Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)Vol. 8, No. 1 Winter 2004

Cont. on Page 18

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

MIOSHA Reorganization 3

New Scheduling Plan 4

Cease Operation Order 5

TB Respiratory Protection 6

The Bottom Line 7

Affirmative Defense 8

Recordkeeping Update 9

Discrimination Protection 10

Working in Cold Environments 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

Johnson Technology-Rising Star 17

Electrocution Fatalitiesocution Fatalitiesocution FatalitiesOverhead Power Lines Electrocuted Two Construction Workers in St. Clair ShoresBy: James Zoccoli, Senior Safety OfficerConstruction Safety and Health Division

On Nov. 5, 2003, two Klee Construction Companyworkers were electrocuted. MIOSHA regulationsrequire employers to take precautions whencranes are operated near overhead power lines.

Electrocution remains a major cause of con-struction deaths in Michigan. Historically, elec-trocution accounts for about 20 percent of allfatalities in construction.

Unfortunately, last year was no exception.In 2003, there were 24 construction fatalities,and seven of those construction workers werefatally electrocuted. Several of these fatalitieswere related to contact with overhead powerlines.

“Far too many Michigan construction work-ers are electrocuted on the job,” said MIOSHADirector Doug Kalinowski. “Workers exposedto electrical hazards must receive training in the

potential hazards and instruction about protec-tive measures to perform their jobs safely.”

The Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (MIOSHA) is committedto working with the construction industry to re-duce the four major causes of construction fatali-ties: falls, electrocutions, struck-by, and crushedby/caught between.Double Fatality Description

On Nov. 5, 2003, eight employees workingfor Klee Construction Company of St. ClairShores were engaged in the rough carpentry fram-ing of a two-story residential home at 10 MileRoad and Jefferson in St. Clair Shores.

The company was using a Terex-RO boomtruck type crane, model BT-3470, to hoist woodentrusses to the second floor roof of the house. Thetrusses were stored beneath energized 7200-voltelectrical lines. Foreman Edward Spaccarotelliof Warren was the crane operator, and RyanSurant of St. Clair Shores was the hook-up per-son.

The c rane had success fu l ly com-pleted two lifts of material from this lo-cation. While attempting the third lift ,Spaccarotelli positioned the crane load lineapproximately 32 inches from one bareelectrical power line conductor, which wasjust over 38 feet above the ground.

Surant, a 19-year-old student working parttime, pulled the rigging towards the trusses beingstored under the overhead lines. The crane loadline contacted the overhead power line resultingin electrical flow through Surant’s body to theground.

When Surant was unable to release the ener-gized rigging, Spaccarotelli immediately left thecrane operator’s station and attempted to assisthim. Upon making contact with Surant, he alsowas energized. Both individuals were pronounceddead upon arrival at St. John Hospital and Medi-cal Center in Detroit.

2

From theBureau

Director’sDesk

By: Douglas J. Kalinowski, DirectorBureau of Safety & Regulation

Alliances & Partnerships:Two More Tools to“Make a Difference”in Michigan

In addition to strong enforcement and voluntary efforts, MIOSHAhas promoted and maintained partnerships with organizations and em-ployers for many years.Some have been formal including the MichiganRoad Builders Association, Associated General Contractors of Michi-gan, Society of Plastics Industries, Ford Motor Company/UAW, andVisteon Corporation/UAW.

Informal alliances are ongoing with professional and trade associa-tions, labor organizations, educational institutions and governmentalagencies.Whether formal or informal, the impact on worker safety andhealth has been positive.

Successes of our current relationships include providing membercompanies with enforcement updates at locations around the state, par-ticipation on a major conference committee and industry annual meet-ings, articles on industry specific topics in association and MIOSHApublications, speaker exchanges, seminar cosponsors, and significantlyenhanced communications.

As described in this and other issues of the MIOSHA News,MIOSHA follows a five-year strategic plan to guide allocation of re-sources and to measure impacts.Strategic alliances and partnerships arean important new emphasis area of our plan.

I recently approved a program instruction that adopts alliances asa formal program activity.In addition, a similar instruction is currentlybeing finalized to establish the process to enter a partnership withMIOSHA.

Both partnerships and alliances are formal agreements withMIOSHA to promote interaction and leverage resources to impact work-place safety and health.The goal of both alliances and partnerships is towork together to reach out, to educate, and to lead the state’s employersand employees in improving and advancing workplace safety andhealth.The primary difference is that a partnership will generally bewith an employer or group of employers and an alliance with an organi-zation or association.Alliance & Partnership Benefits

If you are wondering why anyone would participate in an allianceor partnership, let me tell you that, from our experience, the benefitshave been remarkable.Benefits include building trusting, cooperative re-lationships, providing an avenue to work with others committed toworkplace safety and health and best using available resources towardan ultimate goal of reducing job-related deaths, injuries and illnesses.

A MIOSHA Strategic Alliance provides the mechanism forMIOSHA to enter into a formal relationship with a trade or profes-sional, labor, education or government agency.Each alliance must includea goal that addresses workplace safety and health outreach and promo-tion, and may also include education and training.

Activities that may be included under a MIOSHA Strategic Alli-ance agreement include:

! Provide member companies with information and guidance.

! Increase access to safety and health information and training re-sources.

! Utilize mutual resources to promote and disseminate informationon web pages, newsletters, etc.

! Jointly develop training materials and safe or “best” work prac-tices.

! Participate in conferences, seminars, and events.Alliance & Partnership Proposals

As you can see, MIOSHA is seeking relationships that will help theprogram reach out in every possible way to be certain that employersthroughout Michigan and throughout our diverse industries are touchedby information that can help them to improve the quality of life in theirworkplace.

MIOSHA is ready to accept proposals from organizations andassociations.Those dedicated to joining efforts to spread the word aboutspecific workplace safety and health issues will find MIOSHA a willingalliance partner.

As indicated above, we are working to finalize a program approachfor MIOSHA Strategic Partnerships that will provide the opportunityfor an employer or group of employers and their employees and em-ployee representatives to establish a formal relationship with MIOSHA.A strategic partnership aims to have a measurable, positive impact onworkplace safety and health that goes beyond what historically has beenachievable through traditional enforcement methods and through a focuson individual worksites.

We are excited about the possibility of adding to our partnershipcompanies and will provide additional information as soon as implemen-tation is finalized.At the present time, MIOSHA has two employer/employee partners, Ford Motor Company/UAW and Visteon Corpora-tion/UAW, which grew from a federal OSHA partnership agreement.

These two partnerships were established for three years and justextended for three more.Through the partnership activities, MIOSHAhas benefitted by learning about the techniques and approaches devel-oped and implemented to address specific problems or in response toemerging issues and new technologies.The employer partners have ben-efitted from the outside perspective that MIOSHA staff brings to specialinformational meetings and enforcement reviews of individual worksites.

Both MIOSHA Strategic Alliances and Partnerships represent vol-untary, cooperative agreements.

MIOSHA Strategic Alliances and Partnerships provide an effectiveopportunity to integrate the values adopted by Governor Granholm forMichigan state government agencies: excellence, inclusion, integrity, andteamwork.I encourage anyone who wishes to explore the possibility of analliance or partnership with MIOSHA to contact us.We will do everythingthat we can to work together to “Make a Difference” for all workplacesacross this state.

Winter 2004

3

MIOSHA ReorganizationThe MIOSHA program has recently reorganized our operational structure, incorporating the most effective and efficient methods to

carry out our responsibilities. We have combined enforcement divisions and created a new division. Our goal is to continue to makeimprovements in our program to better serve the employers and employees in Michigan.

There are many benefits for employees and employers in states where the occupational safety and health programs are adminis-tered by the state. Two very important ones are the ability to focus on issues important to the people within the state, and the relativeease and utility of getting input from stakeholders.

MIOSHA stakeholders have expressed a strong desire for uniformity among program processes and consistency in informationprovided by program. This reorganization provides an excellent opportunity to bring about significant improvements in these areas.

Effective Dec. 8, 2003, our program name has changed from the Bureau of Safety and Regulation to the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (MIOSHA).

The new divisions, directors, responsibilities, and phone and fax numbers are listed below. Our website remains atwww.michigan.gov/miosha.

Michigan OccupationalSafety and HealthAdministration

Deputy Director: Martha Yoder

Responsible for the overalladministration of MIOSHAcompliance programs.

Phone: 517.322.1817Fax: 517.322.1775

AppealsDivision

Director: Diane Phelps

Represents the MIOSHAprogram in formal appeals ofcitations.

Phone: 517.322.1297Fax: 517-322-6355

Construction Safety andHealth Division

Director: Robert Pawlowski

Regulates safety and healthworking conditions in constructionand administers the asbestosprogram.

Phone: 517.322.1856Fax: 517.322.6354

Consultation Education &Training Division

Director: Connie O’Neill

Provides voluntary safety andhealth education, training, and

consultation services.

Phone: 517.322.1809Fax: 517.322.1374

General Industry Safety &Health Division

Director: John Brennan

Regulates safety and healthworking conditions in generalindustry and administers the

employee discrimination program.

Phone: 517.322.1831Fax: 517.322.6353

Management and TechnicalServices Division

Director: John Peck

Provides centralized services forFOIA, data collection and analysis,

lab services, and informationtechnology.

Phone: 517.322.1817Fax: 517.322.1775

4

Cont. on Page 16

New MIOSHA Scheduling PlanNew MIOSHA Scheduling PlanFor Genera l Indus t r y Inspec t ions and CET Ser v i ce s

MIOSHAStrategic Plan FocusFiscal Years 2004 - 2008

As part of the MIOSHA Strategic Plan,inspections and outreach activity will focus onthe following Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) codes/North American IndustryClassification System (NAICS) codes.

Top Three Targeted Injuries & Illnesses1. AmputationsSIC/NAICS20/311 Food and Kindred Products25/337 Furniture Manufacturing33/331 Primary Metal Manufacturing34/332 Fabricated Metal Products35/333 Machinery Manufacturing37/336 Transportation Equipment Manf.2. Overexertion/Repetitive MotionAll Michigan Industries3. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss25/337 Furniture Manufacturing33/331 Primary Metal Manufacturing34/332 Fabricated Metal Products35/333 Machinery Manufacturing37/336 Transportation Equipment Manf.

Top Six High-Hazard Industries1. Furniture Manufacturing25/3372. Primary Metal Manufacturing33/3313. Fabricated Metal Products34/3324. Machinery Manufacturing35/3335. Transportation EquipmentManufacturing37/3366. Construction15-17/23

Workplaces Experiencing HighInjury/Illness RatesAll Michigan Industries

The MIOSHA Strategic Plan is on ourwebsite at www.michigan.gov/miosha.

For the two compliance divisions:

General IndustrySafety and Health Division

ConstructionSafety and Health Division

and the

Consultation Education andTraining (CET) Division

By: John Brennan, DirectorGeneral Industry Safety and Health Division

On Oct. 1, 2003, the MIOSHA pro-gram implemented a new Five-Year Strate-gic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008,which will guide scheduling of program re-sources. This new plan identifies specificindustries and injuries/illnesses for prior-ity program attention.

Through the s t ra teg ic p lan , theMIOSHA program is able to target estab-lishments for inspections that have themost problems, and avoid inspecting thoseestablishments that are providing a safeand healthful work environment. In addi-tion, consultation activities can be focusedwhere the greatest potential for improve-ments exist.

The new MIOSHA Strategic Plan iden-tifies six industries and three injuries/ill-nesses for priority attention. The goal is toreduce injuries and illnesses in these indus-tries and areas by 20 percent by the end ofthe five-year plan. (See sidebar for a list ofSIC/NAICS codes.)

The industries included in the newMIOSHA Strategic Plan are Construction,Furniture and Fixtures, Primary Metals,Fabricated Metals, Industrial Machines andEquipment, and Transportation Equipment.The injuries/illnesses identified in the planare amputations, noise-induced hearing loss,and overexertion and repetitive motion.

The industries included in the plan areamong the 20 most hazardous industries inMichigan. Based on Bureau of Labor Sta-tistics (BLS) and state employment infor-mation, the selected industries represent asignificant number of Michigan workers thatcould benefit from improvements in theirsafety and health management systems. To-gether the selected industries represent morethan 800,000 workers in more than 28,700establishments.

An additional goal calls for increasedprogram attention to specific work locationsexperiencing high occurrences of worker in-juries and illnesses regardless of industryclassification.General Industry Inspection Focus

The system developed to identify work-places for MIOSHA general industry safetyand health inspections is based on multipledata sources. Most significant is the use ofworkers’ compensation data to identify spe-

cific worksites. Workers’ Compensation in-formation is used in conjunction with otherdata sources including: previous MIOSHAinspection history, employer directories, andinformation collected through the federalOSHA data initiative.

Under the inspection targeting system,employers reporting higher numbers of com-pensable workers’ compensation cases in se-lected Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) codes/North American Industry Clas-sification System (NAICS) codes and ran-domly selected establishments will be iden-tified for inspection. Emphasis is placed onselecting the specific SIC/NAICS for in-spection based on the goals established inthe MIOSHA Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years2004 through 2008.

During Fiscal Year 2004, which beganOct. 1, 2003, targeting for general industryinspections will primarily address goals ofreducing amputation injuries and reducingthe injury and illness rate in the priorityindustries listed above. In addition, strate-gies will be developed to increase inspec-tion activity in high-hazard industries toaddress overexert ion/repeti t ive motionproblems.

The injury and industry specific ini-tiatives will be augmented with workplacesselected from all SIC/NAICS experiencinggreater numbers of compensable workers’compensation cases, as well as randomlyselected worksites. The General IndustrySafety and Health Division will continueits current practice of investigating pro-gram-related fatalities, valid employee com-plaints, accidents and referrals, in additionto scheduled inspection activity.Focused Food Industry Inspections

On Nov. 1, 2003, the General Indus-try Safety and Health Division initiated anew strategy for Food Products Industry(SIC 20/NAICS 311) inspections. Duringthe opening conference, the complianceofficer will ask the employer what typesof equipment and/or machines are presentin the workplace. If the site has equip-ment and/or machines that could cause anamputation, the safety officer will con-duct a thorough inspection of the equip-ment and/or machines, with particular at-t en t ion to employee exposu re t o n ippoints, shear points, cutting actions, otherpinch points and operator training.

Winter 2004

5

MIOSHA Orders Michigan Industrial FinishesCorporation to Cease Operating Dangerous EquipmentHamtramck Company Has Shown Serious Disregard for Employee Safety

On Aug, 22, 2003, Michigan Depart-ment Labor & Economic Growth DirectorDavid C. Hollister directed Michigan Oc-cupational Safety and Health Administra-tion (MIOSHA) safety officers to executea Cease Operation Order against MichiganIndustrial Finishes (MIF) Corporation inHamtramck for continuing to operate inap-propriate powered industrial trucks in ahazardous environment.

“MIOSHA standards require employ-ers to protect workers from known work-place hazards. By not correcting previouslyidentified hazards, Michigan Industrial Fin-ishes has compromised the safety of its em-ployees,” said Hollister. “MIOSHA is com-mitted to helping employers who want todo the right thing. But we will not tolerateMichigan Industrial Finishes’ flagrant dis-regard of employee safety.”

A Cease Operation Order is one of thestrongest actions MIOSHA can take againstan employer. This is the second time inMIOSHA history that a Cease OperationOrder has been served against a general in-dustry employer for failing to correct iden-tified safety violations within the providedtime frame.

Cease Operation Orders have been ex-ecuted when the department has determinedthere is a dangerous situation at a worksiteand the employer refuses to discontinuethe operation or remove workers fromdanger.

If an employer fails to comply withthe Cease Operation Order, MIOSHA hasthe authority and the responsibility to seeka court order to obtain compliance.Explosion Hazards from IndustrialTrucks

Michigan Industrial Finishes employs15 workers and is a manufacturer of paintand paint products. Their business re-quires the extensive use of flammable andcombustible liquids that are poured, mixed,blended and dispensed in various pro-cesses. They are classified as a high-haz-ard industry.

Industrial vehicles operated within haz-ardous areas present a risk of explosion. Theflammable and combustible material can bereleased either by accident or during a pro-cess and may result in fire or explosion from

a hot surface or sparks from an industrialvehicle, whether powered by diesel enginesor electrical equipment.The MIOSHA Inspections

MIOSHA safety officers conducted aninspection of Michigan Industrial Finishesfrom Aug. 21, 2001, through March 1, 2002.Citations were issued on May 29, 2002. Thecompany received six serious violations, in-cluding a citation for operating inappropri-ate powered industrial trucks in hazardouslocations.

According to General Industry Stan-dard, Part 21., Powered Industrial Truck,Rule 4081.2155(1)(a), which incorporatesNat iona l F i re Pro tec t ion Assoc ia t ion(NFPA) Standard 505-1996; powered indus-trial trucks used in locations containing flam-mable and combustible hazards must berated and approved to not cause ignition ofthe hazardous material.

A follow-up inspection was initiated onSept. 3, 2002, because the employer failedto submi t aba tement in fo rmat ion toMIOSHA. The safety officers found thatthe employer had not taken any steps toabate the inappropriate use of the poweredindustrial trucks.

Safety officers returned on four sepa-rate dates–10/15/02, 11/18/02, 12/4/02, and12/9/02–and on each visit discussed severalacceptable methods of abatement with theemployer to correct this hazard.

On Dec. 9 , 2002,the fol low-up inspec-t ion was c losed wi thone item remaining un-abated, the serious vio-lation for inappropriateuse of the powered in-dustrial trucks. On Feb.4, 2003, the companywas i s sued a Fa i l toAbate Notice.

A second follow-upinspection was initiatedon June 12, 2003, be-cause the company stillfailed to submit abate-ment in fo rmat ion .Safety officers again re-turned on five separateoccasions and discussed

abatement methods– 6/27/03, 7/18/03,8/7/03, 8/11/03, and 8/18/03–and on eachoccasion the firm continued to use non-ap-proved powered industrial trucks in the flammablepaint manufacturing areas.The Cease Operation Order

A serious hazard existed at MichiganIndustrial Finishes, in that employees weredirected to operate powered industrialtrucks in a hazardous location. The truckswere not approved for use in the flammableand combustible environment, and were notin compl iance wi th Rule 2155(1) (a ) .MIOSHA issued the Cease Operation Or-der to protect the safety and well being ofthe workers.

“We will not al low this continuedexposure of employees to potential ex-plosion hazards. Since the employer re-fuses to take corrective action, we muststep in and protect these workers,” saidMIOSHA Direc tor Doug Kal inowski .“As soon as Michigan Industrial Finishescorrec ts the hazards and not i f ies oursafety officers, we will respond in lessthan 24 hours and remove the CeaseOperation tags.”

The company moved into complianceby purchasing an approved powered in-dustrial truck, and the cease operation tagwas removed by the agency. MIOSHA iscontinuing to work with the company onother safety and health issues.

On Aug. 22, 2003, MIOSHA issued a Cease Operation Order against MichiganIndustrial Finishes Corporation in Hamtramck for continuing to operateinappropriate powered industrial trucks in a hazardous environment.

!

6

Facilities with TB hazards must comply with theMIOSHA Respiratory Protection standard, Part451, to protect their workers from exposure to TB.

On Feb. 5, 2004, the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)announced it is extending to workers exposed totuberculosis (TB) the same high level of respira-tory protection that is provided to workersthroughout Michigan.

This increased level of worker protectionfollows a decision by the federal OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) towithdraw its 1997 proposed standard on tuber-culosis. With the withdrawal of the proposedTB standard, MIOSHA will immediately beginapplying the respiratory protection standard, Part451, for protection against the disease.

While the enhanced requirements will takeimmediate effect, MIOSHA recognizes employ-ers may need assistance to come into compli-ance. The philosophy of the MIOSHA programhas long been to provide both compliance andoutreach activities to protect Michigan workers.MIOSHA’s Consultation Education and Train-ing (CET) Division is initiating an outreach effortto provide training and information to affectedemployers in Michigan. Employers are urged totake advantage of the education and training out-reach to assist in their efforts to protect workersfrom TB hazards.

“It is critical that employers be diligent intheir efforts to provide a workplace free fromrecognized hazards,” said MIOSHA DirectorDoug Kalinowski, “Employers are urged to dem-onstrate their good faith by being proactive in

By: Gerald DikeIndustrial Hygienist & TB SpecialistGeneral Industry Safety & Health Division

their efforts to come into compliance.”In addition to the requirements of the respi-

ratory protection standard, employee exposuresto TB are also addressed by MIOSHA DirectiveNo. 96-9, Enforcement Policy and Procedure forOccupational Exposure to Tuberculosis. This di-rective provides guidance on agency expectationsfor employers based on industry recognition thatexposure to TB is a recognized hazard. The direc-tive identifies health care facilities, long-term carefacilities for the elderly, homeless shelters, drugtreatment centers, and correctional facilities asposing a high risk of TB exposure.

Under Directive No. 96-9, MIOSHA cur-rently requires that employers:

! Develop and implement a written respi-ratory protection program,

! Ensure proper respirator selection forprotection against TB,

! Provide affected employees with initialrespirator fit testing, and

! Provide employees with adequate respi-ratory protection training.

The new requirements under the respi-ratory protection standard include:

! Updating the facility’s respirator program,! Complying with amended medical evalu-

ation requirements,! Annual fit testing of respirators, and! Training and recordkeeping provisions.

Background InformationOSHA published a proposed standard on

Oct. 17, 1997, to control occupational exposureto tuberculosis. It was estimated at that time thata standard would protect roughly 5.3 millionworkers in more than 100,000 hospitals, nursinghomes, hospices, correctional facilities, homelessshelters, and other work settings with a signifi-cant risk of TB infection.

In 1998, federal OSHA promulgated an ex-tensive modification to their general industry res-piratory protection standard. At that time, OSHAannounced it would wait until the conclusion ofthe TB rulemaking to decide whether to applythe respiratory standard to workers exposed toTB or to include TB-specific procedures in atuberculosis rule. Those workers remained undera 1974 standard in the interim.

During the TB rulemaking process, federalOSHA conducted an extensive review of the is-sues related to respiratory protection. OSHAwithdrew the proposed TB standard because theyconcluded that workers exposed to tuberculosisshould have the same protections as those exposedto other types of hazards in the workplace. OSHApublished termination of its TB rulemaking in the

Federal Register on Dec. 31, 2003.A number of factors emerged which caused

OSHA to terminate the proposed TB-specificregulation, including:

! TB in the United States has declined sig-nificantly since OSHA proposed a TB Standard.

! Increased implementation of TB controlsand greater compliance with the Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelineshas reduced TB levels.

! The occupational risk of TB infection islower than that reflected in OSHA’s proposedstandard.

! An OSHA standard would not substan-tially reduce transmission of TB from undiag-nosed sources.Enforcement and Outreach Activities

The application of MIOSHA Part 451, Res-piratory Protection, to facilities with TB expo-sure hazards will begin immediately. As a result,the two new requirements, fit testing and medicalevaluations, become effective and must now beaddressed.

MIOSHA will continue its current enforce-ment policy of Directive No. 96-9, EnforcementPolicy and Procedure for Occupational Exposureto Tuberculosis, through the General Duty Clause,when an employer has a confirmed or suspectedcase of TB and is not adequately addressing thehazard. MIOSHA is currently updating the direc-tive to reflect the recent rule changes.

Occupational exposure to TB is a seriousand recognized hazard, and feasible abatementmethods exist. MIOSHA’s directive for TB ex-posure control methods is based on the CDC’s1994 “Guidelines for Preventing the Transmis-sion of Tuberculosis in Health-Care Facilities.”

Control methods required in MIOSHA Di-rective No. 96-9 include:

! Early identification of patients/clients;! Respiratory protection;! Medical surveillance;! Case management of infected employees;! Work practices and engineering controls;! Employee education and training.“MIOSHA has the necessary tools and re-

sources to help employers protect their workersfrom TB exposure hazards,” said MIOSHA Di-rector Doug Kalinowski.

Employers who have questions about TBenforcement and compliance issues may contactMIOSHA TB Specialist Gerry Dike, GeneralIndustry Safety and Health Division, at248.888.8863. Employers interested in MIOSHAoutreach services can contact the CET Division,at 517.322.1809.

MIOSHA ANNOUNCES ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF RESPIRATORYPROTECTION FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS

!

Winter 2004

7

Workplace Safety and HealthMakes Good Business Sense

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

The Bottom Line

Howmet CastingsHowmet CastingsHowmet Castings

A Howmet employee is applying ceramic brace rods to a wax mold.

Located in Whitehall, Howmet Castings is a world leader in theinvestment casting industry, providing precision-cast componentsof superalloy and titanium for aerospace and industrial gas turbineengines and aerospace applications.

Howmet is a key supplier of titanium ingots and ceramic prod-ucts; provides component coating, heat-treating and refurbishment;hot isostatic pressing (HIP), ceramic products manufacturing; andconducts extensive research to aid development of its material, prod-uct and process technologies. There are seven manufacturing facili-ties, Howmet Research Corporation, Howmet Information Technol-ogy and several support operations, with 2,100 workers.Safety & Health Improvements

Howmet Castings regards the health and safety of workers andthe protection of the environment in the communities where it con-ducts business as a top priority. In 2000, Alcoa acquired HowmetCastings and this association provided Howmet with a new “Safetyand Health Management System.” This system and “other tools”have been utilized throughout the organization to significantly im-prove their overall environmental, health and safety performance.

Since 2000, there have been a number of important safety andhealth changes throughout the Whitehall Operations. Employees atall levels are now focused on “risk based” factors that could poten-tially contribute to injuries and incidents, as well as developing abetter understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

Howmet has developed specific programs for managing processeswith the highest risk potential. These “Critical 4” programs cover Con-fined Space Entry, Lockout/Tagout/Verification, Mobile Equipment andFall Prevention/Fall Protection. Each Critical 4 program has a manage-ment individual assigned as a Single Point of Accountability (SPA). TheSPA takes ownership of the program by developing a tactical team,utilizing the location’s health and safety professionals as a technicalresource, tracking leading indicators, and ensuring all aspects of the Criti-cal 4 programs are implemented. The SPA’s and their tactical teams haveeffectively helped these programs achieve a level of excellence, ratherthan simply regulatory compliance.

Howmet facilities and operations have undergone many physicalimprovements. Examples include: installation of standard barriers onrooftops; physical barriers to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic;Lockout/Tagout/Verification placards on all equipment; and an aggres-sive ergonomic program, which has instituted a pre-work/post-lunchstretching program, an ergonomic intervention process and ergonomi-

cally designed workstations, equipment and processes. In addition,their medical review systems have been upgraded to ensure the workforcecan safely perform their work assignments.A World Class Safety & Health Program

Salaried as well as hourly employees serve on SAFETeams thatfocus on prevention, exposure and promotion activities. These teamsbring safety and health programs to the floor level and encourageparticipation by conducting contests, reviewing employee concerns,conducting promotional activities and reviewing both leading andlagging indicators to identify injury types and trends.

Since fully integrating the safety and health management sys-tem, Howmet has experienced a significant reduction in Recordableand Lost Workday Cases. There is still room for improvement. Zerowork-related injuries and illnesses have been a long-standing goal forAlcoa. Originally, the goal seemed impossible, but today they arewell on their way to reaching that goal.

These reductions in injuries are attributable to the hard work ofeach and every Howmet employee; management’s emphasis on find-ing the root-cause of every incident that occurs; employee involve-ment in continuous improvement; and the foundation that each em-ployee is responsible for their own safety and health behaviors. Withthis foundation, all employees are determined to achieve their goal -ZERO work-related injuries.

8

Employers must take reasonable steps to ensurethat they are providing their workers with a safeand healthy workplace.

Affirmative Defe Defe DefenseSo, You’ve Received a Citation You Disagree WithBy: Robert Pawlowski, CIH, CSP, DirectorConstruction Safety and Health Division

The Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (MIOSHA) conductsinspections in Michigan workplaces underauthority of the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health (MIOSH) Act, Act 154,P.A. of 1974, as amended.

As we all know, such inspections canresult in MIOSHA issuing citations againstan employer alleging that rules or stan-dards established under authority of theMIOSH Act have been violated. The is-sued citation tells the employer what theyare expected to do to comply with the ruleor standard.The Appeal Process

The MIOSH Act also establishes anappeal process in the event that an em-ployer disagrees with all or part of a cita-tion that has been issued. The MIOSHAprogram provides a unique feature of offer-ing employers an appeal process not foundin federal OSHA.

First Appeal - All or part of the ci-tation may be appealed within 15 work-ing days of the receipt of the citation tothe MIOSHA division that issued it . Adivision review follows and a decision is-sued.

Second Appeal - This appeal may befiled within 15 working days upon receiptby the employer of the results of the firstappeal. The Board of Health, Safety, Com-pliance, and Appeals holds an informalhearing.

If the issues are not resolved - Adecision is issued following a formal hear-ing by an administrative law judge (ALJ).Decisions by the ALJ may be appealed tothe full seven-member Board and ultimatelyto a Michigan Circuit Court.“Unpreventable EmployeeMisconduct” Defense

O n e o f t h e m o s t c o m m o n a r g u -ments used in appeals by employers indefending against a MIOSHA citat ion,i s w h a t ’s c o m m o n l y k n o w n a s t h e“unpreventable employee misconduct”defense . Unpreventable employee mis-conduct has also been referred to as “af-firmative defense,” “isolated occurrence,”“isolated incident,” “isolated misconduct,”or “employee misconduct.”

Regardless of the name, the basic ideabehind this defense is that if the employerhas taken reasonable steps to ensure a safeworkplace, then it is unfair and does notpromote workplace safety and health to pe-nalize the employer for conditions that wereunpreventable and rare.

Since the beginning of OSHA in 1970,these issues have been discussed and de-bated. Judicial rulings have established afour-part test to determine if an employerhas a valid unpreventable employee miscon-duct defense.

All of the four elements must be metby the employer in order to sustain anunpreventable employee misconduct de-fense .

Below is an explanation of all four ele-ments of this four-part test.The Four-Part Test

(1) The employer has establishedwork rules designed to address hazardsin the workplace and comply wi thMIOSHA rules and standards.

The first element establishes whetherthe employer has addressed in any wayhealth and safety in the workplace and isusually the easiest of the four elements forthe employer to show.

It is very unlikely that an employer

would raise the unpreventable employeemisconduct defense, without presentingsome evidence that the employer had at leastsome elements of a safety and health pro-gram in place to address the hazards in theworkplace.

If the employer can show that theyhave established a program, operating pro-cedure, etc., which addresses the hazard inquestion, then they have met the require-ment of this element.

If it can be shown that the require-ments of this first element have not beenmet, then the other three elements discussedbelow become irrelevant, and the citationthat was issued would typically be sus-tained.

(2) The employer has adequatelycommunicated established work rules tothe employees (employee training).

The second element focuses on howwell the employer has trained the employ-ees on the specific hazards that have beenidentified in the workplace, and how wellthe employer has communicated to theemployees specific work practices de-signed to reduce or eliminate exposure tothe hazard.

Where it can be shown that the em-ployer has provided inadequate training,and/or the employer has missed provid-ing training for some employees (e.g.,new employees) then the defense willtypically fail. Establishing element (2)can be established when the employerc a n s h o w t h a t e m p l o y e e s a r e w e l ltrained, and were aware of establishedwork rules.

(3) The employer has taken stepsto determine that employees are com-plying with established work rules (sur-veillance in the workplace).

The third element has to do withwhether the employer has exercised rea-sonable diligence in detecting workplacenoncompliance with established workrules.

Where there is evidence of noncom-pliance, the assumption will typically bethat the employer has not been diligentin identifying violations of establishedwork rules. The defense has typicallybeen rejected where there were identifi-able incidents of noncompliance and the

Cont. on Page 17

Winter 2004

9

!

ReminderEmployers must begin to use the newMIOSHA Form 300 on January 1st

Recordkeeping UpdateRecordkeeping is a vital tool that can help

employers provide a safe and healthy work envi-ronment for their employees. Detailed recordscan supply employers with a recognized patternof workplace hazards and potential preventionactivities.

The Michigan Occupational Health andSafety Administration (MIOSHA) requires mostMichigan employers with 11 or more employ-ees to log and maintain records of work-relatedinjuries and illnesses, and to make those recordsavailable during MIOSHA inspections of theworkplace.

“Providing work environments that are safeand healthful requires daily diligence and ongoingcommitment by Michigan employers,” saidMIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski. “Thereis no more critical component to an employer’stotal safety and health effort than accuraterecordkeeping.”

Accurate accident and injury records arenecessary to help MIOSHA determine how wellan employer is doing at providing a safe andhealthful workplace. These records include theMIOSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Inju-ries and Illnesses); MIOSHA Form 301 (Injuryand Illness Incident Report); and MIOSHA Form300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Ill-nesses).

Employers with 10 or fewer employees andemployers in certain industry groups (retail trade;finance, insurance and real estate; and certain ser-vices industries) are normally exempt from theMIOSHA recordkeeping and posting requirements.These exemptions do not excuse any employer fromcoverage by MIOSHA or from compliance with allapplicable safety and health standards.New Recordkeeping Forms

The three MIOSHA forms that are used byemployers to record injuries and illnesses havechanged in several important ways for 2004.Employers must begin to use the new MIOSHAForm 300 on Jan. 1, 2004.

Foremost among the changes is the additionof an occupational hearing loss column toMIOSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Inju-ries and Illnesses). Beginning Jan. 1, 2004, em-ployers will be required to check a hearing losscolumn to record work-related cases meeting thenew recording criteria established by MIOSHA.

The new recordkeeping standard requiresemployers to record work-related hearing losscases when an employee’s hearing test shows amarked decrease in overall hearing. Data fromthe new column will improve statistical infor-mation on occupational hearing loss, improveMIOSHA’s ability to determine where the inju-ries occur, and help prioritize hearing loss pre-

vention efforts.Under the new criteria, employers will record

10-decibel shifts from the employee’s baselinehearing test when they also result in an overallhearing level of 25 decibels.

Other changes include:! The “days away from work” column

now comes before the days “on job transfer orrestriction,”

! More clear formulas for calculating inci-dence rates,

! New recording criteria for occupationalhearing loss in the “Overview” section, and

! More prominent column heading “Clas-sify the Case” to make it clear that employersshould mark only one selection among the fourcolumns offered.Recording MSDs

Federal OSHA has decided not to modifythe form that employers use to record workplaceinjuries and illnesses to include a separate columnfor musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). OSHA’sdecision appeared in the June 13, 2003, FederalRegister.

This decision does not change the currentway injuries or illnesses are recorded, and doesnot affect an employer’s obligation to record work-related injuries, including musculoskeletal disor-ders. Employers will continue to check the col-umn for ‘injury’ or ‘all other illness’ depending onthe circumstances of the case.

OSHA concluded that an additionalrecordkeeping column would not substantially im-prove the national injury statistics, nor would itbe of benefit to employers and workers becausethe column would not provide additional infor-mation useful to identifying possible causes ormethods to prevent injury.

The agency also determined that useful in-formation about MSD cases is available from cur-rently published statistics. Current Bureau ofLabor Statistics (BLS) national statistics alreadyinclude comprehensive informationabout ergonomic-related injuries thatresult in days away from work, thenumber and incidence rate of thesedisorders, and detailed information onthe nature of MSD injuries and ill-nesses.Posting Reminder

Michigan employers are re-quired to post the total number ofjob-related injuries and illnesses thatoccurred in 2003. Employers mustpost the MIOSHA Form 300A(Summary of Work-Related Injuriesand Illnesses) for three months, fromFeb. 1 to April 30, 2004.

Companies with no injuries and illnessesduring the previous year are still required to postthe MIOSHA Form 300A by putting zeros onthe total line. A company executive must certifythat the totals are correct and sign the form, whichis then displayed wherever notices to employeesare usually posted.

A copy of the summary must also be madeavailable to employees who move from worksiteto worksite, such as construction workers, andemployees who do not report to any fixed estab-lishment on a regular basis.

Employers should use the old MIOSHAForm 300A (without the hearing loss column) topost as required in 2004. The new MIOSHAForm 300A that includes the hearing loss columnshould be used in February 2005.Recordkeeping Information

The MIOSHA Consultation Educationand Training (CET) Division has taken the leadin recordkeeping outreach. CET safety and healthconsultants have developed PowerPoint presen-tations, training materials, and flow charts withmedical treatment examples. Annually, CETschedules recordkeeping training seminars acrossthe state. Please contact the CET Division at517.322.1809 for more information.

Recordkeeping information is available onthe MIOSHA website at www.michigan.gov/miosha, under the “MIOSHA Initiatives” head-ing. This site includes the rule, recent changes,the forms, and training opportunities. Employ-ers can also call the Management InformationSystems Section at 517.322.1848 for informa-tion about recordkeeping. To receive the requiredforms, please call 517.322.1851.

All employers are also reminded they arerequired by law to notify MIOSHA within eighthours of a fatality or any hospitalization of threeor more employees suffering injury or illness froman accident. A special report line is available 24hours, at 800.858.0397.

10

Jim Brogan, Manager, MIOSHA Employee Discrimination Section, andDana Girty, Rights Representative, review a discrimination case file.

By: James Brogan, Manager,Employee Discrimination Section

DISCRIMINATION IS UNLAWFUL UNDER MIOSHAIt is unlawful, under the Michigan Oc-

cupational Safety and Health (MIOSH) Actfor an employer to discharge an employeeor in any manner discriminate against an em-ployee because the employee filed a safetyand health complaint. Types of discrimina-tion include:

! Discharge,! Demotion,! Suspension,! Harassment, and/or! Other types of disciplinary action.An employee who believes that he or

she was discharged or otherwise discrimi-nated against by their employer must file acomplaint with the Michigan OccupationalSafe ty and Hea l th Admin i s t ra t ion(MIOSHA) within 30 days of the violation.Upon receipt of the complaint, MIOSHAwill investigate as appropriate.

If MIOSHA determines that an em-ployee was discriminated against, it willorder all appropriate relief, including:

! Rehiring or reinstatement to theformer position,

! Payment of back wages, with inter-est, and

! Possible compensation for any spe-cial damages or fees.

The MIOSH Act also contains the fol-lowing discrimination provisions:

! A duly authorized employee repre-sentative has the right to accompany aMIOSHA representative on an investiga-tion/inspection without the loss of wages

or fringe benefits.! Employees have the right to be in-

terviewed in private and request materialsafety data sheets without being discrimi-nated against.

! An employer is prohibited from dis-criminating against an employee for report-ing a work-related fatality, injury or illness,or asking for access to records.Refusal to Work

A common question received by theE m p l o y e e D i s c r i m i n a t i o n S e c t i o n i swhether an individual can refuse to work.In this area, court decisions have providedformal interpretation and guidance regard-ing the intent of the MIOSH Act.In 1980,the Michigan Supreme Court decided inMarshal l v. Whir lpool that employeeshave the right to refuse job assignments ifthe assignment is deemed an “imminentdanger.”

The court also said that for a refusal towork to be justified, the following criteriamust be present:

! An employee with no reasonable al-ternative refuses in good faith to exposehimself/herself to the dangerous condition(imminent danger).

! The cond i t ion caus ing theemployee’s apprehension of death or seri-ous bodily injury must be of such a naturethat a reasonable person under the same cir-cumstances would conclude there is a realdanger of death or serious injury.

! There is insufficient time to elimi-nate the dangerous condition through regu-latory channels.

! Where possible, the employee musthave also sought from theemployer and was unable toobtain, a correction of thedangerous condition.The DiscriminationInvestigation

A discrimination com-plaint under MIOSHA canbe verbal, electronic or inwrit ten form to manage-ment, employee organiza-tions and/or to the news me-dia. These complaints do nothave to be filed directly withMISOHA for the provisionsto apply.

Discr iminat ion com-p l a i n t s u n d e r t h eM I O S H A A c t m u s t b emade wi thin 30 days o f

the date of the alleged discrimination.This is a strict time frame, and employ-ees need to keep this time limit in mind.Unfortunately, each year there are em-ployees who may have valid complaintsbut have allowed the allotted time to filea complaint lapse.

A discrimination complaint will nor-mally be opened for an investigation whenit is alleged that an employee is discrimi-nated against in some manner for complain-ing of a safety and health issue. The allega-tion must include:

! An employee who is engaged in aprotected activity,

! An indication the employer hadknowledge of the protected activity, and

! As a result, the employee sufferedan adverse employment action.

Once a complaint is filed, a screeningprocess takes place to insure that the com-plaint contains the necessary elements. Ifit meets the criteria, the complaint is givena docket number and assigned for investiga-tion. The employer is advised of the pend-ing investigation in order to provide rebut-tal to the charge.

After all witnesses are interviewedand documents reviewed, a determinationorder is issued, either upholding the com-plaint or dismissing it. Both parties, theemployer and the employee, have the rightto appeal this decision to an Administra-tive Law Judge with the Michigan Depart-ment of Labor & Economic Growth, Bureauof Hearings, and ultimately to the courtsystem. This appeal process affords boththe employee and the employer an oppor-tunity to present their positions in a neu-tral environment.Recent Discrimination Cases

Denial of Production Bonus – An em-ployer recently denied a production bonusto an employee who had received medicaltreatment for an injury.

This action violated the MIOSH Actbecause an employee may not be discrimi-nated against for reporting an occupationalinjury/illness. The employer appealed, butthe case was settled in favor of the em-ployee prior to the hearing.

Unacceptable Employee Conduct –An employee a l leged his terminat ion,which was later changed to a suspension,was because of filing a safety and healthcomplaint.

MIOSHA found no merit because the

Cont. on Page 19

Winter 2004

11

Protecting Workers in Cold Environments More than 700 people die of hypothermia each year in the United States

Employers and workers in industries such as construction need to takeprecautions and learn how to prevent and treat cold-related disorders.

Working in cold environments can be dan-gerous. Workers who must brave outdoor condi-tions face the occupational hazard of exposure tothe cold. MIOSHA reminds employers and work-ers to take necessary precautions to help protectworkers in cold environments.

Prolonged exposure to freezing temperaturescan result in health problems as serious as trenchfoot, frostbite, and hypothermia. Workers in suchindustries as construction, commercial fishing andagriculture need to be especially mindful of theweather, its effects on the body, proper preven-tion techniques, and treatment of cold-related dis-orders.The Cold Environment

An individual gains body heat from foodand muscular activity and loses it through con-vection, conduction, radiation and sweating tomaintain a constant body temperature. Whenbody temperature drops even a few degrees be-low its normal temperature of 98.6°F, the bloodvessels constrict, decreasing peripheral blood flowto reduce heat loss from the surface of the skin.Shivering generates heat by increasing the body’smetabolic rate.

The four environmental conditions thatcause cold-related stress are low temperatures,high/cool winds, dampness and cold water. Windchill, a combination of temperature and velocity,is a crucial factor to evaluate when working out-side. For example, when the actual air tempera-ture of the wind is 40°F and its velocity is 35mph, the exposed skin receives conditions equiva-lent to the still-air temperature being 11°F! Adangerous situation of rapid heat loss may arisefor any individual exposed to high winds and coldtemperatures.Major Risk Factors for Cold-RelatedStresses

! Wearing inadequate or wet clothing in-creases the effects of cold on the body.

! Taking certain drugs or medications suchas alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and medication thatinhibits the body’s response to the cold or im-pairs judgment.

! Having a cold or certain diseases, such asdiabetes, heart, vascular, and thyroid problems,may make a person more susceptible to the win-ter elements.

! Being a male increases a person’s risk tocold-related stresses. Sad, but true, men experi-ence far greater death rates due to cold exposurethan women, perhaps due to inherent risk-takingactivities, body-fat composition or other physi-ological differences.

! Becoming exhausted or immobilized, es-

pecially due to injury or entrapment, may speedup the effects of cold weather.

! Aging – the elderly are more vulnerableto the effects of harsh winter weather.Harmful Effects of Cold

Trench Foot: Is caused by long, continu-ous exposure to a wet, cold environment, or ac-tual immersion in water. Commercial fisherman,who experience these types of cold, wet environ-ments daily, need to be especially cautious.

Symptoms: They include a tingling and/oritching sensation, burning, pain, and swelling,sometimes forming blisters in more extreme cases.

Treatment: Move individuals with trenchfoot to a warm, dry area, where the affected tis-sue can be treated with careful washing and dry-ing, rewarming and slight elevation. Seek medicalassistance as soon as possible.

Frostbite: It occurs when the skin tissue ac-tually freezes, causing icecrystals to form betweencells and draw water fromthem, which leads to cellu-lar dehydration. Althoughthis typically occurs attemperatures below 30°F,wind chill effects can causefrostbite at above-freezingtemperatures.

Symptoms: Initialeffects of frostbite includeuncomfortable sensationsof coldness; tingling, sting-ing or aching feeling of theexposed area followed bynumbness. Ears, fingers,toes, cheeks, and noses areprimarily affected. Frost-bitten areas appear whiteand cold to the touch. The appearance of frost-bite varies depending on whether rewarming hasoccurred.

Deeper frostbite involves freezing ofdeeper tissues (muscles, tendons, etc.) caus-ing exposed areas to become numb, painless,hard to the touch.

Treatment: If you suspect frostbite, youshould seek medical assistance immediately. Anyexisting hypothermia should be treated first. (SeeHypothermia below.) Frostbitten parts shouldbe covered with dry, sterile gauze or soft, cleancloth bandages. Do not massage frostbitten tis-sue because this sometimes causes greater injury.Severe cases may require hospitalization and evenamputation of affected tissue. Take measures toprevent further cold injury. If formal medical treat-

ment will be delayed, consult with a licensedhealth care professional for training on rewarm-ing techniques.

General Hypothermia: This occurs whenbody temperature falls to a level where normalmuscular and cerebral functions are impaired.While hypothermia is generally associated withfreezing temperatures, it may occur in any cli-mate where a person’s body temperature fallsbelow normal. For instance, hypothermia is com-mon among the elderly who live in cold houses.

Symptoms: The first symptoms of hypo-thermia, shivering, an inability to do complexmotor functions, lethargy, and mild confusion,occur as the core body temperature decreases toaround 95°F.

As body temperature continue to fall, hy-pothermia becomes more severe. The individualfalls into a state of dazed consciousness, failing

to complete even simple motor functions. Thevictim’s speech becomes slurred and his or herbehavior may become irrational.

The most severe state of hypothermia oc-curs when body temperature falls below 90°F.As a result, the body moves into a state of hiber-nation, slowing the heart rate, blood flow, andbreathing. Unconsciousness and full heart failurecan occur in the severely hypothermic state.

Treatment: It involves conserving thevictim’s remaining body heat and providing addi-tional heat sources. Specific measures will varydepending upon the severity and setting (field orhospital). Handle hypothermic people very care-fully because of the increased irritability of thecold heart. Seek medical assistance for persons

Cont. on Page 19

12

CET Awards MIOSHA recognizes the safety and healthachievements of Michigan employers andemployees through CET Awards, which are basedon excellent safety and health performance.

Flat Rock Metal employees Mark Nades, Dave Ailiff, ErickRobinette (back), Don Nash, Mike Strickland, and Ed Duboseparticipated in the CET Bronze Award presentation.

On December 11, 2003, Flat Rock Metal Inc.’s Michigan facility receivedthe CET Bronze Award for an outstanding safety and health record.

CET Safety Consultant Linda Long presented the award to Greg Zang,Vice President of Operations, during a plant meeting. “We are proud to recog-nize Flat Rock Metal for their outstanding efforts to create a safe and healthywork environment,” said Long. “Reducing injury and illness rates not onlyprotects workers, it has a healthy impact on a company’s bottom line.”

Flat Rock Metal Inc. specializes in critical surface processing and prepara-tion, servicing the automotive and steel industries. The Michigan plant is a90,000 sq. ft. facility, with 175 hourly employees.

They have four blanking processes with capacities up to 400 tons and bedsizes up to 70" x 130". In addition, they have six multiple head lines for polishinghot rolled or cold rolled carbon steel sheets. They are also capable of processingcarbon steel sheets through a variety of treatments. Flat Rock Metal has built astrong reputation by offering superior service and quality to their customers.

Flat Rock Metal Inc. - Flat Rock

(Front) Nella Davis-Ray, CET Safety & Health Manager; Scott Bugbee;Sandra Lucas; Connie O’Neill, CET Director; Mary Owens; (Back) AJHale; Sandy Boulis; Jackie Marten; Brent Inosencio; Curt Philson.

On November 21, 2003, Tenneco Automotive’s Litchfield plant received the CETErgonomic Innovation Award, which is issued to employers for innovative ideas thathave been implemented to reduce worker strain.

Consultation Education & Training Division Director Connie O’Neill presented theaward to AJ Hale, Environmental Health & Safety Engineer, and to members of the Ergo-nomics Team and the Litchfield Employees Accident Prevention System Team (LEAPS).Both teams played a major role in improving the Litchfield safety performance

The Litchfield facility is a Tier 1 manufacturer of exhaust assemblies and employsapproximately 400 workers. Since 1998 they have made significant ergonomic improve-ments, including the use of different types of lift assist devices throughout the productionline, to dramatically decrease manual lifting. They have also designed and modified work-stations with adjustable worktables to reduce worker strains. Along with these improve-ments, the facility is using job rotation to reduce overexertion injuries.

Tenneco Automotive is a $3.5 billion manufacturing company, with approximately19,600 employees worldwide, and is one of the world’s largest producers and marketersof ride control and exhaust systems and products.

Tenneco Automotive - Litchfield

Greg Scheessele, Sr. VP Global Operations; Mike Everett, Sr. ManagerSafety and Facilities; Ivo Marcich, VP, Site General Manager; DougKalinowski, MIOSHA Director; Bill Lykes, CET Supervisor; ConnieO’Neill, CET Director; and Suellen Cook, CET Consultant.

On October 29, 2003, Pall Life Sciences of Ann Arbor received the CET BronzeAward for an outstanding safety and health record.

BSR Director Doug Kalinowski presented the award to Greg Scheessele, SeniorVice President of Global Operations, Pall Corporation; Mike Everett, EnvironmentalHealth and Safety Manager, Pall Life Sciences; and members of the Pall Life SciencesSafety Committee.

“Pall Life Sciences takes great pride in our safety program. Our safety committee isa highly motivated and diverse team representing all areas of our business,” said GeneralManager Ivo Marcich.

One program that has helped increase their safety awareness is an internal auditingprogram. Pall Corporation has 14 other U.S. manufacturing sites. Health and safetyprofessionals from each of these sites visit other Pall facilities once a year to do a wall-to-wall safety compliance audit.

Pall Life Sciences, a division of Pall Corporation, employs 500 workers and developsand manufactures filtration and separations products used in laboratory research, healthcare,diagnostic tests, and industrial applications.

Pall Life Sciences - Ann Arbor

Winter 2004

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.

March16 Guarding for Manufacturing Micshall Patrick

Kalamazoo S. Carter 800.704.767616 Overview of Overhead & Gantry Cranes Linda Long

Dearborn Heights Carol Kalmeta 313.517.150016 Bloodborne Infectious Diseases Workshop Sherry Walker

Southfield Ed Ratzenburger 248.557.701017 Developing Your Hearing Conservation Program Janet Fekete

Muskegon Suzy Carter 866.423.723317 When MIOSHA Visits Rob Stacy

Holland Brian Cole 616.331.718017 Lockout and Machine Guarding Anthony Neroni

Cadillac Michelle King 231.775.245817 & 18 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Marquette Kathy Kester 517.371.155018 Lockout and Machine Guarding Bernard Sznaider

Port Huron Terri Johns 810.985.186922 Lockout and Machine Guarding Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy DesRosier 248.625.561123 Elements of a Safety & Health Management System Dan Maki

Ironwood Jim Lorenson 906.932.423123, 24 Two-Day Mechanical Power Press Seminar Richard Zdeb

Clarkston Peggy DesRosier 248.625.561123, 24, 25 Safety and Health Administrator Course for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Midland Ron Munson 989.496.941524 & 25 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Debra Johnson

Kalamazoo Pete Anderson 517.371.155025 Elements of a Safety & Health Management System Rob Stacy

Holland Brian Cole 616.331.718025 Lockout/Tagout: Controlling Hazardous Energy Sources Dan Maki

Marquette Staff 906.226.659125 Mechanical Power Press Suellen Cook

Ann Arbor Ray Grabel 734.677.525929 & April 5 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Midland Lisa Strobel Skufea 989.832.8879April1, 2 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Lansing Julie Strudwick 517.394.44816 When MIOSHA Visits Richard Zdeb

Saginaw Dan Mathews 888.238.44786 Excavation Hazards and Soil Mechanics Tom Swindlehurst

Midland Ron Munson 989.496.94156 Safety & Health Challenges in the Plastics Industry Lee Jay Kueppers

Shelby Township Kathy Ashley 586.731.3476

14

Construction SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. Carl Davis**

Mr. Daniel CorbatMr. Andrew Lang

VacantManagement

Mr. Peter Strazdas*Mr. Charles GatecliffMs. Cheryl HughesMr. Edward TanziniPublic MemberMr. Kris Mattila

General Industry SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. James Baker

Dr. Tycho FredericksMr. John Pettinga

VacantManagement

Mr. Timothy J. Koury*Mr. Michael L. EckertMr. Thomas Pytlik**

Mr. George A. ReamerPublic MemberMs. Geri Johnson

Occupational HealthStandards Commission

LaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung

Ms. Cynthia HollandMr. Michael McCabe

Ms. Margaret Vissman*Management

Mr. Robert DeBruynMr. Michael Lucas

Mr. Richard Olson**Mr. Douglas Williams

Public MemberDr. Darryl Lesoski

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

Standards UpdateConstruction Safety Standard Commissioners

Provided Dedicated Service

MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski (L.) presented Construction SafetyStandards Commissioners Charles Gatecliff and Carl Davis with a plaquehonoring their outstanding MIOSHA service.

Carl Davis and Charles Gatecliff ’s terms of service with the ConstructionSafety Standards Commission have expired, but the memory of their service willlive on. The commission will miss these two veteran commissioners who spent acollective 22 years of service to construction employers and employees in Michi-gan.

Praise and appreciation for these commissioners was expressed recently by thecommission and MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski during a commission meetingheld at the annual Construction Safety Day Conference on Jan. 20, 2004. The confer-ence was held at the MSU Kellogg Center in East Lansing, and was sponsored by theAssociation for General Contractors.

Charles Gatecliff, of Brighton, is owner of CAG Consulting, Ltd. Gatecliff wasappointed to represent management in the construction industry. Gatecliff was firstappointed in 1992.

Carl Davis, of Detroit, is the Assistant General Foreman for the Detroit PublicSchools PlumbingDepartment. Daviswas appo in ted torepresen t pub l icemployees . Daviswas first appointedin 1994.

Accord ing toCommission ChairPeter Strazdas ,“Chuck and Car lwere ded ica tedmembers o f thecommission. Theyboth shared a com-mon vision of a safework environmentfo r the Mich iganconstruction com-munity.” Their par-t i c ipa t ion on thecommission has improved the construction safety standards in the areas of purpose,clarity, applicability, enforceability, and cost effectiveness.

During their tenure on the commission they served in leadership roles when amission statement was created, the MIOSHA Strategic Plan was developed, and whenrule promulgation was very active. Their dedication to maintaining good regulation andthe protection of workers everywhere was always obvious. Michigan constructionworkers have benefitted from their years of service.

MIOSHA has facilitated three standards commissions since 1976, OccupationalHealth, General Industry Safety and Construction Safety. The commissioners are citi-zens recognized as experts in worker safety and health in their field. They are allappointed by the governor representing a balance of labor, management and the generalpublic. Commissioners serve a three-year term with the possibility of re-appointment.Public Act 154 of 1974, as amended, created the commissions and gave them the au-thority to establish mandatory standards as prescribed in the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Act, to prevent accidents and protect the life and safety of Michiganemployees from recognized hazards.

Winter 2004

15

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers .................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 17. Refuse Packer Units ................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 18. Overhead & Gantry Cranes .................................................................... Draft rule approved by ORRPart 19. Crawler, Locomotive, & Truck Cranes ................................................. At Advisory CommitteePart 20. Underhung Cranes & Monorail Systems ............................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 58. Vehicle Mounted Elevating & Rotating Platforms ............................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 62. Plastic Molding ......................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 79. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ................................................................................... Advisory Committee open for review

ConstructionPart 01. General Rules ........................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 07. Welding & Cutting ................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 08. Handling & Storage of Materials ........................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 12. Scaffolds & Scaffold Platforms ............................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 14. Tunnels, Shafts, Caissons & Cofferdams ............................................... Final, effective 02/27/03Part 16. Power Transmission & Distribution ....................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 25. Concrete Construction ............................................................................. Final, effective 12/19/03Part 26. Steel Erection ............................................................................................ Advisory Committee open for reviewPart 30. Telecommunications ................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 45. Fall Protection .......................................................................................... Withdrawn by CommissionPart 79. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Communication Tower Erection ............................................................. Approved by Commission for review

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 079. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 431. Hazardous Work in Labortories ............................................................. Formal draft submitted to ORRPart 501. Agricultural Operations .......................................................................... Final, effective 12/11/02Part 525. Grinding, Polishing & Buffing ................................................................ Final, effective 04/01/03Part 700. Agriculture ................................................................................................ Formal draft submitted to ORRPending Diisocyanates ............................................................................................. Advisory Committee open for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ................................................................................... Advisory Committee open for review

ConstructionNone

Administrative RulesPart 11. Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses ....... Final, effective 12/03/02Part 51. Agriculture ................................................................................................ Final, effective 12/01/03

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of February 2, 2004)

The MIOSHA Standards Section assists in the promulgation of Michigan occupational safetyand health standards. To receive a copy of the MIOSHA Standards Index (updated October2003) or for single copies and sets of safety and health standards, please contact the StandardsSection at 517.322.1845, or at www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards..

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

16

V a r i a n c e s

Following are requests for variances andvariances granted from occupationalsafety standards in accordance with rulesof the Department of Labor & EconomicGrowth, Part 12, Variances (R408.22201to 408.22251).

Published February 16, 2004

Variances Granted Construction

!

Variances Requested General Industry

!

New Scheduling PlanCont. from Page 4

Variances Requested ConstructionPart number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 10 - Lifting & Digging Equipment:Rule R408.41015a(1),R408.41015a(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l),R408.41015a(3), R408.41015a(4),R408.41015a(5), R408.4017a, R408.41018a(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employee to use a boatswains chair with ahydraulic crane.Name and address of employerCusack’s Masonry RestorationLocation for which variance is requestedShiawassee County Courthouse, CorunnaName and address of employerHi-Ball Co., Inc.Location for which variance is requestedShiawassee County Courthouse, Corunna

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 12 - Scaffolds and Scaffold Platforms:R408.41221, Rule 1221(1)(c)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to use stilts at a maximum height of24 inches under controlled conditions and according tocertain stipulations.Name and address of employerPontiac Ceiling & Partition Co. LLCLocation for which variance is requestedRoyal Oak Beaumont Hospital, Royal OakName and address of employerSchuster Platforms LLCLocation for which variance is requested205 State St., Ann ArborName and address of employerWilliams Panel Brick Inc.Location for which variance is requested205 State St., Ann Arbor

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: Rule R408.43209,Rule 3209 (8)(b) and Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail systemof an aerial lift for limited use as a work platformprovided certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedUniversity of Michigan Biomedical Research Bldg.,Ann Arbor

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 10 - Lifting & Digging Equipment: RuleR408.41015, Rule 1015a(2)(h) & Rule R408.41018,Rule 1018a(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceAMENDED VARIANCE To allow employer to usean independent 3-point suspension system providingcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerDOW U.S.A.Location for which variance is requestedDow Chemical Company, Midland

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: R408.43209, Rule3209 (8)(b) & R408.43209, Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plankto the top of the intermediate rail of the guardrailsystem of an aerial lift for limited use as a workplatform provided certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerBarton Malow CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedCrittenton Hospital, North & South Addition,Rochester HillsName and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedCrittenton Hospital, North & South Addition,Rochester Hills

Part number and rule number from whichvariance is requestedPart 1 – General Provisions Standard: Rule 36(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to use air blowguns inexcess of 30 pounds per square inch under controlledconditions.Name and address of employerBosch Chassis Div, St. JosephLocation for which variance is requested3737 Red Arrow Hwy, St. Joseph

Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedWilliam Beaumont Hospital South Tower, RoyalOakName and address of employerWolverine Fire Protection Co.Location for which variance is requestedLakeland High School, White LakeName and address of employerWolverine Fire Protection Co.Location for which variance is requestedMilford High School, Highland

The compliance officer will also evaluateemployee exposures during the following:

! Regular operation of the machine,! Setup/ threading/prepara t ion for

regular operation of the machine,! Clearing jams or upset conditions,! Running adjustments while the ma-

chine is operating,! Cleaning of the machine,! Oiling or greasing of the machine,! Scheduled/unscheduled maintenance,

and! Lockout/tagout.In addition, the compliance officer will

also review all relevant MIOSHA 200/300 in-jury logs for amputation injuries or hazards.

If these areas demonstrate adequatecompliance, the inspection will be com-pleted at that time. If a significant numberof serious hazards are identified, the inspec-tion will be expanded to a full review of theworkplace.CET Services

The Consultation Education and Train-ing (CET) Division will also use the datasources described above as part of its tar-geting for outreach activities. Use of thisdata enables the CET Division to focus out-reach and training efforts toward those com-panies with the greatest need. CET is de-veloping a variety of approaches to reachthe targeted industries.

Self-help kits will be developed for em-ployers in industries addressed by the stra-tegic plan. Special outreach efforts includ-ing seminars, mailings, and articles areplanned to provide information on work-place safety and health requirements andbest industry practices.

In addition, employers can request avisit from a safety or health consultant.Consultation activities are free, voluntary,and performed by a staff separate from theenforcement program.

The FY 2004 - 2008 MIOSHA Strate-gic Plan is available on our website atwww.michigan.gov/miosha.

CET ServicesThe Consultation Education andTraining (CET) Division providesextensive outreach activities for facilitiescovered by the MIOSHA Strategic Plan.

Help is Available!517.322.1809

Winter 2004

17

!

employer ’s efforts to detect and correctviolations has been lacking.

(4) The employer has effectively en-forced established work rules when vio-lations have been discovered.

The fourth element has to do with thedegree to which the employer has enforcedits safety and health work rules throughsanctions and discipline against non-com-plying employees.

If the employer discovers that employ-ees have not complied with establishedwork rules and fails to take some sort ofaction, then the employer fails to show thatthe condition was unpreventable, and thefourth element of the defense would typi-cally not be sustained.

Where there is evidence of sanctionssuch written reprimand, docking of pay; anenforced progressive disciplinary process,then the defense may be upheld with regardto this element.Meeting all Four Requirements

I t has been MIOSHA’s experiencethat many employers can show that theyhave met the requirements of elements (1)and (2) above, but have a difficult timeshowing that they have performed ad-equate surveillance in the workplace, andhave adequately enforced established workrules.

Keep in mind that decisions have typi-cally ruled that all four elements must beprovable before an unpreventable em-ployee misconduct defense will be success-ful.

The issues discussed above are ad-dressed in the MIOSH Act in Sect ion33(6), which states: “A citation for analleged violation of this act, an order is-sued pursuant to this act , or a rule orstandard promulgated pursuant to thisact shall be vacated if it is shown thatthe employer has provided the equip-ment or training, educated employees re-garding use of the equipment or imple-mentation of the training, and taken rea-sonable steps including, where appropri-a te , d iscipl inary act ion to assure thatemployees u t i l i ze the equ ipment andcomply with the training as referencedin this section.”

Addi t iona l in format ion regard ingthese issues can be found in; Rothstein,Occupational Safety and Health Law, 3rd

Edition, West Publishing, St. Paul Min-nesota.

Quest ions may also be directed tot h e M I O S H A A p p e a l s D i v i s i o n a t517.322.1297.

Affirmative DefenseCont. from Page 8 Johnson Technology’s Norton Shores

Facility Receives State’s Rising Star Award

(Front) Quenten Yoder, Darlene Green, JenelleThelen, Dave Yacavone,Martha Yoder, Scott Ingersoll, Kari Helsen, George Peloso, Joe Helsen.(Back) Jack Veen, Felix Adame, Mark Anderson, Brian Shaw, DaveReagan, Deb Gorkisch, Doug Kimmell.

On Dec. 13, 2003, Johnson Technology,Inc.’s Norton Shores Plant received the pres-tigious Michigan Voluntary Protection Pro-gram (MVPP) Rising Star Award for work-place safety and health excellence from theMichigan Occupational Safety and Health Ad-ministration (MIOSHA). The MIOSHA pro-gram is part of the Michigan Department ofLabor and Economic Growth (DLEG).

“We are delighted to welcome JohnsonTechnology’s Norton Shores facility intothis exceptional group of Michigan compa-nies who have outstanding workplace safetyand hea l th p rograms ,” sa id MIOSHADeputy Director Martha Yoder. “We ap-plaud the safety and health leadership ex-hibited at this facility.”

The MIOSHA Consultation Educationand Training (CET) Division established theMVPP program to recognize employers ac-tively working toward achieving excellence inworkplace safety and health. It was created in1996 to reward worksites that develop andimplement outstanding safety and health man-agement systems that go beyond MIOSHAstandards.

MIOSHA Deputy Director MarthaYoder presented the MVPP Rising StarAward to David M. Yacavone, President,who accepted the award on behalf of all 87associates at a gathering of employees fromboth the Norton Shores Plant and theLatimer Plant, which received the MVPPStar award in 2003.

“MVPP Star” musthave Incidence Rates andLost Work Day Ratesbelow the Michigan av-erage for their SIC Codefor three years. TheNorton Shores SIC Codeis 3724, Aircraft Enginesand Engine Parts, andtheir rates are below theindustry average for twoyears, which qualitiesthem for the “Rising Star”Award.

The Total Case In-cidence Rate for theNorton Shores Plant was4.5 in 2001, and 2.2 in2002–compared to 6.4and 6.4 respectively, forthe Bureau of Labor Sta-

tistics (BLS) industry average. The Total LostWork Day Cases for the Norton Shores Plantwas 0.0 in 2001, and 0.0 in 2002–compared to2.8 and 2.8, respectively for the BLS industryaverage.

The MIOSHA MVPP Review Teamfound the Norton Shores facility met all theMVPP requirements and that all MIOSHA stan-dards were appropriately covered. This facil-ity has an excellent safety and health manage-ment system in place, and all required elementsare consistent with the high quality expectedof MVPP sites.

Areas of excellence at the Norton Shoresfacility include:

! All machines have appropriate venti-lation,

! Efforts are made to keep all parts atwaist level, in order to promote good ergo-nomics,

! Lockout/Tagout procedures are postedat all machines,

! Employees have many opportunitiesto be involved in the safety process, and

! A Job Safety Analysis (JSA) has beenperformed for each work process, withmonthly audits.

The Norton Shores Plant produces tur-bine nozzle segments and turbine nozzle as-semblies for aircraft gas turbine engines. Their87 associates annually manufacture over18,000 jet engine components for use in sev-eral different types of commercial and mili-tary aircraft engines. !

18

!

Cont. from Page 1Electrocution Fatalities

MIOSHA CitationsThe MIOSHA Construction Safety and Health

Division conducted the accident investigation.MIOSHA regulations require employers to takeprecautions when cranes are operated near over-head power lines.

Construction Safety Standard, Part 10,Lifting and Digging Equipment, Rule 1023arequires maintaining 10 feet minimum dis-tance from live overhead wires up to 50 KV(kilovolt), de-energizing the wires, or in-stalling an insulated barrier.

On Jan. 27, 2004, MIOSHA cited Klee Con-struction Company, St. Clair Shores, for one will-ful violation, six serious violations and five other-than-serious violations, with penalties totaling$16,950, following the investigation of the doubleelectrocution.

The employer received the willful violationbecause he knew power lines were obstructing thestorage area; was aware of the height of the travel-ing hoist; and had not adequately trained the craneoperator or crew. Company officials took no ac-tion to remove or de-energize the power lines or totake other precautions to protect their workers fromthe electrical hazard.

“This double tragedy should never have hap-pened,” said MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski.“The electrocution of these two workers could havebeen prevented if the company had required opera-tors to maintain a safe distance from the powerlines.”

The willful and serious citations issued againstthe company for failing to protect workers frompotential hazards are:

R408.41023 (a)(1) – WillfulNot maintaining clearances to energized

lines, minimum of 10 feet.R408.41005 (a)(3) – Serious

Not in compliance with ANSI B30.5-3.4.5.3 regarding use of cranes aroundpower lines.R408.41009 (a)(1) – SeriousInadequate operator training.R408.40822 (1) – SeriousMaterial stored directly under energizedlines.R408.40836 (3) – SeriousOpen hook used to lift material.R408.41932 (2) – SeriousBlade guard of circular saw wedged inup position.1926.501 (b)(13) – SeriousNo fall protection for residential work.The company has 15 working days from

receipt of the citations and notices to complyor contest the violations and penalties.NIOSH Recommendations

In May 1995, the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) pub-lished an Alert, Preventing Electrocutions ofCrane Operators and Crew Members WorkingNear Overhead Power Lines (Publication No.95-108), to address the seriousness of this con-struction hazard, due to 113 electrocutions in-volving cranes and overhead power lines be-tween 1985 and 1989.

NIOSH investigations suggested that em-ployers, supervisors, and workers may not befully aware of the hazards of operating cranesnear overhead power lines or may not imple-ment the proper safety procedures for control-ling these hazards.

The Alert describes five cases (six electro-cutions) that resulted from such hazards andmakes recommendations for preventing similarincidents. NIOSH stated that all employers,managers, supervisors, and workers in compa-nies that use cranes or similar boomed vehiclesshould follow the recommendations in the Alert.The Alert can be found on the NIOSH websiteat: www.cdc.gov/niosh.

Lifting RequirementsAmerican National

Standards Institute(ANSI) B30.5 - 1994 is aconsensus standard forMobile and LocomotiveCranes. This standardcontains guidelines foroperating near electricpower lines and has beenadopted by MIOSHA byreference in Part 10, Rule1005a.

The ANSI require-ments address crane op-eration within the prohib-ited zone, with the powerlines energized. The pro-hibited zone is establishedby adding at least 10 feeton each side of an ener-

gized power line.These requirements include:! An on-site meeting between the project

manager and a qualified representative of the util-ity.

! Maintaining proper clearances, 10 feetminimum up to 50 KV.

! Use of a non-conductive tag line to con-trol loads.

! A qualified signal person at the site whosesole responsibility is to verify that required clear-ances are maintained.

! No one is permitted to touch the craneuntil the signal person indicates it is safe.

! Avoid operating over power lines.! Minimum clearances from power lines

may need to be increased due to increased volt-age, line length or wind conditions.

! The installation of visible devices to im-prove visibility and aid in the location of the pro-hibited zone.

! Signs at the operator’s station and on thecrane warning of electrical hazards if clearancesare not maintained.

! If cage-type boom guards, insulatinglinks, or proximity warning devices are used, thesedevices shall not be a substitute for maintainingsafe clearances.

In addition, MIOSHA regulations addressstorage of materials under power lines. Construc-tion Safety Standards, Part 8, Storage of Mate-rial, Rule 822 requires a minimum clearance frompower lines of 10 feet plus the length of the ma-terial stored, up to 50 KV. This is again stated inPart 10, Lifting and Digging Equipment, Rule1023a. The industry that installs and maintainsoverhead power lines identifies this hazard andprohibits storage under power lines in Part 16,Power Transmission and Distribution, Rule1643(5).If Contact Occurs

The Construction Safety Association ofOntario, Canada (CSA), recommends additionalsafe work procedures to protect against electricalshock, should contact occur.

! The crane operator should remain insidethe cab.

! All other personnel should keep awayfrom cranes, ropes, and loads since the groundaround the crane might be energized.

! The crane operator should try to re-move the crane from the contact by moving inthe reverse direction from that which caused thecontact.

! If the crane cannot be moved away fromthe contact, the operator should remain insidethe cab until the lines have been de-energized. Ifyou have to get out, jump! Do not step down.

In conclusion, crane handling and storage ofmaterials near overhead power lines are condi-tions that require certified training and extremeawareness. Non-compliance with these minimumrequirements can result in the ultimate workplaceinjury, Death.

Two Klee Construction Company workers were electrocuted while raising trussesto the second story of a residential construction site in St. Clair Shores.

Winter 2004

19

Employee DiscriminationCont. from Page 10

!

Cold HazardsCont. from Page 11

!

complaint was f i led unt imely, and theemployee’s conduct was the reason for thesuspension. The employee appealed and theAdministrative Law Judge, after hearing tes-timony from all parties, issued an order up-holding the MIOSHA decision.

Workplace Violence Zero TolerancePolicy – In this case, the employer had a work-place violence zero tolerance policy and ter-minated an employee for threatening a co-worker with bodily harm. MIOSHA found thetermination was justified.

The employee appealed and after a verylengthy hearing, the Administrative Law Judgereversed the MIOSHA order and ordered fullreinstatement, including back pay with inter-est. The employer and MIOSHA appealed toboth the circuit and appellate court. The casewas finally settled, with the employee beingreinstated and receiving a large monetary award.

Termination of a Sick Employee – Anemployee became ill when construction wasgoing on at her worksite, i.e. dust, noise andmold. The employee was off more than 12weeks and the employer terminated her whenshe exhausted her Family Medical Leave Act(FLMA) credits.

Upon receiving notice that an investiga-tion would take place, the employer offered aseverance package to the employee, which shedeclined. MIOSHA investigated, and found no

merit to her charge.The employee filed anappeal and a settlement was reached duringthe hearing process. The employee received amonetary settlement, but waived reinstate-ment.

Termination for an Employee Absence– In another complaint, a worker voiced con-cerns of unsafe conditions and told his em-ployer he was going to contact MIOSHA. Theemployee requested a day off in conjunctionwith a holiday, which was granted.Upon hisreturn to work, he was written up and dis-charged for being absent the day prior to theholiday.

During the MIOSHA investigation, asettlement was reached and MIOSHA did notissue a decision. The employee received amonetary settlement, but waived reinstate-ment.

Unsafe Diving Conditions – Duringan offshore diving operation in Lake Michi-gan, a contractor was laying intake and dis-charge pipe for a large utility generatingplant. One diver complained that compres-sion rules were not being followed andbarges were dumping dirt near the workarea, causing a force that pushed the diversand decreased visibility.

The complaining diver was terminated.MIOSHA investigated and argued againstfou r mo t ions f i l ed by theemployer.MIOSHA prevailed on all countsand ordered appropriate relief.The em-ployer appealed and during the extended

hearing process, two witnesses became un-available. MIOSHA again prevailed, and agenerous settlement was reached for thediver. The complainant is now diving foran oil company in Argentina.Employee Discrimination Section

The MIOSHA Employee DiscriminationSection is recognized as one of the nationalleaders in protecting employee rights. Accord-ing to federal OSHA, MIOSHA has one ofthe fastest turnaround times in the nation.Complaints are normally resolved in threemonths.

Staff with the Discrimination Section haveserved as speakers and facilitators at joint fed-eral/state training seminars.They have alsoserved on over-site committees in WashingtonD.C., and assisted in writing federal and statepolicy in the area of discrimination.

To reach this level of efficiency, Em-ployee Discrimination Section staff musthave a thorough knowledge of the MIOSHAdiscrimination provision, as well as morethan 16 other statutes covering various as-pects of employee discrimination.While re-viewing complaints, staff must be able toidentify the appropriate statute, docketthose that are appropriate to MIOSHA, andmake referrals to other agencies as appro-priate.

If you have any questions about em-ployee discrimination under MIOSHA, pleasecontact the Employee Discrimination Sec-tion at 248.888.8777.

suspected of being moderately or severely hypo-thermic.

If the person is unresponsive and not shiver-ing, assume he or she is suffering from severe hy-pothermia. Reduction of heat loss can be accom-plished by various means: obtaining shelter, re-moval of wet clothing, adding layers of dry cloth-ing, blankets, or using a pre-warmed sleeping bag.

For mildly hypothermic cases or those moresevere cases where medical treatment will be sig-nificantly delayed, external rewarming techniquesmay be applied. This includes body-to-body con-tact (e.g., placing the person in a prewarmed sleep-ing bag with a person of normal body tempera-ture), chemical heat packs, or insulated hot waterbottles. Good areas to place these packs are thearmpits, neck, chest, and groin. It is best to havethe person lying down when applying external re-warming. You also may give mildly hypothermicpeople warm fluids orally, but avoid beverages con-taining alcohol or caffeine.Preventing Cold-Related Disorders

Personal Protective Clothing is perhapsthe most important step in fighting the elements

is providing adequate layers of insulation fromthem. Wear at least three layers of clothing:

! An outer layer to break the wind and al-low some ventilation (like Gore-Tex® or nylon).

! A middle layer of wool or synthetic fab-ric (Qualofil or Pile) to absorb sweat and retaininsulation in a damp environment. Down is auseful lightweight insulator; however, it is inef-fective once it becomes wet.

! An inner layer of cotton or syntheticweave to allow ventilation.

Pay special attention to protecting feet,hands, face and head. Up to 40 percent of bodyheat can be lost when the head is exposed.Footgear should be insulated to protect againstcold and dampness. Keep a change of clothingavailable in case work garments become wet.

Engineering Controls in the workplacethrough a variety of practices help reduce therisk of cold-related injuries.

! Use an on-site source of heat, such as airjets, radiant heaters, or contact warm plates.

! Shield work areas from drafty or windyconditions.

! Provide a heated shelter for employeeswho experience prolonged exposure to equiva-lent wind-chill temperatures of 20°F or less.

! Use thermal insulating material on equip-ment handles when temperatures drop below30°F.

Safe Work Practices, such as changes inwork schedules and practices, are necessary tocombat the effects of exceedingly cold weather.

! Allow a period of adjustment to the coldbefore embarking on a full work schedule.

! Always permit employees to set theirown pace and take extra work breaks when needed.

! Reduce, as much as possible, the numberof activities performed outdoors. When employ-ees must brave the cold, select the warmest hoursof the day and minimize activities that reducecirculation.

! Ensure that employees remain hydrated.! Establish a buddy system.! Educate employees to the symptoms of

cold-related stresses: heavy shivering, uncomfort-able coldness, severe fatigue, drowsiness, or eu-phoria.

The quiet symptoms of potentially deadlycold-related ailments often go undetected untilthe victim’s health is endangered. Knowing thefacts on cold exposure and following a few simpleguidelines can ensure that this season is a safeand healthy one.

20

Michigan Occupational Safetyand Health AdministrationDirector: Douglas J. Kalinowski

The MIOSHA News is a quarterlypublication of the MichiganOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration (MIOSHA), whichis responsible for theenforcement of the MichiganOccupational Safety and Health(MIOSH) Act.

The purpose is to educateM i c h i g a n e m p l o y e r s a n demployees about workplacesafety and health. This documentis in the public domain and weencourage reprinting.

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

Editor: Judith Keely Simons

Michigan Department ofLabor & Economic GrowthDirector: David C. Hollister

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

(20,000 copies printed at a cost of $4,476.40 or $0.24 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 Complaint 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 Diane Phelps

517.322.1856 Bob Pawlowski

517.322.1809 Connie O’Neill

517.322.1831 John Brennan

517.322.1817 John Peck

OFFICE PHONE MANAGER

Asbestos Program

CET Grant Program

Employee Discrimination Section

MIOSHA Information Systems Section

Standards Section

517.322.1230 George Howard

517.322.1865 Jerry Zimmerman

248.888.8777 Jim Brogan

517.322.1851 Bob Clark

517.322.1845 Marsha Parrott-Boyle

PHONE CHIEF