Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)Vol. 6, No. 2 Spring 2002

Cont. on Page 17

P R O A C T I V E P A R T N E R I N G

After signing the partnership agreement, Shammel Rushwin, Ford VicePresident, North American Business Operations, and James Patton, UAW Co-Chair, National Joint Committee on Health and Safety, shake hands in front ofthe Thunderbird Assembly Line at the Wixom Assembly Plant.

This March the United Auto WorkersUnion (UAW), Ford Motor Company,Visteon Corporation and the Michigan Oc-cupational Safety and Health Administra-tion (MIOSHA) signed a groundbreakingpartnership to help improve worker healthand safety at Ford and Visteon facilities inMichigan.

All partners are committed to provid-ing employees in the 17 Ford and eightVisteon plants in Michigan a healthful andsafe workplace. The partnership’s primarygoals are not only to reduce injuries andillnesses at each location, but to create aproactive safety and health culture, and anon-adversarial relationship that stressescooperation.

Federal OSHA signed a formal part-nership agreement with the UAW, Ford andVisteon on Nov. 14, 2000. That agreementcovers 21 Ford and two Visteon plants infederal OSHA states, and addresses haz-

ards specific to the automotive industry.“The safety and health of the Ameri-

can worker is our top priority,” said JohnL. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Laborfo r Occupa t iona l Sa fe ty andHealth. “Working together is critical, andthe expansion of this partnership wil lstrengthen worker safety and health atMichigan Ford and Visteon sites.”

The partners are constructing this part-nership based on mutual respect and trustthat will leverage the resources of all theparties through the anticipation, identifi-cation, evaluation and control of health andsafety hazards at Ford and Visteon loca-t ions in Michigan, and thereby reduceworker injuries and illnesses.Continuous Safety & Health Improvement

“This agreement is a proactive effortto further promote health and safety in ourplants. The partnership provides an oppor-tunity for each party to benefit from the col-

lective knowledge, ex-periences and sharingof information to main-tain a working environ-ment free of exposureto haza rds ,” sa idJames Patton , UAWCo-Cha i r, Na t iona lJo in t Commit tee onHea l th and Safe ty.“With this partnership,we also have the op-portunity to focus at-tention and greater rec-ognition to issues ofspec i f i c concern a teach plant.”

Sharing safety andhealth information be-tween all partners will

UAW, Ford, Visteon & MIOSHA Form Partnership to Improve Workplace Safety

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

Fall Protection 3

Ergonomics: Controlling MSDs 4

Nursing Home Safety 5

Hearing Loss 6

The Bottom Line 7

Fire Fighting Rule Changes 8

World Trade Center Volunteers 9

MSHARP - New Program 10

MVPP Changes 11

Wage & Hour News 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Variances 16

U.P. Safety Conference 19

22222

From the

Bureau

Director’s

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

Historic MIOSHA

Partnership

with UAW,

Ford and Visteon

This March, MIOSHA embarked on a historic partnershipwith the United Auto Workers of America (UAW), Ford MotorCo, and Visteon Corp., to improve worker safety and health attheir Michigan facilities. This innovative partnership providesa new way for MIOSHA to work with large Michigan employ-ers–and to impact the safety and health of thousands of Michi-gan workers. On Nov. 14, 2000, federal OSHA signed a simi-lar partnership agreement with the UAW, Ford and Visteon.

It has been almost three years since Henry Lick, the Di-rector of Occupational Health for Ford (now retired), and FrankMirer, the Director of Safety and Health for the UAW, came tous with an idea to form a partnership between MIOSHA andOSHA within the context of our regulatory relationship. MikeConnors, OSHA Region V Administrator in Chicago, and DavisLayne, then OSHA Regional Administrator in Atlanta (nowDeputy Assistant Secretary for OSHA), and I were all skepti-cal about an designing a partnership with an individual em-ployer within the regulatory context of our respective laws.

Although there have been numerous OSHA/MIOSHA part-nerships in the last few years, most have been with associationsand/or unions, not with individual employers. These types ofpartnerships are not necessarily in potential conflict with ourobligations regarding assuring equal protection of workers and,the protection of the due process rights of the employers. Work-ers have the right to a safe and healthy work environment re-gardless of whether they work for a large employer or small.Moreover, employers, both large and small, must have their dueprocess rights protected under any governmental program.

As we met over an extended period, we determined thatsuch a partnership was ultimately possible. I became a truebeliever, not only in the potential of this particular partner-ship, but also as a prototype for partnerships with other em-ployers. I began to see how we could develop a system thatwould enhance worker safety and health, as well as remaincompatible with our regulatory responsibilities under theMIOSHA and OSHA laws.

I will leave the details of the partnership to our lead storyin this edition of the MIOSHA News. I want to speak briefly inbroader terms about the partnership concept and the context inwhich we find ourselves developing them. As a legal staff mem-ber of the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Ihelped to draft the original OSH Act. Since then I have workedat the state and national levels with the OSHA program in manydifferent capacities.

Throughout this period I believe that OSHA and MIOSHAhave made a significant contributions to worker safety andhealth–and the laws can continue to serve as the vehicle foroccupational safety and health in the 21st century. To do so,

however, we have to recognize that many of the assumptionsthat were made during the development of OSHA have changedin the world of work. Structures, technology, and organizationalthinking have changed dramatically in how we do business. Itis time that we look creatively at our responsibility to facili-tate the improvement of worker safety and health in a mannerthat deals effectively with the changes that have occurredaround us.

Only time will tell if the UAW/Ford/Visteon/MIOSHA part-nership can become a valuable model to be replicated in thelarge employers’ complex environment. It may not be the finalanswer for how government will relate to large employers inthe future–but it’s a place to start. I believe this could turn outto be one of the most significant efforts undertaken by OSHAand certainly by MIOSHA, since the respective laws were en-acted.

Government’s role must remain for the large employer, aswell as the small employer, one of facilitation in helping theemployers and the workers maintain a safe and healthy work-place. We must come up with a variety of incentives that fit thecustomers of our program, a method of working with them thatmeets their needs and yet continues to ensure the best protec-tion for employees and the due process rights of employers. Wemust continue to work as the catalyst that will help achieve theultimate aim of improving safety and health for Michigan’s work-ing men and women.

Goodbye to the Wage & Hour DivisionSince 1992, the Wage & Hour Division has been a part of

BSR. During that time the program has reduced and/or elimi-nated nearly the entire backlog of pending contested cases,eliminated the backlog in issuing initial determination orderson wage complaints, and otherwise streamlined a number ofits operations. Executive Order, 2002-1, which becomes effec-tive on April 7, 2002, transfers the Wage & Hour Division andits programs to the new Bureau of Worker’s and Unemploy-ment Compensation.

As a part of this new bureau, I am confident that the divi-sion, under Bill Strong’s effective management and the com-mitment of the excellent staff, will continue to perform in anexceptional manner on behalf of the public in Michigan. I willmiss not only Bill Strong, but all of the people that I had anopportunity to work with in the employment standards programs.They have done a superb job for the wage earners and employ-ers in Michigan. They should be proud of what they have done–I know I’m very proud of them.

Spring 2002

33333

�

(Photo by: Kent Phillips, Detroit Free Press.)After a scaffolding accident on June 21, 2001, a worker hangs in his safetyharness from the Ambassador Bridge.

By: Rick Mee, ChiefConstruction Safety Division

F a l l P r o t e c t i o nAmbassador Bridge Accidents Underscore the Need for Fall Protection

Two recent high-profile scaffolding acci-dents on the Ambassador Bridge dramaticallyhighlight the dangers facing construction work-ers. In the construction industry, falls lead allother causes of occupational death.

The photo below was taken on June 21,2001, when the failure of one of the two suspen-sion points of the scaffold caused a worker todangle from his safety harness for hours until hewas pulled to safety by his fellow workers.

An earlier incident on Nov. 14, 2000, in-volved 10 members of a painting crew on theAmbassador Bridge whose scaffold collapsed.Three crew members fell into the Detroit River.Two workers were rescued from the river, whileone man drowned. The other seven workers wererescued from the bridge, although four were sus-pended in their harnesses for several hours.

Because the June 21st accident occurredon the U.S. side of the Ambassador Bridge,Michigan’s worker safety laws were enforced,even though the incident involved Canadianworkers and a Canadian firm. On Aug. 28,2001, the Canadian employer was cited forseven “serious” worker safety violations withfines totaling $21,000.

MIOSHA identified five violations in re-lation to the scaffold and its supports, one forthe type of hooks on the chains being used tomove scaffold to a new suspension point, andone for items related to the company’s accidentprevention program.

“Thankfully this accident had a happy end-ing and no one was injured because the workerwas wearing a safety harness as required byour stringent safety regulations. However, ourConstruction Safety investigators found that thefirm did not take every precaution it could haveto protect this worker’s safety while paintingthe bridge,” said CIS Director Kathy Wilbur.“We hope that the severity of the worker safetyfines and penalties will help prevent futureavoidable accidents and send a clear messageto both Canadian and U.S. employers that thesafety of workers is a top priority in Michigan.”Construction Fatalities from Falls

Construction is one of the most hazardousindustries in Michigan. A recent downwardtrend in construction fatalities in Michigan wasreversed in 2001. There were 28 constructionfatalities last year–with 13 of them caused byfalls. Tragically, these incidents are neither un-usual nor unique.

� On Feb. 27, 2001, a 62-year-old rooferfell 14 feet to his death in Ann Arbor while in-stalling rubber membrane at a gas station.

� On April 3, 2001, a 24-year-old ironworker in Marshall was climbing a block walland fell 12 feet and was impaled by verticalresteel. He died on April 8.

� On May 8, 2001, a 27-year-old laborerwas riding on a moving fork truck and fell 10 feetto his death from an elevated trash box in BattleCreek.

� On Aug 22, 2001, a 55-year-old factoryworker in Elk Rapids fell six feet off a work plat-form while doing demolition work.

� On Oct. 19, 2001, a 31-year-old painter ona forklift personnel platform was painting a bridgein Kentwood. He was killed when both he and theplatform fell 12 feet to the pavement below.

Information on these fatal work-related fallsfrom elevations are included to emphasize that fallsoccur in virtually all construction activities–and tostress that not all serious falls occur from greatheights. MIOSHA records and monitors construc-tion fatalities to help identify hazards facing con-struction workers and to focus prevention efforts.Fall Protection Programs

Preventing injuries and illnesses doesn’t in-crease costs–it increases profits. Companies thatestablish a safety and health program can expectto reduce injuries 20 to 40percent. For every dollarinvested in prevention ef-forts–an employer can savefour to six dollars in costsof workplace accidents.

MIOSHA Construc-tion Safety Standard Part45., Fall Protection, setsforth requirements for theemployer to provide fallprotection systems whenthere is a fall distance ofsix feet or more. Any un-protected working surfacewhich is six feet or moreabove a lower level shouldbe protected from fallingby the use of a guardrailsystem, safety net system,or personal fall arrest sys-tem. These hazardous ex-posures exist in manyforms, and can be as seem-ingly innocuous as paint-ing from a step ladder tosomething as high-risk as

connecting bolts on high steel at 200 feet inthe air.

MIOSHA Part 45., Fall Protection, requiresemployers to design and use comprehensive fallprotection programs to reduce serious or fatalinjuries. At a minimum, employers must:

� Incorporate safety in work planning,� Identify all fall hazards at a work site,� Conduct safety inspections regularly,� Train employees in recognizing and

avoiding unsafe conditions, and� Provide employees with appropriate pro-

tective equipment and train them in its use.In a new report, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) rec-ommends strategic precautions to prevent fatal,work-related falls. “Worker Deaths by Falls:A Summary of Surveillance Findings and In-vestigative Case Reports,” provides a practicalon-site resource for assessing individual work-places, identifying risk factors for falls, and de-veloping effective preventive measures.

The report is available at no charge by call-ing the NIOSH information number,800.356.4674. The Consultation Education &Training (CET) Division has construction safetyconsultants available to help with fall protectionand other construction safety concerns. Call517.322.1809 to contact the CET Division.

44444

By: Sheryl S. Ulin, Ph.D., CPEThomas J. Armstrong, Ph.D., CIHThe University of MichiganCenter for Ergonomics

ERGONOMICS ControllingWork-Related MSDs

Cont. on Page 18

This is the second of a two-part series. Backgroundinformation and work documentation of MSDswere covered in the Winter 2002 article. In thisissue, the authors will cover job assessment anddesign to reduce MSDs.

The Fernco Inc. Davison plant recently received theCET Ergonomic Innovation Award. Fernco injectionmachine operator Melissa Wood, works at a slanttable that eliminates awkward bending.

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are amajor cause of lost time in many industries. InMichigan, MSDs account for one-third of allworkers’ compensation costs each year. Once ajob analysis is performed to identify the majorstresses, interventions can be designed by theemployer to prevent ergonomic injuries and ill-nesses. To be effective, interventions need to betailored to specific work conditions.

An effective ergonomics program identifiesrisk factors prior to injury and/or illness–and seeksto control or eliminate those factors. This articlewill cover suggested interventions for the six mostcommonly cited occupational risk factors.Repeated and Sustained Exertions

A repetitive job can be defined as simply atask in which the worker performs the same actsor motions over and over again. Examples in-

clude entering data into a computer, assemblingproducts on an assembly line, or loading partsinto a press.

Job documentation information can be usedto analyze the repetitiveness of a job. For manyjobs, the number of exertions per part can becalculated from the work method. The total num-ber of exertions per unit time then can be com-puted from production information such as stan-dard times or records of parts produced.

The 10-point scale below can be used todetermine the repetition of the job.

Very High (10): Rapid steady motion/exer-tion–it’s difficult to keep up.

High (8): Rapid steady motion–wasted mo-tions cause the worker to fall behind.

Medium (6): Steady motion–but the workercan keep up.

Medium Low (4): Slow steady motion.Low (2): Frequent pauses in each work

cycle.Very Low (0): The worker’s hands are idle

most of the time.Reducing Repetitive Exertions

If MSDs exist and cannot be controlled byregulation of other factors, the repetitivenesscan be reduced through changes in work orga-nization. Although unpopular, work standardsor incentive systems may need to be changedto decrease the incidence and costs associatedwith MSDs.

Motion economy can be effectively usedto decrease the number of exertions each cycleby modifying work layout, changing the ar-rangement of tools and materials, or design-ing computer functions. Worker rotationamong jobs that entail exertions of differentmuscles or joints can reduce repetition. Workenlargement can be used by combining op-erations that use different motion tasks or pat-terns into a new job.

The quality of parts, materials, and main-tenance affects the number of movements. Forexample, additional motions are needed to trimedges of poorly molded parts. Therefore qualityparts and materials and an aggressive preven-tive maintenance program can decrease thenumber of exertions. Mechanical aids such aspower tools can reduce the frequency and timerequired to complete a job.Forceful Exertions

The forceful elements of a job can be identi-fied from the work methods analysis performedin the job documentation. Exertions are requiredto move, lift, lower, slide, or hold objects against

gravity or against reaction forces. In many cases,information about the tools and materials canbe used to estimate force requirements. For ex-ample, holding a 5 kg tool requires more forcethan a 2 kg tool. Similarly, tightening bolts to100 Newton-meters requires more force than to50. In addition moving an object requires moreeffort than reaching or grasping it.

Worker ratings of the force exerted, tooltorque, or tool weight can be used to assess force-ful exertions. Researchers used worker ratingsto determine the acceptable weights for tools inan automotive trim department. Tools ranged inmass from 0.5 kg to 7 kg. Nearly all of the toolswith a mass less than 1.5 kg were rated as “justright,” while nearly all tools with a mass greaterthan 2.25 kg were rated as “too heavy.”

Exertion forces sometimes can be directlymeasured by placing the work on a force gaugeor attaching force-sensitive materials to the workobject or hand. The instrumentation used formeasuring force may require expensive equip-ment and considerable expertise.

Electromyography (EMG) can be used tomeasure the electrical potentials produced bycontracting muscles. Electrodes are positionedover muscles used during work tasks. The forceexerted can be estimated by recording the EMGas the subject works.Reducing Force Requirements

Common sense dictates that if there hasbeen a problem with MSDs, the force require-ments should be minimized. The methods be-low can be used for reducing force requirements.

Friction enhancement entails increasingfriction to reduce the force needed to hold ob-jects or decreasing friction to make it easier toslide them through the hands. Surface treat-ments, such as covering an aluminum handlewith textured rubber will enhance its friction.In other cases, friction can be enhanced by us-ing gloves. Reducing the weight of a load maybe accomplished by picking up fewer objects ata time or by sliding objects rather than liftingthem. Picking up fewer objects should be bal-anced against the need for added movements thatmay increase repetitiveness.

Mechanical assists such as hoists and ar-ticulating arms can be used to support the weightof tools. These devices are particularly usefulwhen it’s not possible to change the tool or thenumber of parts handled. In fact, such devicescan make possible the use of larger tools andthe handling of more parts, while at the sametime decreasing force and repetitiveness. Articu-

Spring 2002

55555

By: Martha Yoder, ChiefGeneral Industry Safety Division

The work performed in nursing and personal care facilities is laborintensive and requires significant physical exertion.

NURSING AND PERSONAL CARE FACILITIES

MAKING WORKER SAFETY A PRIORITY

CET Services: Help is Available

A strategy of the MIOSHA Strategic Planis to focuses program resources toward specificindustries and types of accidents and illnesses.The plan identifies specific industries , inju-ries and illnesses for increased program atten-tion through Fiscal Year 2003. The goal is toreduce injury and illness rates in the targetedindustries by 15 percent.

Nursing and personal care facilities is oneof the industries identified in the strategic plan.This is an important industry in Michigan. Thework performed in these facilities is labor inten-sive and requires significant physical exertion. The1999 Michigan survey of occupational injuries andillnesses reports the total injury and illness caserate for the industry of 20.6. That means, for ev-ery 100 workers in nursing and personal care fa-cilities, nearly 21 are injured or become ill due towork-related exposures, compared to just under

eight people for Michigan as a whole.MIOSHA’s strategy for addressing hazards

in nursing and personal care facilities has beento focus on outreach efforts during the initialyears of the plan, followed by greater enforce-ment presence in subsequent years.

The General Industry Safety Division be-gan increased enforcement activity in this in-dustry in September 2001. Since that time, 36inspections have been completed, identifying205 violations, with initial proposed penaltiesof $63,750. Below are the most frequently iden-tified MIOSHA violations.Electrical Safety

Of the top 25 violations cited in nursing andpersonal care facilities, 10 are related to electri-cal safety issues. Electrical safety issues identi-

fied during inspections include the following:� Maintain a written copy of electrical lock-

out procedures which are available to employees.� Guard live parts of electrical equipment

operating at 50 volts or more against accidentalcontact due to conditions such as missing outletand switch plate covers.

� Grounds missing on plugs including cordand plug connected refrigerators, freezers, andair conditioners.

� Lack of a cover on unused opening incabinets, boxes and fittings.

� The inappropriate use of flexible cordsand cables as a substitute for the fixed wiringof a structure; where run through holes in walls,ceilings, or floors; run through doorways, win-dows, or similar openings; attached to buildingsurfaces; or where concealed behind buildingwalls, ceilings, or floors.

� Lack of training for exposed employeesin safety-related work practices.

� Reversed polarity.� Lack of covers for pull

boxes, junction boxes and fittings.Machine Guarding

Point of operation guard-ing was the number one ma-chine guarding concern identi-fied. Common issues includeguarding of food processingequipment such as meat slic-ers and mixers in kitchens; andsaws and bench grinders inmaintenance shops.

Unguarded belts and pulleysare the second machine guardingconcern. Exposures were identi-fied when guards or panels are re-moved from washers and dryers,

maintenance equipment, and air compressors.Lockout-Tagout

Equipment and machinery must be lockedout when employees are performing servicing ormaintenance work in which the unexpectedenergization or start up of the machines or equip-ment, or release of stored energy, could cause in-jury to employees. The provisions of lockout-tagoutapply when any of the following situations exist:

� An employee must either remove or by-pass machine guards or other safety devices, re-sulting in exposure to hazards at the point ofoperation;

� An employee is required to place any partof his or her body in contact with the point of op-eration or the machine or piece of equipment; or

� An employee is required to place any

part of his or her body into a danger zone asso-ciated with a machine operating cycle.

Lack of lockout procedures and periodicinspections were the most frequently identifiedlockout-tagout issues.Hazard Communication

The most frequently cited provision of theHazard Communication Standard is the require-ment for a written Right to Know program. Thesecond most frequently cited deficiency is a lackof the poster required to inform employeesabout the program.Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Lack of certification that a PPE assess-ment has been completed was the most fre-quently cited provision. The need for personalprotective equipment must be assessed by ana-lyzing the hazards of each type of job in thefacility. Employers must certify in writing thatthe assessment has been completed.Fire Exit

Another commonly identified deficiencywas the lack of signs to designate fire exists.Bloodborne Infectious Diseases (BIDS)

A number of provisions of the BIDS stan-dard have been cited during safety inspections.Most frequently has been the requirement foran exposure control plan.Ergonomic Issues

In addition to the above, ergonomic haz-ards must be a foremost concern for those in thenursing and personal care industry. Employersare encouraged to be proactive in their efforts toidentify, evaluate, and control risk factors asso-ciated with musculoskeletal disorders.

The Consultation Education and Training(CET) Division spearheaded an extensiveoutreach program for nursing and personalcare facilities in conjunction with MIOSHA’sStrategic Plan.

During fiscal year 2001, CET staff provided290 consultations to assist these facilitiesin hazard prevention, and conducted 115seminars and special programs for thesefacilities. The seminars covered such topicsas ergonomics, bloodborne infectiousdiseases, tuberculosis prevention, personalprotective equipment and other relatedsafety issues.

CET services are available to Michiganemployers at no cost. For furtherinformation, call 517.322.1809.

�

66666

�

By: Eric D. Zaban, Industrial HygienistOccupational Health Division

As part of their hearing conservation program, Dexter Fastener TechnologiesInc. encloses a cold header machine. Enclosures and other engineeringcontrols can produce significant reductions in sound exposure.

Hearing Loss: Identificationof STS, Now What?

We have all heard of the three R’s for avoid-ing excessive material waste: reduce, reuse, andrecycle. Now, we have the eight R’s of hearingloss prevention, as identified by Gayle S. Rink,RN, MS, COHN-S, in the fall 2001 edition ofthe newsletter of the Council for Accreditationin Occupational Hearing Conservation, CAOHCUpdate (1).

Hearing loss is one of the most commonoccupational illnesses. Some 30 million Ameri-cans are exposed to hazardous noise on the job.Studies have shown that quieter workplaces aremore productive and efficient, and they havelower injury rates than noisier work settings.

When employee sound exposures exceed90 dBA TWA8 (Eight-hour Time Weighted Av-erage), Rule 4 of Part 380 Occupational NoiseExposure requires implementing engineeringcontrols to reduce sound exposure. This is ac-complished via implementation of engineeringcontrols or job reassignment (i.e. administra-tive controls). When these efforts fail to reducesound exposure levels below 85 dBA TWA8, theemployer must administer a continuing effectivehearing conservation program. Of the noise rules,OSHA compliance industrial hygienists nation-wide cite violations for failure to implement ahearing conservation program most often.

In addition to sound exposure monitoring,rule posting, training, and hearing protectiondevice use, employers shall administer an au-diometric test program. Each employee’s annualaudiogram is compared to that employee’sbaseline audiogram to determine if a standard

threshold shift (STS) has occurred. The ruledefines an STS as a change in the hearing thresh-old relative to the baseline audiogram of an av-erage of 10 dBA or more at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz in either ear.

Employers have the option to retest em-ployees within 30 days from the identificationof an STS. This may be performed to verify arelative hearing loss or a medical etiology thatcaused the original test results. This also allowsmedical professionals advance notice of the needto provide preventive counseling for employeesdemonstrating temporary shifts. Refitting hear-ing protection devices is required for any em-ployee showing an STS. Where those employ-ees not previously using protection show STS,the use of hearing protection becomes a require-ment. When any employee shows an STS, re-training that employee on the use and care ofhearing protection is required by Rule 16.

When an employee shows an STS and addi-tional testing is needed or if the use of hearingprotection may be a contributing factor to medi-cal pathology of the ear, a referral for an audio-logical or otological exam is required. The Ameri-can Academy of Otolaryngology - Hand and NeckSurgery provides guidelines for medical problemswhich may require a referral, including persis-tent tinnitus, rapidly progressive hearing loss,feelings of fullness or discomfort, history of earpain, a foreign body in the ear canal, or cerumenaccumulation sufficient to completely obstruct theview of the tympanic membrane.

When an employee shows an STS, that em-ployee must be notified in writing within 21days. In Michigan, a 10 dBA shift (i.e. an STS)is to be recorded on the new OSHA Form 300

under the “all other ill-nesses” column. Effectivehearing loss preventionprograms are reviewedannually to identify andcorrect deficiencies. Forexample, administratorsshould scrutinize expo-sure and audiometric datato identify sound reduc-tion and employee reas-signment priorities.

The eight R’s ofhearing conservation are away to recall the basic re-quirements of the noiserules. Beyond regulatorycompliance, employersand employees share re-

sponsibility for maintaining a culture that pro-motes self-protective behaviors resulting in opti-mum hearing health.Strategic Plan Update - Reduction

in Noise-Induced Hearing LossOne of the goals in the MIOSHA Strategic

Plan is to reduce the number of noise-inducedhearing losses for employees in the state. TheOccupational Health Division (OHD) is con-ducting enforcement inspections where em-ployee noise exposures are considered to be themost prevalent.

On Aug. 14, 2000, Michigan OccupationalHealth Directive No. 00-2R established proce-dures for conducting local emphasis program-ming investigations to comply with MIOSHA’sStrategic Plan Performance Goal 1.1C. By fo-cusing resources on 26 standard industrial clas-sifications among logging/woodworking,foundry, and fabricated metal industries, a largenumber of employees exposed to excessive soundlevels benefit from enforcement, on-site consul-tation, and educational outreach programming.

During FY2000 and FY2001, the Occupa-tional Health Division performed 113 compli-ance investigations resulting in 217 violationsof the Occupational Noise Exposure rules. Dur-ing FY 1998, before Strategic Plan 1.1C wasimplemented, the division cited 78 noise viola-tions. In FY2001, after the plan had been imple-mented, the division cited 186 noise violation,an increase of 58 percent from FY1998.

Similarly, the Consultation Educationand Training (CET) Division has providednoise-related services. During FY 2001, CETConsultants performed 60 employer field con-sultations and 52 education and training pro-grams which included noise hazard topics. Bothcompliance and consultation activities continuethrough FY 2003.

The CET Division offers these noise-re-lated services: helping employers with noise ex-posure monitoring of their employees; assist-ing them in establishing a hearing conserva-tion program; offering some inexpensive meansof noise controls; and training employers andemployees in the effects of noise exposure. Tolearn more about the CET services, please call517.322.1809.

For a complete copy of the noise standards,contact the Standards Division at 517.322.1845,or visit the MIOSHA website at:www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr.

(1) Rink, Gayle S. “STS: Back to the Ba-sics” CAOHC Update 13.3(2001): 3-4.

Spring 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

This employee is performing correct lifting and body mechanic techniquesas part of the Hills & Dales Return-to-Work Program.

Hills & Dales General Hospital - Cass CityHills & Dales General Hospital was founded in 1960 to sup-

port, maintain and develop health services in Cass City and thesurrounding communities. Their mission is to serve these commu-nities honestly and responsibly in their total scope of health careneeds–ranging from community health education through compre-hensive patient care.

Health care is one indicator of the quality of life in any area.The growing diversity of health care systems includes a variety ofsettings, such as: hospital, long term care, home health, primarycare, specialty care, and rehabilitation. The American health caresystem is experiencing fundamental change–better informed pa-tients demand high quality care, advanced technology, with anemphasis on disease prevention and wellness.

Hills & Dales General Hospital is proud to respond to thehealth care needs of Cass City and the surrounding communities.Through integrated systems, they can assist patients in managingany health problems in a coordinated fashion. Their 275 employ-ees are committed to providing the highest quality patient care.Proactive Safety Approach

Healthcare professionals devote their careers to saving lives.Yet in caring for patients, they may place their own health at risk.Hills & Dales General Hospital recognizes the risks facinghealthcare workers and is dedicated to providing a work environ-ment that protects the safety and health of their workers.

Hills & Dales General Hospital believes in a proactive ap-proach to safety and does not hesitate to use experts to help achievetheir safety and health goals. Over the past three years, they havereduced their lost time incidents by 90 percent. Director of Nurs-ing Rosanne Prill emphasized, “Each incident is studied and ana-lyzed for prevention measures that can be taken.”

They have implemented several engineering controls to re-duce/eliminate needlesticks and back injuries, and provide con-tinual education and training for their staff. A key strategy in pre-venting back injuries is to give all employees a back in-serviceevaluation with the Rehabilitation Department upon hire, and an-nually thereafter. Employees who experience a back injury (at homeor work) are required to receive evaluation and education prior toreturning to work.

They have completed several ergonomic studies within the fa-cility to ensure that an ergonomically safe work environment is pro-vided for staff. A Return-to-Work Program has been developed and

implemented. Employees who cannot return to work in the sameposition, are placed on a job they can perform while on restrictions.

Hazard surveillances are completed on a quarterly bases byall departments, which heightens awareness within each depart-ment for situations that can lead to potential injury. “Education,training, and awareness are key to maintaining a safe work envi-ronment,” said Safety Director Sue Kappen.Team Effort

Chief Operating Officer Jean Anthony states, “Patient andemployee safety are at the top of our list. It takes a team effort todevelop the safest environment possible. Our team members workvery diligently to achieve this goal.”

CET Safety Consultant Dave Luptowski recommended Hills& Dales for this column. “You learn to recognize sincere concernfor health and safety issues as a safety consultant, and their staffwanted training to be able to handle their own problems,” saidLuptowski. “I have never seen more interest to try and learn aboutpotential hazards so problems could be averted.”

In an industry where back cases run four times that of theirgeneral industry counterparts, Hills and Dales has achieved a fan-tastic record. “If one word had to be used to sum up the success oftheir program, the word would be training.” Luptowski said.

88888

�

Shelby Township firefighters, in full protective ensemble, areresponding to a structure fire.

Fire Fighting Rule RevisionsMIOSHA Revised Part 74, Fire Fighting, Effective December 5, 2001

By: Deward Beeler, Region 3 SupervisorMichigan Fire Fighters Training CouncilMichigan State Police Fire Marshal DivisionLee Jay Kueppers, Safety ConsultantConsultation Education & Training Division

Firefighters work in environments whichplace them at a greater risk for on-the-job injuryor death. According to Michigan State Police sta-tistics, the Michigan fire service responds to morethan 50,000 fires annually including dwellings,commercial buildings, mobile properties, andother types of fires. In addition, fire departmentsvoluntarily responded to more than 300,000 non-fire incidents such as gas leaks and spills, downedpower lines, mutual aid, and other public services.During 1998, there were 630 reported injuries tofire personnel in the line of duty.

Michigan has a long and proud history ofrecognizing the dangers faced by firefighters.MIOSHA revised Part 74, Fire Fighting, effec-tive December 5, 2001. It was revised to keeppace with the latest national consensus practicesand technological advances in equipment. Since1977, this standard has been unique in its scope:All publicly employed municipal firefighters arecovered, be they full-time, part-time or volun-teer. Federal OSHA has no such rule.

This article provides a summary of the sig-nificant changes to Part 74. A complete copy of thestandard is available at: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/std. In January, the Standards Div-ision mailed a copy to 1,500 Michigan fire stations.Air Quality

Rule 7415, Fire Station Safety, revisionsrequire all sleeping quarters to be equipped witha carbon monoxide detection device, as well as

the previously required smoke detector. It alsorequires that all new construction or significantlyremodeled facilities (50 percent or more area)that house fire apparatus shall install a controlledprocess exhaust ventilation system that will ef-fectively control exhaust emissions, and will as-sure that employee exposures do not exceed ap-plicable MIOSHA exposure limits. This rule iseffective 18 months after December 5, 2001.Personal Protective Equipment

Under Rule 7433, hoods are now mandatedfor all Michigan firefighters who are engagedin, or are exposed to, fire hazards of emergencyoperations. The hoods must meet the provisionsof National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)1971: Standard on “Protective Ensemble forStructural Fire Fighting,” 2000 Edition. Previ-ous to this edition, hoods were not required, al-

though they were com-monly supplied by manyfire departments.

Under Rule 7432, anemployer must provideprotective coats and trou-sers, or a protective cov-erall to all employees whoengage in, or are exposedto, fire hazards of emer-gency operations. Rule7433 requires fire depart-ments to provide primaryhead, face and eye protec-tion appropriate for a spe-cific hazard to all employ-ees exposed, or poten-tially exposed. The pro-

tection equipment must meet the requirements of NFPA 1971.

Fire departments must assess potential emer-gency operation scenes to determine what haz-ards are present, or likely to be present, and matchthe protective device to the hazard. An employershall have and implement written operational pro-cedures specific to the type of hazard.

Head, face, and eye protection must bemaintained in a state of readiness for immediateresponse to structure fires or other emergencies.Municipal employees engaged in structural firefighting must be issued, and must use, helmetface shields or the breathing apparatus facepiecewith helmets. This does not mean a fire depart-ment must purchase new helmets, helmets com-pliant with previous editions of the standard andin good condition are acceptable.

Rule 7431 revisions provide that fire de-

partments must implement procedures for in-specting and servicing personal protective equip-ment, particularly following fires or emergencyusage. The procedures employed for servicing,such as product washing or other cleaning, mustcomply with the manufacturer’s recommenda-tions. In addition, Rule 7431 requires that therebe a procedure to determine whether a piece ofprotective equipment should be repaired or re-placed, with needed repairs made in compliancewith the manufacturer’s recommendations.Personal Alert Safety System (PASS)

Rule 7440 requires fire departments to pro-vide and enforce the use of a PASS system when-ever a firefighter is using a self-contained breath-ing apparatus while engaged in structural firefighting operations. These alert systems can savelives and prevent injury to firefighters by sum-moning help when they are in trouble. Accord-ing to many sources, PASS systems are alreadyused across the state. Now they are mandatedby Michigan’s worker protection rules.Equipment

Rule 7423, Fire Apparatus with ElevatingPlatforms, and 7424, Aerial Apparatus, revisionsfurther clarify safety guidelines in the safe op-eration of these pieces of equipment.

Rule 7442 now requires that chain sawsshall be used that are specifically designed forfire fighting operations to cut holes in roofs,floors, and walls. Rule 7463 now requires thatall life safety rope systems comply with the mostcurrent NFPA standard, being NFPA 1983, the1995 edition. Specific inspection provisions aremandated for synthetic ropes.Written Emergency Operation Procedures

Rule 7451 better clarifies what must be inwritten procedures for emergency operations,which must include provisions for an incidentcommander and a nationally recognized incidentmanagement system.

Please keep in mind, the above article sum-marizes the revisions to Part 74, but does notdiscuss the entire document. It is each munici-pal fire department’s responsibility to be in com-pliance with the entire rule, as well as otherMIOSHA rules such as Firefighter Right-To-Know.Help Available

Consultation Education and Training Di-vision consultants are available to provide train-ing related to Part 74, and can be contacted at517.322.1809. Questions regarding interpretationof the rules should be addressed to the GeneralIndustry Safety Division at 517.322.1831.

Spring 2002

99999

�

MIOSHA Staff Help Protect Workers atthe World Trade Center

Paul Paul Paul Paul Paul AikAikAikAikAikenenenenenTTTTTononononony y y y y Allam*Allam*Allam*Allam*Allam*

JJJJJohn Brohn Brohn Brohn Brohn BrennanennanennanennanennanJJJJJohn Byrneohn Byrneohn Byrneohn Byrneohn Byrne

TTTTTononononony Casaletta*y Casaletta*y Casaletta*y Casaletta*y Casaletta*Elaine ClaElaine ClaElaine ClaElaine ClaElaine Clapppppppppp

Sharman CrSharman CrSharman CrSharman CrSharman Cross*oss*oss*oss*oss*DaDaDaDaDavvvvve Fe Fe Fe Fe Fogle*ogle*ogle*ogle*ogle*Don GibsonDon GibsonDon GibsonDon GibsonDon Gibson

RicharRicharRicharRicharRichard Grafmillerd Grafmillerd Grafmillerd Grafmillerd GrafmillerRuth HindmanRuth HindmanRuth HindmanRuth HindmanRuth HindmanJJJJJohn Hodgson*ohn Hodgson*ohn Hodgson*ohn Hodgson*ohn Hodgson*

Chad IgnatoChad IgnatoChad IgnatoChad IgnatoChad IgnatowskiwskiwskiwskiwskiLee JaLee JaLee JaLee JaLee Jay Ky Ky Ky Ky Kueppersueppersueppersueppersueppers

DDDDDW JW JW JW JW Johnsonohnsonohnsonohnsonohnson

MIOSHA WTC VolunteersKKKKKeith Langweith Langweith Langweith Langweith Langworororororthththththy*y*y*y*y*

Linda LongLinda LongLinda LongLinda LongLinda LongWilliam LWilliam LWilliam LWilliam LWilliam Lykykykykykeseseseses

MattheMattheMattheMattheMatthew Macomberw Macomberw Macomberw Macomberw MacomberPatricia MePatricia MePatricia MePatricia MePatricia MeyyyyyerererererSundari MurSundari MurSundari MurSundari MurSundari Murthththththyyyyy

Gerald NorGerald NorGerald NorGerald NorGerald Noronha*onha*onha*onha*onha*Bob PaBob PaBob PaBob PaBob Pawlowlowlowlowlowski*wski*wski*wski*wski*

James PikJames PikJames PikJames PikJames PikeeeeeCindy PCindy PCindy PCindy PCindy Politoolitoolitoolitoolitowiczwiczwiczwiczwicz

BarBarBarBarBarrrrrr y Simmonds*y Simmonds*y Simmonds*y Simmonds*y Simmonds*Patrick SullivanPatrick SullivanPatrick SullivanPatrick SullivanPatrick SullivanJJJJJenelle enelle enelle enelle enelle ThelenThelenThelenThelenThelenJames ZoccoliJames ZoccoliJames ZoccoliJames ZoccoliJames Zoccoli

*January 28 - February 1Tony Allam at the OSHA OperationsTrailer at the World Trade Center.

On Jan. 27th, nine MIOSHA safety and healthprofessionals reported for work in New York Cityas part of the around-the-clock effort to ensurethe safety and health of workers involved in theWorld Trade Center recovery effort.

“The World Trade Center is one of the mostdangerous worksites in America,” said CIS Di-rector Kathy Wilbur. “We are proud to sendour MIOSHA professionals to help ensure thesafety and health of the heroic men and womenwho are tirelessly working in the recovery op-eration at Ground Zero.”

Since the September 11 terrorist attack,OSHA has worked at the World Trade Centersite 24 hours a day, seven days a week to helpprotect workers involved in recovery, demolitionand site clearing operations. More than 1,000federal and state OSHA staffers from through-out the United States have assisted in the pro-tection efforts. As of November, OSHA has re-corded nearly 5,000 injuries and 40 near missesduring recovery efforts.

To date, a total of 29 MIOSHA staff haveworked at the recovery efforts. MIOSHA volun-teers represented four divisions: OccupationalHealth, Consultation Education & Training, Gen-eral Industry Safety, and Construction Safety. Thevolunteers were paired with OSHA representatives.

From the Pit:January 28 - February 1, 2002This is a report from the first group of nine

volunteers.The site at that time appeared to be a large

pit (70 feet deep in some areas) surrounded by

the slurry wall. Weheard several indi-viduals refer to it asa “giant bath tub.”The cleanup was re-ported to be some-where in the range of70 to 80 percentcomplete. Therewere no fires, how-ever it was reportedthat “hot spots” werestill being uncoveredby the grapplers, in-dicated by clouds ofwater vapor. Therewere some reports ofhuman remains be-ing discovered.

The perimeterof the site continuesto shrink, which creates some interesting prob-lems where the general public mixes with workefforts. Workers uncovered an ammunition(ammo) vault containing one million rounds ofammo and weapons. A few bullets went offwhen struck by heavy construction equipment.Fit-testers saw an influx of customs officers whoneeded respiratory protection so they could gointo the pit and take custody of any ammo orweapons that were found.

Seven MIOSHA staff were assigned to per-form respirator fit testing and Personal Protec-tive Equipment (PPE) assessment at the OSHA

operations trailer; one worked with the indus-trial hygiene crews performing air sampling; andone worked with crews performing safety walks.The volunteers for the most part worked 2nd and3rd shifts.

The number of individuals needing fit test-ing on the 2nd and 3rd shifts was limited, how-ever there was not a lack of workers cominginto the trailer in need of replacement cartridgesand other PPE. This gave staff an opportunityto do some informal training regarding clean-ing, care, fit-checking and use of respirators,and to encourage workers to use their respira-tors. There was an opportunity to answer manyquestions as to what types of air contaminantsworkers may be exposed to and the potentialeffects of such exposure.

The experience at ground zero was incred-ible to say the least. Some of the most memo-rable experiences were meeting real life heroesof that tragic day: NYC firemen and police of-ficers. Their firsthand accounts of the event wereastonishing.

Hearing how they selflessly risked theirlives to do their jobs and save not only civilians,but their own, invoked a range of emotions toodifficult to describe. Seeing reports on televi-sion over 600 miles away does not compare tobeing there in person. Everyone who went to thesite left a little something there, but brought backa lot more.

As a group, the MIOSHA volunteers areincredibly thankful for the opportunity to pro-vide services to those working there.

The first MIOSHA crew at the World Trade Center: (Standing) KeithLangworthy, John Hodgson, Gerald Noronha, Tony Casaletta, BobPawlowski, (Kneeling) Dave Fogle, Sharman Cross, and BarrySimmonds.

1010101010

�

Companies representing high-hazard industries are encouraged to apply forthe MSHARP Certificate.

By: Chris Passamani, C.I.H., Health ConsultantConsultation Education & Training Division

MSHARP: MIOSHA’sNewest Voluntary Program

MIOSHA is launching a new voluntary pro-gram, MSHARP, Michigan Safety and HealthAchievement Recognition Program. This pro-gram is designed to provide incentives and sup-port to smaller, high-hazard employers to de-velop, implement and continuously improve ef-fective safety and health programs at theirworksites.

MSHARP is a cooperative program be-tween business and government that recognizesMichigan employers and employees committedto creating a workplace culture that makes safetytheir top priority. MSHARP provides an incen-tive to employers to emphasize accident and ill-ness prevention–by anticipating problems, notreacting to them.

Workplace safety and health is a long-termendeavor. It requires daily diligence and ongo-ing commitment. The backbone of MSHARP isthe establishment of a safety and health man-agement system. Researchers have found thatcompanies can reduce injuries 20 to 40 percentwith an effective safety and health program–sav-ing 4 to 6 dollars for every dollar invested.

Education and training is one of the foun-dations of the MIOSHA program. One of themore popular ideas in recent regulatory historyhas been the ability for employers to invite aMIOSHA consultant into their worksite to ad-dress specific safety and/or health concerns with-out the threat of citations or fines.

The Onsite Consultation Program withinthe Consultation Education & Training (CET)Division will operate MSHARP. Onsite consult-ants will help employers identify the strengthsand weaknesses of their occupational safety andhealth management system. Employers electingto pursue MSHARP must be committed to de-veloping a safety and health management sys-tem that involves employees in significant ways.

Many people are familiar with anotherMIOSHA recognition program called the Michi-gan Voluntary Protection Programs (MVPP). Onlythe “best of the best” can qualify for the MVPPStar award. The newly developed MSHARP guide-lines are similar to MVPP, but the goals are moreachievable for companies with moderately effec-tive safety and health programs. This new programcan be used as a bridge for companies to transformtheir effective safety and health programs into ex-emplary programs and may be viewed as a step-ping-stone for entry into the MVPP.

Eligibility� Designed to assist the small employer,

eligibility is limited to employers having lessthan 250 employees at the worksite.

� Applicant companies must be on theMIOSHA list of high-hazard industries, or be apart of Michigan’s Strategic Plan focus. Thisgives greatest attention to industries with a pre-vious history of elevated lost-time injuries. Thesecharacteristics allow the MIOSHA program totarget resources where they are most needed.

� The company must have injury and ill-ness rates below the Michigan average in theirStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) codeover the last year.

� The company must be a single, fixedworksite.Recognition Requirements

Once eligibility criteria have been met, thecompany must agree to the following:

� Allow a comprehensive safety and healthsurvey of the worksite.

� Work with MIOSHA onsite consultantsto correct any hazards identified in the survey.

� Develop and implement a comprehen-sive safety and health management system.

� Involve employees in the development,implementation and operation of their safety andhealth program.

� Maintain their injury and illness ratesbelow the Michigan average in their industry.

� Achieve a score of two out of a possiblethree on the required MIOSHA Safety andHealth Program Assessment Tool, Form 33.

� Inform MIOSHAprior to making signifi-cant work process changesthat might introduce newhazards into the work-place.

� Conduct annualself-evaluations and sub-mit the MIOSHA 300 logfor review.

MSHARP is a pro-cess designed to identifythe strengths and weak-nesses of an employer’soccupational safety andhealth management sys-tem. The process startswith a request from theemployer and completionof the application process.The application initiates a

comprehensive consultation including an initialassessment, followed by a report with recom-mendations.

The process includes one or more actionplan meetings between the employer and theonsite consultant to identify and begin imple-mentation of objectives designed to meet the goalof achieving MSHARP certification. MIOSHAonsite consultants will continue to coach appli-cant companies as long as there is commitmentto correcting hazards and improving the safetyand health program.

When all requirements have been satisfiedthe company will be issued an MSHARP Cer-tificate of Achievement, as well as a 12-monthexemption from MIOSHA “programmed inspec-tions.” Other types of inspections, such as thosebased on formal employee complaints, imminentdanger, referrals, fatality investigations, etc. arenot preempted by participation in MSHARP.

MSHARP recognition is granted in 12-month increments and is limited to three years.To continue in the program, employers mustapply for renewal to the CET Onsite Consulta-tion Program. Because the employer should bemaking progress toward self sufficiency, it isexpected that the employer will take more ofthe responsibility for activities associated withtheir continued improvement and MIOSHA’sinvolvement will be limited.

If your company is interested, please con-tact the CET Onsite Consultation Program at517.322.1809 to discuss details and to schedulean onsite safety and health survey.

Spring 2002

1111111111

WAGE & HOUR

N E W S

Wage & Hour Division517.322.1825

www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/wh/home.htm�

Wage & Hour DivisionMoves to the new Bureau of Workers’

and Unemployment CompensationOn February 7, 2002, Governor John Engler signed Execu-

tive Order 2002-1 creating the Bureau of Workers’ and Unem-ployment Compensation within the Department of Consumer andIndustry Services (CIS).

The executive order combines the Unemployment Agencyand the Bureau of Workers Compensation (also known as theBureau of Worker’s Disability Compensation) in the new agency.Also moved into this agency is the Wage and Hour Division.The executive order combines functions with a similar purposeinto a single agency. Worker’s compensation and unemploymentassistance benefits exist to replace wages lost by workers. TheWage and Hour Division collects wages and fringe benefits owedto workers.

“Merging these functions into a single agency will help fa-cilitate data sharing, and Michigan workers will benefit by havinga single place to go for answers to compensation questions,” saidGovernor Engler.

The mission of the Wage and Hour Division is to providepublic service through the fair, effective, and efficient administra-tion of laws which protect the wages and fringe benefits ofMichigan’s workers and provide for the safe and legal employ-ment of minors.

Bill Strong will continue as Director of the Wage & HourDivision. “The Wage & Hour Division has worked diligently overthe past couple of years to improve services to our customers. Wehave eliminated our case backlog and streamlined services to getMichigan workers the wages and fringe benefits that are owed tothem faster,” said Strong. “Our division is excited about thesechanges and views them as an opportunity to continue to search foreven more ways to improve overall customer service.”

The administration and enforcement of wage protection lawsin Michigan (the Minimum Wage Act, the Payment of Wagesand Fringe Benefits Act, the Youth Employment Standards Actand the Prevailing Wages on State Projects Act) is the role of theWage and Hour Division. The division investigates complaintsalleging non-payment of wages and fringe benefits, state mini-mum wage, overtime, equal pay, and prevailing wage disputes;and monitors youth employment standards including hours ofwork, and safe, non-hazardous working conditions. The Wageand Hour Division also educates employers and employees in theareas covered by these labor standards.

All phone numbers for the Wage & Hour Division will re-main the same, including the general information number517.322.1825.

The Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs (MVPP) is a rec-ognition program designed to evaluate and recognize companies that haveexemplary safety and health management systems. In addition to theiroutstanding safety and health management systems, their injury and ill-ness data must be lower than the Michigan industry average for theirstandard industrial classification (SIC) code for the last three years.

The highest level of achievement is the Michigan Star award. Todate in Michigan only five companies have met this stringent criteria:International Paper, Kalamazoo Container Plant; Tenneco Automotive,Grass Lake Engineering Center; TRW Chassis Systems, Fenton Plant;International Paper, Quinnesec Mill; and West Michigan Air Care,Kalamazoo. These companies have partnered with MIOSHA to pursuecontinuous improvement with their safety and health performance whilemaintaining their incidence rates below the industry average. These sitesalso mentor other establishments in their pursuit of MVPP participation.

The MVPP has recently initiated four significant changes to the pro-gram. First, the previously known Merit program has been renamed theRising Star program. Applicants can now apply directly for either theMichigan Star or the Rising Star program.

Second, the criteria for the Rising Star program consist of havinginjury and illness incidence data at or below the industry average for twoout of the last three years. In addition to the data requirements, RisingStar candidates must have a very good safety and health managementsystem in place at their facility.

Third, exemption from program inspections will now be granted forRising Star sites, as well as Michigan Star sites. However, MIOSHAwill continue to investigate safety and health complaints, all fatalitiesand catastrophes, and significant accidents and chemical spills or leaks.

Fourth, a major change to encourage the small employer to strivefor participation in the MVPP is the “small employer adjustment.” Thisadjustment is designed for smaller worksites with limited numbers ofemployees and/or employee hours worked.

For both Michigan Star and Rising Star programs the safety andhealth management system must be in place for at least one year andcontain the following basic elements:

� Management Commitment to safety and health as evidenced byresource allocation, accountability and visibility.

� Employee Involvement through joint problem solving, participa-tion on committees, and input into policies and procedures.

� Worksite Analysis to ensure potential safety and health hazardsare identified and tracked.

� Hazard Prevention and Control through engineering controls,administrative controls, safe work practices and personal protective equip-ment.

� Safety and Health Training to ensure that all employees under-stand the potential hazards to which they may be exposed and how toprevent harm to themselves and others.

Prospective applicants can obtain the MVPP Informational Kitthat includes: Application Guidelines, SIC code averages for Michiganand the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MVPP Brochure, Requirements Check-list, Summary of “Assurances” employers must agree to if they becomean MVPP site, List of current MVPP sites for mentoring.

Kits are available for order through the Consultation Education &Training (CET) office at 517.322.1809.

MVPP ProgramChanges

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

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.....

Fernco Inc. - Davison Plant

Fernco Davison Safety Committee members Karen Gaboury TuniWilson, Roger Redmond (Safety Director), and Bill Gifford; withCIS Deputy Director Kalmin Smith and CET Consultant Lee JayKueppers. (Not pictured: Sally Pence and Debby Turnbull.)

Gary Sayle, Randy Rubley, Larry L. Parkinson, Joe Hudson, JesseHamlin, John Rubley, Quenten Yoder (CET Safety Consultant),Doug Davis, and Jeff Reynolds. (Not pictured: Chris VanEtten,Jose Guerra, Jose Camacho, Brian Reynolds, and Sean Reynolds.)

Interamerican Zinc, Inc. - Coldwater Plant

Eric Neer, Director of Operations, and Ron Roman, HumanResources Manager, Brass Craft Manufacturing Co., with CETSafety Consultant Suellen Cook.

Brass Craft Manufacturing - Brownstown PlantBrass Craft Manufacturing Company’s Brownstown Plant received the CET Sil-

ver Award for an outstanding safety and health record on Jan. 30. The CET SilverAward recognizes one year without a lost time accident.

CET Safety Consultant Suellen Cook presented the award to Eric Neer, Directorof Operations, and Ron Roman, Human Resources Manager. In 1997 they had 22 re-cordable incidents–in 2001 they did not have one.

“It certainly is great to be recognized by MIOSHA for our safety achievements.The fact that we have no one getting injured at work is even more rewarding. We willcontinue to make the safety of our employees our number one goal.” said Neer.

On Jan. 31st, the plant celebrated 480 days without a recordable accident with aluncheon for all employees. The company considers the cost of the luncheon, $5.00 perperson, a very small price to pay for employee safety.

Brass Craft Manufacturing Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Masco. Theyoffer more than 7,000 products for the professional and do-it-yourself plumber. TheBrownstown plant has 175 workers on three shifts.

On Feb. 25th, the Interamerican Zinc, Inc. (IZI) Coldwater Plant received theCET Gold Award for an outstanding safety and health record. The CET GoldAward recognizes two years without a lost time accident.

CET Safety Consultant Quenten Yoder presented the award to Larry L.Parkinson, Vice President & General Manager, and IZI employees.

“The IZI employees and facility are very proud to receive this award, as itrepresents each employee’s dedication to maintaining an accident free work facil-ity,” said Parkinson.

With 13 workers, IZI recycles galvanizing dross, a by-product of continuoussteel galvanizing plants, to recover and purify the zinc contained in dross. Thepurified zinc metal is returned to the galvanizing plants to be reused to galvanizesteel for the automotive, appliance, and construction industries.

Interamerican Zinc is a wholly owned subsidiary of IMCO Recycling, Inc.,the world’s largest recycler of both aluminum and zinc. IMCO Recycling is dedi-cated to preserving the environment and protecting the health and safety of theirworkers.

On March 11th, the Fernco Inc. Davison Plant received the CET Ergonomic In-novation Award, which is issued to employers for innovative ideas that have beenimplemented to reduce worker strain.

CIS Deputy Director Kalmin Smith presented the award to the Fernco DavisonSafety Committee: Roger Redmond (Safety Director), Tuni Wilson, Bill Gifford,and Karen Gaboury.

“All of the projects and changes that the Safety Committee has developed wouldnot have been possible without the Cooper family’s commitment to provide the safestwork environment for their employees,” said Redmond.

The Davison plant has redesigned their manufacturing area and implemented morethan 10 major ergonomic improvements. They employ 150 workers on three shifts andproduce PVC couplings for plumbing connections.

Darrell Cooper formed Fernco Inc. in 1979. Today Fernco Inc. has facilities in theU.S., Canada, and Europe and is the largest manufacturer and distributor of flexiblePVC couplings for waste, sewer and vent applications. Their PlumbQwik product linesupplies the growing retail “do-it-yourself” home center/hardware market.

Spring 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

May13 Safety Solutions for Nursing Homes & Long-Term Care Facilities Bob Carrier

Harrison Karen Jesse 989.386.662914 What Did You Say? Checking Your Hearing Conservation Program Janet Fekete

Lansing Safety Council 517.394.461414, 15, 16 Safety & Health Administrator Course Jerry Medler

Cadillac Cindy Swiler 231.775.245816 Half-Day MIOSHA Recordkeeping Log 300 Workshop Dave Luptowski

Saginaw Bill Lechel 989.755.575116 What Did You Say? Checking Your Hearing Conservation Program Janet Fekete

Grand Rapids Safety Council 866.423.723321 Bloodborne Infectious Diseases Jenelle Thelen

Midland G.L. Safety Center 800.675.759921, 22, 23 Safety & Health Administrator Course Dave Luptowski

Saginaw Bill Lechel 989.755.575122 What Did You Say? Checking Your Hearing Conservation Program Janet Fekete

Southfield Ed Ratzenberger 248.557.128122 Safety & Health for Nursing Homes & Health Care Facilities Dan Maki

Houghton Philip Musser 906.482.681723 Industrial Accident Prevention & Machine Guarding Dan Maki

Menominee Tiffany Sislo 906.863.2679June3 When MIOSHA Visits Rob Stacy

Allendale Brian Cole 800.690.03143, 4, 5 Safety & Health Admn. Course for Educ. Institutions & Municipalities Richard Zdeb

Waterford Kathryn Wallace 248.618.74564 MIOSHA Update for the Food Processing Industry Linda Long

Westland Toni Herron 734.427.52004 Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs Workshop Dave Luptowski

Auburn Hills Cindy Mickey 248.232.45805 Industrial Ergonomics Doug Kimmel

Gaylord Shelly Hyatt 231.546.726411 Supervisor’s Role In Safety & Health in the Construction Industry Dave Luptowski

Midland G. L. Safety Center 800.675.759912, 19, 26 Safety & Health Administrator Course for Educational Services Jennifer Clark-Denson

Southfield Ed Ratzenberger 248.557.701017 When MIOSHA Visits Suellen Cook

Livonia Schoolcraft College 734.462.444819 Powered Industrial Truck Train-the-Trainer Port Huron

Bernard Sznaider Terri Johns 810.985.186926 Industrial Ergonomics Jerry Medler

Cadillac Cindy Swiler 231.775.245826 Tree Trimming & Power Lines Rob Stacy

Grand Rapids W.M.S.C. 800.704.7676

1414141414

Construction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafetyetyetyetyetyStandarStandarStandarStandarStandards Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborMr. Carl Davis**

Mr. Daniel CorbatMr. Andrew LangMr. Martin RossManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement

Mr. Peter Strazdas*Mr. Charles GatecliffMr. Thomas HansenMs. Cheryl HughesPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberMr. Kris Mattila

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

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborMr. Michael D. Koehs*

Mr. James BakerMr. Tycho Fredericks

Mr. John PettingaManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement

Mr. Timothy J. Koury**Mr. Michael L. Eckert

Mr. Thomas PytlikMr. George A. Reamer

Public MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberPublic MemberMs. Geri Johnson

Occupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthOccupational HealthStandarStandarStandarStandarStandards Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commissionds Commission

LaborLaborLaborLaborLaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung

Ms. Cynthia HollandCapt. Michael McCabeMs. Margaret Vissman

ManagementManagementManagementManagementManagementMr. 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 ChairTo contact Connie Munschy, Chief of the Standards Division, or any of the Commissioners,please call the Standards Division Office at 517.322.1845.

Standards UpdateProtecting Firefighters in Michigan

For 25 years, Michigan has been a leader in firefighter protection through the unique Gen-eral Industry Standard Part 74 - Fire Fighting. Unlike federal OSHA, we cover public employ-ees and Part 74 in particular covers municipal firefighters. This standard applies to full-timeand part-time volunteer firefighters who serve our cities, townships and small rural villagesacross our state. As of this year, there are more than 31,000 firefighting public servants workingat nearly 1500 fire stations.

All of these firefighters will benefit form the service of 12 of their colleagues who workeddiligently on the Part 74 Advisory Committee to improve and revise Part 74, to make sure thisstandard reflects current national firefighting guidelines. These revisions are effective December15, 2001. See Page 8 for an article by two advisory committee members on the amendment details.

With firefighter safety as their ultimate goal, the Part 74 Advisory Committee began with thevision to craft a balanced set of revisions which would enable the standard to continue to protectMichigan’s firefighters. The advisory committee started in 1999, and met monthly, logging inmore than 60 hours of meeting time. Some individuals traveled over 900 miles (Round trip) tofaithfully attend each meeting. The committee solicited and received input on the revisions. Theyalso digested volumes of material on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements.They conscientiously attended meeting, debated options and reached a consensus on the issues.

After being unanimously approved by the advisory committee, the draft was sent to theGeneral Industry Standards Commission, and a regulatory and economic impact statement wasprepared. Public Hearings were conducted in St. Ignace and Lansing, giving all concerned theopportunity to speak to the amendments or submit written testimony. Upon final approval by thecommission, the document proceeded through the promulgation process and received formalcertification from the Office of Regulatory Reform.

The Standards Division, the complete MIOSHA program, and Michigan citizens at largeshould thank these firefighting professionals for their participation in this process and theircommitment to protecting the workers who put themselves at risk to fight fires and respond toemergency incidents.

The mission of every MIOSHA advisory committees is to write rules that are clear, and speakto the provision of a safe and healthy work environment. The most common request of standardusers are that referenced materials be updated or included, for ready availability to the user.

ReprReprReprReprRepresenting Laboresenting Laboresenting Laboresenting Laboresenting Labor :::::James DaJames DaJames DaJames DaJames DavisonvisonvisonvisonvisonMichigan State Utility Workers CouncilAFL-CIOPaul HufnagelPaul HufnagelPaul HufnagelPaul HufnagelPaul HufnagelMichigan Professional Fire Fighters UnionJames RoseJames RoseJames RoseJames RoseJames RoseInternational Paper Company &Michigan State Firemen’s AssociationFrank Frank Frank Frank Frank TTTTTriggerriggerriggerriggerriggerMichigan Professional Fire Fighters Union

ReprReprReprReprRepresenting Management:esenting Management:esenting Management:esenting Management:esenting Management:Dennis Dennis Dennis Dennis Dennis AndrAndrAndrAndrAndreeeeewwwwwCity of Rochester HillsDeDeDeDeDewarwarwarwarward Beelerd Beelerd Beelerd Beelerd Beeler, MFFTCMichigan State Police Fire Marshal DivisionRicharRicharRicharRicharRichard Pd Pd Pd Pd PooooowwwwwellellellellellSaginaw Township &Southeast Michigan Fire Chiefs AssociationGeorge Simmons,George Simmons,George Simmons,George Simmons,George Simmons, Jr Jr Jr Jr Jr.....Department of Labor and Industrial RelationsMichigan State University

MIOSHA Part 74 Advisory CommitteeTTTTTechnical echnical echnical echnical echnical AdvisorAdvisorAdvisorAdvisorAdvisor:::::RicharRicharRicharRicharRichard Mahaned Mahaned Mahaned Mahaned MahaneyyyyyFire Control ServicesJackson, MI

Public Public Public Public Public AdvisorAdvisorAdvisorAdvisorAdvisor:::::FrFrFrFrFredrick Mulleredrick Mulleredrick Mulleredrick Mulleredrick Muller (deceased)Grand Traverse Fire Department &Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs

MIOSHA Staf fMIOSHA Staf fMIOSHA Staf fMIOSHA Staf fMIOSHA Staf fEva HattEva HattEva HattEva HattEva Hatt, Assistant ChiefGeneral Industry Safety DivisionConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie MunschConnie Munschyyyyy, ChiefStandards DivisionRuth Hindman,Ruth Hindman,Ruth Hindman,Ruth Hindman,Ruth Hindman, SupervisorGeneral Industry Safety DivisionMarsha ParMarsha ParMarsha ParMarsha ParMarsha Parrrrrrott-Boott-Boott-Boott-Boott-Boyleyleyleyleyle, Standards SpecialistStandards DivisionLee JaLee JaLee JaLee JaLee Jay Ky Ky Ky Ky Kueppersueppersueppersueppersueppers, Safety ConsultantConsultation Education & Training DivisionBill DeLiefdeBill DeLiefdeBill DeLiefdeBill DeLiefdeBill DeLiefde, SupervisorOccupational Health Division

Spring 2002

1515151515

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers ..................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 18. Overhead and Gantry Cranes ................................................................. Formal certification by ORRPart 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 reviewPart 74. Fire Fighting/Amendment #2 ................................................................... Final, effective 12/5/01

ConstructionPart 01. General Rules ............................................................................................ RFR approved by ORRPart 07. Welding & Cutting .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 08. Handling & Storage of Materials ............................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 14. Tunnels, Shafts, Cofferdams & Caissons ................................................ Draft to Commission for reviewPart 18. Fire Protection & Prevention ................................................................... Formal rules submittedPart 25. Concrete Construction .............................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 26. Steel and Precast Erection ....................................................................... Informal approval by LSBPart 30. Telecommunications .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewAd Hoc Communication Tower Erection .............................................................. Approved by Commission for review

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Benzene ........................................................................................................................ Corrected error, effective 1/23/02Bloodborne Infectious Diseases .................................................................................. Final, effective 10/18/01Carcinogens R 2301-2302 ........................................................................................... RFR approved by ORRForging Machines R 3210 ........................................................................................... Rescinded due to duplicationGrinding, Polishing & Buffing ................................................................................... RFR submittedNon-ionizing Radiation R 2420 .................................................................................. RFR approved by ORRPowered 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 ........................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewIllumination for Construction R 6605 ....................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewMedical Services & First Aid for Construction R 6610 .......................................... Rescinded due to duplication

Administrative RulesPart 11. Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses .......... Final, effective 1/2/02

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of March 18, 2002)

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

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

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 April 19, 2002

Variances Granted Construction

�

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 8 - Material Handling - Rule R408.40833,Rule 833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steelmembers under controlled conditions and withstipulations.Name and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedTelegraph Storage Facility, SouthfieldGalyan’s Sporting Goods, OkemosName and address of employerAssemblers, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedU of M Commons Building, Ann ArborName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedKellogg Company, Battle CreekWilliam Beaumont Hospital, Royal OakName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedHeilmann Middle School, DetroitNew Saline High School, SalineName and address of employerPioneer Inc.Location for which variance is requestedSpectrum Health, Grand RapidsName and address of employerRedinger Steel Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedRochester College Library, Rochester HillsName 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 U, University CenterName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedMichigan Ethanol LLC, Caro

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 14 - Tunnels, Shafts, Caissons and Coffer-dams - R408.41482, Rule 1482(9)

Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employees to remain in the caisson undercontrolled conditions when material is being hoistedfrom the caisson and according to certain stipulations.Name and address of employerToledo Caisson CorporationLocation for which variance is requestedDetroit Edison Monroe Power Plans, Monroe

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms - RuleR408.43209, Rule 3209 (6)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to distribute the load outsidethe work platform of an aerial lift by use of amanufactured pick using certain stipulations.Name and address of employerCRW Masonry, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedCentral Avenue Office Development, HollandPart and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms - RuleR408.43209, Rule 3209 (8)(b) and R408.43209,Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plankto the top of the intermediate rail of the guardrailsystem of an aerial lift for limited use as a work plat-form provided certain 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 Center - VEC, Warren

Part and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 8 - Material Handling - Rule R408.40833,Rule 833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steelmembers under controlled conditions and withstipulations.Name and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedNew Hartland High SchoolName and address of employerAssemblers, Inc.

Location for which variance is requestedTaft Elementary School, DetroitName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedDetroit Symphony Orch. Hall Expansion, DetroitName and address of employerJohnson Steel Fabrication, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedDow Chemical Co, MI Operations, MidlandName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMSU Animal Health Lab, LansingName and address of employerR & B Steel CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedAuto Owners Office Addition, LansingName and address of employerSCI/Steelcon, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedWestern Michigan University, KalamazooName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedCMU Health Professionals Bldg. Mt. PleasantName and address of employerWhitmore Steel Inc.Location for which variance is requestedG M Powertrain, PontiacFord Child Care, YpsilantiSchultz Elementary School, DetroitWSU Welcome Center, DetroitPart and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms - R408.43209,Rule 3209 (8)(b) & R408.43209, Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plankto the top of the intermediate rail of the guardrailsystem of an aerial lift for limited use as a work plat-form provided certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerApplegate, Inc.Location for which variance is requested8521 Guinea Road, LansingName and address of employerModern Mirror & Glass Co.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Technical Center, WarrenName and address of employerMotor City Electric Co.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Technical Center, WarrenName and address of employerVentcon, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Technical Center, Warren

Spring 2002

1717171717

�

Proactive PartneringCont. from Page 1

be a key component of the agreement, andwill help identify emerging issues in theautomotive industry. This partnership rep-resents a new strategy that will emphasizeproactive measures to ensure a safe andhealthy work environment. During theimplementa t ion o f the pa r tne rsh ip ,MIOSHA will use both consultation andcompliance staff.

“We believe this innovative coalitioncreates a new standard for public-privatepartnership and will help us achieve ourmutual goal of continuous improvement ofworkplace safety for employees,” saidShamel Rushwin , Ford Vice President,North American Business Operations. “Tobe truly successful, we believe our effortshould be based on tangible results thattranslate into year over year improvementsin in jury and i l lness ra tes among ourworkforce.”

“The welfare of our employees is apriority that we take very seriously,” saidFrank Croskey, Visteon Vice President,Nor th Amer ica and As ia Opera t ions .“We’re excited to participate in this uniquepartnership with the UAW and MIOSHAbecause it will help us enhance the work-ing environment for our employees.”First “State Plan” Partner

The MIOSHA program is one of 23State Plan states. State Plans are OSHA-approved job safety and health programsthat are operated by individual states andrequire standards and programs that are “atleast as effective” as the federal OSHAprograms.

From time to time, representativesf rom OSHA may par t i c ipa te in theMIOSHA meetings to help assure consis-tency with the UAW/Ford/Visteon federalOSHA partnership. MIOSHA representa-

tives also serve on the federal OSHA part-nership steering committee.

“We are proud to be the first State Planto sign a partnership with the UAW, Fordand Visteon,” said CIS Director KathyWilbur . “MIOSHA has been a leader inpartnering with the private sector, and webelieve this partnership can be a vital forceto create a workplace environment at Fordand Visteon plants that fosters worker pro-tection.”

“This innovative agreement continuesto recognize the respective rights and re-sponsibilities of all parties. At the sametime, it establishes a different context inwhich to enhance the workplace safety andhealth for Ford and Visteon employees,”said BSR Director Doug Earle. “MIOSHAwill be in a unique position to evaluate theimpact of Ford and Visteon’s safety andhealth programs.”Implementation Plan

The par tnership was crea ted by aSteering Committee represented by allpartners. The partnership starts with thesigning of the agreement and will be ineffect until three years from the signing.Site-specific UAW, Ford, Visteon staff andMIOSHA staff will work together to iden-tify, evaluate and control health and safetyhazards–without expansive, labor-inten-sive MIOSHA inspections, followed bycostly, adversarial appeals that result inlimited safety and health improvements.

How does the partnership do that? Its t a r t s wi th an p lan deve loped by theMIOSHA Implementation Team and ap-proved by all partners. The partnershipimplementation focuses on an 11-point setof guidelines. The guidelines address haz-ards specific to the automotive industry andinclude: confined spaces, skilled tradeshazards, maintenance vehicles, chemicalsafety, energy control and power lock out,ergonomics, noise control and hearing con-

servation, heat stress,powered material han-d l ing veh ic les , ma-ch ine guard ing andpersona l p ro tec t iveequipment.

Each location cov-ered under the agree-ment wil l conduct aMIOSHA Day meetingwhere MIOSHA repre-sentat ives wil l meetwi th the p lant man-ager, union chairper-son and their leader-ship team. The meet-ing will include a re-view of the injury and

The MIOSHA Implementation Team: Jerry Swift, Gerry Dike, Bob Pawlowski,Connie O’Neill, Maryann Markham, Ayalew Kanno, and John Brennan. (Notpictured: Rick Odorico, Paul Wrzesinski, and Nella Davis-Ray.)

illness reports, an overview of their safetyand health progress, and an informal walk-through of the facility. A series of ques-tions, verification steps, references and re-sources wil l be used to systematical lyevaluate each location’s efforts.

Ford/Visteon disclosure of informationlike their injury and illness trends, followedby MIOSHA review and evaluation maylead to recommendations for correction andfurther MIOSHA monitoring. While all par-ties know that this full disclosure maycause some apprehension, the partners be-l i eve the resu l t s wi l l be a sa fe r andhealthier environment at each location.

The partnership with MIOSHA alsoprovides that Ford and Visteon may beasked to pilot and evaluate draft regulationsfor consideration by a MIOSHA standardscommission. Elements of this agreementmay serve as a model in the future to allbusinesses subject to MIOSHA regulations.

MIOSHA inspections to investigateemployee complaints, serious injuries orfatalities, and national or state emphasisprograms are not precluded by this agree-ment. Ford and Visteon plants selected forgeneral schedule inspect ions f rom theMIOSHA Inspection Targeting list willreceive a focused inspection. The focusedinspection will include an evaluation ofthe inspect ion guidel ines l is ted in theagreement.

Steering CommitteeUUUUU AAAAAWWWWWGarGarGarGarGary Coy Coy Coy Coy CoxxxxxUAW International RepresentativeUAW National Ford DepartmentNational Joint Committee on Healthand Safety

FFFFFororororordddddHarHarHarHarHarrrrrry y y y y TTTTTarararararrantrantrantrantrantManager, Safety, Security and FireProtectionVehicle Operations

VisteonVisteonVisteonVisteonVisteonRoland JagutisRoland JagutisRoland JagutisRoland JagutisRoland JagutisGlobal Safety ManagerVisteon Corporation

MIOSHAMIOSHAMIOSHAMIOSHAMIOSHADouglas EarleDouglas EarleDouglas EarleDouglas EarleDouglas EarleDirectorCIS Bureau of Safety & Regulation

DouglasDouglasDouglasDouglasDouglas Kalino Kalino Kalino Kalino KalinowskiwskiwskiwskiwskiDeputy DirectorCIS Bureau of Safety & Regulation

1818181818

ErgonomicsCont. from Page 4

Cont. on Page 19

lating arms may be advantageous over hoists be-cause they can be used to reach in and aroundworkplace obstructions. They can be mounted ata fixed location or on a track to follow a produc-tion line, and they can be used to control torqueforces transmitted to the worker.

The balance of a work object can be used tominimize the amount of force a worker must exertto hold or use that work object. For example,greater force is needed to cut with the tip of a longblade than with the tip of a short blade, and greatermuscle effort is required to stabilize the wrist andhand when the tool airline droops over the edge ofthe work bench than when the tool is supportedoverhead at the center of gravity.

Handle size and design also affect force re-quirements. The placement, stability, orientation,balance, and edges of handles can be designed tominimize force requirements. The tendency of atool to twist in the hand may be caused by its torqu-ing action on turn-to-tighten fasteners. These re-action forces may be reduced by lowering the speedor torque setting of the tool, lengthening the handleof the tool, or using a torque-reaction bar. A taskanalysis is required to determine the best solutionfor a given tool and situation.

The use of gloves should be reviewed to besure that they fit well to minimize the strengthrequired for a given job. In some cases where onlypalm protection is required, it may be possible toremove the fingers from the gloves. In other caseswhere only finger protection is required, it maybe possible to protect the fingers with tape. Testsshould be performed to determine the best glovesfor a given task.

Force requirements may also be affected byquality control. Poor quality control may result insize differences among parts, which require extraeffort to put them together. Examples of this oftenare seen in mechanical assembly and upholsteryoperations. Maintenance also may affect the forcerequired to use cutting and finishing tools such asknives, scissors, sanders, and screwdrivers.Contact Stresses

Contact stresses are produced when soft tis-sues are squeezed between bone and external ob-jects, such as tools, parts, and the work station.The magnitude of these stresses is related to thecontact force and the area of contact.

Common examples of contact stress include:pounding objects with the palm; tools or other workobjects digging into the base of the palm; restingthe arms, hands or elbows on hard or sharp worksurfaces; and using tools such as scissors that rubon the sides of the fingers.

Contact stresses are identified by inspectionof the work elements. Any element that entailsthe exertion of force involves the risk of a contactstress. Contact stresses also may result from bump-ing or resting on objects in the work area.

Controlling Contact StressesControl measures for contact stresses in-

clude: enlarging handles; rounding or paddingedges of handles, benches or other work sur-faces; using compliant handle materials; us-ing tools for pounding; and padding the hand.

As a general rule, handles should be aslarge as possible for a given task, have well-rounded corners, and be covered with compli-ant rubber or plastic. Handles should be longenough to distribute the forces over the mus-cular eminences at the base of the thumb andlittle finger. Contact stresses on the sides, aswell as the backs, of the fingers can be con-trolled by using straight, plastic-coated handleswith a spring-opening device.

In some cases, hammers or other percus-sive tools can be used to eliminate contactstresses produced by pounding with the hand.In other cases, pads may be used to cushionthese stresses, but care should be exercisednot to interfere with grasping.Specific Postures

Any work posture can be stressful if it ismaintained long enough. Consequently, flex-ibility and adjustability in work station designcan provide workers with the opportunity tochange postures throughout the work shift.

Stressful postures can be identified bywatching workers perform the job. The pos-tural analysis can be facilitated by films orvideotapes that can be replayed in slow mo-tion. Observations may be documented throughthe use of a checklist to record the occurrenceof stressful postures. Computers can be usedto facilitate the recording and reporting of dif-ferent postures.

In addition, goniometers can be used toidentify and record stressful postures.Electrogoniometers can be attached to the bodyjoint of interest–with an amplifier, analog-to-digital converter, and computer to record andanalyze the data. Changes in posture can bemonitored and stored on the computer whilethe worker performs normal work tasks.

Psychophysics also can be used to deter-mine preferred work combinations. In onestudy workers used comfort ratings to deter-mine preferred work locations for using handtools in the trim department of an automobileassembly plant.Eliminating Stressful Postures

Work location and orientation can bechanged to reduce or eliminate stressful pos-tures. For example, using a pistol-shaped toolon a horizontal surface positioned at elbowheight creates an elevated elbow and ulnarwrist deviation. That same tool can be usedon a vertical work surface near elbow heightwith no posture stress. Working above shoul-der height creates posture stress; work heightscan be altered by positioning the worker on aplatform or reducing the level of work objects

to eliminate or minimize the posture stress.Tool design can be used as an effective way

to control posture stress. One of the greatest dif-ferences between modern tools and tools of thepast is that tools of the past usually were madeor purchased by the person using them. Conse-quently, much attention was given to the sizeand shape. Today, tools are specified by an en-gineer, ordered by a purchasing agent, and sup-plied by a tool room attendant–the users may becompletely left out of the process.

Stick figures and manikin templates can beused to estimate the best work location for aperson of given stature performing a specifictask. They also can be used to determine therange of adjustability that may be needed to ac-commodate workers of varying stature at a spe-cific work station.

Manipulations are more easily performedusing computer-aided drafting (CAD) systems.CAD systems provide the ability to create engi-neering drawings that can be and recalled forediting or plotting. Recent advances in micro-computer hardware and software have resultedin widespread availability of inexpensive sys-tems that do not require extensive experience.Vibration

Another frequently reported factor in MSDsthat deserves mention is vibration. Causes ofvibration include holding a part in contact witha power or impact tool, holding a power tool,holding a control, and pounding. Unless vibra-tion is of high intensity or exposure is continu-ous, it may be of secondary importance after re-petitiveness, forcefulness, contact stress, posture,and low temperature. The job analysis shouldserve to put these factors into proper perspec-tive. Where problems exist, exposure should beminimized.Temperature

Substantial data document the sensory,motor, and circulatory impairments caused byexposure to low temperatures between 0° and20° C. These impairments have two effects: toreduce manual dexterity and to accentuate thesymptoms of a nerve impairment. The fingersare particularly vulnerable, and may be cooledas a result of low environmental temperatures,handling of cold materials, or exposure to coldexhaust from air-powered tools. There are nostandards for finger temperatures, but it is rec-ommended that they be kept above 25° C. Fin-ger temperature can be increased by using gloves,constructing handles from materials with lowthermal conductivity, directing exhaust air awayfrom the worker, and wearing additional gar-ments on the torso.Evaluation of Interventions

Although there are no absolute standardsfor exposure to repetitiveness, forcefulness, con-tact stresses, postures, vibration, and tempera-

Spring 2002

1919191919

�

ErgonomicsCont. from Page 18

tures–common sense dictates that they should beminimized whenever possible.

In addition, the American Conference ofGovernmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)has developed a Threshold Limit Value (TLV)for mono-task hand work and prevention of work-related MSDs. This TLV considers the risk fac-tors of hand activity level (HAL) and peak fin-ger force. Information on this TLV can be foundat http://www.acgih.org and http://umrerc.engin.umich.edu/jobdatabase/RERC2/HAL/ACGIHTLV.htm.

Currently, there are insufficient data to pre-dict the effect of changing any one of the ergo-nomic factors cited in the development ofMSDs. The occurrence of more than one factorin a work situation further complicates inter-vention strategies.

For example, a job may be repetitive andforceful and involve occasional postural stressesand exposure to vibrations. Although reducingany one of these stresses should reduce risk ofMSDs, the amount of risk and its significance isdifficult to predict. For these reasons any workchanges to control disorders must be evaluated.Several iterations may be required to achieve thedesired level of control.Job Analysis

The first step in evaluating interventions isworkplace documentation and assessment of therisk factors associated with MSDs. This may beperformed using the drawing board, mock-ups,and prototypes.User Feedback

The second step is obtaining user feedback.Both new and experienced workers should beasked to try the new design. In both cases theworkers should be trained in how to adjust andoperate the new equipment. Workers should beobserved and interviewed. A formal interviewshould be conducted to obtain feedback abouteach design feature.Implementation of New Equipment

The third step is the implementation of newequipment. All new users should be trained inhow to adjust and operate the equipment. Theyshould then be observed and interviewed. Theinterviews should be repeated at frequent inter-vals initially and at longer intervals later to de-tect any symptoms of chronic muscle, tendon, ornerve disorders.Medical Surveillance

Finally, ongoing medical surveillanceshould be used to determine whether there hasbeen a change in the incidence rates of injuriesand illnesses on the jobs where interventionshave been implemented versus other jobs in theplant. Control of MSDs requires an ongoing ef-fort and may require several attempts to deter-mine effective interventions.

U.P. Safety ConferenceMore than 200 professionals from across

the Upper Peninsula gathered Jan. 31, for thesecond annual U.P. Safety Conference held atthe M-TEC at Bay College in Escanaba.

The conference focused on such issues as:safety in food handling, behavioral safety, anoccupational health review, construction safetyapplications, noise and hearing conservation, theMIOSHA rule making process, and an in-depthsession on ergonomics.

Keynote speaker MIOSHA Director DougEarle discussed the new MIOSHArecordkeeping system. MIOSHA has revised therecordkeeping standard, in accordance with fed-eral OSHA recordkeeping revisions, to provideclearer regulatory requirements which will sim-plify the overall recordkeeping system for em-ployers. The revised MIOSHA rule, Part 11.Recording and Reporting of Occupational Inju-ries and Illnesses, went into effect Jan. 1, 2002.

“Recordkeeping is an important part of acompany’s total safety and health plan,” saidEarle. “Conscientious and detailed records area valuable tool for the employer or employeesto help recognize patterns of accidents or ill-nesses, and most importantly, to take preventa-tive actions for a safer and healthier workplace.”

Also as part of the conference, JimDougovito, a contract employee working for theM-TEC, was honored with the Forest ResourceAssociation’s H.R. Jefferson Safety Award forthe Great Lakes Region. The award was pre-sented in recognition of Dougovito’s efforts insafety education.

“We’re so pleased with the success of thisyear’s event,” said Jayne Bernard, Director ofSafety Training at the M-TEC. “Several majoremployers from across the U.P. sponsored groupsof employees, recognizing the importance of in-

vesting in safety and health education to reduceon-the-job injuries and associated workers com-pensation costs.”

Bernard noted attendees were very appre-ciative of the number of qualified presenters atthe conference, and at M-TEC’s ability to offersuch high-quality programs. The M-TEC offerscustomized, on-site training for a variety of top-ics. Past programs have included fall protection,confined space training and efforts to reducehearing loss in the workplace.

For more information about safety programsoffered by M-TEC at Bay College, contact Ber-nard at 906.786.5802, ext. 1510.

Keynote speaker MIOSHA Director Doug Earlediscussed the new MIOSHA recordkeeping system,which went into effect Jan 1, 2002.

MIOSHA Spanish Language Publications

To order, please contact the CET Division at 517.322.1809.

Two MIOSHA publications are now available in Spanish, and will provideSpanish-speaking workers and employers with vital workplace safety and healthinformation.

The MIOSHA posterMIOSHA posterMIOSHA posterMIOSHA posterMIOSHA poster is required to be posted in all businesses covered byMIOSHA regulations. It describes many important provisions of the MIOSHAAct.

The “Y“Y“Y“Y“Your Rights & Responsibil ities under MIOSHA” brour Rights & Responsibil ities under MIOSHA” brour Rights & Responsibil ities under MIOSHA” brour Rights & Responsibil ities under MIOSHA” brour Rights & Responsibil ities under MIOSHA” brochurochurochurochurochureeeeecovers the rights and responsibilities for both employers and employees, asset forth by the MIOSHA Act.

�

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

MIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ineMIOSHA Compla in t Hot l ine 800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674800 .866 .4674Fata l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trFa ta l i t y /Catas trophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ineophe Hot l ine 800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397800 .858 .0397Genera l In fGenera l In fGenera l In fGenera l In fGenera l In format ionormat ionormat ionormat ionormat ion 517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814517 .322 .1814

FrFrFrFrFree Safee Safee Safee Safee Safety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultationety/Health Consultation 517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809517 .322 .1809

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

517.322.1825517.322.1825517.322.1825517.322.1825517.322.1825 Bill StrBill StrBill StrBill StrBill Strongongongongong

DirDirDirDirDirectorectorectorectorector

Deputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy Directorectorectorectorector

Deputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy DirDeputy Directoectoectoectoectorrrrr

DIVIS IONDIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISIONDIVISION

AppealsAppealsAppealsAppealsAppeals

Construction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction SafConstruction Safetyetyetyetyety

Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & Consultat ion Educat ion & TTTTTrain ingra in ingra in ingra in ingra in ing

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

WWWWWage & Hourage & Hourage & Hourage & Hourage & Hour

How To Contact Us

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

recycled paper