnot guarded. Point of operation means the area ofthe die where material is actually positioned andwork is being performed during any press activ-ity, such as shearing, punching, forming, or as-sembling. No machine guarding or inadequateguarding is recognized as a common cause ofmany amputations.

Another common factor is lock out...or notlocking out. A few years ago, April Klein wasoperating a thread roller. A bolt fell into the ma-chine. Following her training, she hit the emer-gency stop button. After the machine stopped shereached in to retrieve the part. The hidden eccen-tric shaft stopped with the heaviest portion ontop. As she reached in to retrieve the part, grav-ity caused the shaft to rotate, causing the die tomove, amputating her left index finger. A lock-out procedure would have identified the eccen-tric shaft as a power source and required somekind of locking/blocking to take place. Eventhough April insisted on immediately getting backto work, it took her a year to feel comfortableenough to operate that machine again.It All Comes down to Choices

Employers and employees must choose to besafe. This is never more true than when operatorsare required to do multi-tasking, that is, in additionto operating the equipment, they also perform set-up, tool/die repair, or unjamming parts or scrap. Eachyear numerous amputations happen when opera-tors depend on machine safeguarding, such as lightcurtains or two-hand controls, to perform a non-production operation. Properly adjusted light cur-tains are adequate for production safeguarding, but ifit’s necessary for the operator toput their hands in the die of a press(mechanical or hydraulic) to ser-vice or maintain the die, light cur-tains no longer offer adequate pro-tection.

During a non-productionoperation, there must be a pro-cedure to prevent the press fromcycling and a safety block mustbe put into place to prevent theram from drifting down on abody part. An interlocked safetyblock would fulfill this require-ment, as would locking out thepress and using a safety block.An adequate procedure must bedeveloped and the means to ac-complish it provided by the em-ployer. Operator training then

must be performed. Most operators are intent onmaking the expected amount of good parts, sothey do what it takes to accomplish that. Unlessit is clearly expressed and upheld by the em-ployer, that the safe way is the only way, opera-tors may choose to do things the fastest way.

Employers choose whether to providemethods to be safe and train their employees–orthey choose to rest on their luck, thinking,“We’ve never had a serious accident like that.”Employees choose to ignore safety proceduresbecause, “It’ll never happen to me”–or theychoose to use the safeguards provided, eventhough they’re a bit inconvenient, mess up theirhair, or aren’t macho. Employers, in turn, choosewhether they will hold those they employ, at alllevels, accountable–rather than reduce the safetydirector’s role to playing “safety cop.” MIOSHAchooses to increase its efforts to reduce amputa-tions from occurring in the workplace by target-ing enforcement activities to those SIC codeswhere amputations most often occur, and by con-centrating CET efforts to get the word out.

During implementation of the strategicplan, in response to any reported amputation,MIOSHA enforcement will, minimally, conductan accident investigation and a “focused inspec-tion” covering the following areas: machineguarding, operator training, and lockout pro-grams and procedures. To help the employer beproactive in preventing amputations, the CETDivision has training materials and seminars thatmirror the focused inspection. Please check ourwebsite: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr or call517.322.1809 for compliance help. n

This machine operator is shaping a steel bar, and is protected by aguard and pull back devices.

44444

PREVENTINGPREVENTINGPREVENTINGPREVENTINGPREVENTING WORKPLAWORKPLAWORKPLAWORKPLAWORKPLACECECECECEBy: Sheila IdeCET Supervisor

Creating a Workplace Safety Culture

CET Onsite Consultant John Hodgson and Russ Norkoli, SafetyCoordinator, H & H Tube Manufacturing Co., discuss an airmonitoring program.

To paraphrase an old presidential cam-paign, “It’s about preventing accidents stupid!”Harsh words perhaps, but sometimes we get soengrossed in the mechanics of preventing acci-dents we forget why we need to do so in thefirst place.

Getting back to basics is not a bad thing.Think about some of those safety posters: “TakeThe Time To Be Safe,” “Remember, MachinesDon’t Think,” “Safety First Always and AllWays,” “Don’t Learn Safety...Accidently,” “You’reImportant To Us...We’re Important To You.”Employer Responsibility–EmployeeParticipation

But of course, slogans do not make us safe,they are only reminders. Let’s talk about a coupleof controversial subjects: employer commit-ment and responsibility, coupled with employeeacceptance and participation . Yes, it takes bothsides of the equation to make safety more than aset of cliches.

If employees do not see their employer putthe same emphasis on safety as they do produc-tion, employees will focus on production. Whenemployers do not consistently enforce safetyrules, employees will not take the rules seri-ously. Not because an employee wants to havean accident, but because they find it hard tobelieve anything will happen to them, especiallyif their employer does not reinforce their wordswith action in making safety an integral part of

each job assignment.According to the Heinrich ratio of accident

progression, there is plenty of warning before aserious or lost-time illness or injury occurs. Uponsurvey of 90,000 incidents resulting in injury orproperty damage or both, it was found that therewill be 500 property damage accidents and 100minor injuries for every single lost-time or seri-ous injury/accident.

With preliminary data like that, why arethere so many serious injuries or deaths in theworkplace? Maybe, because we do not recog-nize the pattern or understand the relationshipbetween job task and unintended accident orinjury. We do not recognize or report those inci-dental types of events where there was a closecall and nothing really happened or the propertywas damaged but no one was injured. However,the underlying issue is that a mistake occurredwhich, this time, did not lead to an injury. Sohow do employers train themselves to recognizethe pattern?Creating a Safety Culture

Many companies use Job Safety Analy-sis. A process whereby the job task is brokendown into steps and each potential for injury isexamined and safeguarded. For instance; a grind-ing operation will require eye protection for fly-ing particles.

Other companies use a program for report-ing Near Miss incidents. This type of programdocuments those “close call” types of situationswhere no one was hurt...this time. These reportscan be submitted anonymously. However, it is im-

perative that the companytake the situation seriously,fix the potential problem,and provide feedback tothe employees.

Proper orientationand ongoing training arecrucial to creating and main-taining a safety culture.New employees must beshown the importance ofsafely performing their jobtasks before they even be-gin their work. Supervisorsand employees should beprovided continuing train-ing and reinforcementthroughout their careerwhich emphasizes thatsafe and productive work

practices are complimentary as well as expected.Enforcement of safety rules is imperative

but the employer must also advocate that bestsafety practices are always the accepted methodand short cuts that disregard safety will not betolerated. A written safety program that is imple-mented and understood by each employee is theone of the best weapons against accidental in-jury or property damage.

The real issue of course, is that safety mustbe incorporated into every action an employeetakes. There is no question that people are will-ing to live with a certain amount of risk in theirlives–which would explain bungee jumping,drinking and driving, and doing home repairswith unguarded power tools.

However, we cannot allow employees totake risks in the workplace. In fact the MIOSHAAct states, “An employer shall: (a) Furnish toeach employee, employment and a place of em-ployment which is free from recognized hazardsthat are causing, or are likely to cause, death orserious physical harm to the employee”(408.1011, Sec.11). Death or serious physicalharm yes, however we need to eliminate theband-aid injury as well.Measuring the Cost

How do you calculate the cost to the em-ployer? Take a so-called simple accident. Apress cutter operator cuts his hand on the cut-ting edge razor. A quick trip to the medical cen-ter, possibly a butterfly suture and back to workin a couple of hours. Low cost right? Wrong!The employer must also take into account thedowntime of the machine (5,000 sheets an hour= loss of 10,000 sheets production at two centseach=$200); time spent in transport of the em-ployee, time spent by various individuals in-volved in investigation and report writing, pos-sible training costs of another less productiveemployee on the task; production delays for thebinding employees, etc. This $50 accident justwent up to $1,000. Multiply that cost by theincident occurring a couple times a month amongsix press cutter operators and you have lossesin the ten’s of thousands!

After the first incident, an investigationwould have revealed that operators routinelytest the sharpness of the blade with theirhands! Fix every issue the first time shouldbe the norm, not the exception. A thoroughand complete investigation should be an in-tegral part of every incident.

Cont. on Page 19

Winter 2001

55555

INJURIES & ILLNESSESINJURIES & ILLNESSESINJURIES & ILLNESSESINJURIES & ILLNESSESINJURIES & ILLNESSESBy: Debra GundryCET Safety Consultant

Developing a Safety & Health Program

CET Onsite Consultant Howard Simmons (center) conducts an onsitewalk-through at Pullman Industries, Inc., with (from L.) RichardKintigh, Safety Director, and Ed VanWy, UAW Local 1210-4 President.

One of the most tragic events in the work-place occurs when an employee is killed or seri-ously injured on the job. While such a tragedy isimmeasurable in terms of human loss, it alsotakes a serious toll on the affected businesses,and can mean the difference between profit andloss to Michigan employers.Program Benefits

According to BSR Director Doug Earle,“The primary mission of MIOSHA is to ensurethat every Michigan worker goes home healthyand whole every night!” MIOSHA has found thatwhen businesses have a strong workplace safetyand health program it has a very positive impacton their bottom line. Not only are accidents, in-juries and illnesses reduced–the benefits of sucha program also include: lower workers’ compen-sation costs, increased productivity, increasedemployee morale, lower absenteeism, and lessemployee turnover.

A comprehensive safety and health programthat protects employees takes employer commit-ment–of their time, energy and resources. Butsuch a commitment can pay big dividends. Mostcompanies can reduce injuries by 20 to 40 per-cent by establishing a safety and health program.Recent studies have estimated that safety andhealth programs save $4 to $6 for every dollarinvested. Yet only about 30 percent of U.S.worksites have established these programs.

In a July 21, 1999, speech to the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers, OSHA SecretaryCharles Jeffress said, “ Establishing a safetyand health program is the single most importantthing any employer can do to prevent workplaceinjuries and illnesses.”MIOSHA Commitment

MIOSHA is so committed to the importanceof safety and health programs in the workplace,that one of the strategic plan performance goalsis to ensure that: 50 percent of the employers ingeneral industry who are targeted or request aMIOSHA intervention have either a written andimplemented safety and health program or haveimproved their existing program. That means wewill be recommending a safety and health pro-gram to every employer we contact.

Both compliance and outreach programswill emphasize this critical element of workplacesafety and health. The evaluation of anemployer’s safety and health program will be a

part of every MIOSHA intervention. Companieswill receive a Safety and Health Program Evalu-ation worksheet, as well as a sample writtensafety and health program, during MIOSHA in-spections and investigations.Program Development

MIOSHA is also providing education andtraining on the development and implementationof safety and health programs, and will be inte-grating this as a standard topic in all Safety Ad-ministrator Courses and other pertinent seminars.When CET Consultants conduct hazard surveys,a safety and health evaluation will be part of theprocess.

We know that the prospect of creating a com-prehensive safety and health program can seemoverwhelming to employers. Many businesseshave asked for a sample in order to develop theirown program. I worked on the MIOSHA team thatproduced the materials to help companies developa safety and health program. The team discov-ered that what we needed to do was put togethera kit that employers can order from and then finetune, to meet their specific needs.

The team recognized that businesses areunique and each company needs to tailor theirown program and produce written safety andhealth procedures and rules to meet their spe-cific work environment. Given the wide rangeof employer needs, the team created the kit witha program guideline which includes all of thenecessary elements.

An effective safety and health program in-cludes the five key elements listed below, withsome sample activities foreach element. These ele-ments have been demon-strated to work even incompanies that startedwith high injury and ill-ness rates.Five Key Elements

Management Com-mitment is where it allbegins. Management mustcommit to the fact that thesafety and health of theirworkers is their numberone priority. This commit-ment requires managingsafety and health likeother organizational con-cerns, integrating safetyand health into the entire

organization, and assuming accountability foremployee safety and health. Activities include:n A written Safety and Health Program

with duties and accountability;n A designated safety and health person

or department with duties and budget;n Safety and health meetings conducted

on a regular basis;n Proactive steps taken by management to

identify safety and health issues.Employee Involvement is critical to es-

tablishing an effective program. Employees whobelieve their safety is a priority will accept re-sponsibility for safety and pursue it in their workenvironment. Activities include:n Employees represented on safety and

health committees;n Employees encouraged to report hazards

to supervisors, with written actions taken;n Employees have input on safety and

health training.A Worksite Analysis will be conducted by

employers to recognize and understand the haz-ards and potential hazards of the worksite. Ac-tivities include:n MIOSHA Log 200 properly maintained

and required supplementary forms filled out;n Accidents and near-misses investigated

with corrective actions and follow-up;n Ergonomics Analysis and Job Safety

Analysis performed ;n Regular worksite inspections conducted

to identify hazardous conditions.Cont. on Page 19

66666

Partnership RenewedTo Protect Road Workers

Asphalt paving, a common site on Michigan highways during theconstruction season.

On Oct. 30, 2000, Michigan Departmentof Consumer & Industry Services (CIS) Di-rector Kathy Wilbur announced the renewalof the partnership between CIS, the Michi-gan Road Builders Association (MRBA ), andthe Michigan Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (MIOSHA ). The three orga-nizations officially became partners to im-prove worker safety and health in the roadand bridge industry in 1998.

The construction industry is one of themost hazardous industries in Michigan. Onlyabout four percent of Michigan’s workforceis employed in construction–however, con-struction fatalities account for more than 40percent of all fatal workplace accidents. Androad and bridge construction is the most haz-ardous construction activity.

“Since we first signed this partnership,there has been a tremendous increase in roadconstruction, how-ever, road construc-tion fatalities have notseen a comparable in-crease,” Wilbur said.“We truly believe ourcombined efforts inthis landmark part-nership have contrib-uted greatly to a saferwork environment forroad and bridge con-struction workers inMichigan.”

The CIS Bureauof Safety and Regula-tion (BSR) is respon-sible for administer-ing the MIOSHA Act.Establishing partnerships with the privatesector is a key MIOSHA strategy to help pro-tect Michigan workers.

“During our second full year of the part-nership, we have identified and initiatedmany activities that have benefitted both par-ties. With our ongoing open lines of commu-nication, this will only continue to grow,” saidMike Eckert , MRBA Director of Safety Ser-vices. “Ultimately however, it’s the safety ofthe hard working men and women in the high-way construction industry who have receivedthe greatest benefit.”

The formal partnering charter has 10goals, including to: promote worker safetythrough education, training, and ongoing com-munication; increase the use of joint forums

to discuss issues which affect safety regula-tions in road construction; conduct joint meet-ings to discuss pertinent and /or urgent is-sues; and continually stimulate positive cul-tural change in both organizations to promoteworker safety, to save lives, and to preventinjuries and illnesses.

“Since 1998, this formal partnership hasachieved some outstanding results,” said CISDeputy Director Kalmin Smith . “One of themost significant achievements is a recentcompliance directive which clarifies the re-quirements when employees must ride mov-ing equipment to install and remove trafficcontrol devices. This directive is a major toolto help protect employees during an essen-tial, but potentially hazardous job activity.”

While participation by individual em-ployers is voluntary, CIS anticipates that con-tractors, who embrace the goals of the part-

nership and who strive to provide a safe andhealthy workplace, will experience a decreasein workplace accidents and illnesses, and adecrease in workers’ compensation costs.

The partnership was signed by: KalminSmith, Ph.D., CIS Deputy Director; JamesKlett , MRBA President; Douglas Earle,BSR Director; David Zynda, MRBA Presi-dent Elect; Douglas Kalinowski, BSRDeputy Director; Anthony Milo , MRBA Ex-ecutive Vice President; Richard Mee, Chief,BSR Construction Safety Division; andMichael Eckert, MRBA Director of SafetyServices.

The signing took place during the 2nd

annual MIOSHA/MRBA partnership reviewmeeting held in October in Lansing.

Only about four percent ofMichigan’s workforce is employed inconstruction. Construction fatalities,however, accounted for more than40 percent of all MIOSHA program-related fatal workplace accidentsover the last three years.

2000 Fatal AccidentsBy Major Cause*

Electrocution 7Fall 8Caught Between 6(Cave-in 2)Struck By 1(Struck by Traffic 0)Other 1(Explosion 1)Total 23* (As of 12/21/00)

The single most important thingconstruction employers can do toprotect their employees is to have acomprehensive and implementedaccident prevention program.

MIOSHAAccident Prevention Program

Major Components

n Designate Qualified Person toAdminister Programn Train Employees in Assigned Tools& Equipmentn Inspect Site for Unsafe Conditionand Correct Hazardsn Instruction in Recognition andAvoidance of Hazards (Tool Box Talks)n Haz-Com, Confined Space Trainingn Emergency Procedures

The above components can be found inconstruction, Part 1, General Rules Standards.

Construction Safety

Construction Safety Division517.322.1856 n

Winter 2001

77777

Workplace Safety and HealthMakes Good Business Sense

This column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensive safety andhealth program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free work environment is notachieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthy workplace takes as muchattention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefits include: less injuries and illnesses,lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production, increased employee morale, and lowerabsenteeism.

The Bottom L ine

Brass Craft Manufacturing shut down production so employees couldshare in the CET Ergonomic Success Award presentation.

Brass Craft Manufacturing - Brownstown PlantWork-Comp Costs Drop Dramatically

Brass Craft Manufacturing Company’s Brownstown Plant, aMasco Corp. subsidiary, has significantly reduced work-related inju-ries, resulting in a dramatic reduction of workers’ compensation costs–from $250,000 in 1997 to $811 in 1999. More important, they havereduced the human suffering associated with workplace injuries.

“This incredible improvement by Brass Craft’s Brownstownplant in only two years sends a strong message to all employersthat an investment in employee safety will bring significant divi-dends,” said CIS Director Kathleen Wilbur .Ergonomic Success Award

In recognition of their ergonomic improvements, theBrownstown Plant received the CET Ergonomic Success Awardon Sept. 18, the first issued to an employer since 1996. The facilityshut down operations, so all employees could share in the recogni-tion. MIOSHA Director Doug Earle presented the award to DonMilroy , President, Brass Craft Manufacturing Company/MascoGroup Vice President; and Eric Neer, Director of Operations,Brownstown Plant.

“We consider our people our most important asset. Thereforetheir safety is our top priority,” said Milroy . “Thanks to the team-work of our fine people, we have improved our safety record andare the proud recipients of this prestigious award. My congratula-tions and thanks to all of our Brownstown people for this wonder-ful achievement.”

“I’m proud to be a part of the team that has made our plant asafer place to work. We made safety our number one concern severalyears ago and initiated a full-court press throughout our entire op-eration to heighten the level of safety awareness,” said Neer. “Hav-ing gone three years without a lost time accident is proof that ourefforts have paid off. My hat is off to the Brownstown team!”

This award is issued by the Consultation Education & Train-ing (CET) Division to employers for instituting ergonomic im-provements and substantially reducing traumatic strain and spraininjuries and cumulative trauma disorder illnesses.

“It’s an honor to present the Ergonomic Success Award to suchan outstanding facility,” said Earle. “We plan on sharing your excel-lent achievements with other companies, to help them understandthat workplace safety and health makes good business sense.”

The criteria for the award are stringent and include:n An incidence rate below the rate for their SIC Code;n Improvement achieved through engineering controls;

n At least a 25 percent reduction of traumatic strain/spraininjury, and/or cumulative trauma disorder illness rate, over 12 months;n Employee input.

Ergonomic InnovationsThe Brownstown plant’s ergonomic improvements came from

several areas, including: the ergonomic committee, near-miss/haz-ard reports, and safety committee suggestions. They reduced theirrecordable incidents from 22, 10 of which were ergonomics re-lated, in 1997–to three injuries, with only one related to ergonom-ics, in 1999. In addition, they haven’t had a lost time injury sinceSept. 17, 1997. As of April 2000, Brass Craft has reduced its ergo-nomic-related injuries to zero.

They have initiated more than 14 specific ergonomics improve-ments to achieve these results. Some of the improvements include:Installing “sit/stand” chairs to relieve prolonged standing, install-ing foot rails to relieve back stress, installing turntables to reducereaching strain, and many other improvements which eliminatedlifting, pulling and straining procedures.

Brass Craft Manufacturing Company is a wholly owned sub-sidiary of Masco. They employ 1,400 workers, at six plants in theU.S. and Canada. They offer more than 7,000 products for theprofessional and the do-it-yourself plumber. The Brownstownplant has 175 workers on three shifts.

88888

nnnnn

HEALTHCARE Work Conditions & Patient Safety

By: Suellen CookCET Safety Consultant

Enhancing working conditions and patientsafety in healthcare settings was the theme for anational conference Oct. 17-18, 2000, in Pitts-burgh. The conference was sponsored by theOccupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA), the National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH), the National Cen-ter for Infectious Diseases, the Agency forHealthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), andthe Veterans Health Administration.

The conference, “Enhancing WorkingConditions and Patient Safety: Best Prac-tices,” focused on evidence-based approaches toimproving both working conditions and patientsafety in healthcare. Conference participantsdiscussed successful and unsuccessful practicesin these areas by reviewing both the barriersencountered and practical examples of improve-ments that can be replicated by others.Healthcare Concerns

Why a conference to discuss safety and healthfor healthcare workers and patient safety? The con-ference addressed concerns for workers making upeight percent of the total United States workforce.In the U.S., there are approximately 21,000 nurs-ing home worksites with 1.6 million workers. Bythe year 2005, it is estimated that there will be 2.4million nursing home direct care workers. Theaverage non-fatal injury rate for nursing homes is16.8 injuries per 100 workers. The trend is up per100 full-time workers and continues to trend upwhen compared to high-hazard industries such asconstruction and farming.

The “Best Practices” conference also ad-dressed patient safety. Patient safety or the lackthereof is not a new problem either. Approxi-mately 20 percent of hospital admissions resultedin an injury after admission. Four percent of thoseadmissions resulted in a serious or fatal injury.There are on average, 1.7 errors per day per pa-tient. Thirty-six percent of teaching hospitaladmissions are injured. Deaths due to prevent-able adverse events in healthcare facilities aregreater than all the deaths for multi-vehicle ac-cidents, breast cancer and AIDS combined.Healthcare Workers

People do not come to work to hurt some-one or to make a mistake. Healthcare workersafety and patient/resident safety is a complexissue. In the healthcare workplace, the contin-gent workforce is growing. Approximately 20percent of healthcare workers are contract, part-time or temporary workers. This workforce isnot stable, is less traditional, is younger, and is

also less educated. Additionally, these inexperi-enced workers are increasingly exposed to highrisk-tasks with little or no safety training.

To complicate matters even more, there aremore patients of a higher acuity level needingcare, with fewer workers to do the job. Healthcarefacilities continue to downsize the number ofemployees, de-skill the employees on-site, col-lapse job titles, and provide fewer direct careworkers for the same number of patients andresidents. As a result, healthcare workers arebeing injured. Moreover, mistakes are beingmade by caregivers and patient and residentsafety in healthcare facilities is compromised.MIOSHA Presentation

In response to a call for abstracts, I submit-ted an abstract for consideration by the planningcommittee, and the abstract was accepted forpresentation at the national conference. The pre-sentation at this conference demonstratedMIOSHA’s commitment to developing innova-tive safety and health education programs forMichigan’s employers and employees. The fol-lowing is a summary of the presentation.

The presentation, titled “Safety Strategiesfor Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Fa-cilities,” shared the MIOSHA five-year strate-gic plan with the goal of reducing injuries andillnesses by at least 15 percent among caregiversin nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

MIOSHA has two primary strategic plangoals for the nursing home industry: 1) improveworkplace safety and health for all workers, asevidenced by fewer hazards, reduced exposures,and fewer injuries, illnesses, and fatalities; and2) increase employer and worker awareness of,commitment to, and involvement with, safety andhealth to effect positive changes in workplaceculture. To meet these strategic plan goals,MIOSHA will be increasing the number of in-spections by enforcement personnel and also thenumber of voluntary hazard surveys and trainingprograms for facilities with the Standard Indus-trial Classification (SIC) codes of 8050-8059.

For a safety and health program to be suc-cessful, there must be management commitmentand active employee participation. For years therehas been the assumed risk that hazardous chemi-cal exposures, needlesticks, cumulative traumadisorders such as back strains and sprains, toname a few examples, are all a normal and ac-ceptable part of the healthcare worker’s job.Workers’ rights include an environment free fromrecognized hazards that could cause serious in-jury or death. Workers have a right to be trainedin Bloodborne Infectious Diseases, Hazard Com-munication/Right to Know, and Safe Resident/

Patient handing techniques. Workers also havethe right to contact MIOSHA, participate in the in-spection process and not be discriminated against.CET Healthcare Services

Consultation Education & Training (CET)consultants are available to conduct on-site ser-vices to nursing homes and long-term care fa-cilities. Employers can request the initiation ofa Safety and Health Development Program to:n Evaluate their overall safety and health

programs;n Review and audit the OSHA injury and

illness log (Log 200);n Conduct a hazard survey/inspection of

the worksite (no penalties or citations);n Develop customized in-service training

for supervisors at the worksite; andn Provide follow-up audits and support to

management and staff to monitor progress.Employers can also request the initiation

of an Ergonomics Development Program(EDP) by CET consultants. The EDP will:n Identify workplaces with potential ergo-

nomics problems;n Supply the employer with a comprehen-

sive proposal covering total case incident rate,sprain/strain case rate, and cumulative traumadisorder (CTD) case rate;n Recommend available ergonomics pro-

gram and training resources;n Furnish customized ergonomics training

to supervisors; andn Provide follow-up audits and support to

management and staff to monitor progress.If you are interested in preventing injuries

and illnesses in your workplace, and providingsafety and health education to your employees,the MIOSHA program is ready to help youachieve your goals. For more information pleasecall: CET Division, 517.322.1809.

CET Seminars

MIOSHA has a series of seminars, “ SafetySolutions for Nursing Homes and Long-TermCare Facilities ,” which address occupationalhazards in nursing homes and personal carefacilities. The remaining seminars are below.

Date Location

3/13 Mt. Pleasant3/22 Temperance5/16 Escanaba5/23 Westland8/15 Lansing

For details on the March seminars, see page13. Details on the other seminars will be infuture issues.

Winter 2001

99999

nnnnn

HEALTHCAREM a n a g e m e n t S t r a t e g i e s

By: Gerald MedlerCET Safety Consultant

The adoption of the MIOSHA StrategicPlan has created a renewed interest and fo-cus upon occupational safety and health is-sues in nursing homes and long-term carefacilities.

Back in the ‘70s, safety consultants re-ceived workers compensation data listing all

places of employment that had three or morecompensable injuries for the counties theycovered. This data contained: the part of thebody, nature of injury, source of injury, andtype of accident, as well as a compensableinjury rate. Even at that time, most nursinghomes and personal care facilities had rateshigher than the majority of manufacturingplants in my area (Northern Michigan LowerPeninsula).Safety Audit

As a part of our consultation program,we contacted these facilities to offer assis-tance with their safety program. Part of ourservice involved conducting a needs analysis(group meetings with supervisors to get theirinput as to why and how employees were get-ting injured), a cost analysis of uninsuredcosts, and a hazard survey. We also conductedan injury audit of recordable cases and lost-time accidents, to identify the causes of theaccidents and any trends emerging.

The average audit revealed that approxi-mately 80 percent of the cases involved strain/sprain injuries, primarily to the back, duringpatient handling and transferring activities.

(Eg. bed to wheelchair, wheelchair to showerchair, bed to Gurney, moving patient tochange bed clothes or linens, or transportinga patient.) Slips, trips and falls caused bycontact with fluids on walking surfaces,would contribute another five to 10 percent.The remaining cases usually involved strainsand sprains related to material handling ac-tivities in dietary, housekeeping, laundry andmaintenance departments.

I soon came to re-alize this problem couldnot be solved solely bycompliance withMIOSHA safety stan-dards. In fact, standardshad very little to do withthe problem! It also be-came readily apparentthe problem was not anissue of lack of knowl-edge or skill. These fa-cilities had in-servicetraining directors anddepartments, physicaltherapists, and heldmore employee in-ser-vice training sessions inone month, than mostmanufacturing plantsdid in a year! They were

the experts in these matters. But if this wasthe case, why did they continue to have theseinjuries?Accountability

Part of the answer came one day whenI was working with an in-service director,named Katie, at a nursing home in TraverseCity. She was one of the most dedicatedand caring people that I have ever met.While discussing patient handling con-cerns, the topic of transfer belts (gate belts)came up, and she explained their extensiveemployee training program. Then there wasa moment of silence, she sort of loweredher head, and remarked “but they don’t usethem!” Al l the knowledge and ski l l isworthless if it’s not used.

I then met with the home’s administra-tor, to discuss supervisor accountability andresponsibility for safety and to insure that allthis training was not wasted. In this case,transfer belts were made a part of the uni-form and employees who forgot them, had topunch out to go home and get them. Account-ability at all levels is the one common ele-ment that I have found in organizations that

have excellent safety records.Scheduling

A second part of the solution came whileworking with Helen Millen, associated withthe Wayne State University School of Nurs-ing. We were honored to have her participatein many of our health care seminars.

One of her favorite comments was,“Where is it carved in stone that all bathshave to he given between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00a.m.?” Some patients may prefer their bathin the afternoon or evening. Overloading theday shift with all the transferring activitiescontributes to the problem! Scheduling thework load over all three shifts will assist inmaking more staff available for two-persontransfers when required, as well as distribut-ing the demand for mechanical lifting aids,hence increasing availability.Staffing

The third element of our solution to thisproblem is closely related to the schedulingissue. That is: Staffing. In instances wherescheduling of transferring activities cannotalone reduce the risk of injury, additional staffshould be scheduled at peak transferring pe-riods. These staffing levels have to be com-mensurate with the work loads that are beingplaced upon the employees.

This may not be the total solution to theproblem, but it has helped in several of thenursing homes and medical care facilities Ihave had the opportunity to work with overthe years!

This healthcare worker is using a lifting device to transfer the patient.(Photos courtesy of Michigan Health & Hospital Association.)

Patient transfers can often be the source ofback injuries.

1 01 01 01 01 0

The MIOSHA Consultation Education & Training (CET) Division recognizes the safetyand health achievements of Michigan employers and employees through CET Awards .

The CET Plaque is granted to employers who have achieved five or more years of outstand-ing record. The CET Gold Award is given to employers who have achieved two years of outstand-ing record. The CET Silver Award is issued to employers with one year of an outstanding record,and the CET Bronze Award recognizes employers who have made a measurable improvement.

CET also gives out two ergonomic awards. The CET Ergonomic Innovation Award ispresented to companies for innovative ideas which have been implemented to reduce worker strain.The CET Ergonomic Success Award is awarded to employers who have instituted ergonomicimprovements and have reduced traumatic injuries substantially.

Dowding Industries, Inc.Dowding Industries, Inc. received the CET Bronze Award from CET Con-

sultant Debra Gundry. Dowding Industries incorporates safety in everythingthey do. Dowding conducts monthly safety meetings with employees, and worksclosely with MIOSHA and their workers’ compensation carrier to assist withemployee training. Safety plays a very important part in all of the company’sbusiness and manufacturing operations. According to Gundry, Dowding has anactive safety committee, written safety policies, and a strong commitment ofresources to safety.

Dowding Industries, Inc., has three Michigan locations, two 80,000square-foot buildings in Eaton Rapids, and a 20,000 square-foot building inSpringport. Dowding Industries employs approximately 200 workers at thecombined facilities. They manufacture parts for the diesel engine business,along with some light automotive work. Dowding has the ability to builddies, do short run and proto-type work, and has complete manufacturing andstamping capabilities.

CET Consultant Debra Gundry (center) presents the Bronze Awardto Jerry Heisler, Don Fowler, Ray Prater and Mary Schneider.

CETAWARDS

MIOSHA Director Doug Earle (third from R.) presents two ErgonomicInnovation Awards to Lacks representatives: (from L.) Mark Stratton,Corporate Safety Manager; A.J. Ponstein, Director of Protective Services;Kurt Lacks, Executive Vice President; Roger Andrzejewski, Director ofHuman Resources; Lee Pool, M.D., Corporate Medical Director; RichardLacks, Jr., President & CEO.

Lacks EnterprisesLacks Enterprises of Grand Rapids received two Ergonomic Inno-

vation Awards (CIS) on Sept 21. Lacks Enterprises has 13 manufacturingplants in the Grand Rapids area. They have initiated significant ergo-nomic changes in their plants to reduce workplace injuries. Two plantsreceived awards for ergonomic innovations: the Barden Assembly Plantand the 52nd Street Paint East Plant.

“Ergonomic injuries and illnesses are a major concern to employerstoday,” said CIS Director Kathy Wilbur . “We are proud to recognize

Lacks Enterprises for their outstanding efforts to make ergonomic changesto protect employees, and at the same time increase productivity. Thisjust makes good business sense.”

BSR Director Doug Earle presented the award to Lacks EnterprisesPresident Richard Lacks, Jr. Employee and management representatives,as well as plant safety committee members attended the presentation.Other state and local officials were on hand to congratulate Lacks Enter-prises.

“Our President, Richard Lacks, Jr., has given us the direction andsupport required to make health and safety the top priority at Lacks Enter-prises,” said Roger Andrzejewski, Director of Human Resources. “Hisleadership promotes a working environment that generates the necessarycooperation between safety, medical, maintenance and manufacturingpersonnel, which results in the ergonomic innovations that we have imple-mented. We take great pride in our accomplishments, and the recognitionwe are receiving from the State of Michigan.”

The Barden Assembly Plant rearranged work stations with spe-cific equipment to keep worker’s wrists in a neutral position, therebypreventing repetitive motion injuries. Workers at the 52nd Street PaintEast Plant place 4' by 5' grilles into long boxes, which caused backstress. Corrugated boxes were replaced with foams cells which auto-matically banded together and allowed employees to work at their com-fort level.

“Lacks Enterprises has positioned its company as a leader in ergo-nomic awareness and safety,” said BSR Director Doug Earle. “We ap-plaud their efforts to work safely and work smartly.”

For four decades, Lacks Enterprises has been a leader in the pro-duction of exterior decorative trim components for the automotive in-dustry. Their progressive use of integrated production, coupled with so-phisticated engineering technology, enables them to produce individualparts of the highest quality. Lacks Enterprises has 14 manufacturingfacilities, 13 in the Grand Rapids area, and employ 1,850 workers in theGrand Rapids area.

Winter 2001

1 11 11 11 11 1

n

By: Mary Jo Reilly, MS, EpidemiologistMSU Department of Medicine

Michigan FACE

Every work-related death in Michigan is preventable. That is thepremise that underlies a new surveillance and prevention initiative inMichigan called MI FACE , which stands for Michigan Fatality As-sessment and Control Evaluation. This effort is being established andrun through the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine’sOccupational and Environmental Medicine program. Dr. KennethRosenman and his team of two industrial hygienists, an epidemiologist,specialists in the fields of farm safety, communications and engineering,and research support staff are working to actively study the causes of allwork-related deaths in our state.

The project’s mission is to use the information learned about thecircumstances that lead to work-related deaths to develop recommenda-tions that can be applied to prevent similar deaths from occurring. Therecommendations will be distributed to stakeholders who are in a posi-tion to help prevent similar deaths. Key stakeholders include: unions;employers; health and safety representatives; similar industries; Michi-gan State University Agricultural Extension agents; vendors and manu-facturers of machines involved in fatalities; and local, state and nationalhealth and safety professionals.

Work-related deaths cover a wide range of circumstances, some ofwhich might not typically be considered or identified as occupational.Some of the more commonly thought of circumstances include construc-tion-related accidents like falls or electrocutions and manufacturing-re-lated fatal injuries. Examples of circumstances perhaps not as commonlythought of include: farming injury-related deaths including family mem-bers who work on the farm; employees who travel for their work, such assalespeople; and self-employed individuals doing construction-relatedwork.

This new initiative to study work-related traumatic deaths in ourstate will begin active tracking and follow-up in January 2001. Currently,the MSU team is establishing a network of key individuals who willreport the fatal accident incidents to MSU as they occur. Key individualswith information on fatal events include: medical examiners; MIOSHA;police and sheriff offices; newspapers; county clerks; the MSU Agricul-tural Extension agents; and others.

It is critical that MSU be notified of the fatal event as soon as pos-sible after it occurs. To facilitate rapid reporting of work-related fatali-ties, MSU is providing a toll-free telephone number, 800.446.7805, andan email address, MIFACE@ht.msu.edu, that individuals may use toreport a fatal work-related accident. Rapid reporting of the work-relatedfatality to MI FACE will allow the MI FACE investigators an opportunityto conduct a timely and factual evaluation of the workplace where thefatality occurred. MI FACE will direct a considerable amount of effort toinvestigate workplace fatalities in a non-enforcement capacity.

The MSU team is encouraged by the interest and partnerships beingdeveloped with state groups and individuals to work to prevent thesetragic fatalities. By developing meaningful, effective and practical edu-cational materials from the results of the fatality investigations, such asFatal Alert Bulletins, the MSU team hopes to help make a difference inpeople’s lives.

This grant is one of four grants awarded by Ford Motor Company aspart of their Settlement Agreement following the Ford Rouge Power Plantexplosion on Feb. 1, 1999. If you would like to know more about the MIFACE initiative, please call the toll-free number listed above, or visit theMSU College of Human Medicine’s Occupational and EnvironmentalMedicine program Website at: www.chm.msu.edu/oem/index.htm.

A New Initiative to Prevent Work-Related Fatalities Recordkeeping is an important part of a company’s total safetyand health plan. Conscientious and detailed records are a valuabletool for the employer or employees to help recognize patterns of acci-dents or illnesses that might exist in various parts of the plant. Thisinformation allows employers to take preventative actions and to makenecessary hazard abatements.

The MIOSHA Act requires most Michigan private-sector employ-ers with 11 or more employees to log and maintain records of work-related injuries and illnesses, and to make those records available dur-ing MIOSHA inspections of the workplace. Accurate accident and in-jury records are necessary to help MIOSHA determine how good a joban employer is doing at providing a safe and healthful workplace.

These records include the MIOSHA Log 200 - Log and Sum-mary of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, and the MIOSHA Form101 - Supplementary Record of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.

During the month of February, a summary of the total number ofjob-related injuries and illnesses which off occurred in the previousyear must be posted. (In the year 2001, the log from 2000 must beposted.) Employers are required to post the annual totals of the infor-mation contained on the right-hand portion of the MIOSHA Log 200.The summary must remain posted from February 1 to March 1. Thelog is to be displayed wherever notices to employees are usually posted.

Companies with no injuries and illnesses during the previousyear must post the log with zeros on the total line. The person whoprepares the annual summary must certify that the totals are correctand sign the form. Employers must make a copy of the summary avail-able to employees who move from worksite to worksite, and employ-ees who do not report to any fixed establishment on a regular basis.

Employers with 10 or fewer employees and employers in certainindustry groups (retail trade; finance, insurance and real estate; andcertain services industries) are normally exempt from the MIOSHArecordkeeping and posting requirements. These exemptions do notexcuse any employer from coverage by MIOSHA or from compliancewith all applicable safety and health standards.

If you encounter recording problems or for more information ,please contact the MIOSHA Information Division at: 517.322.1848.

An employer is required by law to notify MIOSHA within eighthours of a fatality or any hospitalization of three or more emoloyeessuffering injury or illness from an accident. A special “FatalityHotline” is available 24 hours: 800.858.0397.

Recordkeeping

ReminderEmployers must post the MIOSHA Log 200

during the month of February

1 21 21 21 21 2

By: Richard Zdeb,CET Safety Consultant

Canada’s LargestHealth & Safety Event

Each spring, the Industrial AccidentPrevention Association (IAPA) sponsorsCanada’s largest health and safety conferenceand trade show. The conference, “PeopleCreating Solutions: Health & Safety 2000,”was held April 10 - 12, 2000, in Toronto,Ontario. Each year the conference attractsmore than 6,000 health and safety profession-als from across Canada, the U.S., and inter-nationally. The conference offers: interactivehands-on demonstrations; comprehensive ses-sions, seminars, and workshops; keynotespeakers; and more than 350 exhibitors.

The IAPA is a non-profit health and safetyorganization whose vision is: “A world whererisks are controlled because everyone believessuffering and loss are socially, morally and eco-nomically unacceptable.” IAPA has been host-ing its annual conference and trade show for84 years to bring health and safety profession-als together to help businesses and communi-ties achieve safe and healthy workplaces. Theyhave more than 45,000 member firms repre-senting 1.4 million employees across Ontario.

I was invited to participate in the con-ference by Veronica Campbell, Safety andHealth Director at the Windsor-Detroit Tun-nel Corporation. Campbell is a member ofthe Council of Representatives, which bringslocal ideas and concerns to the IAPA Boardof Directors. She had attended a number ofConsultation Education & Training (CET)seminars I had given, and as a result, askedme to conduct a session on, “The Role of aSupervisor in Health and Safety.”

My program offered attendees a “Do-ing Business in Michigan” perspective, andwas a 90-minute overview of the eight-hourCET course. I was enthused to have 160people attend my session. Over the years,this eight-hour seminar for supervisors wasdeveloped to address small employer needsthat could not be handled at the employer’sfacility.

The program consists of five key areas offormal responsibilities for supervision in healthand safety. These include:n Safety and Health Inspections,n Job Safety Analysis,n Accident Investigation,n Hazard Recognition and Corrective Ac-

tion, andn Worker Training.From my point of view, this conference of-

fered me a real opportunity for sharing infor-mation. There are a number of companies inMichigan that do business in Canada or havetheir home offices there. To better serve ourMichigan companies with interests in Canada,I researched the following topics at the confer-ence:n The Canadian perspective on the Right

to Refuse for Canadian workers;n The Due Diligence provisions that are in

the Canadian OSH Act;n The handling of Canadian Federal and

Provincial differences in their Act;n The role of the IAPA compared to that of

the CET Division of MIOSHA;n The possibility of a future Canadian Er-

gonomics Standard;n Certification requirements for worker

representation in manufacturingand other selected industries; andn Canadian OSH require-

ments of safety and health com-mittees.

I was pleased to have the op-portunity to share informationabout our Michigan CET pro-grams and services. And I was es-pecially pleased to greatly in-crease my knowledge of Canada’soccupational health and safetyprograms.

For further information onIAPA, you can visit their Websiteat: www.iapa.on.ca. For informa-tion on CET programs and semi-nars, please call 517.322.1809, orvisit the bureau’s Website at:www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr.

CET Safety Consultant Richard Zdeb presents a session atCanada’s IAPA Health & Safety Conference 2000.

WinterWarn ing

Winter has arrived with a vengeance inMichigan this year, and is forcing America’soutdoor workers to face yet another challengeto safety and health on the job. Exposure tocold weather can be more than uncomfortable,it can be dangerous. To help protect them,MIOSHA is reminding employers and employ-ees to avoid prolonged exposure to frigid tem-peratures.

Employers and workers need to knowhow to defend against the hazards of work-ing in extremely cold temperatures. Duringwinter months, workers in such industries asconstruction, commercial fishing and agricul-ture need to be especially mindful of theweather, its effects on the body, proper pre-vention techniques, and treatment of cold-related disorders.

Wearing the right clothing is the mostimportant step a person can take to fight thecold’s harmful effects, and ultimately avoidcold-related injuries. Employers can takeadded steps to help protect their workers byhaving employees come out of the cold forperiods of time, providing additional heatsources, and setting up systems to check morefrequently on people in the cold.

During cold weather about 60 percentof a person’s body fuel is used to heat thebody. When exposed to frigid tempera-tures, particularly for extended periods oftime, a person will tire easily, and exposedskin will cool rapidly. Th is i s p r imebreeding ground for the dangerous ef-fec ts o f the co ld : hypothermia andf ros tb i te . Combine cold temperatureswith water, including actual immersion,and trench foot becomes another potentialserious ailment.

Federal OSHA has produced a fact sheetentitled, “Protecting Workers in Cold En-vironments,” which defines the harmful ef-fects of the cold and provides guidelines andrecommendations for protecting workers. Alsoincluded is immediate first aid measures tobe taken to treat cold-related injuries or ill-nesses. The fact sheet is available on theOSHA Website at: www.osha.gov, and thenclicking on the “News Room” and “FactSheet” links.

The quiet symptoms of potentially deadlycold-related ailments often go undetected un-til the victim’s health is endangered. Know-ing the facts on cold exposure and following afew simple guidelines can ensure that thisseason is a safe and healthy one.

n

Winter 2001

1 31 31 31 31 3

Education & Training CalendarDate Course MIOSHA Trainer

Location Contact PhoneJanuary29 Accident Inv., Recordkeeping, Work Comp Strategies Karen Odell

Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.4500February1 When MIOSHA Visits Lee Jay Kueppers

Shelby Township Gene Shepherd 810.731.34765 Supervisors’ Role In Safety Richard Zdeb

Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.45007 Managing the Results of Medical Surveillance Jenelle Thelen

Lansing Sandy Long 517.394.46147 & 8 2-Day Mechanical Power Press Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy Desrosier 248.620.253413 Machine Guarding Micshall Patrick

Kalamazoo Lisa Peet 616.373.780715 Powered Industrial Truck “Train-the-Trainer” Micshall Patrick

Grand Rapids Danielle Wheeler 800.704.767621 Industrial Ergonomics Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy Desrosier 248.620.253421, 22, 23 Safety & Health Administrator Course Quenten Yoder

Centerville Tammy Reed 616.467.994522 Introduction to Industrial Hygiene Jenelle Thelen

Kalamazoo Danielle Wheeler 800.704.767626 Strategies to Eliminate Amputations Linda Long

Southfield Ed Ratzenberger 248.557.701027 Powered Industrial Truck “Train-the-Trainer” Doug Kimmel

Gaylord Shelly Hyatt 231.546.7264March5 Ergonomics Bob Carrier

Mt. Pleasant Bill Knapp 517.772.40006, 7, 8 Safety & Health Administrator Course David Luptowski

Saginaw Bill Lechel 517.755.57518, 15, 22 Safety & Health Administrator Course Suellen Cook

Canton Jacqualine Schank 734.464.996413 Safety Solutions for Nursing Homes & Long Term Care Bob Carrier

Mt. Pleasant Bill Knapp 517.772.400020 & 27 10-Hour Construction Seminar Jerry Faber

Southfield Keijania Mann 248.948.700022 Safety Solutions for Nursing Homes & Long Term Care Jennifer Clark-Denson

Temperance Judith Hamburg 734.847.055926, 27, 28 Safety & Health Administrator Course for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Bloomfield Hills Robin McLellan 248.972.1141April3 Introduction to Industrial Hygiene Jenelle Thelen

Escanaba Doreen Berndt 906.786.58029 When MIOSHA Visits Suellen Cook

Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.4500

1 41 41 41 41 4

Construction SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. Daniel CorbatMr. Carl Davis**

Mr. Andrew LangMr. Martin Ross

ManagementMr. Thomas HansenMr. Charles GatecliffMs. Cheryl HughesMr. Peter Strazdas*

Public MemberMr. Kris Mattila

General Industry SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. James Baker

Mr. Tycho FredericksMr. Michael D. Koehs*

Mr. John PettingaManagement

Mr. George A. ReamerMr. Timothy J. Koury**

Ms. Doris MorganPublic Member

Ms. Geri Johnson

Occupational HealthStandards Commission

LaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung**

Ms. Cynthia HollandCapt. Michael McCabeMs. Margaret Vissman

ManagementMr. Robert DeBruynMr. Michael LucasMr. Richard Olson

Mr. Douglas Williams*Public Member

Dr. Glen Chambers

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

Standards UpdateWork Continuing on MIOSHA Construction Safety

Part 22 Standard - Signals, Signs, Tags and BarricadesBy: Mike Eckert, ChairPart 22 Advisory Committee

A standard of significant importance to organizations involved in highway constructionand maintenance in Michigan is in the process of being enhanced and updated to better addressthe specific safety issues related to these operations.

The proposed Part 22 Standard - Signals, Signs, Tags and Barricades addresses, in part,traffic control in work zones as well as several other issues pertinent to those involved in high-way work operations. It also addresses signing issues in general construction operations. Thestandard adopts Part 6 of the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Michigan Manual ofUniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) and enforces these provisions on worksites.

The proposed revised standard will strive to breed more consistency between MDOT andMIOSHA directives for traffic control. It will also update definitions and clarify information fortraffic regulators (formerly known as “flaggers”).

Perhaps most importantly, the standard will add language specific to the highway construc-tion and maintenance industry regarding the placement and removal of traffic control devices,such as cones, drums, signs, barricades, etc. The proposed standard will allow for workersplacing these devices from moving vehicles to use alternative placement methods which willhelp to prevent injuries from falling and/or being struck by construction equipment.

The revisions to the standard are currently at the Legislative Service Bureau for informalreview. The proposal has begun the long administrative process to be promulgated into law.

Advisory Committee Members NeededBy: Connie Munschy, Chief,Standards Division

One of the unique aspects of the MIOSHA program is the use of commissions to developand adopt standards. The citizen members of our three commissions are appointed by the Gov-ernor. The commissions decide what standards need to be adopted, what standards need to bechanged, and what standards need to be rescinded.

Each commission, when it decides to adopt a standard specific to Michigan, appoints anadvisory committee from the effected industry, representing both management and workers, todraft the standard. All commission and advisory committee meetings are open to the public.

Applications are reviewed by the appropriate commission to ensure that the candidate hasthe necessary expertise and experience, and also that the committee maintains a balance oflabor and management representatives. The dedication of the many advisory committee mem-bers has helped to ensure that MIOSHA standards are written clearly and concisely in plainEnglish, to reflect the needs of Michigan employers and employees.

Currently, we have vacancies on six advisory committees. Please contact the StandardsDivision if you would like to apply for one of the following vacancies.

General Industry StandardsPart 58 Vehicle Mounted Elevated Work Plat-forms - Labor & ManagementPart 63 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills -Labor & Management

Construction StandardsPart 12 Scaffolds - LaborPart 13 Mobile Equipment - ManagementPart 20 Demolition - Labor & ManagementPart 26 Steel Erection - Labor

Part 22 Advisory Committee MembersManagementForrest Henry - AGCRoger Swap - HS.CO.Bruce Monroe - MDOTMike Eckert - MRBA

LaborKen Peterie - IUOE #324Andre Schirk - IUEC #85James DeVos - IUOE #324Paul Gassel - MLT&A

Winter 2001

1 51 51 51 51 5

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 06. Fire Exits .................................................................................................... Final, effective 5/5/00Part 18. Overhead and Gantry Cranes ................................................................. At Advisory CommitteePart 19. Crawler, Locomotives, Truck Cranes ..................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 20. Underhung and Monorail Cranes............................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 56. Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases ........................... Final, effective 8/7/00Part 58. Vehicle Mounted Elevating & Rotating Platforms ................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 69. Compressed Gases ..................................................................................... Final, effective 8/7/00Part 74. Fire Fighting/Amendment #2 ................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 78. Storage & Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia ........................................ Final, effective 7/6/00Part 93. Air-Receivers ............................................................................................. Final, effective 8/7/00Part 00. Ergonomics ................................................................................................. BeforeCommission 12/19/00

ConstructionPart 07. Welding & Cutting .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 10. Lifting & Digging ...................................................................................... Draft at LSB for formal reviewPart 14. Tunnels, Shafts, Cofferdams & Caissons ................................................ RFR Approved by ORRPart 18. Fire Protection & Prevention ................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 20. Demolition .................................................................................................. Certified by ORRPart 22. Signs, Signals, Tags & Barricades .......................................................... Draft at LSB for formal reviewPart 26. Steel and Precast Erection ....................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 30. Telecommunications .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewAd Hoc Communication Tower Erection .............................................................. To be convened

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Abrasive Blasting ........................................................................................................ Draft at LSB for informal reviewAir Contaminants ........................................................................................................ Draft at LSB for informal reviewAsbestos for General Industry ................................................................................... Final, effective 8/15/00Lead .............................................................................................................................. Final, effective 10/12/00Methylenedianiline ...................................................................................................... Final, effective 8/7/00Personal Protective Equipment .................................................................................. Final, effective 9/28/00Powered Industrial Trucks R3225............................................................................. RescindedRespirators in Dangerous Atmospheres .................................................................... RescindedErgonomics ................................................................................................................... Before Commission 12/19/00

ConstructionConstructionConstructionConstructionConstructionNoise in Construction R6260 ...................................................................................... Final, effective 10/6/00Personal Protective Equipment for Construction R6260 ........................................ Final, effective 8/15/00

Administrative RulesPart 11. Recording of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries ................................. Final, effective 6/22/00Part 12. Variances .................................................................................................... Final, effective 6/22/00

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation

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

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

1 61 61 61 61 6

V a r i a n c e sPublished January 26, 2001

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

Variances Requested Construction

Variances Granted Construction

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8 - Material Handling: Rule R408.40833, Rule 833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel memersunder controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAbray Steel Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedWalmart Store, RosevilleL’Anse Creuse Public School, Harrison Twp.Name and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedKoll Corporate Center, Auburn HillsName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Platinum Plant, Delta TownshipName and address of employerJohnson Steel Fabrication, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedTimber Wolf Lake Dining Hall & Activity Hub, Lake CityName and address of employerMBM Fabricators & ErectorsLocation for which variance is requestedDanou R & D Facility, Allen ParkName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedWalled Lake High School, Commerce Twp.Ford Rouge Glass Plant, DearbornDelphi Bldgs. C & D, TroyNew Plymouth High School, CantonOakland Commons Bldg. “E”, SouthfieldE. D. S. Office Building, Auburn HillsTri-City Christian Center, CantonGM Bldg. 104 - Milford Proving Grounds, MilfordRomulus Elementary School, RomulusVanBuren Commerce Center, VanBuren Twp.Beaumont Hospital, TroyBlue Water Bridge/Inspection Facility Expansion, PortA. T. Callas Bldg. A & B, TroyName and address of employerPioneer Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMary Free Bed Hospital, Grand RapidsName and address of employerSCI/SteelconLocation for which variance is requestedFord Field Domed Stadium Project, DetroitName and address of employerSova Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedFord Field Domed Stadium Project, DetroitPalladium Theater, BirminghamLLC #6 Warehouse, LivoniaWalled Lake Middle School, Walled LakeName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.

Location for which variance is requestedMac Steel, JacksonCovenant Health Care, SaginawName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedFord UAW Child Care, DearbornSpring Arbor College, Spring ArborGM Milford Proving Grounds, MilfordUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 10 - Lifting and Digging Equipment: RuleR408.41015a(2) (d)(g) (3) (4)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the use of a work platform suspended on theloadline of a crane to be used without part of the guardrailsystem. The platform is used to remove concrete form workfrom outside the facia beams on bridge deck pours. Allrequirements of Construction Safety Standard, Part 10.Lifting and Digging Equipment except Rule 1015a(2)(d)and 1018a(1) are met according to certain stipulations.Name and address of employerWalter Toebe Construction CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedState Street Bridge/Dam Rehabilitation Project#1020.007-R-1, Alma

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 12 - Scaffolds and Scaffold Platforms: R408.41221,Rule 1221 (1)(c)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to use stilts at a maximum height of24 inches under controlled conditions and according tocertain stipulations.Name and address of employerWilliam Reichenbach Co.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Office Building - Secondary Complex, Lansing

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 13 - Mobile Equipment: Ref. #1926.1000 (a) (1&2) (b)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to work under overhead con-veyor obstructions in an assembly plant to dig shallowfoundation pad excavations without the use of rolloverequipment providing certain stipulations are adheredto.Name and address of employerAristeo ConstructionLocation for which variance is requestedFord Michigan Truck Plant, Wayne

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Work Platforms: Rule R408.43209, Rule3209 (b) and R408.43209, Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to remove the guardrail system of aManually Propelled Elevated Work Platform and to use aladder on the platform to gain additional height under con-trolled conditions and according to certain stipulations.Name and address of employerWalter Toebe Construction Co.Location for which variance is requestedI-94/I-75 Interchange Project, DetroitPart and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32-Aerial Lift Platforms: Rule R408.43209, Rule3209(8)

Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure scaffold planks tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail systemfor use as a work platform provided certain stipulationsare adhered to.Name and address of employerS. A. ComunaleLocation for which variance is requestedMidfield Terminal Project, Romulus

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: Rule R409.43209, Rule3209 (8)(c)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platformm pro-vided certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedFord Motor Co., Romeo

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: Rule R408.43209, Rule4209 (8)(b) and R408.43209 Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scffold plank to thetop of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system of anaerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Grand River Assembly Project, LansingName and address of employerThe State Group InternationalLocation for which variance is requestedNorthwest Midfield Terminal Project, Detroit

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8-Material Handling: Rule R408.40833, Rule 833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedVictor Corporate Park, LivoniaName and address of employerBristol Steel & Conveyor Corp.Location for which variance is requestedMichigan Automotive Compressor, Inc., ParmaName and address of employerBroad, Vogt and Conant, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedFord Field Project, Detroit Lions, White/Olsen, DetroitName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedBed, Bath and Beyond, Okemos300 N. Washington, LansingGeneral Motors ASRS Bldg/Foam & Deadener, LansingPark-Davis Building B-26, Ann ArborName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.

Winter 2001

1 71 71 71 71 7

nnnnn

Variances Granted General Indust ry

517.322.1856

Location for which variance is requestedThermofil Office Addition, FowlervilleDetroit Edison-St. Clair Power Plant, East ChinaFountain Walk Mall, NoviDetroit Axle Fitness Center/Daimler Chrysler, DetroitCrittenton Hospital Outpatient, Rochester HillsSt. Clair Community College, Port HuronDetroit Diesel-Mezzanine, RedfordACCO Systems, WarrenDecatur Public Schools, DecaturName and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedFord Motor Co., RomeoName and address of employerNational Riggers & Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedFord Heritage Project, DearbornName and address of employerSCI/SteelconLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Platinum Project, LansingName and address of employerSova Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedIslamic Association of Greater Detroit, RochesterHoly Family Elementary School, RochesterKimball Ice Arena, KimballMichael Chevrolet, Chesterfield TownshipFarmington Hills Library, FarmingtonYpsilanti District Library, YpsilantiLumigen Tech Center, SouthfieldSt. Elizabeth Ann Seten Parish, TroyMillennium Park, Building 1, LivoniaMillennium Park, Building E, LivoniaMillennium Park, Building D, LivoniaMillennium Park, Building C, LivoniaKnob Music Theater, ClarkstonSudan Corporation, Lake OrionName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedHines Park Lincoln Mercury Dealership, Milford

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 10 - Lifting & Digging Equipment: Rule R408.41015,Rule 1015a(2)(d) & R408.41018, Rule 1018a(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the use of a work platform suspended on theloadline of a crane to be used without part of the guard-rail system. The platform is used to remove concrete formwork from outside the facia beams on bridge deck poursunder controlled conditions.Name and address of employerWalter Toebe Construction CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedM-30 over the Tittabawassee & Tobacco River Project.,#M56032-45133

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 13 - Mobile Equipment: Ref.#1926.1000 (a) (1&2) (b)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to work under overhead conveyorobstructions in an assembly plant to dig shallow founda-tion pad excavations without the use of rollover equip-ment providing certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerNagle PavingLocation for which variance is requestedWalbridge Aldinger Portfolio Parking Structure, Warren

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: R408.43209, Rule 3209

(8) (b) & R408.43209, Rule 3209 (g)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedNorthwest Midfield Terminal Project, Detroit

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 1 - General Provisions: Rule 36(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to utilize a 60 PSI air nozzlefor a limited length of time under controlled conditionsas part of a test procedure.Name and address of employerWestern Michigan University, Paper Science DivisionLocation for which variance is requestedBigelow Annex, Kalamazoo

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 17 - Refuse Packer Units: Rule 1732(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to use an interlocked gate inconjunction with stop bars and uniform trash carts in lieuof the fixed barrier.Name and address of employerHoward MillerLocation for which variance is requested860 E. Main Avenue, Zeeland

Exhibitors at the Southeast Michigan Safety Conference.

Safety, Health & Technologyfor the New Millennium

On December 7, 2000, more than 250 attendees, interested in improving their workplacesafety and health, attended the safety conference sponsored by the Safety Council for South-east Michigan

The ninth-annual conference, “Safety, Health & Technology for the New Millennium,”included 30 sessions on a wide range of topics which were designed to inform attendees on thelatest changes in the field of safety and health, how to meet the coming challenges, as well as,how to solve current problems. Sessions included: Supervisor’s Role in Safety & Health; Re-sponse to a Chemical Explosion; Update on Infectious Diseases; Respirator Standard & Tech-nology; Fireworks Safety for Municipalities; and Strategies for a Successful Ergonomics Program.

MIOSHA Director DougEarle presented a special sessioncovering the 25-year history ofthe MIOSHA program. The Gen-eral Industry Safety StandardsCommission conducted a meet-ing during the conference. Morethan 50 exhibitors introducedtheir state-of-the-art products andservices.

For more information onthe services offered by theSafety Council for SoutheastMichigan, you can contactEd Ratzenberger a t800.263.7130, o r you canv is i t the i r Webs i te a t :www.safetycouncilsemi.org.

ReminderAll required MIOSHA postersare free. They are available bycalling the CET Division at517.322.1809.

If you have questions aboutwhich posters you are requiredto display, you can talk to aCET consultant.

There are several companieswhich frequently send noticesto employers, reminding themof the penalties for notdisplaying the requiredposters–and offering to sellthem a set of Michigan posters.

Please note–it is not necessaryto pay for these posters.

1 81 81 81 81 8

Midland Environmental ServicesCont. from Page 1

ground storage tanks. The company’s primary placeof business is located at 1669 S. Isabella, Mt. Pleas-ant, Michigan. They are currently doing businessas: Mt. Pleasant Excavating Services, Inc. The com-pany excavates, removes, and dismantles under-ground storage tanks throughout the state. Thesetanks contain various types of gasoline and petro-leum products and, once excavated, must be cleanedand purged of the contaminates before the demoli-tion/dismantling process can begin.

On Dec. 8, 1994, Mickiel J. Rennenberg, anemployee of Midland Environmental Services,Inc., was killed when an explosion occurred dur-ing a cutting operation on an underground storagetank which had previously contained a petroleumproduct. The explosion occurred at about 2:40 p.m.while seven Midwest Environmental Services em-ployees were removing an old 6,000-gallon gastank in Beaverton, Gladwin County. Three otheremployees were also injured, including MichaelBurkett who was critically injured. On the day ofthe blast, Woods was on site, and was one of thethree injured employees.

Midland Environmental had been contractedto remove five underground storage tanks. Theyhad excavated all five tanks, and were in the pro-cess of cutting holes in the tanks to facilitate theirremoval. Workers had cut holes in two of the tanks,and were working on the third when the explo-sion occurred.

The MIOSHA InvestigationA MIOSHA Safety Officer with the Con-

struction Safety Division began the investigationof the explosion on Dec. 9, 1994, and concluded iton July 7, 1995. The MIOSHA investigator re-viewed corporation documents, conducted morethan 12 interviews with employees, reviewed cor-porate safety policy, met and conferred with localpolice and sheriff departments, and reviewedMIOSHA and national standards for appropriateunderground tank removal and demolition.

The investigation revealed that Woods andMidland Environmental Services, Inc., (MES)knew of the substantial risk of injury to employ-ees engaged in this type of work, and failed to use

ordinary care to prevent injury to their em-ployees. Additionally, they failed to furnishRennenberg a place of employment free fromrecognized hazards that were likely to causedeath or serious physical harm.

“There is no excuse for the human trag-edy exhibited in this case,” said BSR DirectorDoug Earle. “The mission of the MIOSHAprogram is to protect the safety and health ofMichigan workers–and we will do everythingin our power to hold employers accountableand protect working women and men.”

Woods’ and MES’ disregard of employeesafety includes, but is not limited to, the follow-ing:n Woods and MES ignored MIOSHA

safety regulations pertaining to employee train-ing. Specifically, they knowingly assigned em-ployees to open and enter underground storagetanks to clean and purge them without beingtrained on how to use and/or calibrate an explo-sive meter.n Woods and MES ignored MIOSHA

safety regulations requiring confinedspace. Specifically, they failed to instructemployees required to enter a confinedspace, regarding the nature of the haz-ards involved and the use of required pro-tective and emergency equipment.n Woods and MES ignored

MIOSHA safety regulations that re-quire the nozzles of air or inert gas,when used to clean or ventilate tanksand vessels that contain flammablegases or vapors, shall be bonded to thetank or vessel shell.n Woods and MES ignored

MIOSHA safety regulations that re-quire tools used in a potentially explo-sive atmosphere, be designated and ap-proved for such atmospheres. Specifi-

cally, they allowed the use of a gasoline-poweredcutoff saw, equipped with an abrasive wheel tocut openings into the tanks, known to have con-tained petroleum products.n Woods and MES ignored MIOSHA safety

regulations which require that where a tank isknown or suspected to contain a hazardous sub-stance, tests shall be conducted and the hazardeliminated before demolition/dismantling is per-mitted to begin. Specifically, they failed to en-sure that testing was conducted before cuttingon the tanks, which were known to have con-tained gasoline/petroleum products, and theyfailed to eliminate the hazards.n Woods and MES ignored MIOSHA safety

regulations that require employers to develop,maintain, and coordinate an accident preventionprogram.

On Sept. 26, 1995, MIOSHA issued sevenwillful citations and one serious citation to Mid-land Environmental Services, Inc., with proposedpenalties totaling $427,000.

The Gladwin County rescue team rushes to provide emergency services at the explosion site. The two tanks on theleft had been cut open and entered for clean up. During the explosion, one end of the far-right tank blew off.

After a hole was cut in the end of this tank, an employeeentered the tank to clean up the residue. The 55-gallondrum and dust pan were used during residue removal.

This spark-producing saw was used to cut ahole in oneend of the storage tanks, to prepare them for clean up.

Cont. on Page 19

Winter 2001

1 91 91 91 91 9

n

n

Midland Environmental Services

Cont. from Page 18

Safety & Health Programs

How do you measure the cost to the indi-vidual? The employer risks product, assets ormoney. The employee risks mobility, perma-nent disability or even death. The cost is im-measurable to the individual worker as wellas unacceptable and avoidable. Employees forthe most part, are willing to perform their worksafely and take responsibility for their ownactions. It’s up to their employer to assure aworkplace culture where safety is an integralpart of the system, not just something we dowhen MIOSHA comes or after an accidentoccurs.

OSHA recognizes the relationship of nearmiss to serious injury as well. It has been man-dated that the MIOSHA program will target itsattention to high-risk industries with a provenpotential for serious and disabling injuries. Fo-cused training, enforcement and on-site consul-tation efforts

have been developed to impact these in-dustries. Employer commitment to supervisoryand employee safety training and enforcementmust go in concert with this effort as well.Help is Available

The Consultation, Education and Train-ing (CET) Division is available to assist em-ployers with their safety programs and can ex-plain in detail any of the concepts listed in thisarticle. The Division can be contacted at517.322.1809.

An employer cannot wait to incorporatesafety into their operations. The challenge isto foster a workplace culture where everyoneaccepts responsibility for safety and pursues iton a daily basis. It must be a part of every busi-ness plan and every human plan as well. Thecost in human suffering and lost potential isunacceptable. The business of safety iseveryone’s business!

Hazard Prevention and Control Systemswill be developed to prevent and control hazards.Activities include:n A written system implemented to assure

guards, housekeeping and personal protectiveequipment are essentially in place;n Written programs and procedures are re-

quired, i.e. lockout/tagout, respirators, Right-to-Know, etc.;n Copies of appropriate MIOSHA stan-

dards are on site or available for quick ac-cess.

And finally, Safety and Health Training.The goal is for companies to provide a mecha-nism for their employees to understand safetyand health hazards, and how to protect them-selves and others. Activities include:n New employee safety orientation;n Training which is given periodically and

pertains to the hazards of the jobs;n Training when personal protective equip-

ment is provided;n Training when a pattern of unsafe or un-

healthy behaviors are observed.Program Kit Available

The above examples are just a few of themany suggestions included in the kit. The kitcan be ordered by calling the CET Division at517.322.1809 and requesting the Safety andHealth Written Program Kit .

To have an effective safety and health pro-gram a company needs to develop and imple-ment a system which will allow for continuedgrowth and changes to all of these elements. Asafety and health program is not a short-termgoal–it’s a long-term project. In order for a safetyand health program to be effective, it cannot beput on a shelf and dusted off when a “major”event occurs. It has to be used daily and incor-porated into the workplace culture.

Criminal Investigation and ProsecutionAccording to the MIOSHA Act, every will-

ful violation, which is connected to a fatality, isreferred to the Michigan Attorney General’s Of-fice for criminal investigation and prosecution.MIOSHA pursued the criminal action throughthe Attorney General’s Office because the em-ployer contributed to the worker’s death by will-fully ignoring safety standards. When the Attor-ney General’s Office made the decision to pro-ceed with the criminal prosecution, the criminaland MIOSHA cases were combined.

A pre-trial hearing was held in GladwinCounty District Court in November 1999, fea-turing several days of testimony by police offic-ers, former workers and MIOSHA. On Nov. 18,1999, the judge bound over Woods and MidlandEnvironmental Services, Inc., for trial in CircuitCourt on charges of involuntary manslaughter andviolation of the MIOSHA code in the workplacedeath of an employee, Mickiel Rennenberg.

MIOSHA and the Attorney General’s Officeworked closely and cooperatively to bring about aresolution in this criminal case. Diane K. Phelps,Chief of the BSR Appeals Division was instru-mental in coordinating this joint endeavor withthe Attorney General’s Office. She worked dili-gently with Assistant Attorney General DianeSmith by providing technical expertise and knowl-edge of MIOSHA rules and regulations.

In court, Woods admitted he was supervis-ing the work activities on the day of the explo-sion, that they were using the wrong cutting de-vice, and that device ignited the spark whichcaused the explosion. Moreover, Woods admit-ted he was aware of the known hazards, and stillallowed the work to proceed, and the failure tocomply with MIOSHA rules and regulations ledto the wonton and willful disregard of hazardsthat led to the death of Mickiel Rennenberg.

In the court action, Woods and Midland En-vironmental also agreed to negotiate a settlementagreement with MIOSHA. This agreement willprovide MIOSHA with the tools and the ability toclosely monitor the company and to help ensurethat their employees will be protected. The agree-ment will compel the company to do business cor-rectly, and will hold them accountable for theiractions. The reduction in the original proposedpenalties to $125,000 resolves the original cita-tions issued by MIOSHA, and is based in part ontwo financial audits of the company.

“We are grateful to our MIOSHA staff andthe Attorney General’s Office for their hard workand dedication in pursuing this case–which sendsa message to corporations and their owners thatwe may pursue similar actions against employ-ers whose willful violations of workplace safetyresult in a worker’s death,” said BSR DirectorEarle.

Workplace Safety Culture

Cont. from Page 4 Cont. from Page 5

n

SAFETY FIRST INT H E 21ST

Lansing CenterApril 17 & 18

Conference and registration information isavailable on their website:

http://www.michsafetyconference.org

2 02 02 02 02 0

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

MIOSHA News is a quarterlypublication of the Bureau of Safety& Regulation, which is responsiblefor the enforcement of theMichigan Occupational Safety andHealth Act (MIOSHA).

The purpose is to educateMichigan employers andemployees about workplace safetyand health. This document is in thepublic domain and we encouragereprinting.

Editor: Judith Keely Simons

Consumer & Industry ServicesDirector: Kathleen M. Wilbur

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDLANSING MI

PERMIT NO 1200

MIOSHA Complaint Hotline 800.866.4674Fatality/Catastrophe Hotline 800.858.0397General Information 517.322.1814

Free Safety/Health Consultation 517.322.1809

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

(15,000 copies printed at a cost of $7,500 or $0.50 per copy.)

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

517.322.1814 Doug Earle

517.322.1817 Deborah Grether

517.322.1817 Doug Kalinowski

PHONE CHIEF

517.322.1297 Diane Phelps

517.322.1856 Richard Mee

517.322.1809 Maryann Markham

248.888.8777 Jim Brogan

517.322.1831 Martha Yoder

517.322.1851 Ron Morris

517.322.1608 John Peck

517.322.1845 Connie Munschy

517.322.1825 Bill Strong

Director

Deputy Director

Deputy Director

DIVISION

Appeals Division

Construction Safety Division

Consultation Education & Training Division

Employee Discrimination Division

General Industry Safety Division

Information Division

Occupational Health Division

Standards Division

Wage & Hour Division

How To Contact Us

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

Serving Michigan...Serving YouConsumer & Industry Services