Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)Vol. 9, No. 3 Summer 2005

Cont. on Page 8

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

Taking Responsibility 3

IMCO Recycling SHARP 4

EaglePicher Lockout Fatality 5

Ergonomic Case Study 6

Quick-Coupler Hazards 7

MIOSHA at 30 Years 8

MIOSHA Milestones 10

Governor’s Proclamation 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

Residential Construction Focus 16

MIOSHA News Quiz 17

MIOSHA Alliances 18

Governor William Milliken signed the legislation that created the modernMIOSHA program. Early safety and health advocates include: Jon Vogt,Marshall Fiordelius, Jim Barrett, Irv Davis, Governor Milliken, AlPickett, Marve Walker (front), Barry Brown, and Al Harvie.

By: Martha YoderMIOSHA Deputy Director

MIOSHA at 30 MIOSHA at 30YYearsearsearsThree Decades of “Making a Difference”

You may have noticed the new look ofMIOSHA’s logo during our 30th year: “Makinga Difference for 30 Years (1975-2005).” Thismotto extends beyond the MIOSHA program andrecognizes the significant efforts of past andcurrent MIOSHA staff together with employers,employees, associations and organizations tomake a tremendous positive difference over thepast thirty years.

At thirty the MIOSHA program has grownand matured just as the profession of occupa-tional safety and health has. We have become amore responsive and diverse program. More thanever before, the program is able to problem-solve, adapt, and implement strategies to helpmove Michigan toward safer, healthier workenvironments.MIOSHA Created

It was a growing concern with the number

of workers’ experiencing occupational injuriesand illnesses during the late 1960s that first leadto the federal OSHA program and the modernstate plan programs that followed. Approxi-mately 14,000 workers were dying nationallyeach year on the job. Congress responded withpassage of the federal Occupational Safety andHealth Act in 1970. Section 18(b) of the Act pro-vides that any state may choose “to assume” re-sponsibility for the development andenforcement…of occupational safety and healthstandards.” States choosing this option must be“at least as effective as” as the federal programin adopting and applying rules and standard.

In 1975, Michigan’s overall private sectorinjury-illness rate was 9.6. In 1978, the earliestyear data is available, 115 workers died on the jobfrom injuries that could have been prevented hadMIOSHA rules been in place and implemented.

Michigan chose to address this issue as astate, continuing its heritage of striving towardsafe and healthful workplaces. The Michigan Oc-

cupational Safety andHealth Act, Public Act 154of 1974 established themodern MIOSHA pro-gram. The Act became ef-fective on January 1, 1975,for the private sector andJuly 1, 1975, for the pub-lic sector. An executivedeclaration in the Act, tooka strong position on workersafety and health:

“The safety, health,and general welfare ofemployees are primarypublic concerns. The Leg-islature hereby declaresthat all employees shall beprovided safe and health-

2

From theMIOSHA

Director’sDesk

By: Douglas J. Kalinowski

Governor’sWorkplaceSafety & HealthForum

Governor Jennifer Granholm has long been a strong advocatefor workplace safety and health. She is committed to providing theMIOSHA program with all the necessary tools to protect Michigan’sworking men and women. She has joined MIOSHA in recognizingoutstanding employers who have made safety and health an integralpart of their company culture.

Having an effective program to protect worker safety and healthis not a drain on business profits–it is an important part of being suc-cessful! Many employers in Michigan have figured this out. These areemployers who work with their employees to “do the right thing” and“do it right.”

November 3rd, MIOSHA will convene the Governor’s Work-place Safety and Health Forum. This forum will demonstrate thecommitment and results that a number of Michigan employers havefound though effective safety and health systems. It will continue theGovernor’s focus on “Manufacturing Matters” in Michigan.Safety & Health Benefits

Providing a safe and healthful work environment is not a burden-some cost of doing business. In fact, protecting workers’ safety and healthcan actually enhance a company’s bottom line. Employers who providea safe and healthy work environment report not only reductions in inju-ries and illnesses, but also these very positive bottom line benefits:

Lower workers’ compensation costs,Increased productivity,Increased employee morale,Lower absenteeism, andLower employee turnover.

Monies spent on workplace safety and health delivers an impres-sive return on investment.

The direct cost of workplace injuries in the U.S. was $38.7billion in 1998.

The U.S. workers’ compensation losses is estimated at $155 to$232 billion annually.

For every $1 invested in workplace safety and health improve-ments, businesses realize a savings of $4 - $6.

Workplaces with strong safety and health systems experience60 to 80 percent fewer lost workday injuries.

This is a tremendous savings for employers!Manufacturing Strategies

Working collaboratively with the manufacturing industry must bea priority of government agencies that interact with employers if Michi-gan is to continue its legacy as a producer of high quality goods andservices. This forum will be an important opportunity to workproactively with this important Michigan industry.

The Governor’s Forum will bring together government, labor andbusiness leaders who will share the message of increasing competi-tiveness through strong worker safety and health efforts. A morningsession will provide a high-level, executive overview, followed by an

optional “best practices” workshop in the afternoon.Forum Participants

Top government leadership, including DLEG Director DavidHollister, to demonstrate support and to highlight available servicesand assistance.

Executives and CEOs from Michigan’s “Best of the Best” com-panies will tell how safety and health pays at their workplace. Thespeakers are employers recognized by the MIOSHA’s Michigan Vol-untary Protection Program or that partner with MIOSHA.

Brass Craft Manufacturing from Brownstown Township wasable to drop their workers compensation costs from $279,000 to $811in just two years!

E & E Manufacturing of Plymouth implemented strategiesthat led to recognition as the only stamping plant to earn VPP Starstatus in the nation. E & E was committed not to move its business off-shore, but instead to focus on achieving VPP Star–which also becamethe means to improving quality, productivity, and business focus. Theynot only saved the business in Michigan, they are now expanding andcreating more jobs in their community.

Ford Motor Company, Visteon Corporation, and the UnitedAuto Workers Union (UAW) have forged a landmark partnership withMIOSHA to help create a safe and healthy work environment at the 17Ford and eight Visteon facilities in Michigan. The partnership’s pri-mary goals are not only to reduce injuries and illnesses at each loca-tion, but also to create a proactive safety and health culture, and a non-adversarial relationship that stresses cooperation.

Labor leaders from across the state that have worked closelywith employers to develop effective programs and know what the re-sults mean for them. We anticipate participation from the United Au-tomobile Workers and the AFL/CIO.

The afternoon session will provide best practices, lessonslearned, and implementation steps and strategies for developing, or-ganizing, and implementing a safety and health management system.Safety and health professionals from award winning companies andMIOSHA staff will present the afternoon workshop.Making a Difference

We are using this forum and several other tools to reinvigorateand reemphasize the critical importance of workplace safety in Michi-gan during this year–MIOSHA’s 30th Anniversary. Other tools willinclude “Take a Stand for Safety Day” and “Make a Difference Week”which are outlined in this issue on Page 3.

While the MIOSHA Program can help employers and employeesdevelop effective, cost-saving programs–it brings the message homeclear and strong when it is given by the business and labor leaderswho “make it happen” and “make a difference” every day.

Watch for our announcement on this important forum on our websiteat: www.michigan.gov/miosha.

Summer 2005

3

“Take a Stand Day”for

Workplace Safety and HealthAugust 25th

In a historic first, MIOSHA will dedicatemore than 125 professional staff towork cooperatively with employers toheighten awareness and addressworkplace safety and health issues.

At your request, a MIOSHAprofessional will provide a special one-on-one consultation.

On “Take a Stand Day” there will beno citations and no penalties forparticipating workplaces. Pleasecontact the CET Division,517.322.1809 , to request aconsultation.

“Make a Difference” by Taking ResponsibilityBy: Connie O’Neill, DirectorConsultation Education and Training Division

MIOSHA embraces a valiant mission of “pro-tecting workers.” Why do we do this? Because weall experience those moments when we hear abouta fatality, amputation, or other disabling injury orillness–and with defiant determination, we “getback up” from the sadness and destruction of lifeand know we still have work to do.

Others may walk away, but MIOSHA won’t,because life is just too precious. And that is whywe exist–to reduce and eliminate workplace fa-talities, injuries and illnesses.

MIOSHA is commemorating our 30th An-niversary with a spirit of determination to “Makea Difference” in the lives of Michigan workers.One of the ways we all can make a difference isto accept responsibility for our own safety andhealth, and those of our co-workers.

The Consultation Education and Training(CET) Division is organizing several significantevents designed to provide a heightened aware-ness of workplace safety and health. We havelearned from some of the “best of the best” com-panies that safety and health add value—to busi-ness, to the workplace, to our lives.

A very energetic focus group representingsafety and health associations, labor organiza-tions, safety councils, state government, busi-ness and industry, construction associations, andalliance partners came together on April 29th.They engaged in a lively discussion providingideas, suggestions, and a commitment to use theirresources to help MIOSHA “Make a Difference.”

Below is a preview of coming attractions—please mark your calendars!“Take a Stand Day” for Workplace Safety andHealth–August 25th

In a historic first, MIOSHA will dedicatemore than 125 professional staff to work coop-eratively with employers to heighten awarenessand address workplace safety and health issues.At your request, a MIOSHA professional will pro-vide a special one-on-one consultation such as:

Explain a specific MIOSHA rule. Conduct a safety of health hazard survey. Evaluate a safety and health system. Provide other technical assistance.

On “Take a Stand Day” there will be nocitations and no penalties for participatingworkplaces. Call the CET Division at517.322.1809 to request a consultation.“Make a Difference Week” and “Stand Downfor Safety and Health”–September 12th-16th

An Executive Proclamation by GovernorGranholm will highlight the importance of workersafety and health, with September 16th desig-

nated as a “Stand Down” for an accident-free dayacross Michigan.

The term “Stand Down” refers to agrassroots, community-based intervention pro-gram to recognize the need for worker safety andhealth through prevention efforts. During thisweek employers and employees are urged tospend each day of the week on special activitiesrelated to improving their safety and health man-agement system. One of the primary purposes isto motivate employees to speak up when theysee unsafe actions and conditions. Special daysof emphasis include:

Monday, September 12 – ManagementCommitment and Leadership;

Tuesday, September 13 – Employee In-volvement and Participation;

Wednesday, September 14 – WorksiteAnalysis and Hazard Prevention;

Thursday, September 15 – Safety andHealth Training;

Friday, September 16 – Stand Down forSafety and Health.

A “Tool Box” containing specific ideas andactivities is being developed for employers toutilize during “Make a Difference Week.” Thesematerials will also be available on MIOSHA’swebsite in early August.Michigan OSHA Walkthrough–Safety & HealthTraining CD-ROM

The “Michigan OSHA Walkthrough” CD-ROM is an interactive 22-module safety andhealth training program. It is being developedby e-Media Solutions in conjunction with theMichigan Economic Development Corporation(MEDC), MIOSHA, and the Lansing Area SafetyCouncil. Private donors and sponsors are alsopartnering with the project to assure its success.

This program features S.A.M. (Safety Ani-mated Machine) who entertains, as the learneris engaged in the training process. In Novem-ber, the CD will be mailed to 30,000 Michiganmanufacturers, free of charge.Governor’s Workplace Safety & Health Forum–November 3rd

This forum will continue the Governor’sfocus on “Manufacturing Matters in Michigan.”Working collaboratively with the manufacturingindustry must be a priority of government agen-cies that interact with employers if Michigan isto continue its legacy as a producer of high qual-ity goods and services, and the forum providesMIOSHA this opportunity.

The forum will bring together government,labor and business leaders who will share themessage of increasing competitiveness throughstrong worker safety and health efforts. A morn-ing session will provide an executive overview,

featuring exemplary industry and labor Leadersfrom Michigan’s “Best of the Best” companies.

The afternoon session will provide best prac-tices, lessons learned, implementation steps andstrategies for safety and health management sys-tems. Safety and health professionals from awardwinning companies and MIOSHA staff willpresent the workshop. The forum will kick offthe mailing of the free “Michigan OSHAWalkthrough” CD-ROM.Things You Can Do Today

We encourage you to participate inMIOSHA’s 30th Anniversary activities. You canhelp us promote this week by publishing thisinformation in your organization’s newsletter andon your website to increase participation.

You can also: Go to www.michigan.gov/miosha under

the “Spotlight” section and register to receivethe “Michigan OSHA Walkthrough” CD.

Go to www.michigan.gov/mioshatrainingto sign up for the new CET ListServ, and receiveseminar information and announcements.

Contact the CET Division for additionalinformation at 517.322.1809.

In concert with our partners, we plan to cel-ebrate MIOSHA’s 30th Anniversary in a way thatwill let workers know that together, we can all“Make a Difference.” By taking responsibility fornot only your own safety and health, but also thatof your co-workers–this shared responsibility cancreate a positive safety and health culture.

4

IMCO Recycling Inc.’s Coldwater North Plant is the second facility in thestate to receive the prestigious SHARP Award for an exemplary safety andhealth management system.

Congratulations IMCO Recycling!IMCO Recycling’s Coldwater North Plant Receives SHARP Award for Safety & Health Excellence

On Marth 9th, IMCO Recycling Inc.’sColdwater North Plant, a subsidiary of AlerisInternational, Inc., has become the secondfacility in the state to receive the prestigiousSHARP Award for an exemplary safety andhealth management system. The company’sSouth Plant received the award on August11, 2003.

The Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (MIOSHA) estab-lished the Michigan Safety and HealthAchievement Recognition Program (SHARP)Award to recognize employers that haveachieved safety and health excellence far be-yond their peers.

MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowskipresented the SHARP Award to the NorthPlant management team: Coldwater Mainte-nance Manager Steve Lucas, ProductionManager Bill Jackson, Quality Systems Man-ager Mike Fugate, Shipping and ReceivingManager Patty Quezada, and Scrap Process-ing Manager Mike Parker, who accepted theaward on behalf of all 120 Coldwater NorthPlant workers. MIOSHA representatives con-gratulated employees and management ontheir outstanding achievement.

“I am honored to present the secondMichigan SHARP Award to the IMCOColdwater North Plant–particularly since theSouth Plant received our first SHARPAward,” said Kalinowski. “Your outstandingachievement of dramatically lower injury andillness rates than similar high-hazard work-places–is a testament to corporate commit-

ment, management dedication and employeeinvolvement.”Providing a Safe Environment

The Michigan SHARP Program targetssmall, high-hazard employers–to help themdevelop, implement and continuously im-prove the effectiveness of their workplacesafety and health management system.SHARP provides an incentive for employersto emphasize accident and illness preventionby anticipating problems, rather than simplyreacting to them.

“We are very proud of this achievement,which recognizes our commitment to provid-ing a safe and healthy environment to every-one working at this site,” said Gary Barnett,Michigan Operations Manager. “It is the re-sult of teamwork between all parties, whichhas dramatically reduced our injuries andmade this plant a safer workplace.”

IMCO management believes that soundenvironmental, health and safety practiceslead to excellent product quality, an efficientworkforce and continuity of operations. TheMIOSHA evaluation team found significantmanagement commitment to carry out thesafety goals formalized in the corporate mis-sion statement.Achieving an Exemplary Record

The North Plant’s Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) Code is 3341 - Second-ary Smelting and Refining of NonferrousMetals, which is classified as a high-hazardindustry. The plant’s incidence rates are wellbelow the national average for their SIC

code. The Total Case In-cidence Rate for theNorth Plant was 7.6 in2002 and 4.7 in 2003–compared to 13.5 and11.9, respectively, forthe Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) indus-try average. The TotalDays Away/RestrictedCases for the NorthPlant was 0.69 in 2002and 3.4 in 2003–com-pared to 7.4 and 4.5,respect ively, for theBLS industry average.

As part of theirsafety and health man-agement system theNorth Plant has con-

ducted a Job Safety Analyses (JSA) for eachprocess used in the plant. They have devel-oped safe procedures for every operation andprovided safety training for all procedures.They have also conducted a personal protec-tive equipment hazard assessment for theplant to make sure workers are appropriatelyprotected.

Over the past several years, employee in-volvement has become an integral componentof the their safety and health program. CETconsultants have worked with the companyto enhance the functions of their safety com-mittee, so that it is accessible to all employ-ees and provides a mechanism for employeesto raise safety concerns, and to have themaddressed.

Self-inspections are also a vital compo-nent in the North Plant’s safety and healthmanagement system. The North Plant SafetyCommittee performs monthly inspections tomake sure each job function is being con-ducted safely. Along with the self-inspec-tions, the company has also had CET con-sultants and private consultants performsafety inspections.Recycling Top-Quality Metals

The IMCO Coldwater North Plant re-cycles more than 200 million pounds of alu-minum scrap annually. On a daily basis, theirworkers handle several hundred thousandpounds of molten aluminum, reaching over1400° F. The plant is also a registeredTS16949 (the new Automotive Industry Qual-ity Standard) and ISO14001 (the InternationalEnvironmental Management System Stan-dard) facility.

Principal customers of the IMCO alumi-num operations include major aluminum com-panies, as well as automobile manufacturersand their suppliers. These customers use mostof the metal recycled by the company to manu-facture products for transportation, packag-ing, and construction–the three largest alu-minum markets.

Aleris International, Inc. is one of theworld’s largest recyclers of aluminum andzinc and one of the leading manufacturersof aluminum sheet in the nation. The com-pany has 29 production locations in theUnited States, Latin America and Europe,and employs approximately 3,200 employ-ees. For more information about the com-pany, please vis i t their web s i te a twww.aleris.com.

Summer 2005

5

EaglePicher Lockout FatalityMIOSHA Fines EaglePicher Automotive’s Traverse City Plant $100,800 for Lockout Fatality

Electrician Rodney Windish was fatally injured when the equipmentstarted up while he was servicing this Computer Numeric Control(CNC) module system.

Michigan Department of Labor & EconomicGrowth (DLEG) Director David C. Hollisterannounced on May 12th that the Michigan Oc-cupational Safety and Health Administration(MIOSHA) cited EaglePicher Automotive’sTraverse City plant following a fatal accident,with $100,800 in proposed penalties for alleg-edly failing to protect employees from the unex-pected startup of equipment.

On Feb. 10, 2005, two EaglePicher employ-ees were working on a production line with aComputer Numeric Control (CNC) module sys-tem comprised of three dial machines with threerobotic arms that move in and out to assembleparts at eight stations. While servicing a dialmachine, electrician Rodney Windish was fatallyinjured when the equipment started up.Lockout/Tagout Standard

“The unexpected start up of machines orequipment is extremely dangerous. This em-ployer places its workers in harms way by notfollowing the lockout standard,” said Hollister.“CNC systems with tool change capabilities aredesigned to be serviced–without endangeringworkers. This tragic accident should not havehappened.”

MIOSHA Part 85, Control of HazardousEnergy Sources (Lockout/Tagout), is a compre-hensive standard that provides detailed proce-dures for employers to protect their workersfrom the unexpected startup of equipment and/or the release of stored or uncontrolled energyfrom a machine, equipment, or process. Thestandard covers the servicing and maintenanceof machines and equipment, and establishesminimum requirements for the control of haz-ardous energy.

Part 85 requires employers to establish anenergy control program to ensure that beforean employee performs any repair or mainte-nance–the energy source of the machine orequipment is isolated and shut off to preventan accidental startup. At a minimum, the lock-out/tagout program must consist of: energy con-trol procedures, employee training, and peri-odic inspections.The MIOSHA Inspection

The MIOSHA General Safety and HealthDivision began an inspection on Feb. 10th, inresponse to the fatal accident. During the in-vestigation, the safety officer became awareof alleged lockout violations and other safetyinfractions. Although the company has a writ-ten lockout program, it did not enforce its ownprocedures.

The Traverse CityEaglePicher plant has previousMIOSHA inspection historyand was well aware of the re-quirements of the lockout/tagout standard. Their inspec-tion history includes two recentscheduled inspections wherethe failure to comply with thelockout/tagout standard wascited: Inspection #304840838,issued 06/16/04; and Inspec-tion #127198521, issued 08/09/02. The citations informedthe company of the need to de-velop and implement an energycontrol policy and provide em-ployee training.

Nonetheless, the MIOSHAinvestigation found that at thetime of the accident the com-pany had two alleged willfulviolations of the lockout/tagoutstandard: no enforcement of their lockout pro-cedure, and inadequate training of their lockoutprocedure. The company also had two allegedserious violations of the standard: no annual in-spection of their lockout procedure, and no re-training of employees when new machines/pro-cesses were added.Summary of Violations

As a result of the accident investigation bythe General Industry Safety and Health Division,two Willful, two Serious, one Repeat Serious,and two Other-than-Serious violations are rec-ommended, with a total proposed penalty of$100,800.

Accident Investigation Citations:2 Willful Violations $ 78,4002 Repeat Serious Violations 11,2001 Repeat Serious Violation 11,2002 Other-than-Serious Violations 0Total Proposed Penalty $100,800A willful violation is one committed with

an intentional disregard of the requirements ofMIOSHA regulations, or plain indifference toemployee safety and health. A serious violationexists where there is a substantial probabilitythat serious physical harm or death can result toan employee.

The company was cited for one repeat seri-ous violation for failure to guard pinch points.They were also cited for two other-than-seriousviolations, with no monetary penalties. An other-than-serious violation is a condition that would

probably not cause death or serious physicalharm but would have a direct and immediaterelationship to the safety and health of employ-ees. The company has appealed the violationsand penalties.Help is Available

“Over the past five years, lack of compli-ance with the requirement for lockout/tagoutprograms has been the number one Serious vio-lation in general industry each year,” saidMIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski. “Our Con-sultation Education and Training (CET) Divi-sion can help employers protect their workersby establishing or strengthening their lockout/tagout programs.”

Employers can contact the ConsultationEducation and Training Division at (517) 322-1809 for help with their lockout/tagout programs.Consultants are available to work with employ-ers at their workplace. An excellent resource,the Lockout-Tagout Compliance Guide, SP-27,is also available in hard copy from the division.

In addition, you may wish to refer to thefollowing articles which are available on ourwebsite from previous edit ions of theMIOSHA News: Lock It Out- Every Time,Summer 2001; Minor Tool Changes and Ad-justments: Is Lockout Required, Fall 2002;Lockout-Tagout: Not Just for ManufacturingWorkplaces, Spring 2003; Lockout is a Work-place Priority: Case Studies Illustrate the Im-portance, Spring 2005.

6

Cont. on Page 19When using ladder carts to stock parts, workerswere exposed to overexertion stresses and injuries.

The case study recommended the use of self-elevatingvehicles, to eliminate or reduce ergonomic injuries.

By: Sheryl S. Ulin, Ph.D., CPEW. Monroe Keyserling, Ph.D., CSP, CPEThe University of MichiganCenter for Ergonomics

Ergonomic Intervention Case StudySelf-Elevating Vehicles Reduce Ergonomic Risks

BackgroundThis intervention study was conducted

within the replacement parts division of a largeautomotive manufacturer to better understandthe relationship between musculoskeletal inju-ries and exposure to ergonomic risk factors inthe company’s service parts distribution division.Distribution centers were organized in a two-tier system. Regional centers filled orders forreplacement parts from the service departmentsof retail car dealers. National centers obtainedreplacement parts in bulk and replenished theregional centers as needed.

Review of injury records covering a three-year period revealed that overexertion injurieswere common due to manual materials handlingactivities and manual packing tasks. Ergonomicevaluations were performed to measure ergo-nomic stresses for selected work activities sug-gested by the injury analysis. In addition, ergo-nomics professionals walked through the facili-ties to understand the ergonomic challenges andjoint labor-management committees from eachof the distribution centers identified their top10 ergonomic concerns. These three sources ofinformation were combined to identify opportu-nities for ergonomic intervention.

One part of the study focused on develop-

ing case studies to evaluate the effectiveness ofergonomic interventions in reducing exposuresto risk factors. This article describes one of thecase studies, a self-elevating vehicle. Additionalcase studies are described in Ulin andKeyserling, 2004. Another study goal was todevelop a process for identifying specific worklocations and activities where physical demandsplaced workers at increased risk of sustainingan overexertion injury and this is described else-where (Keyserling, et al., 2003).Motivation for Intervention

Traditionally, workers within the distribu-tion centers stocked and picked parts from racksand bins that ranged in height from floor levelto approximately 140 inches. The vehicles usedfor transporting parts around the warehouse andfor reaching the high bin locations have gener-ally been ladder carts. The primary ergonomicconcerns when stocking and picking using theladder cart included:

1) Pushing the ladder cart to the various racklocations;

2) Shoulder elevation and extended reachesinto the bins to reduce the actual number of stepsclimbed on the ladder; and

3) Climbing up and down on the equipment(50 percent of the time workers have objects intheir hand while climbing). This was also a safetyissue of increased risk of falling when climbingwith only one hand on the ladder railing.Description of Intervention

Ladder climbing, pushing carts and shoul-

der elevation can be eliminated or reduced throughthe use of a motorized vehicle capable of bothhorizontal and vertical movement. Five self-el-evating vehicles were purchased for three differ-ent distribution centers. This vehicle was batterypowered, traveled at a speed of 4.0 mph, and hada platform that raised to a vertical height of 161inches. The original design of the vehicle wasmodified slightly by the manufacturer to providea larger tray for storing product.Summary of Intervention EffectivenessImproved Work Postures

A computerized posture analysis system wasused to measure the amount of time awkwardpostures were observed while viewing videotapesof work tasks (Keyserling, 1986). Awkward pos-tures were defined as a significant deviation fromthe neutral position of a joint. These analyses werecompleted before and after the interventions wereimplemented to compare the amount of time work-ers spent in awkward positions.

Torso Posture: The self-elevating vehiclewas not expected to improve trunk posture sinceworkers were still required to reach periodicallyto the lowest bin levels. However, small improve-ments were observed. Predominantly neutraltorso postures were observed when using allvehicles. Severe torso flexion (forward bending)was observed in all cases when workers pickedor stocked parts from the lower shelves and thiswas not affected by the introduction of the self-elevating vehicle. Severe torso flexion was alsoobserved when workers positioned tickets on thesides of the ladder cart, and this was eliminatedwith the self-elevating vehicle.

Shoulder Posture: When using the pow-ered ladder truck or ladder cart, non-neutral pos-tures were observed 22 percent of the time. Awk-ward postures occurred when the arms were ex-tended forward and when the shoulder was raisedto pick or place objects in bins or to scan barcodes at overhead bin locations. The self-elevat-ing vehicle raised workers vertically to the ap-propriate bin location for picking or stockingparts.

There was a decrease in shoulder elevationwhile using the self-elevating vehicle for pick-ing and stockkeeping. Overall, the self-elevat-ing vehicle reduced the amount of time the shoul-der was in awkward postures to 12 percent ofthe time, roughly one-half of the duration ofawkward posture with the ladder cart. Elevatedarms were observed while loading the self-el-evating vehicle; both while reaching to the backof the cart to retrieve items (not affected by the

Summer 2005

7

Cont. on Page 19

During water main installation, this bucket fell off the quick-coupler, striking the employee in the manhole and amputatinghis arm just below the elbow.

A bucket attached to this Daewoo excavator, used by UtilityServices Authority to install water mains, fell off the quick-coupler and amputated the arm of an employee.

Quick-Couplers: What’s the Hazard?By: Richard Kawucha, Senior Safety OfficerConstruction Safety and Health Division

In May of 2004, MIOSHA investigated anaccident in the metropolitan Detroit area, wherea backhoe bucket was released unexpectedlyfrom a quick-coupler. Federal OSHA has re-ported nationwide 16 incidents within the lastsix years involving the use of this type of equip-ment where excavator equipment unexpectedlyreleased from quick-couplers. Of the 16 acci-dents reported by federal and state OSHA of-fices, nine resulted in employee fatalities.Utility Services Authority Accident

The accident prompting a MIOSHA inves-tigation occurred at a site where employees ofUtility Services Authority, an excavation con-tractor, were installing water mains, gatevalves, laterals, and related structures. An ex-cavation for a manhole/gate valve/lateral hadbeen dug and two employees entered that ex-cavation to prepare to move the manhole as-sembly, align and weld the water main. Thebucket had been detached to permit installa-tion of the gate valve. The excavator operatorreattached the bucket using a quick-coupler onthe hydraulic excavator.

Before entering the excavation, one of theworkers assisted the operator by throwing thesafety pin into position. The excavator wasswung over the gate valve and alloy chains wereconnected to the manhole with an employee in-side the manhole. At that point, the bucket felloff the quick-coupler, striking the employee inthe manhole and amputating his arm just be-low the elbow. The investigation revealed thatthe safety pin had been moved into position“before the bucket was fully seated” in thequick-coupler.

The quick-coupler manufacturer had iden-tified this hazardous condition and had issued a“Safety Bulletin” detailing a solution that in-cluded new decals. Additionally it was noted thatit was difficult to see if an alignment plate wasproperly aligned and the quick-coupler fullyclosed–due to the presence of hydraulic fluid anddirt, and the fact that the coupler and excavatorboom were painted the same color.Quick-Couplers

Typically quick-couplers are after-marketdevices that have been used on hydraulic exca-vators for several years and have steadily in-creased in popularity. They enable contractorsto quickly make attachment changes on hydrau-lic excavators. Most quick-couplers have a lift-ing eye to use for lifting material. By removingthe bucket, a large amount of weight is removedfrom the excavator and the lifting capacity of

the excavator is increased by the weight of thebucket.

Additionally, removal of the bucket im-proves the excavator operator’s line of visionduring lifting. Many contractors like to use alarge bucket to do the bulk of the digging andthen change to a smaller bucket for fine tuningand working in tight areas. The quick-couplersalso allow the operator to change from a bucketattachment to various other attachments. Theunexpected release of equipment in many casesis due to the failure of the quick-coupler to beproperly engaged and locked.

Various manufacturers make quick-cou-plers, and have recognized the hazard of thebucket or other attachments being unexpectedlyreleased. In most cases, they have provided us-ers with a retrofit locking pin, which is manu-ally inserted behind the front lever (stick pin) orrear lever (link pin) of the couplers, to preventunintended releases.Part 10, Lifting and DiggingEquipment

MIOSHA Construction SafetyStandard Part 10, addresses the in-stallation, inspection and use ofthese attachments.

Rule 1006a (1) – The em-ployer must comply with themanufacturer’s specifications andlimitations applicable to equipment,or the determination of a qualifiedengineer if specifications are notavailable.

Rule 1006a (4) – The em-ployer must maintain excavationequipment and it’s accessories in acondition that will not endanger anoperator or other employees.

Rule 1006a (7) – The em-ployer must comply with the PowerCrane and Shovel Association’s,Mobile Hydraulic Crane standardNo. 2, or the USA Standard SafetyCode for Crawler, Locomotive, andTruck Cranes USAS B30.5, whichrequire that manuals for equipmentbe available at the worksite.

Rule 1008a – The employermust provide training for the equip-ment operator on how to make dailyinspections, and the capabilities ofequipment and attachments.

Rule 1012a (2) - Requiresfrequent and periodic inspectionsfor excavation equipment in regu-lar service.

Rule 1012a (6) - Requires

that defects affecting safe operation be correctedbefore beginning or continuing the work.Utility Services Authority – Citations

As a result of the MIOSHA inspection con-ducted by the Construction Safety and HealthDivision, the contractor in the accident discussedabove was cited for four violations of MIOSHAstandards:

Part 10, Rule 1006a(7) – The employerdid not have available at the worksite operatingmanuals for the Daewoo excavator and the Cen-tral Fabricators hydraulic quick-latch coupler.

Part 10, Rule 1008a – The employerhad not trained employees on the correct meth-ods for ensuring that the attachments are prop-erly installed and secured. Such training wouldinclude, knowing what the manufacturer’s in-stallation procedures are, what safety indica-tors are in place, how they function and howto assess the equipment to identify worn, in-appropriate or missing parts.

8

Cont. from Page 1

MIOSHA Commemorates

Governor James Blanchard (Far left) signedthe MIOSHA Right to Know legislation in1986 at a special ceremony at MacombCommunity College.

Governor John Engler and Allan Hunt, Ph.D.,released the landmark Michigan DisabilityPrevention Study in June 1993.

ful work environments free of recognizedhazards.”Long History of Worker Safety & Health

Soon after Michigan became a state in1837, the Legislature passed laws relating tolabor, employees and safety. An 1837 act legal-ized unions with safety, health and welfare con-cerns of employees. In 1873, Michigan’s occu-pational health program began with a legisla-tive mandate that the State Board of Health makesanitation investigations to identify conditionsin places of employment, which might consti-tute health hazards to the public.

In 1936, a Bureau of Industrial Hygiene wascreated in the Michigan Department of PublicHealth to protect the health of Michigan work-ers, and became the health portion of the mod-ern MIOSHA program.

The occupational safety program officiallystarted in 1909 with legislation to provide a fac-tory inspection program in the Department ofLabor. Occupational safety rules and standards,including the guarding of equipment, were con-tained in the statute. In addition, the 1909 lawestablished the first Michigan Department ofLabor as a regulatory agency to enforce legisla-tion relating to conditions of employment.Significant Legislative Changes

There have been at least 18 amendmentsto the MIOSHA Act since its adoption in 1974.Some have been very minor, including one called

the “comma” amendment, while others broughtsignificant change.

In 1986 Governor James Blanchard signeda bill creating Public Act 80, the Right to KnowLaw (RTK), during a special ceremony at MacombCommunity College. This law adopted and ex-panded the federal OSHA Hazard Communica-tion rule to address growing concerns with chemi-cal use in the workplace. At the time it was esti-mated that 25 million Americans, about one infour people, were potentially exposed to one ormore of the nearly 8,000 hazardous chemicals inuse at in American workplaces.

Act 80 called for labeling, creating materialsafety data sheets, written programs, and trainingfor employees using hazardous chemicals at work.The goal was to create a communication stream toensure that those working with chemicals had in-formation on safe use and handling.

Because of the significance of this legisla-tion, special free safety and health joint outreachtraining sessions were conducted around the statefor more than a year. The MIOSHA Annual Re-port for Fiscal Year ’86 reports 12,217 attendeesat special programs, a 73 percent increase overthe previous year. Much of this increase, no doubt,was due to the special RTK outreach.

PA. 105 of 1991 amended the MIOSH Act toprovide for federally mandated increases in theMIOSHA civil penalties. The change resulted inseven-fold increases in penalty maximums, from$1,000 to $7,000 for most violations, and from$10,000 to $70,000 for willful violations, with a$5,000 minimum.

To help address the anticipated concern thisincrease would create, the legislature includedsize, history, and “good faith” reductions. Thegood faith reduction required MIOSHA to recog-nize employers who were actively implementingsafety and health programs by reducing the pen-alties.

As implemented by MIOSHA, the reduc-tions range from 10 percent for an unwritten andpartially implemented program up to 30 percentfor a fully implemented program, which is agreater reduction than is available in federal pro-gram states. MIOSHA staff began assessing theeffectiveness of safety and health programs dur-ing inspections and consultation surveys.

Following adoption of PA 105, the SafetyEducation and Training Division conducted amajor outreach campaign. More than 2,000people attended 24 free “Good Faith” seminars.The seminars were well received and began afocus on safety and health systems that contin-ues today. The MIOSHA Strategic Plan for 2003-2008 includes an emphasis on working withemployers to increase the number of employers

with effective and implemented safety and healthmanagement systems.

Another significant change included in PA105 was the requirement that MIOSHA stan-dards must be substantially similar to federalregulations, unless there was a clear and con-vincing need for Michigan to expand require-ments.Michigan Disability Prevention Study

In June 1993, results of the landmarkMichigan Disability Prevention Study were an-nounced at a special conference in Lansing. Athree-year collaborative research project con-ducted by H. Allan Hunt, Ph.D., W.E. UpjohnInstitute for Employment Research and Roch-elle Habeck, Ph.D., Michigan State University,the study was primarily funded by the Michi-gan Department of Labor.

The study validated the premise that com-panies with proactive safety and health pro-grams, return to work programs, along with anopen, people oriented managerial style, reportedsignificantly fewer injuries and disabilities andsubstantially lower workers’ compensation costs.An earlier pilot study showed at least a ten-folddifference in workers’ compensation costs be-tween the best and worst companies perform-ing the same work.

The findings of this study supportMIOSHA’s focus of recognizing and encourag-ing voluntary efforts by employers to create andmaintain safe work environments.MIOSHA Reorganization

Reorganizing the MIOSHA program beganwith Governor Engler’s Executive Order 1996-1, which combined the occupational safety andhealth portions of the program into one agencywithin a newly created Michigan Departmentof Consumer and Industry Services. Following

Summer 2005

9

Three Decades of “Making a Difference”

Tim Nichols, Secretary-Treasurer, Michigan StateBuilding & Construction Trades Council, duringMIOSHA’s 15th Anniversary celebration in 1990.

In 1994, MIOSHA and Labor officials, Rick Mee,Karl Benghauser, Lowell Perry and Doug Earle,visited the construction of the Canadian Tunnel.

consolidation, the safety and health consultationunits were combined into a single ConsultationEducation and Training (CET) Division to pro-vide more comprehensive voluntary assistanceto employers and workers.

The second major portion of the reorgani-zation was implemented in December 2003, fol-lowing creation of the new Michigan Depart-ment of Labor and Economic Growth. The agencyname changed from Bureau of Safety and Regu-lation to the Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Administration. Enforcement divisionswere combined from four to two, a ConstructionSafety and Health Division, including the As-bestos Program; and the General Industry Safetyand Health Division, which includes EmployeeDiscrimination. Both divisions have safety andhealth field staff.

A new Management and Technical ServicesDivision was created to include standards de-velopment, data collection and analysis, Free-dom of Information, laboratory services, infor-mation technology and financial services. In May2005, the CET Grant Program moved to this newdivision.

The result of the reorganization has beento improve consistency, enhance program andadministrative efficiencies, and provide moreseamless services. Since implementation, en-forcement and consultation have worked co-operatively on significant outreach initiativesincluding truck bed liners, trenching, and as-bestos.MIOSHA Strategic Planning

Strategic planning has helped the programmore clearly guide resources and focus activi-ties. MIOSHA is in its second five-year plan,which includes three strategic goals that are con-sistent with federal OSHA.

MIOSHA’s strategic goals are:Improve workplace safety

and health for workers, as evidencedby fewer hazards, reduced expo-sures, and fewer injuries, illnessesand fatalities.

Promote employer andworker awareness of, commitmentto, and involvement with safety andhealth to effect positive change inthe workplace culture.

Strengthen public confidencethrough continued excellence in thedevelopment and delivery ofMIOSHA’s programs and services.

MIOSHA uses a long-stand-ing combination of enforcement,outreach, voluntary assistance,and innovative partnering with in-dustry to meet program strategic plan goals.MIOSHA Partnerships and Alliances

In March 2002, MIOSHA, UAW, FordMotor Company, and Visteon Corporation signedhistoric partnerships agreements. The partner-ships provided an opportunity to develop andimplement alternatives to traditional enforce-ment and leverage resources through sharing ofinformation.

These initial partnerships were renewed,and helped set a new standard for cooperativeworking relationships between MIOSHA andemployers and employees which has lead to rec-ognition and implementation of formal partner-ship and alliance programs in MIOSHA.Criminal Convictions under MIOSHA

The MIOSH Act provides for criminal sanc-tions if employers willfully violate MIOSHArules or requirements, which cause the death ofan employee.

The first criminal conviction related to aMIOSHA fatality occurred on January 29, 1996,when American Bumper and ManufacturingCompany pled no contest to two counts of invol-untary manslaughter. This plea resulted from aSeptember 20, 1991, accident that killed twoemployees as they reached into a press duringbumper production. The no contest pleas re-quired the court to enter a judgment of convic-tion on both counts and treat the defendant as ifa guilty plea had been entered.

Three additional criminal cases have beensuccessfully prosecuted: Midland Environmen-tal Services; J.A. Morrin Concrete Corporationand James Morrin, Jr.; and Lanzo ConstructionCompany, Inc.Program Leadership and the.. Future

The modern MIOSHA program has beenfortunate to have dedicated and committed lead-

ers from its inception. Prior to the 1996 consoli-dation, safety and health directors jointly led theprogram. On the safety side, the Bureau of Safetyand Regulation was led by:

Marshall Fiordelis,Marvin Walker, andDouglas Earle.

The health program, the OccupationalHealth Division, in the Michigan Department ofPublic Health was led by:

Jim Barrett,Irving Davis,Flint Watt, andDoug Kalinowski.

Initial consolidation of the MIOSHA pro-gram in 1996 was led by Doug Earle, who con-tinued to lead the new combined agency untilhis retirement in 2002. Doug Kalinowski, formerdeputy director, assumed responsibility for thedirecting the agency in 2002.

Today, as MIOSHA begins its fourth decade,it is a more mature organization with skills tocontinuously improve, problem solve, and keepup with changes in today’s workplaces. The pro-gram uses a comprehensive approach with tra-ditional enforcement significantly enhanced bythe addition of strong voluntary programs, part-nerships, and alliances. The MIOSHA web pagehas continually increased access to program in-formation.

Internally, MIOSHA is using the 30th anni-versary as an opportunity to take a step back tobe sure we are doing the best we can to helpprotect working men and women in Michigan.We pledge to continue to improve and refine ourprograms to remain effective and relevant.MIOSHA’s goal remains steadfastly unchanged:That workers go home whole and healthy eachday of their working life.

10

MIOSHA 30-Year MilestonesPublic Act 154 of 1974: The Michigan legislature created themodern Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration(MIOSHA), in order to better prevent workplace injuries,illnesses and fatalities in Michigan. P.A. 154 went into effectJanuary 1, 1975, for private-sector employers, and July 1, 1975,for public-sector employers.

Public Act 368 of 1978: The Occupational Disease ReportingLaw was passed that requires the reporting, by health careprofessionals and employers, of all known or suspected casesof occupational diseases.

February 1979: The Appeals Division was formed to representthe enforcement divisions in prehearing conferences and formaladministrative hearings related to contested MIOSHA citations.

October 1979: The agency created the Safety Education andTraining (SET) Grant program to fund statewide projects thatemphasize prevention strategies to reduce injuries and illnesses.Each year nearly $1,000,000 in grants are awarded.

Public Act 80 of 1986: The Michigan Right to Know law wasenacted to provide information, training and labeling of toxicmaterials for employers and employees exposed to hazardouschemicals in the workplace.

Public Act 135 of 1986: The Asbestos Abatement ContractorsLicensing Act created the Asbestos Program to control the serioushealth threat to workers and the public from asbestos exposure.

Public Act 440 of 1988: The Asbestos Workers AccreditationAct was enacted to require accreditation and training for asbestosremoval workers and providers.

Public Act 105 of 1991: This act amended Act 154 and providedfor a sevenfold increase in MIOSHA civil penalties to the levelidentical with federal OSHA penalties.

June 1993: The groundbreaking reasearch “Disability PreventionAmong Michigan Employers” (Hunt Study) shows that strong safetyand health programs, open culture, and return-to-work programssignificantly reduce serious on-the-job injuries and work-comp costs.

January 29, 1996: American Bumper & ManufacturingCompany pled no contest to two counts of involuntarymanslaughter for the deaths of two employees working on a pressin Ionia. This was MIOSHA’s first criminal conviction.

February 1996: Executive Order 1996-1 transferredoccupational health responsibilities from the Department ofPublic Health to the Bureau of Safety and Regulation (BSR),consolidating all workplace safety and health programs.

December 1997: MIOSHA launched a public website(www.michigan.gov/miosha) to provide better access to ourcustomers. Today the website offers a vast array of safety andhealth material, as well as interactive capabilities for filingcomplaints and other forms on line.

January 1, 1998: The Michigan Voluntary Protection Program(MVPP) was established to recognize companies with outstandingsafety and health management systems. In March 2002, theMichigan Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program(MSHARP) was created for small employers. To date, the MIOSHAprogram has recognized 18 MVPP sites and two SHARP sites.

August 1998: MIOSHA established its first partnerships–withthe Michigan Road Builders Association and the MichiganChapter Associated General Contractors–to improve workersafety and health. Establishing partnerships and alliances is akey MIOSHA strategy to help protect Michigan workers.

September 2, 1999: MIOSHA announced a historic $7 millionSettlement Agreement with Ford Motor Company and the UAWfor a catastrophic 1998 explosion that killed six workers. Theagreement enabled Ford to provide a safe working environmentnationwide and represents a landmark approach to resolvingcomplex safety issues.

October 1, 1999: With significant stakeholder involvement,MIOSHA developed a five-year Strategic Plan to guide ourresource strategies for worker protection. The plan focuses onthree strategic goals that are consistent with those of federalOSHA. The first plan covered Fiscal Years 1999 - 2003; and thesecond plan covers Fiscal Years 2004 - 2008. The plan providesclear benchmarks for evaluating performance.

November 1, 2000: Owner Edmund Woods and MidlandEnvironmental Services, Inc., pled guilty to attempted involuntarymanslaughter for a fatal explosion. This case is unprecedentedbecause it is the first criminal case in Michigan history where anowner was held criminally responsible for a workplace fatality.

October 10, 2002: James Morrin, Jr., Foreman for J.A. ConcreteConstruction Company, Toledo, Ohio, was sentenced to 360 days injail and three years probation. This is the first time in Michiganhistory that an employer served time in jail for a workplace fatality.

December 8, 2003: The name of the agency was changed fromthe Bureau of Safety and Regulation to the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Administration. It was also reorganized tostreamline agency functions and provide our customers withgreater consistency, uniformity and efficiency.

October 21, 2004: In Oakland County’s 6th Circuit Court, LanzoConstruction Company was found guilty for a 1999 workplacefatality. This conviction is unprecedented in that this case involveda full criminal trial.

March 31, 2005: Since the start of the modern MIOSHAprogram, fatalities have dropped significantly–from 115 in1977 to 44 in 2004. Injury and illness rates also dropped–from 9.6 in 1975 to 6.3 in 2003. A key goal of the MIOSHAStrategic Plan is to help employers continue to reduceworkplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities.

Summer 2005

11

12

CET Awards MIOSHA recognizes the safety and healthachievements of Michigan employers and employeesthrough CET Awards, which are based on excellentsafety and health performance.

All Continental Aluminum New Hudson plant employeescelebrated receiving the Bronze Award from the MIOSHA CETDivision for an outstanding safety and health record.

(Back ) David Gedritis, VP of Operations; Fred Keller, President/CEO;Paul Rugg, Plant Manager; Kelley Losey, Manager of EHS Dept;(Front) Doug Kalinowski, MIOSHA Director; Kristine Nietering, SafetySpecialist; Kathy Bolhous, VP/Product Group Manager.

Cascade Engineering - Container Plant

On April 26th, the Continental Aluminum New Hudson plant received the BronzeAward, which recognizes leadership and commitment to workplace safety and healthresulting in significant improvement of their MIOSHA record.

“We are pleased to present Continental Aluminum’s employees and manage-ment with this award that recognizes your dedication to workplace safety and health,”said MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski.

Kalinowski presented the award to Continental Aluminum President BillAltgilbers, Safety & Quality Manager Henry Szybowicz, and the Continental Alu-minum Safety Committee.

“Safety is the ultimate priority for Continental Aluminum. We assure all of ouremployees that we will provide a safe and healthy work environment–and we havesubstantial programs in place to achieve this goal,” said Altgilbers.

Continental Aluminum operates one of the most advanced secondary aluminumsmelters in the United States. They have concentrated their improvement efforts inbehavior-based safety training and analysis; accident investigations and implementedcorrective actions; ongoing safety training and monthly health and safety audits.

Continental Aluminum - New Hudson

On June 17th, Cascade Engineering’s Industrial Solutions Container Plant re-ceived the Ergonomic Success Award from MIOSHA. This is the first ErgonomicSuccess Award issued to an employer since April 2004.

The CET Division issues the award to employers for instituting ergonomic im-provements and substantially reducing traumatic strain and sprain injuries and cumu-lative trauma disorder illnesses.

The ergonomic improvements at the facility have significantly reduced the num-ber of repetitive motion injuries for its employees–from 10 in 2003 to zero in 2004.

“We applaud the Cascade Container Plant’s ergonomic accomplishments. Theyhave made an exemplary commitment to control ergonomic risk factors in their workenvironment,” said DLEG Director David C. Hollister.

MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski presented the award to President and CEOFred Keller, Plant Manager Paul Rugg, and Safety Specialist Kristine Nietering.

“It is an honor today to be recognized by MIOSHA. Our company’s greatest assetis truly our people–and their safety is first and foremost,” said Keller. “We look for-ward to continuing our relationship with MIOSHA.”

During their recertification celebration, the QuinnesecMill management team distributed VPP hats toemployees during shift change.

International Paper - Quinnesec MillOn March 17th, International Paper’s Quinnesec Mill celebrated renewal of

their MVPP Star Award, the state’s highest workplace safety and health award.“This continued excellence, for six years, on the part of management and

employees at the Quinnesec Mill is simply outstanding,” said MIOSHA DirectorDoug Kalinowski.

Mill Manager George Obernesser and Safety Leader Jim Sutton recog-nized all Quinnesec Mill employees for their continued excellence in worker safetyand health.

“We have a history of operating in a safe manner and that remains a toppriority, every day, for International Paper and the Quinnesec Mill,” saidObernesser.

They have made several changes and improvements since the initial evalua-tion, including: behavioral based safety systems, ongoing ergonomic training, safetyaccountability and hazard recognition training.

Quinnesec Mill is a state-of-the-art facility that manufactures bleached hard-wood kraft pulp and high-quality coated printing paper for magazines and catalogs.

Summer 2005

13

Education & Training CalendarDate Course MIOSHA Trainer

Location Contact Phone

Co-sponsors of CET seminars may charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of equipment rental, room rental, and lunch/refreshment charges. Forthe latest seminar information check our website, which is updated the first of every month: www.michigan.gov/miosha.

August11 Lockout and Machine Guarding Karen Odell

Howell Janie Willsmore 517.546.392023 Educational Services Rob Stacy

Grand Rapids Brian Cole 616.331.718025 Machine Guarding, JSA and Operator Training, Lockout/Tagout Linda Long

Port Huron Terri Johns 810.985.186925 Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene Dave Humenick

Holland Brian Cole 616.331.7180September6, 13, 20 Safety and Health Administrator Course Rob Stacy

Muskegon Brian Cole 616.331.71807 Fall Protection Training Tom Swindlehurst

Lansing Pete Anderson 517.371.15508 Fall Protection Training Tom Swindlehurst

Saginaw Pete Anderson 517.371.155014 MVPP & MSHARP Workshop Doug Kimmel

Kalamazoo Suzy Carter/Sandy Long 866.423.723314 & 21 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Pat Sullivan

Southfield Ed Ratzenberger 248.557.701015, 22, 29 Safety and Health Administrator Course Karen Odell

Howell Janie Willsmore 517.546.392021, 28, 10/5 Safety and Health Administrator Course Quenten Yoder

Battle Creek Connie Dawe 269.965.413422 When MIOSHA Visits Rob Stacy

Holland Brian Cole 616.331.718027 Excavations and Mobile Equpiment Hazards Patrick Sullivan

Port Huron Kenneth M. Schultz 810.989.578827 Fall Protection Training Tom Swindlehurst

Traverse City Pete Anderson 517.371.155027 & 28 Two-Day Mechanical Power Press Seminar Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy Desrosier 248.620.253428 Confined Space for Service Contractors Debra Johnson

Grand Rapids Elleena Chrzan 616.234.3382October12 Supervisor’s Role in Safety & Health Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy DesRosier 248.620.253412 & 13 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Patrick Sullivan

Warren Staff 586.498.410018 Fall Protection for the Roofing Industry Pat Sullivan

Port Huron Kenneth M. Schultz 810.989.578819 When MIOSHA Visits Jennifer Clark-Denson

Warren Holger Ekanger 586.498.410025 Falls and the Top 25 Serious Violations in Construction Pat Sullivan

Port Huron Kenneth M. Schultz 810.989.5788

14

Construction SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. Tom Boensch**Mr. Andrew Lang

Mr. Larry RedfearnVacant

ManagementMr. Peter StrazdasMs. Cheryl HughesMr. Edward TanziniMr. Timothy WisePublic MemberDr. Kris Mattila*

General Industry SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. James Baker**

Dr. Tycho FredericksMr. John Pettinga

VacantManagement

Mr. Timothy J. KouryMr. Thomas Pytlik*

Mr. Michael L. EckertMr. George A. Reamer

Public MemberMs. Geri Johnson

Occupational HealthStandards Commission

LaborMs. Margaret Vissman

Dr. G. Robert DeYoung**Ms. Cynthia HollandMr. Michael McCabe

ManagementMr. Richard Olson*Mr. Robert DeBruynMr. Michael Lucas

Mr. Douglas WilliamsPublic Member

Dr. Darryl Lesoski

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

Standards Update

In April 2002, MIOSHA made significant revisions to General Industry Standard Part 18, Overheadand Gantry Cranes. After this revision, general industry companies and MIOSHA enforcementstaff expressed concern in applying the new provisions.

MIOSHA quickly brought these concerns to the General Industry Safety Standards Commission.This Commission, along with the Director of the Michigan Department of Labor & EconomicGrowth (DLEG), has the legal authority to change MIOSHA rules.

Effective May 13, 2005, an amendment with greater clarification of the 2002 revisions has beenincorporated into Part 18, Overhead and Gantry Cranes. In addition to amending the standard forgreater clarity, MIOSHA is offering an enforcement guideline that will provide even more help toemployers and employees as they apply the standard to their particular location and equipment

The revisions include the following:Certification - Rule 1821 clarifies what certification is necessary for cranes of different ages.Markings - Rule 1822(2) clarifies the proper crane markings relative to service use.Inspections - Rule 1872 clarifies crane inspections based in part on usage and classification.

Making a difference and developing better standards is not a speedy process, rather it is acareful and deliberate one that is designed to have cautious reviews from experts in the subject,as well as several avenues for public input.

Following is a listing of the important benchmarks.04/2002 Major revisions were made to Part 18 after two years of work by the eight-member

Advisory Committee.06/2003 The General Industry Safety Standards Commission began a review of concerns with

the 2002 revisions.09/2003 The Commission, along with guidance and advice from Advisory Committee

representatives, researched solutions.11/2003 Approval was granted to open the standard for clarification, with no intent to add

greater protective provisions.01/2004 A draft amendment of clarifying revisions was informally approved by the Governor’s

designees.05/2004 A Public Hearing was held in Lansing for public comments on the draft amendment.07/2004 The 2002 Advisory Committee was reconvened to consider public hearing comments.10/2004 The Advisory Committee completed a targeted study to assure the most appropriate

revisions.03/2005 The revised amendment was moved forward for approval.04/2005 The draft amendment went to the Michigan Legislature for comments and approval.04/2005 The Department of Labor & Economic Growth officially adopted the amendment.05/2005 On May 13th the revised Part 18 standard became effective.

MIOSHA has printed the revised standard and notified all parties on our mailing list that copiesare available. It’s also available on our website at, www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.

Michigan’s 2002 revisions of Part 18 have been praised for the added protection provided throughoperator competency and equipment inspection. Along with the clarifying improvements competedthis year, this standard will hopefully “Make a Difference” in helping to keep crane operations safe.

Making a Difference Through Rule ImprovementPart 18 - Overhead and Gantry Cranes - 2002 Revisions Clarified

State Office of Administrative Hearings and RulesOn January 14, 2005, Governor Granholm signed Executive Order 2005-1, creating the StateOffice of Administrative Hearings and Rules (SOAHR), to provide services related to admin-istrative hearing functions and for the processing and review of administrative rules. Functionsperformed by the Office of Regulatory Reform (ORR) are transferred to SOAHR.

Summer 2005

15

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers .................................................................... Informal rules submitted to SOAHRPart 17. Refuse Packer Units ................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 18. Overhead & Gantry Cranes .................................................................... Final, effective 5/13/05Part 19. Crawler, Locomotive, & Truck Cranes ................................................. At Advisory CommitteePart 20. Underhung Cranes & Monorail Systems ............................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 58. Vehicle Mounted Elevating & Rotating Platforms (Joint w/CS 32) ...... At Advisory CommitteePart 62. Plastic Molding ......................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 79. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ................................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePending Telecommunications (Joint) .................................................................... Informal rules submitted to SOAHR

ConstructionPart 01. General Rules ........................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 07. Welding & Cutting ................................................................................... Final, effective 1/20/05Part 08. Handling & Storage of Materials ........................................................... Final, effective 11/16/04Part 12. Scaffolds & Scaffold Platforms ............................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 16. Power Transmission & Distribution ....................................................... Formal rules submitted to SOAHRPart 26. Steel Erection ............................................................................................ WithdrawnPart 30. Telecommunications (Joint) .................................................................... Informal rules submitted to SOAHRPart 31. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 32. Aerial Work Platforms (Joint w/GI 58) ................................................. At Advisory CommitteePending Communication Tower Erection ............................................................. Approved by Commission for review

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 451. Respiratory Protection ............................................................................. Final, effective 4/12/05Part 504. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 520. General Ventilation .................................................................................. Formal rules submitted to SOAHRPart 526. Open Surface Tanks ................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 528. Spray Finishing Operations .................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 529. Welding, Cutting & Brazing ................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Diisocyanates ............................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ................................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePending Latex .......................................................................................................... Approved by Commission for review

ConstructionPart 665. Underground Construction...................................................................... Final, effective 12/24/04

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of July 11, 2005)

The MIOSHA Standards Section assists in the promulgation of Michigan occupationalsafety and health standards. To receive a copy of the MIOSHA Standards Index (updatedMarch 2005) or for single copies and sets of safety and health standards, please contact theStandards Section at 517.322.1845, or at www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.

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

16

V a r i a n c e s

Following are requests for variances and vari-ances granted from occupational safety stan-dards in accordance with rules of the Depart-ment of Labor & Economic Growth, Part 12,Variances (R408.22201 to 408.22251).

Published July 29, 2005

Variances Granted Construction

Variances Requested Construction

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 10 - Lifting & Digging Equipment: RuleR408.41005 a(2), Rule 1005 a(2); ReferenceANSI Standard B30.5 “Mobile and Locomo-tive Cranes”. 1994 Edit ion; Section 5-3.2.1.2bSummary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to rig certain loads tothe load line of a crane above the overhaulweight in accordance with certain stipula-tions.Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedGM Metal Fab Facility, FlintGM V-6 Engine Facility, FlintGM Power Train Facility, WarrenName and address of employerLawrence - Green Fire ProtectionLocation for which variance is requestedGM Power Train Facility, Warren

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: RuleR408.43209, Rule 3209 (8), Rule 3209 (8)(b),and Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure scaffoldplanks to the top of the intermediate rail ofthe guardrail system for use as a work plat-form provided certain stipulations are ad-hered to.Name and address of employerDee Cramer Inc.Location for which variance is requestedDetroit YMCA, DetroitName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedUniversity of Michigan, Ann ArborGeneral Motors L6 Engine Plant, FlintName and address of employerEugenio Painting CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedSoutheastern High School Renovation/Addition,DetroitName and address of employerJohn E. Green Company

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 32 - Aerial Work Platforms: R408.43209,Rule 3209, Rule 3209 (8)(b), and Rule 3209(9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffoldplank to the top of the intermediate rail of theguardrail system of an aerial lift for limited useas a work platform provided certain stipulationsare adhered to.Name and address of employerLake State Insulation, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Paint Facility, Body Shop, Gen-eral Assembly, Trestles, &Tank Farm, DeltaTownshipName and address of employerW. J. O’Neil CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedUniversity of Michigan Cardiovascular CenterProject, Ann ArborName and address of employerSuperior Industrial Insulation Co.Location for which variance is requestedGM Paint Facility, Delta Township

Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors GM Metal Fab Facility, FlintGeneral Motors V6 Global Engine Plant, FlintGM Power Train Facility, WarrenName and address of employerLansing Electric Motors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Paint Facility, Delta TownshipName and address of employerLawrence - Green Fire Protection Co.Location for which variance is requestedG M Warren Transmission Plant, X22F 6 SpeedFWD TransmissionName and address of employerMotor City Electric Co.Location for which variance is requestedU of M Cardiovascular Center, Ann ArborName and address of employerSuperior Electric Great Lakes CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Paint Facility, Delta TownshipName and address of employerSwan Electric Company Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Paint Facility, Delta TownshipName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedFreedom Hill Amphitheater Project, Sterling Heights

Residential construction is anarea of the constructionindustry that we believewould benefit from anincreased focus by MIOSHA.

Many residential projects do not getinspected due to the transient natureof such work–and because they aresmall and in remote areas. In addition,the contractors involved are often smalloperators and do not have theresources to hire health and safety staff,and have little expertise in health andsafety themselves.

However, when we review MIOSHAaccident and fatality investigation activity,it becomes clear there are certainlyhazards that need to be addressed.

In an effort to show a greater presencein this area, the MIOSHA ConstructionSafety and Health Division (CSHD) willbe focusing more of their resources inconducting inspections in residentialconstruction this season. This residentialconstruction focus will include single-family dwellings and multiple family units(e .g., duplexes, condominiums,apartment buildings).

This residential construction focus is inprogress at this time and will continueat least until the end of the calendaryear 2005, at which time MIOSHA willassess the results.

All employers, including residentialbuilders, are encouraged to contact theCSHD at 517.322.1856 if they havequestions regarding worksite health andsafety or compliance issues. TheMIOSHA Consultation, Education andTraining (CET) Division providestraining and on-site audit services at theemployers request, free of charge. CETcan be contacted at 517.322.1809.

MIOSHA Focus:Residential

Construction

Summer 2005

17

M I O S H A N e w s Q u i zTopic: Stamp Out AmputationsBy: Ruth Hindman, SupervisorConsultation Education and Training Division

Questions

Answers

True or False1. A point of operation guard must prevent em-ployee exposure to the point of operation duringthe hazardous portion of the machine cycle.2. The point of operation is a point on a machinewhere work is performed.3. A hazard is an unsafe condition or procedurethat could result in an injury.4. The employee should not report a recognizedhazard to their supervisor.5. An employee can chose whether or not to usepersonal protective equipment.6. When a guard or other safety device is re-moved because it gets in the way on some jobs,you don’t have to replace it until you know theboss is coming.7. Lockout is only required by maintenance work-ers.8. Lockout is not required when removing a guardfor a short period of time.9. According to MIOSHA standards, a powerpress requires a point of operation guard or de-vice for all production operations.10. When using a vertical band saw, a sliding bladeguard shall be adjusted to within 1/4-inch of thework piece.

Multiple Choice11. Pinch point is an area at which:

A. It is possible to be caught between themoving parts of a machine.

B. An area at which it is possible to be caughtbetween the moving and stationary parts of amachine.

C. An area at which it is possible to be caughtbetween material and any part of a machine.

D. All of the above.12. An employee shall not operate a machine orequipment until:

A. Trained in the operating procedures.B. Trained in the hazards and safeguards.C. Assigned to do so by the employer.D. All of the above.

13. Lockout:A. Is the control of energy sources during

servicing and/or maintenance of machinery andequipment.

B. Only applies to electrical and mechanicalpower sources.

C. Should only be performed by authorizedpersonnel.

D. A and C.14. Machine controls:

A. Shall be equipped with a on/off switch.B. Start controls shall be guarded to prevent

accidental activation.C. Shall be equipped with a stop device

within reach of the operator station.D. All of the above.

15. Power transmission parts must be guarded:A. Except the backside is allowed to be open.B. When within employee contact or 7 feet

or less from the floor or platform.C. With the exception of gears, sprockets and

chain drives.D. All of the above.

1. True - A point of operation guard or deviceshall be designed and constructed, to prevent themachine operator exposed to the hazard fromhaving any part of his or her body in the hazard-ous area during the operating cycle. R.408.10034(3)2. True - The definition of “point of operation”states it means the point on a machine wherework is being preformed. R. 408.1004(3)3. True - The definition of a “hazard” means anunsafe condition or procedure which could re-sult in an injury. R. 401.1003(7)4. False - The employee shall report to the su-pervisor any recognized hazard. R. 401.1012(b)5. False - An employee shall use all of the per-sonal protective equipment provided by the em-ployer. R 401.13310(2)6. False - An employee shall not remove a guardor other safety device except for authorized ser-vicing purposes. The guard or other safety de-vice shall be replaced or equivalent guardingprovided before the machine or equipment isreturned to normal operation. R. 401.10012(d)7. False - Lockout applies to all employees in,on, or around machines, equipment, or a pro-cess during repair, maintenance, and associatedactivities from injury due to unexpected/unin-tended motion or start-up. R. 408.18501(1)8. False - The employer shall establish a pro-gram consisting of energy control procedures,employee training to ensure that before any em-ployee performs any servicing or maintenanceon a machine or equipment where the unexpectedenergizing, start up or release of stored energycould cause injury, the machine or equipmentshall be isolated from the energy source, and ren-dered inoperative. R. 1910.147(c)(1)

9.True - An employer shall provide and insurethe usage of point of operation guards or deviceson every production job. R. 408.12461 (1)10. True - The sliding blade guard shall be kept towithin ¼ inch of the work piece. R. 408.12732(4)11. D - All of the above. The definition of pinchpoint means a point at which it is possible to becaught between the moving parts of a machine,or between the moving and stationary parts of amachine or between material and any part of amachine. R. 408.10004(2)12. D - All the above. The employer shall providetraining to each newly assigned employee regard-ing the operating procedures, hazards, and safe-guards of the job. R. 408.10011(A)13. D - Lockout is: The placement of a lockoutdevice on any energy isolating device, in accor-dance with an established procedure, ensuring thatthe energy isolating device and the equipmentbeing controlled cannot be operated until the lock-out device is removed. Authorized is: A personwho locks out a machine or equipment in order toperform service or maintenance on machine orequipment. R. 1910.147 (C) and R.1910.147 (B)under definition of “Authorized employee.”14. D - All the above. Powered electrical equip-ment shall have an on-off switch. An actuatingmachine control for a powered machine shall beto prevent accidental actuation. R. 408.10033.(1)(2)(4)15. B - Power transmission, which is 7 feet orless above the floor or platform and which isexposed to contact shall be guarded. R.408.10727. (1)

The MIOSHA Consultation Education andTraining (CET) Division has established anelectronic mailing list (LISTSERV) to informsubscribers of upcoming training programsand announcements.

If you would like to be added to this list,please visit the following website:www.michigan.gov/mioshatraining.

Select “Subscribe to Receive Training andCET Division Announcements via Email” andfollow the instructions.

If you need further assistance, please contactthe CET Division at: 517.322.1809.

Receive MIOSHA CET DivisionAnnouncements Via Email

18

Ken Swisher, EHM Director; Steve Monet, EHM SafetyManager; Connie O’Neill, CET Director; David H. Fink, OSEDirector; David C. Hollister, DLEG Director; and DougKalinowski, MIOSHA Director.

Sue Lloyd, MT(ASCP), CHSP, CIC, President, MSIC; LindaScott, RN, BSN, CIC, Advocacy Chair, MSIC; DougKalinowski, Director, MIOSHA Program; and ConnieO’Neill, Director, CET Division.

Office of the State Employer Alliance

Michigan Society for Infection Control AllianceOn April 14th, MIOSHA and the Michigan

Society for Infection Control (MSIC) signed a for-mal alliance to protect the safety and health ofMichigan’s healthcare workers.

The signing cements a 20-year relationshipbetween the two organizations that focuses on theirshared missions to protect healthcare workersagainst occupational exposure to infectious dis-eases and injuries, particularly from sharp devicesneeded to care for patients.

Sue Lloyd, MT(ASCP), CHSP, CIC, Presi-dent, MSIC; Linda Scott, RN, BSN, CIC, Advo-cacy Chair, MSIC; Doug Kalinowski, Director,MIOSHA Program; and Connie O’Neill, Direc-tor, MIOSHA Consultation Education and Train-ing (CET) Division signed the alliance during theMSIC Spring Education Conference in Lansing.

“MSIC is excited to formally recognize thestrong foundation of our relationship withMIOSHA. This partnership demonstrates a clearcommitment to make Michigan’s healthcare in-dustry safer,” said Lloyd. “We envision an evengreater opportunity to foster communication andeducation through this alliance.”

With more than 400 members, the MichiganSociety for Infection Control strives to activelypromote public health and improve healthcarequality and safety in Michigan by developing a

knowledge network, providing educational re-sources, and advocating science-based prac-tices.

“We are proud to sign this alliance, whichplaces a high priority on protecting Michigan’shealthcare workers–who have dedicated theircareers to saving lives,” said Kalinowski.

The goals of this alliance include, but arenot limited to:

Sharing resources for pre-vention and education initiativesto improve worker safety andhealth;

Developing innovative so-lutions for the hazards inherent inhealthcare settings;

Providing better access tojob safety and health information;

Utilizing MSIC’s exten-sive network to communicatechanges in safety regulations is-sued by MIOSHA; and

Strengthening the coopera-tive relationship betweenMIOSHA and MSIC.

The Society’s members ad-vocate for reducing infectiousand non-infectious injuries and

illnesses for healthcare workers through:implementing effective policies and proce-dures, providing safety-engineered products,networking with direct care givers, and as-suring provision of immunizations, just toname a few. To learn more about MSIC andits activities, you can visit their website atwww.msic-online.org, or contact their mainoffice at 248.693.3474.

On March 17th, MIOSHA and the Officeof the State Employer-Employee Health Man-agement Division (EHM) signed a formal alli-ance establishing a collaborative relationshipto improve workplace safety and health in stategovernment.

“We are proud to participate in this alli-ance as the model department to require a safetyand health management system for each of our

DLEG agencies,” said DLEG DirectorDavid C. Hollister. “This alliance offersstate government a unique opportunity toprovide state workers with a level of safetyand health protection that goes beyond theminimum requirements.”

All parties are forming the alliance touse their collective expertise to promotesafety leadership and to provide support for

creating a culture of continualworkplace safety and health im-provement. The alliance is de-signed to include management,supervision, labor, and employ-ees–working together to create asafer and healthier workplace.

The alliance was signed by:David C. Hollister, DLEG Direc-tor; David H. Fink, Office of theState Employer Director; DougKalinowski, MIOSHA Director;and Ken Swisher , EmployeeHealth Management Director. At-tending the event were most of thestate department safety and healthcoordinators.

“This Alliance is a great ex-ample of teamwork between state

departments in pursuing our goal of excel-lence in state government,” said Fink. “Onemore effort in which everyone wins.”

“The MIOSHA program is dedicated toworking with employers, both public and pri-vate sector–to find innovative ways to en-hance workplace safety and health,” saidKalinowski. “Through alliances, MIOSHAcan offer employers a voluntary, cooperativerelationship to eliminate serious hazards andachieve a high level of safety and health.”

The key goals of this alliance include:promote enhanced awareness of worker safetyand health to state department directors; de-velop education and training opportunities;share EHM summary accident data with alldepartment safety and health coordinators todemonstrate the success of implementing ef-fective safety and health management sys-tems; and disseminate safety and health in-formation through print and electronic me-dia, email, and links from MIOSHA and OSEwebsites.

“The EHM Divis ion of OSE hasworked well with MIOSHA,” said Swisher.“We are very pleased to formalize and en-hance that working relationship with thesigning of this Alliance.”

Summer 2005

19

Ergonomic Case StudyCont. from Page 6

intervention) and when stacking items on the self-elevating vehicle.Whole Body Activity Analysis

Workers were at increased risk of experi-encing a “fall from elevation” accident whenclimbing, descending, or standing on ladders. Therisk of a fall may increase if the worker cannotuse both hands to grasp the ladder rails. An analy-sis of work activities showed that during stock-ing and picking operations with the ladder cartand powered ladder truck, workers spent approxi-mately one-third of the time working on ladders.This was reduced to zero with the self-elevatingvehicle. When using the ladder cart for stockingand picking, workers spent six percent of the timepushing the ladder cart. This was reduced to zerowith the self-elevating vehicle.Worker Interviews

The following findings were obtained frominterviews with three workers who used the pow-ered ladder truck or ladder cart and five employ-ees who used the self-elevating vehicle.

Workers identified climbing up and downladders and picking from the lowest shelves asthe most physically demanding part of their job.

There was a modestly significant decrease(p<0.10) in worker evaluations of torso posturalstrain when using the self-elevating vehicle.

There was a non-significant decrease inworker evaluations of pushing/pulling demandsand shoulder postural strain when using the self-elevating vehicle.Implementation Hurdles/Fine Tuning

The self-elevating vehicle was customizedby workers because the original design did nothave room for their tickets or plastic bags. Ad-ditional worker criticisms were that the self-el-evating vehicle moved too slowly horizontallyand that the part tray was too small. During self-elevating vehicle testing, the picking/stockkeeping sequence was not modified tominimize vehicle horizontal movement. Thereare opportunities to optimize horizontal andvertical movement that corresponds to the pick-ing sequence when the workers use the self-el-evating vehicle.

The use of the self-elevating vehicle forstocking and picking eliminated ladder climb-ing and pushing ladder carts, and reduced theamount of walking, reaching above shoulderheight, and torso forward bending. Conse-quently, both mobility issues and safety concernsassociated with climbing, walking for extendedperiods, and pushing ladder carts were ad-dressed.

In addition, workers felt that the self-el-evating vehicle reduced the physical demandsassociated with their job. The self-elevating ve-hicle should provide benefits to all workers who

pick or stock from high locations in a variety ofindustries and should also accommodate personswith ladder climbing or walking limitations. Toaddress the major worker criticism, new algo-rithms that minimize horizontal travel distancebetween the pick/stock locations can be devel-oped and used once all workers in a specific areaare using the self-elevating vehicle.Acknowledgement

This project was funded in whole by jointfunds from the UAW-Daimler-Chrysler NationalJoint Committee on Health and Safety. The re-sults presented herein represent the conclusionsand opinions of the authors. Its publication doesnot necessarily imply endorsement by the Inter-national Union UAW, or Daimler-Chrysler.References

Keyserling, W.M. A computer-aided aystemto evaluate postural stress in the workplace.American Industrial Hygiene Association Jour-nal 1986; 47: 641-649.

Keyserling, W.M., Ulin, S.S., Lincoln, A.E.,and Baker, S.P. Using multiple informationsources to identify opportunities for ergonomicinterventions in automotive parts distribution:A case study. American Industrial Hygiene As-sociation Journal 2003; 64: 690-698.

Ulin, S. S. and Keyserling, W. M. (2004).Case studies of ergonomic interventions in auto-motive parts distribution operations. Journal ofOccupational Rehabilitation. 14(4): 307-326.

Part 10, Rule 1012a(1) – The employerhad not performed a thorough annual inspectionof the Daewoo excavator or the hydraulic quick-latch coupler.

Part 10, Rule 1024a(5) – The warningsignage for the swinging counterweight on theDaewoo excavator did not meet MIOSHA re-quirements.

An employer has the right to appeal a cita-tion within 15 working days of receipt of the ci-tation. The case discussed above was appealedby the employer.Safety Measures to Prevent Accidents

Employers using hydraulic excavators withquick-coupling devices can protect employeesfrom the unintended release of attachments byincorporating the following safety measures:

Inspect all quick-couplers to determine ifthey are subject to unexpected release hazards.Determine whether a manually installed lockingpin and installation procedures have been pro-vided by the manufacturer.

If necessary, obtain and install retrofitsrecommended by the manufacturer, includingpositive locking pins and other devices that needto be manually installed. On a used excavator,contact the quick-coupler manufacturer to see ifthere are any Technical Service Bulletin’s that

relate to the quick-coupler.Consider the use of newer models of

quick-couplers that have been specifically de-signed to prevent the unintended release of at-tachments.

Follow the manufacturer’s recommenda-tions for maintenance and inspection of thequick-coupler to prevent a malfunction thatcould cause an unintended release of the attach-ments. Include the inspection of the quick-cou-pler in the excavator’s annual inspection [ref.MIOSHA Part 10, Rule 1012a (1)].

Follow the manufacturer’s installationprocedures and recommendations on testingquick-coupler and attachment connections ev-ery time an attachment is made.

Train employees in: the proper use ofquick-couplers; making visual inspections; pro-cedures for engaging attachments; and methodsfor testing connections.

Require employees to use the properprocedures for engaging excavation attachmentsand incorporating the procedures into thecompany’s safety and health program.Conclusions

Based upon experience, manufacturershave retrofitted existing quick-couplers, de-signed new and improved quick-coupler sys-tems, and developed safe use and operating pro-cedures. These corrective actions have signifi-cantly decreased the probability of a bucket or

other attachment being unintentionally releasedfrom a quick-coupler.

However, unintended releases of bucketsand other attachments from quick-couplers con-tinue as evidenced by the accident in the metro-politan Detroit area and OSHA accident data.Unintended releases appear to continue becausenot all employers/contractors who use quick-cou-plers are aware of the hazard and the manufac-turers’ corrective actions; some users fail to ret-rofit the quick-coupler with locking pins; andsome users have insufficient training on instal-lation and testing procedures associated with theuse of such couplers.

The National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH) has studied the haz-ards associated with hydraulic excavators andhas issued DHHS Publication No. 2004-107 en-titled, “Preventing Injuries When Working withHydraulic Excavators and Backhoe Loaders.”This publication addresses the hazard of exca-vator equipment being unintentionally detachedfrom a quick-coupler mechanism and can beviewed at; www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/wp-solu-tions/2004-107.

MIOSHA Part 10, Lifting and DiggingEquipment can be viewed at;www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards, click onConstruction. Additional information on quick-couplers can be viewed at; www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib082604.html.

Quick-CouplersCont. from Page 7

20

Michigan Occupational Safetyand Health AdministrationDirector: Douglas J. Kalinowski

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

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

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

Editor: Judith Keely Simons

Michigan Department ofLabor & Economic GrowthDirector: David C. Hollister

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

(25,000 copies printed at a cost of $6,826 or $0.27 per copy.)

Website: www.michigan.gov/miosha

How To Contact MIOSHA

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

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDLANSING MI

PERMIT NO 1200

MIOSHA HotlineFatality/Catastrophe Hotline

General InformationFree Safety/Health Consultation

800.866.4674800.858.0397517.322.1814517.322.1809

517.322.1814 Doug Kalinowski517.322.1817 Martha Yoder

DirectorDeputy Director

DIVISION

Appeals

Construction Safety & Health

Consultation Education & Training

General Industry Safety & Health

Management & Technical Services

517.322.1297 Jim Gordon (Acting)

517.322.1856 Bob Pawlowski

517.322.1809 Connie O’Neill

517.322.1831 John Brennan

517.322.1851 John Peck

OFFICE PHONE MANAGER

Asbestos Program

CET Grant Program

Employee Discrimination Section

MIOSHA Information Systems Section

Standards Section

517.322.1320 George Howard

517.322.1865 Louis Peasley

248.888.8777 Jim Brogan

517.322.1851 Bob Clark

517.322.1845 Marsha Parrott-Boyle

PHONE DIRECTOR

SHAMIMI

FOR

DifferenceMaking a

3030YEARS1975-20051975-2005