Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)Vol. 6, No. 3 Summer 2002

Cont. on Page 18

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

West MI Air Care - MVPP 3

Steel Erection 4

Scaffold Safety 5

Safety Commitment 6

The Bottom Line 7

Compliance Officers’ Duties 8

Part 18. Guidelines 9

MVPP Mentoring 10

Michigan Safety Conference 11

MI State AFL-CIO Conference 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

Spanish Publications 17

ATOF INA S e t t l emen tState Signs Settlement Agreement with Atofina Chemicals, Inc. with aCombined Total of $6.2 Million in Penalties and Safety Enhancements

The seven-hour fire severely damaged the methyl mercaptan tank car (right)and a 90-ton liquid chlorine tank car (left). The intense heat also buckled therail beneath the methyl mercaptan tank car.

On May 1, 2002, Michigan Department ofConsumer & Industry Services (CIS) DirectorKathleen M. Wilbur announced a SettlementAgreement with ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc., andthe Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and En-ergy Workers (PACE) International and its Lo-cal No. 6-0591, with a combined total of $6.2million in penalties, safety enhancements, andthe resolution of multiple violations. The settle-ment closes a seven-month investigation of acatastrophic explosion at the ATOFINARiverview facility on July 14, 2001, that claimedthe lives of three workers.

This settlement stems from a safety investi-gation under the Michigan Occupational Safetyand Health Act (MIOSHA) of the ATOFINA ac-cident. The settlement was signed by: ATOFINA,Chemicals, Inc.; the Paper, Allied-Industrial,Chemical & Energy Workers International Unionand its Local No. 6-0591; and CIS. This is thesecond-largest monetary sanction ever levied inMichigan as a result of a MIOSHA investigation.

“This devastating explosion demanded theimmediate action of a well-executed emergency

response plan,” said Wilbur. “Unfortunately,lives were lost because management did not dili-gently prepare for the emergencies inherent whenusing dangerous chemicals. The good news isthat this agreement has the potential to protectthe future workers at all ATOFINA sites fromsuch tragic consequences.”

The Settlement Agreement agreed to by thecompany and the union includes a MIOSHApenalty of $500,000 and abatement of all citedhazardous conditions. The agreement also in-cludes the following key activities:

� Develop and implement programs tomonitor, evaluate and improve the process safetymanagement procedures and hazard analysis.$800,000.

� Fund an enhanced emergency responsetraining program. $250,000.

� Evaluate process changes and implement13 specified improvements to enhance the safetyof the workplace and the community. $2,375,000.

� Construct an employee safety trainingcenter, named after the deceased, the Cox, Stein,Wrobleski Center. $250,000.

� Provide informa-tion regarding health, en-vironment and safety is-sues at the facility at anopen house for the commu-nity. $10,000.

� Make donations tofour local municipalitiesfor the purpose of fund-ing community emer-gency notification sys-tems. $200,000.

� Donate equipmentto certain local schools/school districts to assistthem in timely awarenessof chemical and otheremergencies. $5,000.

22222

From the

Bureau

Director’s

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

Important Changes

Impacting

Workplace

Safety & Health

I would like to direct your attention to recent important changesimpacting workplace safety and health.Atofina MIOSHA Settlement

The settlement agreement with ATOFINA Chemical Company isanother unique MIOSHA resolution of a complex investigation. (Seecover.) The agreement represents among other things, a company, aunion, and MIOSHA attempting to look to the future to improve work-place safety and health following a tragic event. The settlement alsoacknowledges that mistakes were made that cost the lives of threeworkers and injured nine others. Nothing we do can bring back theworkers who died that day in July; not the 5.7 million dollars that thecompany has committed to improving safety for the workers as wellas the community; not the half million dollars in MIOSHA civil pen-alties. Nothing we do now will change that day. We can only hopethat our efforts will avoid future workplace tragedies.

The ATOFINA settlement was the result of a comprehensiveinvestigation by MIOSHA staff. The agreement also reflects ele-ments of two earlier concurrent citation issuance settlement agree-ments with Ford Motor Company (Rouge explosion) and anotherwith LOMAC (explosion) of Muskegon. Both have been previ-ously reported in the MIOSHA News, Vol.3, No.1, Fall 1999, andVol.5. No.2, Spring 2001, respectively.New MIOSHA Fall Protection Requirements

Every year falls are among the top three causes of deaths inthe construction industry. This summer MIOSHA revisions to Con-struction Safety Standard Part 26., Steel and Precast Erection, willgo into effect. There are many significant changes which will in-crease workplace safety and save many lives of workers engagedin steel erection. For the most part, the MIOSHA standard tracksthe federal OSHA new provisions in subpart R. (See page 4.)

Although there are many new fall protection provisions, one thatwill remain in effect in Michigan is the MIOSHA provision that per-mits workers engaged in “initial connection work” to ride the “head-ache ball,” when it is the safest means of accessing the initial con-nection of structural steel members. This represents your State Planat work, providing industry and labor with a “custom” safety alterna-tive to the federal OSHA approach of not allowing the riding of the“headache ball” at any time during structural steel erection.

Unfortunately, as we have moved over the years to adopt es-sentially only federal OSHA standards under MIOSHA, we havesignificantly reduced our “customization” of MIOSHA require-ments. While I recognize the convenience of uniform occupationalsafety and health standards requirements for all of America’s work-places, I believe the approach detracts from our ability to tailorsafety and health provisions for working women and men in Michi-gan. This is especially true in the construction industry where theuniformity of occupational safety and health requirements clearlydoes not outweigh the benefits of “customization.”

In my last column, Spring 2002, in the process of discussingthe UAW/Ford/Visteon/MIOSHA partnership, I issued a challenge.I indicated that we need to recognize that in the world of regula-tion, “one size” doesn’t fit all. Now add to that, the challenge offuture standards development under MIOSHA. There is a need toallow our regulatory requirements to be flexible, relevant and sen-sitive to the needs of industry processes, as well as recognizingregional and other differences. State Plan States such as Michiganneed to be encouraged to promulgate occupational safety and healthstandards that address the needs of future workers and not base ourregulations on structures of the past.Treating Each Other With Respect and Dignity

Martha Yoder, Chief, General Industry Safety Division, hasauthored an article titled “Protection from Assault: MIOSHA Compli-ance Officers Have A Difficult Job.” (See page 8.) It disturbs me greatlythat this ever becomes an issue. As the article notes, most employerstreat government representatives with respect and dignity, as it shouldbe. Indeed in recent years and especially following the shock of Sep-tember 11th, many employers have raised their sensitivity levels con-cerning violence in the workplace, and have developed or improvedtheir violence in the workplace programs. Based upon recent events,however, it also appears that some employers don’t understand thisconcept at its most elementary level.

The article refers to section 35(10) of MIOSHA which specifi-cally provides that it is a criminal offense to “...assault a depart-ment representative or other person charged with the enforcementof this Act in the performance of that person’s legal duty to enforcethis Act.”

Initially, Act 154 of 1974 (MIOSHA) did not have section 35(10)among its provisions. It was added later after program experience,unfortunately, demonstrated that additional deterrents would behelpful. While all of Michigan’s general criminal provisions wouldapply to any such assault, it was deemed important enough to pre-vent such conduct that the legislature added section 35(10) to theMIOSHA provisions.

Our staff are all trained to remain professional in the conductof their duties. MIOSHA requires that we administer all provisionsof the Act as well as any rules promulgated thereunder. When em-ployers have questions concerning any aspect of the MIOSHA pro-gram, including questions about the manner in which staff are per-forming their duties, they should communicate those concerns in aclear, concise professional manner to the department representa-tive who is present or most readily available. If the employer re-mains unsatisfied, then they should contact our offices at517.322.1814, as soon as possible for resolution. Treating each otherwith respect and dignity is the proper course, and indeed only ap-propriate course of interaction.

Summer 2002

33333

West Michigan Air Care employees celebrate their Star status.

Congratulations West Michigan Air Care!West Michigan Air Care Is the Nation’s First Medical Transport Company to Receive Star Award

West Michigan Air Care has become one ofonly five facilities in the state to receive the pres-tigious Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs(MVPP) Star award for workplace safety andhealth excellence. Lt. Governor Dick Posthumuspresented the Star flag to employees at a ceremonyon May 20th at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo.

“It is an honor to present the MVPP Starflag to the employees and management of WestMichigan Air Care,” said Lt. Gov. Posthumus.“Your dedication to employee safety as you pro-vide a vital medical service to the citizens ofWest Michigan has made this outstandingachievement possible.”

MIOSHA established the MVPP programto recognize employers actively working towardachieving excellence in workplace safety andhealth. It was developed in 1996 to reward pri-vate and public sector worksites that developand implement outstanding safety and healthprograms that go beyond MIOSHA standards.

“West Michigan Air Care faces the dualchallenge of operating an air transport companywith complex healthcare issues,” said Lt. Gov.Posthumus. “Your outstanding record of no lostwork days in the last three years is a testamentthat workplace safety is a core company value.”

The MVPP Program enhances MIOSHA’stradition of working cooperatively and volun-tarily with industry to reduce and eliminateworkplace injuries and illnesses. Nationally,there are more than 830 Voluntary ProtectionPrograms (VPP) worksites. West Michigan AirCare is the first medical transport company inthe nation to receive this award.

“We at West Michigan Air Care are delightedto receive the MVPP Star award. It is a tremen-dous honor to be the first healthcare company inMichigan to receive this award,” said David T.

Overton, MD, FACEP, Program Di-rector. “The real credit goes to each andevery one of our staff, who have adopteda culture of making patient safety andworkplace safety their top priorityevery day.”

CIS Deputy Director KalminSmith presented the MVPP Plaqueto the company. “We applaud youroutstanding safety and healthachievement,” said Smith. “You havecreated a work environment whereevery employee accepts responsibil-ity for safety, every day.”

West Michigan Air Care’s Inci-dence Rates and Lost Work Day Ratesare significantly below the nationalaverage for their industry and Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) code 4522, “Non-scheduledAir Transport.” All employees are empowered toact on safety and health issues and are account-able for their performance. The company’s decen-tralized management style puts substantial author-ity in employee’s hands. The company has takenthe extraordinary step of permitting any memberof a flight crew to terminate a mission–a preroga-tive that is normally the pilot’s alone.

Extensive self-inspection procedures are inplace, including the routine performance of hazardsurveys and audits. Prevention and control of avia-tion hazards is regulated by the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA). Aviation safety is the num-ber one safety issue and receives the most atten-tion and resources. Safety issues not related to avia-tion were well addressed by the company. Specialpersonal protective equipment to protect employ-ees from bloodborne infectious diseases and TBwere properly utilized.

West Michigan Air Care achieved accredita-tion from the Commis-sion on Accreditation ofMedical Transport Ser-vices (CAMTS) in1995. They continue toobtain recertificationevery three yearsthrough strict adherenceto CAMTS standards;as well as on-site surveycredentialing. CAMTSaccreditation representsthe “Gold Standard” inair medical transport,and demonstrates AirCare’s commitment toproviding patients withthe highest quality airmedical care.

West Michigan Air Care is a leader in em-ployee bloodborne pathogen protection. The Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention recom-mends administration of an antiviral medicationwithin one hour to medical personnel followinga needlestick injury with a high probability ofinfection. Out of nearly 250 medical air trans-port services in the nation, they are the onlyknown service to carry antivirals for their crew.

Based on interviews and observation,MIOSHA found that employee training, both in-flight and non-flight, has a very high priority.Training has been conducted annually for hazardcommunication, infection control, bloodborneinfectious diseases control, tuberculosis control,injury prevention/back safety, fire prevention,stress management and hearing protection.

They also provide a training course on land-ing zone safety for law enforcement and otheremergency response personnel to help ensurehelicopter crew safety when making landings atlocations without a permanent established land-ing zone. Only Air Care trained personnel canprovide the ground communication to air crewsat these temporary landing zones.

West Michigan Air Care is a premier fullservice critical care transport system. In March1993, they became the first hospital-based con-sortium air medical program in the U.S. As acooperative program of Borgess Medical Cen-ter and Bronson Methodist Hospital, they affordthe region an excellent combination of tertiarycare expertise by offering a national model fortransport of critically ill/injured patients.

From its base in Kalamazoo, West Michi-gan Air Care’s fully equipped helicopter is air-borne and on its way within minutes of a re-quest for service, delivering its critical caremedical crew at an average speed of 175 milesper hour. With 29 employees, its safe, quick,efficient service is available 24/7.

Lt. Governor Dick Posthumus, Mike Bussing MVPP Liaison,WMAC; Dr. Kalmin Smith, CIS Deputy Director; Dr. GlennEkblad, FACEP, Medical Director, WMAC.

�

44444

Cont. on Page 19

By: Rick Mee, ChiefConstruction Safety Division

The New MIOSHA Steel Erection StandardThe New Standard Signif icantly Affects Steel Erection and Control l ing Contractors–it Changes Almost Everything

Ironworkers prepare to connect a steel beam.

Not Addressed Controlling contractorcertificationof concrete/masonry

Not Addressed Controlling contractorcertificationof anchor bolts

Not Addressed Controlling contractorprovidelaydown/storage area

Not Addressed Controlling contractorerection/liftingequipment area

Not Addressed Designer/fabricator - 4anchor bolts per column

Not Addressed Designer/fabricator -configure doubleconnection

Not Addressed Designer/fabricator -paint slip resistance

Required at 30' Non-connector fallprotection at 15 feet

Not required Connector personal fallarrest system at 15 feet

Not Addressed Controlled decking zoneoption

Not Addressed Metal decking safetyfasteners

Not required Perimeter cablemidrail

Not Addressed Specific trainingrequirements

Not Addressed Record of training

CurCurCurCurCurrrrrrententententent NeNeNeNeNewwwww

Amended Steel ErAmended Steel ErAmended Steel ErAmended Steel ErAmended Steel Erection Standarection Standarection Standarection Standarection StandardddddSome of the Significant ChangesSome of the Significant ChangesSome of the Significant ChangesSome of the Significant ChangesSome of the Significant Changes

Randy was a thirty-something iron-worker who, like many of us, reported towork in the morning with the expectation ofreturning home that afternoon. His job thatday was to install metal decking that wouldform the roof of the building he was workingto complete. In most respects this day wasnot unlike other workdays when he laboredin the pursuit of his construction trade.

He didn’t go home that afternoon. Henever made it home again. Randy becamea statistic when he fell 26 feet from hiswork location in the structural steel frame-work on which he was installing metaldecking. He died from the injuries causedby his fall.Not About Randy

This scenario is not only about Randy.He was only one of many ironworkers whohave fallen to their death while perform-ing steel erection work. His was also oneof many fatal falls that occurred withoutviolating any fall protection provisions ofthe MIOSHA standards.

That’s right! Randy was working 26feet above ground installing metal deckingand no method of fall protection was re-quired to protect him. There have been too

many Randy’s.A recent five-year study showed 18

ironworkers died as a result of falls, butin 10 of those cases no fall protection hadbeen required by the steel erection stan-dard. That is changing in Michigan. Iron-worker fall protection requirements anda lot of other things about how steel erec-tion is done is changing in Michigan.A New Standard

Federal OSHA recently completed pro-mulgation of an entirely new standard forsteel erection. They started with a cleansheet of paper, the concept that the num-ber of ironworker deaths and injuries wasunacceptable, and a new standard-develop-ment process similar to that used in Michi-gan construction standards for over 35years.

The Stee l Erec t ion Negot ia tedRulemaking Advisory Commit tee(SENRAC), was an appointed group ofsteel erection experts composed of laborand industry representatives charged withdeveloping a new federal standard to en-hance the protection of workers engaged insteel erection activities.

MIOSHA’s state plan agreement withfederal OSHA requires Michigan to eitheradopt the new federal standard or a stateversion that is “at least as effective as” thefederal standard. In the case of the newfederal Subpart R, the SENRAC Steel Erec-tion standard, a very good basic format andconstruction user terminology was part ofthe standard. It was a federal standard thatwas mostly compatible with MIOSHA con-struction standards.A Tribute to George

George Randick was a structural Iron-worker. He began his career in MIOSHAas a construction safety inspector in 1990after 23 years as an ironworker. After be-coming alarmed at the number of construc-tion accidents, George wanted to be partof the solution to the unnecessary deathsand injuries in his trade and in all construc-tion endeavors. He continued his MIOSHAservice as an On-Site Construction Special-ist, a senior safety officer, and most re-cently as a Construction Safety Division re-gional supervisor. I knew him as an extraor-dinarily committed individual with a strongwork e th ic . Sadly, an i l lness c la imedGeorge’s life last July.

In the last several months of his life,

George worked on the adoption of theSENRAC standard into MIOSHA. He sawthe new federal steel erection standard asvery good and believed it would be im-proved by blending it with some parts ofthe existing state standards–to produce asuperior document with the best of bothstandards, while preserving the traditionalMIOSHA format that is more user-friendlyand fami l i a r to Mich igan employers .George never got a chance to see thecompletion of the project, but I know hewould be proud of the finished product.

Anthony Allam , James Pike , andJames Zoccoli are staff members of theConstruction Safety Division who workedon the SENRAC adoption project. George

Summer 2002

55555

Four Common Scaffold HazardsFour Common Scaffold HazardsFour Common Scaffold HazardsFour Common Scaffold HazardsFour Common Scaffold Hazards(In order of frequency)

1.1.1.1.1. Falls from elevation, due to lackFalls from elevation, due to lackFalls from elevation, due to lackFalls from elevation, due to lackFalls from elevation, due to lackof fall protection.of fall protection.of fall protection.of fall protection.of fall protection.2.2.2.2.2. Collapse of the scaffold, causedCollapse of the scaffold, causedCollapse of the scaffold, causedCollapse of the scaffold, causedCollapse of the scaffold, causedby instability or overloading.by instability or overloading.by instability or overloading.by instability or overloading.by instability or overloading.3.3.3.3.3. Being struck by falling tools, workBeing struck by falling tools, workBeing struck by falling tools, workBeing struck by falling tools, workBeing struck by falling tools, workmaterials, or debris.materials, or debris.materials, or debris.materials, or debris.materials, or debris.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . Electrocution, principal ly dueElectrocution, principal ly dueElectrocution, principal ly dueElectrocution, principal ly dueElectrocution, principal ly dueto proximity of the scaf fold toto proximity of the scaf fold toto proximity of the scaf fold toto proximity of the scaf fold toto proximity of the scaf fold tooverhead power l ines.overhead power l ines.overhead power l ines.overhead power l ines.overhead power l ines.

Fall RiskFall RiskFall RiskFall RiskFall Risk–This rough terrain forklift truck scaffold is missing a guardrail andthere is no fall arrest system.

By: Tom Swindlehurst,Construction Safety ConsultantConsultation Education & Training Division

SCAFFOLDS: SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTIONThe goal of this article is to identify the

major hazards involved with using scaffoldsin construction, as well as ways to preventthem–in order to educate companies, erectors/dismantlers and users of scaffolds. The ar-ticle examines the most common MIOSHAviolations involving scaffolds, and the waysto be compliant with MIOSHA regulations.In addition, recent fatalities will be discussedin order to draw attention to rough terrainforklift truck scaffolds.

A scaffold is defined in Part 12. ofMIOSHA Construction Safety Standards as“a temporary elevated platform, either sup-ported or suspended, including its support-ing system and points of anchorage” that isused for supporting employees, materials, orboth. There are four main categories of scaf-folds: suspended, mobile, floor and groundsupported, and auxiliary supported scaffolds.Each of these main categories contains manysubcategories and types which are widelyused in construction today.Scaffold Violations

According to a recent news release fromthe U.S. Department of Labor, an estimated2.3 million workers (about 65 percent of theconstruction industry workforce) frequentlywork on scaffolds. Because scaffolds are sowidely used in construction, the MIOSHA“Top 25 Serious Violations” list contains fivescaffold-related violations.

The number one scaffold-related viola-tion (number 4 overall) is use of guardrails,with 120 serious violations in 2000-2001.Part 12. of the MIOSHA Construction SafetyStandards states that a guardrail shall be in-stalled on any open side or end of a scaffoldwork platform which is 10 or more feet above

the floor or ground, withsome minor exceptions.

The number twoscaffold-related violation(number 11 overall) isconstruction and capac-ity of scaffolds, with 41serious violations in2000-2001. Part 12.states, the support for ascaffold shall be sound,rigid, and capable of car-rying the maximum in-tended load without set-tling or displacement.Unstable objects, such asbarrels, boxes, pallets,brick, or concrete blocks,shall not be used to sup-port a scaffold or work platform. Instead, scaf-fold poles, legs, posts, frames, and uprightsshall bear on base plates and mud sills or otheradequate foundation.

The number three scaffold-related viola-tion (number 16 overall) is planking, with 37serious violations in 2000-2001. According toPart 12., if wood planks are used for a workplatform, then the planks shall be scaffold-grade lumber that has a minimum of 1,500pounds per square inch fiber stress value. Theplanks shall be not less than two inches by 10inches. The platform shall consist of a mini-mum of two planks laid side by side.

The number four scaffold-related viola-tion (number 17 overall) is employee safetyrequirements for rough terrain forklift truckscaffolds, with 35 serious violations in 2000-2001. Part 12. states that if an employee iselevated on a platform on a variable reach lifttruck, a personal fall arrest system is requiredand shall be worn when an employee is el-evated.

The number five scaffold-related viola-tion (number 25 overall) is access to scaffoldplatforms, with 26 serious violations in 2000-2001. According to Part 12., access to a scaf-fold platform shall be provided by one or moreof the following: a ladder; a step or hook-onstair type accessory; direct access; or a ramp,runway, or stairway.Scaffold Fatalities

With regard to incidents that occur in-volving scaffolds, MIOSHA statistics showthat the number one cause of fatal incidents,as well as incidents in general, is falls. Fallscan occur at any time during the constructionand use of scaffolds, including during access,

erection, dismantling, and general use of scaf-folds.

Two specific examples of recent fatali-ties involving scaffolds illustrate this point.The first occurred in May 2001. Accordingto MIOSHA information, two employees werebeing transported in a wooden debris box onthe forks of a variable reach forklift truck.The end of the debris box struck a parkedsemi-trailer as the forklift passed it. The twoworkers were thrown to the pavement below.The victim suffered fatal head injuries.

Nine citations were issued to the em-ployer involved in this incident: no accidentprevention program, no head protection, nopre-lift meeting, work platform not mildsteel, no guardrails on front of platform, nofall protection worn, employees did not exitplatform when the lift truck was being repo-sitioned, platform too wide, and no fall pro-tection on roof.

The second incident occurred in Octo-ber 2001. According to MIOSHA information,while painting a bridge, a two-man crew hadto borrow a rough terrain forklift and basketfor lifting personnel from another companyto finish the job. The basket was not securedto forks. The victim’s weight tipped the bas-ket, the victim fell to the ground, and the fall-ing basket struck the victim.

Eight citations were issued to the em-ployer in this case: no pre-lift meeting, se-cure work basket to forks, fall protection inwork basket, training for operators, no op-erator permit, no notification of fatality, noaccident prevention program, no valid firstaid cards.

Cont. on Page 19

66666

�

By: Sheila Ide, SupervisorConsultation Education & Training Division

“Where Do We Go From Here?”

CET Consultant Lee Jay Kueppers is doing a follow-up to a hazard surveyat L & L Products South Plant, to assure proper barriers are in place.

If the best thinking is that a viable, com-prehensive safety program is important–whyis “buy-in” so difficult to achieve? Is thereanyone out there who still does not believethat preventing accidents and lowering losttime can affect profitability? Well if you arereading this article, it is safe to say you arein agreement. So how do we convince theCEO, the employees, the supervisors, thevendors and contractors of your companythat they are all part of the solution or partof the problem. How do we build commit-ment?Eliminating Hazards

Compliance with standards should beconsidered the minimum workplace safetyprotection–employers must concentrate theirprevention efforts on selected areas that arethe source of workplace injuries and ill-nesses. While this concept appears obvious,we often get bogged down in meeting “theletter of the law,” instead of looking at theoverall attitude and work practices that arecontributing to workplace accidents. Suc-cessful employers identify and correct thoseissues that go beyond what the rule says andcreate a safer environment based upon thespecific hazards of their workplace.

So what is the next step? Eliminate haz-ards through design–not merely in reactionto problems. Seek input from the very be-ginning from employees, supervisors, ven-dors and contractors. Ask the people whoare creating the equipment or process, and

question the end users about how the taskis performed; what is the process, the steps?Look for the flaws on paper before expen-sive retrofit is necessary. So many times,the safety representative is brought into theprocess after the new equipment hits thefloor. When safety issues are detected therepresentative is often blamed for costlychanges.

Employees, whose focus is productiv-ity, will be better protected when equipmentis built to eliminate hazards. Insure that allstakeholders have an adequate understand-ing of the required work tasks so as to cre-ate a safer process. This means training thesafety representative or joint committeemembers, as well as engineers and purchas-ing agents, to understand the basics of ma-chine guarding, hearing conservation, bar-ricades and fall protection, as well as ergo-nomics. Ideally training allows for safety is-sues to be recognized and changes imple-mented before equipment is manufacturedor a process is released for production.Reducing Work-Comp Costs

Building safeguards into equipment orprocesses will eliminate or greatly reducethese hazards which, in turn, can vastly af-fect an employer’s workers’ compensationcosts. Reserves are set by insurance com-panies for all injuries and illnesses reportedto them by an employer, to cover futurelosses. The number of reserves (open cases)will impact an employer’s experience ratingmodifier or MOD. When the employer’sMOD, or losses, exceed the expected stateaverage losses, a surcharge is applied which

ultimately affects thepremium. Thus theamount paid by the em-ployer is controlled bythe company’s loss his-tory and the types of po-sitions being insured.

Two ways to im-pact the total premiumare wi th in theemployer ’s contro l .Eliminate the risk ofknown hazards , andwork with your insurerand medical provider toresolve cases that dooccur. Controlling andresolving cases reducesor eliminates reserves.Resolve cases wi thproper and t imely

medical intervention, identify “light duty”assignments and explore suitable return towork options with the affected employee.Holding Contractors Accountable

Another concept presented by MIOSHADirector Doug Earle in recent speeches, isthat contractors and vendors in the work-place should fall under the same “safety en-velope” as the employer. Enforce safety andhealth regulations with all non-employeeswho enter, or perform work for your com-pany through verbal or written agreementsand contracts.

Become known as a company that em-phasizes its commitment for the safety andwell-being of all who enter the premises andassure that all top management follow therules as well. Employees will not respect amanagement staff that enforces “do as I saynot as I do” when it comes to enforcingsafety rules for both internal and externalvisitors.

When hiring outside contractors addlanguage to the purchasing agreements orcontracts that identify the contractor’s safetyand health program and their attitude towardpreventing hazards in the workplace. Whatis their accident record? How do they en-force their own safety rules with their em-ployees?

Hold contractors accountable for whatchemicals they bring on a worksite and whathazards they may create in the performanceof the contract. Have the safety representa-tive, supervisors and/or engineers meet withthe contractor before and during the job toreview safety and health issues. Support em-ployees who report any deviation fromagreed upon safe practices and correct thesituation.

MIOSHA standards require that an em-ployer train outside contractors on possiblehazards in their workplace including lock-out, confined spaces and hazard communi-cation. Contractors have the same respon-sibilities.

Protecting employees from workplaceinjuries or illnesses allows them to concen-trate on doing the best job possible. Focus-ing attention on the major accident causesin a specific workplace is logical and costbenef ic ia l , but reducing hazards i severyone’s responsibility. If you would likefurther assistance in building or maintain-ing your company’s safety and health pro-gram, please contact the Consultation Edu-cat ion and Training Divis ion a t517.322.1809.

Summer 2002

77777

Workplace Safety and HealthMakes Good Business Sense

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

The Bottom L ine

At Grantex garments are sorted, transferred, washed and dried bycomputer, without being touched by a worker.

Grantex, Inc. - Grand RapidsFounded by President Douglas Singer’s grandfather in 1923,

Grantex, Inc. (formerly known as Grand Rapids Coat and Apron)has been a leader in uniform management services in Michigan formore than 75 years. They remain an independent provider of cus-tomized rental garments for businesses of all types and sizes, andserve over 1,000 companies throughout West Michigan. Now in itsthird generation of family ownership, Grantex continues to workhard to provide the best in uniform management.

Grantex has experienced more than 400 percent growth overthe past 20 years. Grantex recently renovated their facility andbuilt one of the most technologically advanced service laundries inthe world–to both speed operations and to greatly reduce ergo-nomic injuries. The focus of the new technology is the Smart Gar-ment program which features an exclusive tracking and sorting“radio frequency chip.” The chip is sewn into each garment and isscanned to individually identify each uniform by account manager,company and employee. This system eliminates delivery inaccura-cies and improves all areas of the laundry process.

Since this system was initiated in July 2001, Grantex has pro-cessed more than 2,000,000 garments without one being deliveredinaccurately.ErgErgErgErgErgonomic Innoonomic Innoonomic Innoonomic Innoonomic Innovationsvationsvationsvationsvations

The implementation of the Smart system dramatically changedthe way soiled garments are processed. Laundries traditionally re-quire heavy lifting, turning, twisting, awkward body postures, rep-etition and other work activities which can lead to serious ergo-nomic injuries.

The radio chip allows garments to be sorted, transferred,washed and dried without every being touched by a worker. Work-ers now concentrate on garment hanging, folding and rolling. Dur-ing the final stage, the radio chip auto-sorts the garments by com-pany and employee and readies them for delivery.

Grantex has eliminated heavy lifting and highly repetitive jobsand streamlined operations in a way that requires less manual la-bor. The new technology has allowed them to create a system withsignificant ergonomic efficiencies. The end result is fewer injuriesand increased productivity.SafSafSafSafSafety & Health Commitmentety & Health Commitmentety & Health Commitmentety & Health Commitmentety & Health Commitment

CET Safety Consultant Jerry Swift recommended Grantex,Inc. for this column. They have an outstanding safety and health

record, as well as a commitment to safety training for all employ-ees. They have a diverse workforce, with nearly 50 percent Span-ish-speaking. They have bilingual staff and when they train theiremployees the training is simultaneously translated into Spanish,so that workers receive instructions in a language they understand.

Because of their outstanding safety record and their commit-ment to bilingual training, Grantex was chosen to host the unveil-ing of MIOSHA’s new Spanish publications. (See page 17.) Grantexincorporated safety into every aspect of the renovation of their fa-cility, and particularly for each specific process. And they workdiligently to make sure that every employee knows the safety pro-cedures for every process and takes responsibility for working safely.

“We are proud of the outstanding safety efforts of every em-ployee,” said Gordon Reynolds, Sr., Vice President and GeneralManager. “Management provides a safe work environment and em-ployees respond by working safely–safety is no accident at Grantex.”

The changeover to a technology driven system was a major com-mitment by Grantex, and took more than a year to accomplish. Theinvestment has provided Grantex with the most accurate and efficientprocess in the service industry–and will allow them to provide timely,responsive, innovative and quality service to their customers.

88888

�

Every workday more than 70 MIOSHA en-forcement personnel all across Michigan workdiligently to help ensure that workplaces are assafe and healthful as possible.

It’s not an easy job. It is difficult to go intosomeone else’s workplace, ask them to stop whatwas planned for the day, and instead accompanythe compliance officer for an inspection of theirworkplace. But that is exactly what is asked ofMIOSHA compliance staff–and it is necessaryto fulfill the statutory mission of the program.Employer Responsibilities

The Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Act requires the program to monitorsafety and health conditions in workplaces cov-ered by the Act. The Act also proscribes how

these monitoring or inspection visits will occur.The MIOSHA Act prevents the program fromgiving advance notice. That means that compli-ance officers may not call to set up an appoint-ment prior to the initial visit. It also requiresthe program to issue citations and assess penal-ties for any hazards identified that are classi-fied as “Serious” under the Act.

Michigan employers have long been knownas responsible corporate citizens. By far, mostemployers understand their worker safety andhealth responsibilities as well as the obligationof the MIOSHA program. These employers areproactive and cooperate by having protocols in

place so their staff understands what to do whena compliance officer arrives.

However, there are occasional circum-stances when safety officers encounter extremelyadversarial situations. In these circumstances, anemployer may react inappropriately by directingdisagreement regarding the process or inspec-tion findings toward the compliance officers,rather than using the appropriate processes forreviewing disagreements.Assaults Prohibited

Compliance officers are skilled in appro-priately responding to questions regarding theiractions, de-escalation techniques, and providingfeedback. In some occasions, however, the un-happiness of an employer may escalate beyondthat which a compliance officer can, or is ex-pected to handle.

Section 35(10) of the MIOSHA Act prohib-its a person from assaulting compliance officerswho are performing their legal duty. The Actstates that a person who violates this subsectionis guilty of a misdemeanor.

Assault does not mean that bodily contacthas been made. Rather, assault, as defined byBlack’s Law Dictionary is, “...any willful attemptor threat to inflict injury upon the person or an-other, when coupled with an apparent presentability to do so, and any intentional display offorce such as would give the victim reason tofear or expect immediate bodily harm.”

Unfortunately, compliance officers haveencountered circumstances where situations havebeen deemed to constitute assault.

� In one case, the employer blocked thecompliance officer’s path from the building,picked up a pot of coffee, and threatened to pourthe coffee on the officer.

� In another example, an employer blockedthe safety officer from leaving, while expressingextreme unhappiness with the inspection andindicating the officer would be killed if penal-ties were assessed.

� In yet another case, an employer reachedinto a safety officer’s car, grabbed the officercausing physical injury, and demanded that theofficer hand over the report from the just com-pleted inspection.

� And in one final example, an employertook inspection pictures from a safety officer’spocket.

When these circumstances occur, police re-ports are filed, the local prosecutor and theMichigan Department of Attorney General areencouraged to pursue criminal charges, andMIOSHA also issues civil citations for a viola-tion of Section 35(10) of the Act.

Compliance StrategiesIt is the goal of the MIOSHA program to

conduct inspections in a professional and effi-cient manner. The program is required to use strat-egies that minimize disruption in the workplace.

There are several steps taken by the pro-gram to try to avoid the potential for assault whencircumstances become adversarial. If it appearsthat a situation is escalating, compliance offic-ers are trained to recognize and respond to po-tentially difficult situations. If necessary, the of-ficer may leave the facility and return accompa-nied by a supervisor or additional compliancestaff to complete the investigation or inspection.

In addition, employers are urged to takeappropriate action when dissatisfied or con-cerned about the course of an investigation.Employers may contact the supervisor or pro-gram manager of the compliance officer to ex-press concern and cooperatively determine thebest approach for completing the investigation.This may be followed by contact with the ap-propriate supervisor or program manager to seeif a mutually agreeable approach for complet-ing the inspection is possible.

The ability to communicate and appropri-ately handle issues is key to avoiding escalationduring an inspection that may lead to unfortu-nate situations of assault. The program is will-ing to talk with employers, and meet in personif necessary, to work out issues.

� For example, one employer called to ex-press concern that employee interviews weredisrupting production. Following a discussion,a process for conducting employee interviewswas agreed upon and the inspection completed.

� In another example, an employer fearedthat past history at the facility would negativelyimpact the perspective of the compliance officer.A meeting with the employer resulted in guid-ing principles identifying the appropriate timesfor references to past history.

� In an additional example, compliancesupervision agreed that any inspection at thefacility would include a supervisor to provideongoing oversight of the inspection.

Should an employer have concerns during aMIOSHA inspection or investigation, communi-cation with MIOSHA management is encouragedat the earliest possible opportunity. Employersmay call the MIOSHA general information num-ber, 517.322.1814, or the specific compliancedivision. It is hoped that through this approach itwill be possible for MIOSHA to carry out its dutyto inspect workplaces to help ensure worker safetyand health, and at the same time avoid unfortu-nate escalation and incidents.

By: Martha B. Yoder, ChiefGeneral Industry Safety Division

Protection from AssaultMIOSHA Compliance Officers have a Difficult Job

A MIOSHA safety officer conducts a complianceinvestigation.

Summer 2002

99999

�

Scope - R408.11801.This paragraph defines the range of equipment covered by the standard.� Power-operated top running overhead and gantry single and mul-

tiple girder cranes are covered by the rules in this standard.� Top running overhead cranes with push type-bridge and trolleys

may be covered by the rules in this standard, as appropriate for accidentinvestigations, complaints or under special circumstances.

� Monorails, railway or truck cranes, mine hoists, conveyors, shovels,drag-line excavators, equipment used on construction jobs, or systems usedto transport people are not covered by the rules in this standard.Employer Responsibilities - R 408.11808.

Paragraph (7) of this rule requires the manual provided by the cranemanufacturer be readily accessible for the crane operator’s reference atthe work site. When no manual is available, the employer should deter-mine whether it is possible for the employer to obtain a copy. If it is notpossible to obtain a copy because the crane manufacturer is out of busi-ness, cannot be located, etc., the employer will be allowed to create amanual, obtain a manual for a similarly operating crane or another similaralternative as meeting the requirements of this rule.Construction, installation, and equipment - R 408.11821.

Paragraphs (1), (2) (4), and (5) will be applied where facilities haveequipment that is installed or erected after April 10, 2002.Marking rated capacity; classifications; clearance - R 408.11822.

� The employer must determine a service class rating and indicatethis rating on the crane.

� Corrections in deviations from minimum clearances are expectedwhen the deviation creates a hazard to employees.Hooks; load blocks - R 408.11825.

� When determining whether a hook latch is feasible, the employermust assess whether use of a latch would create a fall hazard or an appro-priate means to access an elevation issue. If these hazards are created byuse of hook latch, then a latch is impractical. The employer must alsodetermine whether there are slack conditions in assessing whether thisrule applies.

� Load blocks must have the sides enclosed.Ladders; footwalks; stairways; escape devices - R 408.11835.

The anti-slip surface requirement for a footwalk can be met throughthe use of wood.Brakes and restraints - R 408.11841.

The employer must ensure that appropriate braking means are pro-vided for the trolley of a cab operated crane where the cab is located onthe trolley.Controls - R 408.11843.

An off-point detent or off-point latch is a detent or latch that holdsthe lever in the off position. It would take a deliberate action of the opera-tor to move the lever out of the “off” position, but would not require theoperator to hold the lever after that action.

BackgroundOn December 7, 1999, the General Industry Safety Standards Commission approved opening Part 18., Overhead and Gantry Cranes,for updating and revision. The full promulgation process was followed, with amendments becoming effective on April 10, 2002.

Clarification on Application of Selected RulesThis document provides clarification on application of selected rules contained in General Industry Safety Standard Part 18., Overheadand Gantry Cranes.

ParParParParPart 18.t 18.t 18.t 18.t 18. Ov Ov Ov Ov Overhead and Gantrerhead and Gantrerhead and Gantrerhead and Gantrerhead and Gantry Cranesy Cranesy Cranesy Cranesy CranesR408.11801 et seqR408.11801 et seqR408.11801 et seqR408.11801 et seqR408.11801 et seq

Enforcement GuidelinesGeneral Industry Safety Division

Warning devices - R 408.11845.A floor-operated pendant crane must be provided with a warning

device when there is an obstruction in the operator’s view or other hazard.Training. Testing. Permits - R 408.11852, R 408.11853, andR 408.11854.

The Consultation Education and Training (CET) Division is devel-oping information and educational material for employers to use in theirefforts to comply with these new requirements.Frequent and periodic inspections - R 408.11872.

� The employer must determine the crane usage by hours of service.Based on that determination, appropriate inspections must be completed.

� Frequent inspections require records. It is expected that recordsfor the most recent two complete calendar years will be maintained.Operational tests and rated load tests - R 408.11873 andR 408.11874.

125% of the rated load or the load recommended by the manufac-turer is acceptable.Maintenance - R 408.11875.

To cite for lack of a permit for maintenance personnel, the compli-ance officer must document an actual instance where the maintenancepersonnel needs to operate the crane in order to perform the maintenanceor repair functions.Information

For further information on outreach material, contact the ConsultationEducation & Training (CET) Division at 517.322.1809 or visit the websiteat www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr. For information on the enforcement guidelines,contact the General Industry Safety Division at 517.322.1831.

A radio-operated overhead crane at H & H Tube & Manufacturing Co. inVanderbilt.

1010101010

�

By: Connie O’Neill, SupervisorConsultation Education & Training Division

Mentoring for Success

Wally Blair and Jim Sutton, International Paper’s Quinnesec Mill; HeatherAllan, International Paper’s Kalamazoo Container Plant; and Tom Haessly,TRW Chassis System’s Fenton Plant.

The Michigan Voluntary Protection Pro-grams (MVPP) was created to recognize andpartner with worksites that implement outstand-ing systems to manage workplace safety andhealth. The sites that have achieved the Staraward fly the Michigan Star flag proudly, inform-ing the community that they have received thisprestigious award.

When a company participates in the Michi-gan Star program, they become a safety andhealth role model to their industry for “best prac-tices.” Star sites agree to provide mentoring toothers interested in pursuing participation in theMVPP.

MVPP Mentoring is a learning opportunityinvolving a Michigan Star site and a potentialMVPP candidate who has expressed interest inimproving their safety and health managementsystem. Mentors inform, counsel, train, providephysical tours, and discuss with these candidateshow to reduce injuries and illnesses and striveto achieve excellence in their safety and healthmanagement system.

We all have probably been mentored atsome time in our lives. Many people can remem-ber being helped by someone who took an inter-est in their welfare, shared their experience andknowledge with them and provided some direc-tion for growth and development. These rela-tionships can make a lasting impression andencourage positive changes. Mentoring forMVPP is all about excellent companies sharingtheir expertise to help other sites achieve excel-lence. The anticipated outcome is increased par-ticipation in the MVPP, ultimately reducing in-

jury and illness rates in Michigan.Michigan Star sites actively engage in

mentoring MVPP candidates. In a meeting heldwith Michigan Star sites in February 2002, men-tors discussed the types of mentoring they haveparticipated in. The activities ranged from tele-phone calls, site tours, onsite and offsite pre-sentations, e-mail discussions, and participationin “best practice” forums.

Mentoring assistance may differ signifi-cantly depending upon the Star site and the needsof the candidate. Each mentor takes a uniqueapproach to sharing information about theirsafety and health management system. Mentorsattempt to establish some framework for under-standing the specific needs of the companies thatcontact them.

For instance, at International Paper’sKalamazoo Container Plant, MVPP contactHeather Allan, states that one potential MVPPcandidate wanted to know how InternationalPaper was able to get their employees involvedin their safety and health management system.International Paper’s Kalamazoo plant is a unionsite (United Paper Workers, International UnionLocal 946), and one of the significant achieve-ments they proudly discuss, is the strong rolethe union plays and how their employees areactively involved. In fact, during one of thementoring visits, it was the union safety repre-sentative, and the safety and health committeewho spent two hours with the candidate.

There are many advantages for both thementor and the candidates in the MVPPmentoring program. Jim Sutton, MVPP contactfrom International Paper’s Quinnesec Mill,indicated that “mentoring has helped us to pre-pare for what to expect, and educated us on the

process.” Throughmentoring they gained a“sharing of ideas, tools,and were able to adjust tochange more quickly.”

Tom Haessly,MVPP contact at TRWChassis System’sFenton Plant, recentlyspent three hours with apotential candidate shar-ing program ideas anddiscussing how TRW firstachieved the Merit award(now called the RisingStar program), and thenprogressed to the Star.Tom encouraged this can-didate, who felt they werenot quite ready for the

Star program, to apply for the Rising Star pro-gram. This would allow them to devote someadditional time to improve their system andstrive to achieve Star status within one to threeyears.

Larger corporations have been utilizing thementoring approach with their sister facilities.Adelia Hammond, MVPP contact at TennecoAutomotive’s Grass Lake Engineering Cen-ter, recently provided mentoring to otherTenneco facilities during a meeting in Chicago.She presented an overview of the MVPP anddiscussed her company’s challenges and experi-ences achieving the Star status.

Hammond also gained insight into howsimple safety can be when it’s approached froma proactive view. She found many features theyuse at Tenneco could easily be modified for abusiness whose processes are quite different.“For instance, we put individual safety proce-dures on each machine along with the operatingprocedures. The mentored company adopted thisprocess, making the safety procedures directlyavailable to the personnel who needed them,right when they were needed,” said Hammond.

Mike Bussing, MVPP contact at WestMichigan Air Care, stated that he was lookingforward to mentoring others in the emergencyair transport industry and is planning on pre-senting their site’s best practices at upcomingindustry conferences.

Mentoring experiences have providedMichigan Star sites with positive feedback, ex-pressions of appreciation for their time and ef-forts, and hearing that the information they pro-vided was very helpful. Mentoring can be a win-win situation. Society at large is eventually thereal winner.

What is hopeful during mentoring is that theStar candidate comes to view things in a new way.The mentor promotes positive changes, helpingthe establishment achieve a vision, of what ispossible. That vision is a safety and health sys-tem that integrates the following basic elementsinto the overall management system:

� Management Leadership and Commit-ment,

� Employee Involvement,� Worksite Analysis,� Hazard Prevention and Control, and� Safety and Health Training.Excellent companies achieving this integra-

tion deal proactively with safety and health, pro-duction and quality, with equal levels of intensity.

For more information about how to applyfor the MVPP and/or mentoring, contact theConsultation Education & Training Division at517.322.1809.

Summer 2002

1111111111

72nd Annual Michigan Safety Conference

�

Derrick Quinney, Director, Occupational Safety & Health, MichiganState AFL-CIO; Captain Michael B. Donovan, Special OperationsDivision, New York City Fire Department; and Tina Abbott, Secretary-Treasurer, Michigan State AFL-CIO.

April 22 & 23, the Michigan State AFL-CIOheld its biannual Safety and Health Conference,which attracted nearly 300 workers. Attendeeswere welcomed by Mayor David Hollister andMark Gaffney, President, Michigan State AFL-CIO. Cynthia Lee, Area Director, OSHA, gavean update on federal OSHA’s initiatives. Doug

Earle, MIOSHA Director, gave an overview ofMIOSHA activities and hosted a presentation byMIOSHA Deputy Directors and Division Chiefs,who covered their specific program areas.

Presenters included representatives from:USWA International Union, Utility Workers Lo-cal 223, Michigan State Fire Fighters Local 421,

the UAW, the Michigan StateAFL-CIO, Michigan State Uni-versity, and MIOSHA.

Topics covered in the con-ference included: constructionsafety, mine safety, CPR tech-niques, bio and chemical haz-ards, ergonomics, workplacetoxins, health hazards forhealthcare workers, lockout/tagout, confined space, and thenew MIOSHA recordkeepingrequirement.

Michigan AFL-CIO is oneof MIOSHA’s CET Grantees.Their CET Grant provides bothgeneric and customized work-place safety and health trainingto new employees and incum-bent workers affected by new

technology and new work processes, equipmentor operations. Training topics include back in-juries, lifting techniques, workplace hazards andrecognition, right-to-know and hazardous sub-stances. In cases were generic training does notmeet the needs of an employer staff will meetwith the employer and identify worksite needsand issues and then will customize a trainingprogram to meet their needs. For more informa-tion on the grant, contact: Derrick Quinney,Director, Occupational Safety & Health, at517.487.5966.

April 28th is recognized across the nationas Workers’ Memorial Day. This date marks thesigning of the federal OSHA Act, and is the dayunions remember and pay tribute to those wholost their lives on the job. It is also a day whenmembers come together to rededicate themselvesto promote practices that ensure safe and healthywork conditions on the job for all working menand women.

The conference recognized Workers’ Memo-rial Day on the final day of the conference. Thekeynote speaker was Captain Michael B.Donovan of the Special Operations Division, NewYork City Fire Department. Captain Donovanshared his experiences at Ground Zero.

(Above) Distinguished Service Award Winner EdwardG. Ratzenberger, CSP, President/CEO, Safety Councilfor Southeast Michigan; Safety Professional of theYear Laurie A. Rudolph, CHMM, Senior RiskEngineer, Zurich Services.

(Left) Tom Swindlehurst, CET Construction SafetyConsultant presented the Top 25 Construction Violations;Sherry Walker and William Lykes, CET HealthConsultants covered the Top 10 Health Violations;and Elmer Miller, CET Onsite Supervisor, discussedChallenges in the Plastics Molding Industry.

Michigan State AFL-CIO 2002 Safety & Health Conference

The 72nd annual Michigan Safety Confer-ence was held April 16th & 17th in Lansing. TheMIOSHA program is a strong supporter of theconference, which reaches more than 6,000 at-tendees each year. The conference goal is to helpparticipants improve worker safety and health,reduce workers’ compensation costs, and in-crease productivity and profitability.

Each year nearly 100 MIOSHA safety andhealth professionals and support staff are in-volved in seminar planning and implementation.MIOSHA seminars this year included: AMIOSHA Update by Doug Earle, ConstructionInspections and Services, Top 25 MIOSHA Gen-eral Industry Violations, Top 25 ConstructionViolations, Top 10 Health Violations, Permit

Required Confined Space, Challenges in thePlastics Molding Industry, Safety Programs thatImpact the Bottom Line, the Bloodborne Infec-tious Disease Standard, the New Steel ErectionStandard, Effective Safety & Health Programsthrough Onsite Interventions, and CET AwardPrograms.

The conference also recognizes the SafetyProfessional of the Year and Distinguished Ser-vice Award winner. This year’s winners, Ed-ward G. Ratzenberger and Laurie Rudolph, ap-pear at right.

MIOSHA encourages anyone associ-ated with safety and health in Michigan tobecome a part of the state’s largest safetyand health conference. �

1212121212

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

Lacks Enterprises of Grand Rapids recently received four Ergonomic Inno-vation Awards. The Ergonomic Innovation Award is issued to employers for innovativeideas which have been implemented to reduce worker strain.

Lacks Enterprises has 13 plants, and has initiated significant ergonomic changesin their plants to reduce workplace injuries. CET Supervisor Connie O’Neill and CETConsultant Jerry Swift presented the awards.

The Airwest Assembly plant devised an entire new line to handle Dodge Ramgrills. Two workers now process the parts without extensive lifting, gripping and repeti-tive motions. The Plastic Plate Monroe Street facility designed and built new racks forthe dipping process, eliminating posture, weight and gripping injuries.

The Paint East plant created a new design for its machines and fixtures utiliz-ing an electric touch pad control to bring parts into workers’ comfort zones.The AirwestMold plant redesigned their procedures for plastic molding die changes. The new pro-cess utilizes robots to pick up the products, eliminating significant ergonomic injuries.

Lacks Enterprises is a leader in the production of exterior decorativetrim components for the automotive industry, and employs 1,850 workers.

A.J. Ponstein, Jerry Swift, Dr. Lee Pool, Mike Hall, Dan Jaracz,Gary Shisler, Ken Bailey, Mark Stratton, Len Overmeyer, BrianElenbaas, Roger Andrzejewski, Jeff Wenk and Beth Hamlin.

Lacks Enterprises - Grand Rapids

The Hutchinson FTS, Inc., Jonesville plant received the Gold Award for an out-standing safety and health record on April 11. The CET Gold Award recognizes twoyears without a lost time accident. The Jonesville plant has not had a lost-time accidentsince Oct. 6, 1999.

“We’re pleased to recognize Hutchinson FTS leadership with this award, becausethey place a high priority on the safety and health of every employee,” said CIS DeputyDirector Dr. Kalmin Smith.

“We feel that safety is an indicator of the overall quality of our parts, process andpeople. The safety record of the Jonesville operation is an example to the wholeHutchinson organization,” said Paul H. Campbell, President and CEO, HutchinsonFTS, Inc.

The FTS Jonesville Plant serves a unique function by supplying automotive airconditioning products for service, which are sold through dealerships. Their specialty iscomplexity–they make parts for models no longer in production. Their 60 employeesoperate 800 machines, making 1,900 parts. A typical automotive supplier in their fieldwould probably make a maximum of 30 final parts.

Susan Palace, Corporate Human Resources Dir.; Ron Freese, HumanResources Manager, Reading & Jonesville Plants; Ricky Wooten,Plant Manager, Reading & Jonesville Plants; Mark Ries, ProgramManager, Jonesville Plant, CIS Deputy Director Kalmin Smith.

Hutchinson FTS, Inc. - Jonesville Plant

L & L Products, Inc. South Plant - Romeo

Mohammad Motamedi, Tom McKenzie, Jackie Klus, Jurg Hauptli,Doug Earle, Stan Baldwin, and Rich Mancuso.

L & L Products, Inc. South Plant of Romeo received the Ergonomic InnovationAward on June 18th. The Ergonomic Innovation Award is issued to employers for inno-vative ideas that have been implemented to reduce worker strain.

BSR Director Doug Earle presented the award to the group of employees respon-sible for planning and implementing the changes within the facility, as well as to allemployees for their innovative ideas to make the plant safe for everyone.

The L & L Products, South Plant Romeo redesigned their manufacturing area andimplemented the use of ergonomic chairs, anti-fatigue mats, lifting devices and adjust-able tables. They also retrofitted machines to accommodate an employee who suffered astroke and returned to work. With the help of CET Safety Consultant Lee Jay Kueppers,L&L Products, South Plant was successful in safely and ergonomically adapting themachines to that individual’s disability requirements.

The Romeo South Plant employs 328 workers on two shifts and produces engi-neered sealing and structural solutions for the automotive industry. All afternoon shiftworkers attended the presentation.

Summer 2002

1313131313

Education & Training Calendar

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

Date Course MIOSHA TrainerLocation Contact Phone

August8 Supervisors’ Role In Safety & Health Dave Luptowski

Saginaw Don Matthews 888.238.447812 Powered Industrial Truck Train-the-Trainer Suellen Cook

Livonia Cont. Ed. Services 734.462.444812, 13, 14 Safety & Health Administrator Course Bernard Sznaider

Port Huron Terri Johns 810.985.186913, 14, 15 Safety & Health Administrator Course Dan Maki

Escanaba Jayne Bernard 906.786.580214 Overview of Revised Part 74 Fire Fighters Standard Lee Jay Kueppers

Rochester Hills Karl Holden 248.656.472020, 21 Two-Day Mechanical Power Press Seminar Linda Long

Dearborn Heidi 313.317.150027 Confined Space Entry Jerry Medler

Cadillac Cindy Swiler 231.775.2458September4 Powered Industrial Truck Train-the-Trainer Bernard Sznaider

Southfield Ed Ratzenberger 248.557.70105 Powered Industrial Truck Train-the-Trainer & Overhead Cranes Dan Maki

Escanaba Jayne Bernard 906.786.58025, 12 Construction 10-Hour Safety Seminar & Major Fatality Causes Jerry Faber

Southfield Keiyania Mann 248.948.700010 Industrial Machine Guarding Jerry Medler

Sault Ste. Marie Susan Camp 906.635.280210 Recordkeeping Workshop Linda Long

Adrian Milessa Holtz 517.424.325010 Recordkeeping Workshop Micshall Patrick

Battle Creek Amanda Militzer 616.344.618910 Challenges In The Plastics Industry Lee Jay Kueppers

Shelby Township Kathy Ashley 586.731.347610 Hearing Conservation & Respiratory Protection Bob Carrier

Midland Ron Monson 800.675.759912 Safety In The Plastics Industry Jerry Medler

Cadillac Cindy Swiler 231.775.245812 Lockout/Tagout Workshop Bernard Sznaider

Port Huron Terri Johns 810.985.186917, 18 MIOSHA 10-Hour Construction Safety Tom Swindlehurst

Midland Ron Monson 989.496.941517, 18, 19 Safety & Health Administrators Course Richard Zdeb

Auburn Hills Cindy Mickey 248.232.458019 MIOSHA Recordkeeping - Log 300 Lee Jay Kueppers

Flint Anita Marshall 810.766.640523 Supervisors’ Role In Safety & Health Richard Zdeb

Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.4500

1414141414

Construction SafetyConstruction SafetyConstruction SafetyConstruction SafetyConstruction SafetyStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards CommissionStandards Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborMr. Carl Davis**

Mr. Daniel CorbatMr. Andrew LangMr. Martin RossManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement

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

Public MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberMr. Kris Mattila

General IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral Industry Safy Safy Safy Safy SafetyetyetyetyetyStandarStandarStandarStandarStandards Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborMr. James Baker

Mr. Tycho FredericksMr. John Pettinga

VacantManagManagManagManagManagementementementementement

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

Mr. George A. ReamerPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic Member

Ms. Geri Johnson

Occupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthStandarStandarStandarStandarStandards Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung

Ms. Cynthia HollandCapt. Michael McCabeMs. Margaret Vissman

ManagManagManagManagManagementementementementementMr. Robert DeBruyn*

Mr. Michael LucasMr. Richard Olson

Mr. Douglas WilliamsPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic Member

Dr. Darryl Lesoski**

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

Standards UpdateFarewell to BSR Commissioner

Michael D. Koehs

General IndustrySafetyCommissioners:

George Reamer,Tim Koury,Michael Koehs,John Pettinga,Mike Eckert.

Marsha Parrott-Boyle (left) and MIOSHA Director DougEarle (right) present a certificate of appreciation toMichael D. Koehs.

Michael Koehs has givenso much to his county, state,and country. Recently his ef-forts and commitment to pro-tect the safety and health ofMichigan workers was recog-nized by MIOSHA for hismembership on the GeneralIndustry Safety StandardsCommission from 1992 to2002. A service recognitionluncheon was held by the Stan-dards Division in Mr. Koehs’honor following the June 13,2002, Commission meeting inLansing.

This event gave us the op-portunity to commemorate Mr.Koehs’ years of service and totell him how much he was ap-preciated. MIOSHA Director Doug Earle, MIOSHA staff members, and many of his fel-low Commissioners expressed their admiration for the diverse manner in which he has soselflessly given to his community.

Mr. Koehs served in the U.S. Army Infantry, including a tour in Viet Nam. For 23years he served Macomb County as a Deputy Sheriff. During that time, he served as theExecutive Director of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan. In March 2002, hewas appointed to the office of Clerk for Macomb Township. He has represented publicemployees on the General Industry Safety Commission, and served as chair since May1998.

MIOSHA Director Doug Earle presented a certificate of appreciation and the GreatSeal of Michigan to Mr. Koehs during the luncheon. “Service to the BSR Commissions,such as Michael Koehs’ long record of service, is an important element to the great his-tory of the MIOSHA program,” said Earle. “We also honor and respect the significantservice you have given to your country, county and township.”

Summer 2002

1515151515

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers ..................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 18. Overhead and Gantry Cranes ................................................................. Final, effective 4/10/02Part 19. Crawler, Locomotives, Truck Cranes ..................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 20. Underhung and Monorail Cranes ............................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 58. Vehicle Mounted Elevating & Rotating Platforms ................................ Approved by Commission for review

ConstructionPart 01. General Rules (Consolidating with health rules) ................................... Final rules submittedPart 07. Welding & Cutting .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 08. Handling & Storage of Materials ............................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 12. Scaffolds ..................................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 14. Tunnels, Shafts, Cofferdams & Caissons ................................................ Draft to Advisory Committee for reviewPart 16. Power Transmission .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 18. Fire Protection & Prevention ................................................................... Informal approval by LSBPart 25. Concrete Construction .............................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 26. Steel and Precast Erection ....................................................................... Formal rules submittedPart 30. Telecommunications .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewAd Hoc Communication Tower Erection .............................................................. Approved by Commission for review

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Benzene ........................................................................................................................ Corrected error, effective 1/23/02Carcinogens R 2301-2302 ........................................................................................... Formal rules submittedForging Machines R 3210 ........................................................................................... Rescinded due to duplicationGrinding, Polishing & Buffing ................................................................................... RFR approvedNon-ionizing Radiation R 2420 .................................................................................. Formal certificationPowered Industrial Trucks R 3225 (OH Rules only) .............................................. Rescinded due to duplicationRespirators in Dangerous Atmoshperes (OH Rules only) ....................................... Rescinded due to replacementSanding Machines R 3230 (OH Rule only) ............................................................... Rescinded due to duplicationVentilation for Certain Hazardous Locations R 3110 ............................................. Rescinded due to duplication

ConstructionAir Contaminates R 6201 (Gases, Vapors, etc.) ....................................................... Final, effective 1/23/02Sanitation for Construction R 6615 ........................................................................... Consolidated with CS Part 1Illumination for Construction R 6605 ....................................................................... Consolidated with CS Part 1

Administrative RulesPart 11. Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses .......... Clerical corrections, RFR, 5/23/02

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of June 28, 2002)

The MIOSHA Standards Division assists in the promulgation of Michigan occupationalsafety and health standards. To receive a copy of the MIOSHA Standards Index (updatedMarch 2002) or for single copies and sets of safety and health standards, please contact theStandards Division at 517.322.1845.

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

1616161616

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

Variances Requested Construction

Published July 26, 2002

Variances Granted Construction

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 12 - Scaffolds and Scaffold Platforms R408.41221Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to use stilts a maximum height of 30inches under controlled conditions and according to cer-tain stipulations.Name and address of employerRitsema and AssociatesLocation for which variance is requestedFIA Project

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 10 - Lifting and Digging Equipment -R408.41018(a)(21)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to utilize rotation resistant cableto raise and lower work platform provided stipulationsare adhered to.Name and address of employerChicago Bridge & Iron CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedJob site information provided 3 days prior to start of workoperationName and address of employerHi-Ball Co., Inc.Location for which variance is requestedCanal Rd. & Windsor Hwy., Windsor Twp.Name and address of employerLansing Board of Water & LightLocation for which variance is requestedCanal Rd. & Windsor Hwy., Windsor Twp.

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Work Platform, R408.43209Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure scaffold planks tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail systemfor use as a work platform provided the following stipu-lations are adhered to.Name and address of employerElectrol Corp.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Corp., WarrenName and address of employerWilliam E Harnish Acoustical, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Corp., WarrenName and address of employerLake State InsulationLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Delta Facility, Delta Twp.Name and address of employerPontiac Ceiling & Partition Co., LLCLocation for which variance is requestedAnchor Bay High School, New Baltimore

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8 - Material Handling R408.4833(1)Summary of employer’s request for variance

To allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAmerican ErectorsLocation for which variance is requestedColumbian Primary Educational Center, DetroitAnchor Bay High School, FairhavenBrownstown Business Center - Building #9, BrownstownMartin Street Condos, BirminghamName and address of employerAzco Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGrand Rapids Convention Center, Grand RapidsName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection Company Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Corp, Metal Fab Div., Flint Mtl Ctr., FlintName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSt Mary’s Catholic Church Educational Center, PinckneyOsborn Middle School, DetroitTrinity Presbyterian Church, PlymouthBank of Ann Arbor, Ann ArborCrittenton Hospital Medical Center, RochesterNew Public Works Complex, Battle CreekDowntown Center, Ann ArborChildren’s Center of Wayne County, DetroitALDI Distribution Center, WebbervilleMatter of Taste Restaurant, Commerce Twp.Name and address of employerSova Steel Inc.Location for which variance is requestedShelby Creek Commercial Development, Shelby Twp.Name and address of employerTri-Steel Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSaginaw Valley State University, SaginawName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedKettering High School, WaterfordMott High School, WaterfordName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedCherry Capital Airport, Traverse CityHowell Parking Deck, Howell

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8 - Material Handling - Rule R408.40833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAssemblers Inc.Location for which variance is requestedU of M Commons Bldg., Ann ArborName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection Co.Location for which variance is requestedWilliam Beaumont Hospital, Royal OakName and address of employerPioneer Inc.

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 17 - Refuse Packer Units; Rule 1732(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to utilize wheeled carts, ahoist, and a chute arrangement in lieu of the requiredstandard barrier to protect employees from falling intothe trash compactor.Name and address of employerLiberty Dairy CompanyLocation for which variance was grantedNorth River St., Evart

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 17 - Refuse Packer Units; Rule 1732(1)

Location for which variance is requestedSpectrum Health, Grand RapidsName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection Inc.Location for which variance is requestedNew Saline High School, SalineName and address of employerSova Steel Inc.Location for which variance is requestedAmerican Axle, DetroitName and address of employerStrand Constructors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSaginaw Valley State University, University CenterName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedMichigan Ethanol, Caro

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms R408.43209Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedthe following stipulations are adhered to:Name and address of employerJohn E Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Delta Facility, Delta Twp.Name and address of employerLake State InsulationLocation for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Delta Facility, Delta Twp.Name and address of employerWolverine Fire Protection Co.Location for which variance is requestedGM Tech Corp, Warren

Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 14 - Tunnel, Shafts, Caissons, and Cofferdams,R408.41482Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employees to remain in the caisson under con-trolled conditions when material is being hoisted fromthe caisson and according to certain stipulations.Name and address of employerToledo Caisson Corp.Location for which variance is requestedDetroit Edison Monroe Power Plant, Monroe

Variances Requested General Industry

Summer 2002

1717171717

�

�

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 26 - Metalworking Machinery; Rule 2650Summary of employer’s request for varianceThis variance relates to guarding or enclosure require-ments for multi slide machines.Name and address of employerAssociated Spring Corporation Plymouth DivisionLocation for which variance was grantedPlymouth Road, PlymouthReason for revocationUnable to locate employer

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 26 - Metalworking Machinery; Rule 2648(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThis variance relates to guarding chuck protrusions onlathe face plate periphery.Name and address of employerBarget Mold & Die CompanyLocation for which variance was grantedTelegraph Road, SouthfieldReason for revocationUnable to locate employer

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 14 - Standard Conveyers; Rule 1421(4)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThis variance relates to required guarding of pinchpoint created by moving part of a conveyor and an-other object.Name and address of employerBurnette Farms Packing CorporationLocation for which variance was grantedPaw Paw Road, LawrenceReason for RevocationUnable to locate employer

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 2 - Floor & Wall Openings, Stairways & Skylights;Rule 227(3)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThis variance applies to the platform on the fixed indus-trial stairs used for installation of canvas covering of as-phalt trucks.Name and address of employerAce Asphalt & Paving CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedColdwater Road, FlintReason for revocationUnable to locate employer

Part and rule number from which variance was grantedPart 19 - Crawler, Locomotive & Truck Cranes; Rule1934(2)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThis variance describes requirements for using a workplatform suspended from a crane hook.Name and address of employerAmerican Hoist & Derrick CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedWashington Ave., Bay CityReason for revocationUnable to locate employer

Variances Revoked General Industry

Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to use an interlocked bar-rier, in conjunction with wheeled carts, a cart stop, and acart rest in lieu of the required standard barrier.Name and address of employerCountry Fresh, LLCLocation for which variance was grantedBuchanan Ave., Grand Rapids

Workplace Safety & HealthInformation Available in Spanish

On June 6, 2002, CIS Director Kathy Wilburannounced that two MIOSHA publications are nowavailable for Spanish-speaking workers.

“We are pleased to provide this vital infor-mation for Hispanic workers,” said Wilbur.“Workplace safety depends on employers andemployees knowing their rights and responsi-bilities. These new publications will assure thatSpanish-speaking workers have access to infor-mation to protect their safety and health.”

The MIOSHA poster is required to beposted in all businesses covered by MIOSHA. Itdescribes many important provisions of theMIOSHA Act. The “Your Rights & Responsi-bilities under MIOSHA” brochure covers therights and responsibilities for both employers andemployees, as set forth by the MIOSHA Act.

“We are deeply concerned about the safetyand health of Spanish-speaking workers,” saidBSR Director Doug Earle. “MIOSHA has anextensive outreach component and we believethis information can help reduce on-the-job in-juries, illnesses, and fatalities for Spanish-speak-ing workers.”

The material was unveiled at Grantex, Inc.in Grand Rapids. Grantex has an outstandingworkplace safety record and a diverse workforce,with nearly 50 percentS p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g .Grantex provides trainingto employees simulta-neously in Spanish, sothat workers receive in-structions in a languagethey understand.

“Worker safety is atop priority at Grantex,”said Gordon Reynolds,Sr., Vice President andGeneral Manager. “Wehave bilingual staff andtrain our workers in Span-ish, not only because it’sgood business, but be-cause it’s the right thingto do.”

Carlos Hidalgo, Commissioner, MichiganCommission on Spanish Speaking Affairs andPresident, Hidalgo & DeVries, Inc., congratu-lated the Grantex employees on their safetyachievement. He also urged them to learn En-glish as well as their native language, to betterprepare themselves for career advancement.

Celia Jackson, Corporate EHS Manager,Meridian Automotive Systems, detailed the typeof protections they offer in a manufacturing en-vironment and stressed the importance of pro-viding training to every employee, not just tothose who speak English.

MIOSHA is also developing a Spanish webpage to help educate employers and workers.Both of the above documents will be availableon the page. The MIOSHA website will also linkto the federal OSHA and the National Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)websites, which both provide extensive informa-tion in Spanish on workplace protection.

MIOSHA has several bilingual staff who canhelp Spanish-speaking workers access safety andhealth services. To receive the above publica-tions, contact the CET Division at 517.322.1809.The web information can be found at:www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr.

Douglas Singer, President, Grantex; Robert Triplett, MIOSHA Safety Officer;Gordon Reynolds, VP & GM, Grantex; Celia Jackson, EHS Manager, MeridianAutomotive; Carlos Hidalgo, MI Commission on Spanish Speaking Affairs;Felix Acevedo, MIOSHA Appeals Coordinator; Doug Earle, MIOSHA Director.

El póster de MIOSHA debe publicarse entodos los comercios que se rigen bajo losreglamentos de MIOSHA. En él se describenmuchas disposiciones importantes de la Ley deMIOSHA. El folleto “Sus Derechos yResponsabilidades Regidos por MIOSHA”abarca los derechos y las responsabilidades tantopara los empleadores como para los empleados,según lo establece la Ley de MIOSHA.

Información de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo Disponible en EspañolMIOSHA también cuenta con personal

bilingüe que puede ayudar a los trabajadores dehabla hispana a tener acceso a los servicios deseguridad y salud. Para recibir ambaspublicaciones, comuníquese con la División deConsulta para la Educación y Capacitación (CET)llamando al 517.322.1809. Puede encontrar lainformación en español de MIOSHA en Internetvisitando: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr. �

1818181818

�

ATOFINA SettlementCont. from Page 1

� Provide training for eight Riverview Town-ship firefighters in coordination with the facility’sEmergency Response/Fire Brigade Training.$30,000.

� Promote the establishment of programs toachieve ongoing improvements in workplace safetyand process safety in other ATOFINA facilities.$1,500,000

� Establish a scholarship fund in memory ofthe deceased. $80,000.

� Reimbursement to the state for responseto third-party litigation. $200,000.

CIS Deputy Director Dr. Kalmin Smith andMIOSHA officials negotiated the SettlementAgreement. The primary concern in developing thisagreement was to enhance the overall safety andhealth for company employees by developing andimplementing ongoing safety improvements inworkplace safety and process safety.

“This agreement cannot reclaim the lives lostin this terrible accident,” said Smith. “It can how-ever, offer comprehensive workplace protection toATOFINA’s workers by dedicating significant re-sources to safety improvements, rather than lengthylitigation.”

MIOSHA investigations do not determine thecause of an accident. Rather, they focus on identi-fying violations of worker safety and health stan-dards at the time of an accident.Accident Background

The Riverview ATOFINA facility is a chemi-cal manufacturer with 210 workers, and uses bothflammable and poisonous chemicals in its pro-cesses. On July 14, 2001, at approximately 3:49a.m., Riverview workers were switching railcars,one containing methyl mercaptan and two contain-ing chlorine.

The pipe used to connect the factory to therailcar separated, causing the methyl mercaptanto escape. At approximately 4:09 a.m. the methylmercaptan erupted into a fireball nearly 50 feet

wide and 200 feet high, consuming the railcarand sending fumes into the air.

Killed in the accident were ATOFINAworkers: Edwin J. Wrobleski, 47, Riverview;Kenneth J. Cox, 56, Rockwood; and TerryStein, 41, Trenton. Nine other workers and onepolice officer were injured, and more than twothousand residents were evacuated. Boat traf-fic was closed on the Detroit River for nearly12 hours.

The Riverview Fire Department re-sponded to a 911 call for help prior to the ex-plosion. After more than eight hours, six localfire departments contained the fire. The firedestroyed two railcars and the platform, anddamaged the piping system into the factory.During the course of the accident, 148,000pounds of methyl mercaptan and 26,000pounds of chlorine escaped into the surround-ing community.MIOSHA Investigation/Citations

The seven-month investigation was con-ducted by a team of health andsafety officers from the Occu-pational Health Division andGeneral Industry Safety Divi-sion of the CIS Bureau ofSafety & Regulation, which isresponsible for the MIOSHAprogram.

The MIOSHA investiga-tion determined a key factor inthe fatalities was the lack of anemergency response plan,which is required by theHAZWOPER ( HazardousWaste Operations and Emer-gency Response) standard. Astwo workers were connectingthe railcar to the factory, a pipeseparated, generating a chemi-

cal leak. Interviews indicated that as oneworker tried to contain the leak of the highlyflammable chemical, the other went for helpand to warn the plant. The worker and shiftsuperintendent returned into a vapor cloudwithout respirators and the three workers con-tinued to try to contain the leak.

Four additional workers attempted to res-cue their fellow workers, and also entered thevapor cloud without protective equipment.They were overcome by the fumes, but escapedserious injury. Almost 20 minutes after the leakbegan, the fireball erupted.

CIS issued 22 unclassified violations ofnine MIOSHA standards, including the follow-ing: Process Safety Management of Highly Haz-ardous Chemicals, Hazardous Waste Operationsand Emergency Response (HAZWOPER), Haz-ard Communication, and Respiratory Protection.The violations include a $500,000 penalty, andall conditions must be abated.

The explosion curtailed production until

Aug. 29, 2001, when the company restarted lim-ited operations. After repairing the platform andpiping system, the company restarted the pro-cesses affected by the explosion in mid-Novem-ber. The company consulted with MIOSHA andchanged the method of pipe connection whenthey rebuilt the piping system.

Because the explosion occurred in a rail-car, the National Transportation Safety Boardalso investigated this accident. Their investiga-tion will look for cause, and their findings arenot yet available. The federal EnvironmentalProtection Agency investigated the chemical re-leases caused by the blast. Their report is notcomplete at this time.Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Agreement details signifi-cant activities that ATOFINA must accomplishwithin specified time frames, to improve theoverall safety of their operations, particularlytheir process safety management operations.

The company has made a strong commit-ment to develop and implement a proactive safetyand health program to protect workers at all oftheir facilities. They are determined to assessthe safety and health status of each facility andto apply the lessons learned in this tragic acci-dent to prevent similar tragedies. Compliancewith this agreement will also bring benefits tothe surrounding community.

ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. (formerly ElfAtochem North America, Inc.) is a part ofATOFINA, the chemical branch of TotalFinaElf,the world’s fourth largest oil and gas company.With U.S. headquarters in Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania, ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. has sales of$2.0 billion and employs more than 4,000 peopleworldwide. ATOFINA is the world’s fifth largestchemical manufacturer with 71,000 employeesand annual global sales of $17 billion.On top of the methyl mercaptan tank car, the broken unloading pipe is

shown in the position it was found after the accident.

11th Annual SafetyConference

Sponsored by:Safety Council forSoutheast Michigan

October 30, 2002Northfield Hilton, Troy

For more information contact:Ed Ratzenberger

248.557.7010

Summer 2002

1919191919

Steel ErectionCont. from Page 4

�

Scaffold SafetyThese examples serve to illustrate the

fact that most incidents involving scaffoldsare due to falls and that these falls could havebeen easily prevented had the proper precau-tions been taken. In order to protect employ-ees from injuries or death involving a fall froma scaffold, some important steps can be taken.Employers must ensure that all applicableMIOSHA standards are adhered to very care-fully. They must know the requirements forusing a scaffold safely and must meet them.Most importantly, employees must be trainedin the proper way to construct and use scaf-folds. MIOSHA standards require employersto have a training program that includes eachand every employee working with, on, oraround scaffolds.

Scaffolds can be used safely if users arewilling to invest some time and effort intopreparation. This preparation results not onlyin safety, but also in savings. According tothe National Safety Council, every dollar in-vested in safety by a company will result in afour to six dollar return, in the form of eitherdirect or indirect savings. In addition, thispreparation is required by MIOSHA stan-dards. Rule R4084.0114 (1) states that com-panies must develop, coordinate, and main-tain a safety program.

Developing a safety program might seemlike a challenging task at first, but with all

the help available to companies in this area,it can actually be done quite easily. The re-quirements in Rule R4084-0114 (2), as wellas Michigan CET consultants can providehelpful information and guidelines for devel-oping a safety program.

Coordinating a safety program requiresan employer to set aside time to prepare anddeliver the training program to employeesand to ensure that all employees receive thetraining required. Maintaining a training pro-gram may be, in many regards, the most dif-ficult facet of its implementation. Because itmust be done over time and the training mustbe applied to new situations, maintenance can

Six Keys to Scaffold Safety11111..... TTTTTraining:raining:raining:raining:raining: allow only those employees trained in hazard identification and in properwork practices (i.e. loading, electrical danger, fall protection) for the specific type ofscaffold being used to work on the scaffold.2.2.2.2.2. Er Er Er Er Erection of Scaffection of Scaffection of Scaffection of Scaffection of Scaffolds:olds:olds:olds:olds: scaffolds must be erected per MIOSHA and manufacturers’specifications and maintained accordingly.3.3.3.3.3. Access:Access:Access:Access:Access: provide employees with a safe means of access to the scaffold, trainemployees in proper use of access method.4.4.4.4.4. Fall Pr Fall Pr Fall Pr Fall Pr Fall Protection:otection:otection:otection:otection: provide training and equipment necessary for employees whenrequired by MIOSHA and maintain the use of the equipment.5.5.5.5.5. Falling object pr Falling object pr Falling object pr Falling object pr Falling object protection:otection:otection:otection:otection: provide training in specification, installation, andmaintenance of protection. (Note: barricading of the area where an object can falland prohibiting employees from entering that area is now permitted.)6.6.6.6.6. Inspection: Inspection: Inspection: Inspection: Inspection: inspect scaffolds daily before using them; check the guard rails,connectors, fastening, platforms, tie-ins, and bracing.

ScaffoldsCont. from Page 5

�

would be pleased with the new provisionsfor the safety of ironworkers that are con-tained in the MIOSHA standard. I am proud

to say that al-though manypeople wereinvo lved inthe develop-ment p ro-cess , I be -lieve the newM I O S H Astee l e rec -tion standardi s t ru ly atribute to theins igh t and

work of George Randick.Many New Safeguards

The new requirements not only affectstructural steel erectors but includes thedesigners, the fabricators, and controllingcontractors. To reduce the dangers in steel

erection, the changes necessarily embodyless hazardous structural design elementsand more restrictive foundation criteria.Site preparation for steel laydown areasand adequate, level locations for propersetup of lifting/erection equipment must beprovided to the erection contractor.

A new fall protection threshold heightof 15 feet for all structural steel employ-ees except those making certain initial con-nections replaces the 30 foot height up towhich all structural steel erectors anddeckers could work without fall protectionin the previous standard. Guardrail andfloor/roof opening protection requirementsare also enhanced. Most steel erection fa-talities and a large percentage of the inju-ries are caused by falls.

Specific provisions for training ofsteel erection personnel are contained inthe new standard. Employers must main-tain records of the training and retrainworkers whose actions demonstrate thetraining was not effective or not retained.A Safer Industry?

All of the changes in the steel erec-

At this writing, the effective date of thenew MIOSHA Part 26., steel erectionstandard has not been determined. It isanticipated that the standard will becomeeffective in late July. Until the newstandard becomes effective in Michigan,employers are reminded they have theopt ion of mainta in ing the s i te incompl iance with e i ther a l l of theprovisions of the old Part 26., or all ofthe provisions of the new standard.

George Randick

tion standard are too numerous to list inthis article. The new standard changes mostof the safety-related aspects of steel erec-tion. Will the changes result in a safer steelerection industry? George Randick wasconfident that the industry would respondto the new provisions and a safer industrywould emerge. But let’s not forget Randyand so many others like him who will nowbe protected by fall protection and otherrequirements that make it more likely thathe will return home at the end of theirworkday.

be a challenge. It can be made much easier,however, if the development and coordina-tion of the training program are done effec-tively.

In conclusion, if scaffold training andsafety information is included in everycompany’s training program, the number ofscaffold accidents and fatalities will be dra-matically reduced. A reduction in accidentssaves employers time, worry, and money, aswell as promoting the safety and welfare ofemployees. Remember: Safety is everyone’sresponsibility. For further information con-tact the Consultation Education and TrainingDivision at 517.322.1809.

2020202020

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

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

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

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

Editor: Judith Keely Simons

Consumer & Industry ServicesDirector: Kathleen M. Wilbur

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

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

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

517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814 Doug EarleDoug EarleDoug EarleDoug EarleDoug Earle

517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817 Deborah GrDeborah GrDeborah GrDeborah GrDeborah Gretheretheretheretherether

517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817517.322.1817 Doug KalinoDoug KalinoDoug KalinoDoug KalinoDoug Kalinowskiwskiwskiwskiwski

PHONEPHONEPHONEPHONEPHONE CHIEFCHIEFCHIEFCHIEFCHIEF

517.322.1297517.322.1297517.322.1297517.322.1297517.322.1297 Diane PhelpsDiane PhelpsDiane PhelpsDiane PhelpsDiane Phelps

517.322.1856517.322.1856517.322.1856517.322.1856517.322.1856 RicharRicharRicharRicharRichard Meed Meed Meed Meed Mee

517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809 MarMarMarMarMaryann Markhamyann Markhamyann Markhamyann Markhamyann Markham

248.888.8777248.888.8777248.888.8777248.888.8777248.888.8777 Jim BrJim BrJim BrJim BrJim Broganoganoganoganogan

517.322.1831517.322.1831517.322.1831517.322.1831517.322.1831 MarMarMarMarMartha tha tha tha tha YYYYYoderoderoderoderoder

517.322.1851517.322.1851517.322.1851517.322.1851517.322.1851 Ron MorRon MorRon MorRon MorRon Morrisrisrisrisris

517.322.1608517.322.1608517.322.1608517.322.1608517.322.1608 JJJJJohn Pohn Pohn Pohn Pohn Peckeckeckeckeck

517.322.1845517.322.1845517.322.1845517.322.1845517.322.1845 Connie MunschConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie Munschyyyyy

DirDirDirDirDirectorectorectorectorector

Deputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy Directorectorectorectorector

Deputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy Directorectorectorectorector

DIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISION

AppealsAppealsAppealsAppealsAppeals

Construction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction Safetyetyetyetyety

Consultation Education & Consultation Education & Consultation Education & Consultation Education & Consultation Education & TTTTTrainingrainingrainingrainingraining

EmploEmploEmploEmploEmployyyyyee Discriminationee Discriminationee Discriminationee Discriminationee Discrimination

General IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral IndustrGeneral Industry Safy Safy Safy Safy Safetyetyetyetyety

InfInfInfInfInformationormationormationormationormation

Occupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational Health

StandarStandarStandarStandarStandardsdsdsdsds

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 HotlineMIOSHA Complaint HotlineMIOSHA Complaint HotlineMIOSHA Complaint HotlineMIOSHA Complaint HotlineFatality/CatastrFatality/CatastrFatality/CatastrFatality/CatastrFatality/Catastrophe Hotlineophe Hotlineophe Hotlineophe Hotlineophe Hotline

General InfGeneral InfGeneral InfGeneral InfGeneral Informationormationormationormationormation

FrFrFrFrFree Safee Safee Safee Safee Safety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultation

800.866.4674800.866.4674800.866.4674800.866.4674800.866.4674800.858.0397800.858.0397800.858.0397800.858.0397800.858.0397517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814517.322.1814

517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809517.322.1809

recycled paper