Vol. 5, No. 3 Needlestick Revisions In This Issue · the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act on...
20
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA) Vol. 5, No. 3 Summer 2001 In This Issue Director’s Column 2 Construction Safety 3 Quinnesec Mill-MVPP Star 4 Lock It Out 5 Educational Services 6 The Bottom Line 7 Self-Help Program 8 Program-Related Fatalities 9 MIOSHA & Migrant Workers 10 CET Awards 11 Wage & Hour News 12 Education & Training Calendar 13 Standards Update 14 Variances 16 MI Safety Conference-Awardees 17 Cont. on Page 18 By: Jenelle Thelen, Industrial Hygienist Consultation Education & Training Division Needlestick Revisions MIOSHA Announces Changes in its Bloodborne Pathogens Standard Intended to Reduce Needlesticks among Healthcare Workers Will Go into Effect Oct. 18, 2000 Munson Medical Center staff at work on the Intensive Care Unit. Munson (Traverse City) initiated sharps evaluations in 1993, and is currently studying new devices for all units. Given the dramatic number of needlestick injuries each year to healthcare professionals, estimated by federal OSHA at 600,000 to 800,000 annually, Congress unanimously passed the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act on Nov. 6, 2000. The Act mandated revisions of federal OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standard and directed the agency to make these changes within six months. On Jan. 23, 2001, the Michigan Occupa- tional Health Standards Commission voted to adopt the federal amendments by reference. These amendments to the MIOSHA bloodborne infectious diseases standard were published in the Michigan Register on April 15, 2001, and are available online from the Michigan Office of Regulatory Reform at www.state.mi.us/orr/. Changes in the MIOSHA bloodborne in- fectious diseases standard are intended to reduce needlestick injuries among healthcare workers and others who handle medical sharps, and will go into effect Oct. 18, 2001. The revisions clarify the need for employers to evaluate and select safer needle devices as they become available and to involve employees in identifying and choosing the devices. The updated standard also requires employers to maintain a log of injuries from contaminated sharps. Healthcare professionals dedicate their ca- reers to preserving lives, and yet they face a multitude of hazards on the job each day. One in seven of America’s 5.6 million healthcare em- ployees will experience a needlestick this year. Since 80 percent of the occupational exposures to blood occur through needlesticks, these inju- ries are of grave concern. Preserving frontline healthcare workers’ health was the focus of Congress when they passed the Needlestick Act. They recognized that good patient care goes hand-in-hand with good occupational protection for healthcare workers. Summary of Revised Standard The revised MIOSHA bloodborne standard obligates employers to consider safer needle devices when they conduct the annual review of their exposure control plan. Safer sharps are considered appropriate engineering controls, the best strategy for worker protection. Involving frontline employees in selecting safer devices will help ensure that workers who are using the equip- ment have the opportunity for input into purchasing decisions. The new needlestick log will help both em- ployees and employers track all needlesticks to help identify prob- lem areas or operations. The requirements for employ- ers to protect workers from sharps injuries is not new–the original standard required employers to adopt engineering and work prac- tice controls that would eliminate or minimize employee exposure
Transcript of Vol. 5, No. 3 Needlestick Revisions In This Issue · the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act on...
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)Vol. 5, No. 3 Summer 2001
In This IssueDirector’s Column 2
Construction Safety 3
Quinnesec Mill-MVPP Star 4
Lock It Out 5
Educational Services 6
The Bottom Line 7
Self-Help Program 8
Program-Related Fatalities 9
MIOSHA & Migrant Workers 10
CET Awards 11
Wage & Hour News 12
Education & Training Calendar 13
Standards Update 14
Variances 16
MI Safety Conference-Awardees 17
Cont. on Page 18
By: Jenelle Thelen, Industrial HygienistConsultation Education & Training Division
Needlestick RevisionsMIOSHA Announces Changes in its Bloodborne Pathogens Standard Intended toReduce Needlesticks among Healthcare Workers Will Go into Effect Oct. 18, 2000
Munson Medical Center staff at work on the Intensive Care Unit.Munson (Traverse City) initiated sharps evaluations in 1993, and iscurrently studying new devices for all units.
Given the dramatic number of needlestickinjuries each year to healthcare professionals,estimated by federal OSHA at 600,000 to800,000 annually, Congress unanimously passedthe Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act onNov. 6, 2000. The Act mandated revisions offederal OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standardand directed the agency to make these changeswithin six months.
On Jan. 23, 2001, the Michigan Occupa-tional Health Standards Commission voted toadopt the federal amendments by reference.These amendments to the MIOSHA bloodborneinfectious diseases standard were published inthe Michigan Register on April 15, 2001, andare available online from the Michigan Officeof Regulatory Reform at www.state.mi.us/orr/.
Changes in the MIOSHA bloodborne in-fectious diseases standard are intended to reduceneedlestick injuries among healthcare workersand others who handle medical sharps, and willgo into effect Oct. 18, 2001. The revisions clarifythe need for employers to evaluate and select
safer needle devices as they become availableand to involve employees in identifying andchoosing the devices. The updated standard alsorequires employers to maintain a log of injuriesfrom contaminated sharps.
Healthcare professionals dedicate their ca-reers to preserving lives, and yet they face amultitude of hazards on the job each day. One inseven of America’s 5.6 million healthcare em-ployees will experience a needlestick this year.Since 80 percent of the occupational exposuresto blood occur through needlesticks, these inju-ries are of grave concern.
Preserving frontline healthcare workers’health was the focus of Congress when theypassed the Needlestick Act. They recognized thatgood patient care goes hand-in-hand with goodoccupational protection for healthcare workers.Summary of Revised Standard
The revised MIOSHA bloodborne standardobligates employers to consider safer needledevices when they conduct the annual review oftheir exposure control plan. Safer sharps areconsidered appropriate engineering controls, thebest strategy for worker protection.
Involving frontline employees in selectingsafer devices will help ensure thatworkers who are using the equip-ment have the opportunity for inputinto purchasing decisions. The newneedlestick log will help both em-ployees and employers track allneedlesticks to help identify prob-lem areas or operations.
The requirements for employ-ers to protect workers from sharpsinjuries is not new–the originalstandard required employers toadopt engineering and work prac-tice controls that would eliminateor minimize employee exposure
2
From the
Bureau
Director’s
DeskBy: Douglas R. Earle, DirectorBureau of Safety & Regulation
A New Horizon:
Bio Hazards
and MIOSHA
In 1993, the Occupational Health Standards Commission adoptedthe MIOSHA bloodborne pathogens standard. It is substantially thesame as the federal OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard with someimprovements.
Most employers who must comply with the bloodborne patho-gens standard are associated with the healthcare industry. However,employers covered by the standard are more diverse than one mightexpect. In addition to direct healthcare workers, there are other em-ployees who may reasonably anticipate exposure to bloodborne patho-gens. These include employees of independent laboratories, nursinghomes and adult foster care facilities, and academic and school em-ployees who work in personnel units.
This is the first standard the MIOSHA program has adoptedspecifically covering biological hazards in the workplace, and is theonly standard that applies directly to exposures to biological hazards.Indeed, MIOSHA standards for laboratories and personal protectiveequipment do not include within their scope protection from biologi-cal hazards.
Increasingly in our burgeoning healthcare industry and our tech-nologically based society, we are seeing more evidence of exposureto biological hazards. Neither federal OSHA or the State Plans ad-dress these issues with specific standards or more generally appli-cable standards such as the hazard communication standard (workerright to know). Minnesota is the only State Plan State that specifi-cally includes biological hazards in its hazard communication stan-dard. OSHA and the other State Plan programs’ hazard communi-cation requirements apply only to chemical hazards, not biologicalhazards.
In industry today, biologically based products are being substi-tuted for chemical products. This in turn increases the likelihood ofworker exposure, and dramatically shifts exposures to hazards notspecifically covered by OSHA or State Plan program standards. Moremust be done by industry and government programs to anticipate andreduce or eliminate these hazards.MIOSHA Amends Bloodborne Standard
On Oct. 18, 2001, the new provisions of the MIOSHA bloodbornepathogens standard will go into effect. The history of these amend-ments is rather complex. For the past two years the Michigan legisla-ture had considered directly amending the MIOSHA Act to providefor increased protection for healthcare workers exposed to sharps andneedles.
Late in 2000, however, the United States Congress unanimouslypassed a law which directed federal OSHA to amend its bloodbornepathogens standard to enhance protection for exposed workers. Thefederal OSHA standard went into effect on April 18, 2001. Enforce-ment, however, was deferred until July 18, 2001. As with any federalOSHA standard, MIOSHA, as a State Plan State, is required to adopt
the same provisions or at “least as effective as” changes as the federalstandard. We have done so, and on Oct. 18, 2001, those changes will gointo effect in Michigan. (See cover article for details.)Significance of the Changes
The changes in the bloodborne standard do not require univer-sal use of engineered sharps or needleless systems. The changes doprovide that employers must consider safer needle devices as theyconduct the annual review of their exposure control plan. Essentially,the changes also add some new definitions to the standard, newrecordkeeping requirements, and require the employer to obtain infor-mation in assessing the need for needleless systems or engineeredsharps from employees who utilize the equipment in their work re-sponsibilities.
The key to the success of these changes is going to be how employ-ers apply the information provided by employees to ultimately deter-mine whether to utilize a needleless system or engineered sharps.MIOSHA will place a great deal of emphasis on this requirement in ouroutreach and compliance activities, by making certain that employershave sought and utilized employee input and recommendations. Failureto comply with these provisions will result in citations to employers forfailing to conduct these assessments.
Our MIOSHA philosophy is to “educate before regulate.” How-ever, since the bloodborne pathogens standard has been in effect since1993–we expect employers to make this transition to the new require-ments expeditiously. Patience regarding compliance with these new re-quirements will be limited, compared to new MIOSHA standardschanges.The Future of Bio Hazards in the Workplace
I certainly am not an expert in biological hazards. Moreover, asnoted, the MIOSHA program is limited in dealing with the issue ofworkplace biological hazards by several factors which include the lackof: 1) specific standards, other than the bloodborne pathogens standard;2) staff expertise on the subject; and 3) general knowledge in the work-place of the potential presence of, or impact of, biological hazards andworker exposure.
With the potential for increasing exposure in our healthcare sys-tem to both patients and employees–we need to become aware of thebiological hazards healthcare workers face. We must do a better job ofanticipating these hazards than we have in the past. Too often, as tech-nology changed our work environment, we failed to anticipate the haz-ards, and thus we failed to prevent worker exposures to these new un-safe conditions. With respect to biological hazards we simply cannotrepeat the past practices and attempt to retroactively fix the problem. Todo so could lead to tremendous consequences for all members of oursociety–not just those who work in it.
Summer 2001
3
At left is a list of the Top 20 MIOSHA Construc-tion Safety Violations of most frequently cited seriousviolations of MIOSHA standards for fiscal year 1999-2000. The list is part of a construction safety reportused in safety education and training programs whichare designed to identify and prevent hazards which re-sult in workplace injuries and fatalities.
The purpose of MIOSHA safety and health stan-dards is to set minimum requirements and provide guide-lines for checking and correcting the hazards contribut-ing to injuries. Implementation of the safety standardswould eliminate or minimize employee exposures tohazards such as:
� Falls, slips, trips, and loss of balance;� Electrocution/electrical contact;� Being caught in or between objects and
equipment;� Being struck by or against objects or equip-
ment; and� Exposure to harmful substances.The construction safety report highlights the haz-
ardous conditions cited by the violations that requireprevention strategies. MIOSHA’s education and train-ing programs assist employers and employees in plan-ning and implementing safety and health programs thatcan control the occurrence of workplace injuries andillnesses and reduce the cost of doing business.
For inquiries regarding construction safety com-pliance and enforcement, contact the ConstructionSafety Division at 517.322.1856. For inquiries regard-ing education and training, contact the ConsultationEducation and Training Division at 517.322.1809.
��������������� �����������������
Rank Standard Description Violations1 1926.501 Fall Protection: Unprotected Sides & Edges 655
2 4084.622 Head Protection 303
3 40843209 Aerial Work Platforms: Use 260
4 40841243 Forklift Scaffold Platforms 238
5 40841213 Scaffolds: Guardrails, Fall Arrest Devices 217
6 4084.941 Excavation, Angle of Repose 169
7 1926.502 Fall Protection 166
8 4084.933 Excavation, Obstruction, Egress 160
9 40841725 Wiring, Attachment Receptacles, GFCI 158
10 40841210 Scaffolds: Construction 146
11 40841217 Planking & Scaffold Platforms 128
12 40841719 Electrical Wiring 100
13 40842223 Roadway Work Zones: Signals, Signs, Barricades 99
14 4084.114 Construction: Accident Prevention Program 93
15 4084.624 Use of Face and Eye Protection 85
16 40841124 Fixed and Portable Ladders 64
17 40841241 Manually Propelled Mobile Scaffold 63
18 40841211 Access to Scaffold Platforms 61
19 4084.115 Riding Moving Equip. /Proximity to Power Lines 56
20 40841209 Training Requirements: Scaffolds 52
By: Number of Serious Violations
Michigan: October 1, 1999 - September 30, 2000
Top 20 MIOSHA Construction Safety Rule Violations
The single most important thing construction employers can do to protecttheir employees is to have a comprehensive accident prevention program.
Construction Safety Violations
Construction is one of the most hazardous industries inthe nation and Michigan. Only about four percent ofMichigan’s workforce is employed in construction. How-ever, construction fatalities account for nearly 40 percent ofall MIOSHA program-related fatal workplace accidents.
MIOSHA records and monitors construction fatalitiesto help identify hazards facing construction workers and tofocus prevention efforts. As the chart at right illustrates, therecent downward trend in construction fatalities appears tobe reversing in 2001.
Construction employers and employees must view theirdaily tasks with a heightened awareness that an accidentcould happen on their project and could affect them person-ally. The single most important thing construction employ-ers can do to protect their employees is to have a compre-hensive and implemented accident prevention program thatincludes adequate employee training.
5 6 811
14 12 117
1418
28
1722
3429 31
23
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan. 1 through June 26 Full Year
Investigated by the Construction Safety DivisionFatal Accidents
4
�������������� ����������International Paper’s Quinnesec Mill Receives MVPP Star Award
IP Senior Vice President LH Puckett, Mill H&S Supervisor RockySchuster, CIS Deputy Director Dr. Kalmin Smith, Mill EH&SManager Wally Blair, and Mill Manager Steve Hadden.
Employees applaud the presentation of the MVPP Star flag.
On May 11, International Paper ’sQuinnesec Mill received the prestigious Michi-gan Voluntary Protection Programs (MVPP) Staraward for workplace safety and health excel-lence. CIS Deputy Director Dr. Kalmin Smithpresented the Star flag to employees at a specialceremony on behalf of the Michigan Departmentof Consumer & Industry Services (CIS).
“I am delighted to welcome InternationalPaper’s Quinnesec Mill into this exceptionalgroup of Michigan companies who have outstand-ing workplace safety and health programs,” saidSmith. “I admire the diligence and dedication ofthe Quinnesec Mill–and I salute your exemplaryworkplace safety and health achievement.”
The CIS Bureau of Safety and Regulationis responsible for the Michigan OccupationalSafety and Health Act (MIOSHA) program.MIOSHA established the MVPP program to rec-ognize employers actively working towardachieving excellence in workplace safety andhealth. It was created to reward worksites thatdevelop and implement outstanding safety andhealth programs that go beyond MIOSHA stan-dards. It enhances MIOSHA’s tradition of work-ing cooperatively and voluntarily with industryto reduce and eliminate workplace injuries andillnesses.
“These successful MVPP companies havecreated a work environment where everyoneaccepts responsibility for safety, every day,” saidSmith. “The Quinnesec Mill’s outstanding safetyand health record demonstrates that a strongsafety and health program goes hand in hand withincreased production and profits.”The Celebration
Quinnesec employees raised the MVPPStar flag during the ceremony. Accepting the Star
award were: Wally Blair, Environ-mental, Health & Safety Manager,Quinnesec Mill; Steve Hadden,Manager, Quinnesec Mill; and LHPuckett, Senior Vice President, In-ternational Paper; as well as mem-bers of the Quinnesec Mill MVPPStar Steering Team. State and localelected officials, corporate leaders,as well as CIS and MIOSHA repre-sentatives, were on hand to con-gratulate the Quinnesec Mill em-ployees and management on theiroutstanding achievement.
The Quinnesec Mill’s Inci-dence Rates and Lost Work DayRates are well below the Michiganaverage for their industry and Stan-dard Industrial Classification (SIC)code 2621, “Paper Mills.” TheTotal Case Incidence Rate for the Quinnesec Millwas 6.35 in 1997, 6.13 in 1998, and 5.23 in1999–compared to 8.7, 7.9, and 13.1, respec-tively, for Michigan. The Total Lost Work DayCases for the Quinnesec Mill was 1.41 in 1997,1.65 in 1998, and 1.08 in 1999–compared to 3.4,4.1, and 9.0, respectively, for Michigan.
“We are proud to accept this award, becausesafety has always been very important at theQuinnesec Mill,” said Mill Manager SteveHadden. “Achievement of the MVPP Star certi-fication confirms that fact and provides positiverecognition to all employees for their efforts.”Employee Involvement
The Quinnesec Mill is a non-traditionalfacility, whose management structure makesemployee input vital to the success of the safetyand health program. The mill has integrated
the Partnership Protection Process(P3) to drive continuous improve-ment in their safety and health pro-gram. Employee involvement andempowerment are seen to be aseffective as a traditionally struc-tured safety and health committeein providing a safe work environ-ment.
Very strong management com-mitment is evident in all areas ofthe safety and health program. TheP3 structure provides a tool for con-tinuous improvement of the safetymanagement system, and incorpo-rates a team concept to integratesafety and health into all aspects ofmill operations. Members of vari-
ous groups set their own goals and are expectedto meet those goals.
Based on interviews with employees andobservation, MIOSHA found that all employeesare empowered to act on safety and health is-sues, and are accountable for their safety andhealth performance. Safety and health responsi-bilities are clearly spelled out and addressed inall job descriptions, and certifications are re-quired for job advancement. Safety and healthis an integral part of all performance reviewsfor employees at all levels. The company’s de-centralized management style puts substantialauthority in employee’s hands.Mill Operations
The Quinnesec Mill is a state-of-the-artfacility that manufactures bleached hardwoodkraft pulp and high-quality coated printing pa-per used in magazines and catalogs. The millhas approximately 575 regular employees, and60 contract employees. The mill started produc-ing pulp in 1985 and paper in 1990.
International Paper operates 10 facilities inMichigan, along with various distribution cen-ters, and employs nearly 1,675 workers. Cur-rently International Paper has 82 national VPPsites, the greatest number of facilities certifiedor recommended for certifications in the federalOSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
International Paper is the world’s largestpaper and forest products company. Businessesinclude printing paper, packaging, and forestproducts. The company has operations in nearly50 countries, employs more than 113,000 peopleand exports its products to more than 130 na-tions (www.internationalpaper.com). �
Summer 2001
5
Cont. on Page 19
By: Martha B. Yoder, ChiefGeneral Industry Safety Division
�������������� ������ It wasn’t the plan to start a crusade–but a
crusade it has become. It is an ongoing commit-ment to emphasize the critical importance ofeffective lockout-tagout programs. And, the rea-son is compelling. In our work investigating ac-cidents and fatalities, the simple fact is that wesee far too many that just would not have hap-pened if lockout had been followed.
After eight years of enforcing MIOSHA Part85, Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (com-monly referred to as the lockout-tagout standard),7,613 violations have been cited, and $3,971,755assessed in initial proposed penalties. In spiteof this enforcement history, compliance withlockout-tagout continues to be a high priority forthe General Industry Safety Division.
In fact, the most frequently cited violationby General Industry during Fiscal Year 2000,was compliance with the General Requirementsof the lockout standard. In FY 2000, more than780 inspections or investigation identified thateither there was no required lockout program orcompliance was inadequate.
In looking back just two and a half years,the General Industry Safety Division has inves-tigated more than 40 accidents where lockoutwas cited. These accidents represent people whohave been hurt, permanently injured, or killed.A finger tip, finger, hand, arm, or worse, a lifehas been lost because unexpected motion caughtsomeone off-guard.
We believe these accidents represent justthe tip of the iceberg because MIOSHA doesnot include a requirement that employers reportnonfatal injuries other than those occurring atthe point of operation on a mechanical powerpress. Therefore, only those injuries that cometo the program’s attention are investigated. It islikely that many, many more are occurringthroughout Michigan each year.Recent Lockout/Tagout Accidents
Here are some real-life heartbreaking ex-amples of recent accidents that have occurredwhere, among other concerns, lockout has beenidentified as an issue.
� A press operator with three years ex-perience did not use a safety block while ser-vicing the point of operation of mechanicalpower press. The ram dropped, fracturing theemployee’s finger. The employer was cited forinadequate lockout training because the em-ployee was not trained to wait for the ram tostop before entering the barrier guard. In addi-tion, not enforcing the use of safety blocks orensuring die blocks are interlocked was alsoidentified as a factor.
� A die setter, on the job for three months,was attempting to feed a metal strip through thedie. The press was in inch mode with one but-ton tied down. The employee used one hand toadjust the strip instead of a hand tool. With onebutton tied down, the employee hit the remain-ing button with his hip causing the machine toactivate. His hand was caught in the press andhis thumb amputated. The employer was citedfor not enforcing lockout while hands are in thepoint of operation setting the die. Improper useof inch controls was also identified as a factor.
� A press operator with three months onthe job was operating a press. He attempted toclean the leveling rolls while the machine was infull operation. His hand and rag were pulled intothe rollers. The equipment had to be dismantledto free the employee. The employer’s incidentreport stated that no damage had been done to theequipment. The employee was not so lucky, sus-taining a crushed hand and forearm. The employerwas cited for not enforcing lockout procedures,not conducting periodic inspections, and lack ofemployee training.Recent Lockout/TagoutFatalities
Even more tragic, here aresome recent worker fatalitieswhere lockout was an issue.
� An 50-year-old electri-cian with three and a half yearswith the company was cleaningaluminum flakes from under abillet loader. The loader arms arepowered by 3,500 pounds ofhydraulic pressure. When thearm is down, there is about a 4-6 inch clearance between armand machine frame. The de-ceased was found underneaththe billet loaders. His padlockand lockout tag was found lay-ing on top of the electrical panelabout 10 feet from where he hadbeen caught under the loader arm. The employerwas cited for lack of machine specific lockoutprocedures, not enforcing lockout, and inadequatetraining on when and how to lockout.
� A 58-year-old electrician with 18years experience was adjusting an electroniceye reflector for an automated sand dumpingsystem. This was being done with the systemin operation. One of the dumping cars wastraveling the track in the area. The employeewas pinned to the side of a hopper, crushinghis chest. The employer was cited for not en-
forcing lockout, not conducting inspections,not ensuring employees have proper lockoutequipment, and failing to assure that eachperson working on a lockout procedure af-fixes his or her own lock.
� A 31-year-old production coordinatorwas crushed in the mold of a vacuum form ma-chine while checking for defects. The machinepower was not locked out. The interlocked gatewas defeated, leaving the machine running inautomatic mode. The deceased climbed up themold frame and into the mold. The machinecycled catching him between the mold sections.The employer was cited for not enforcing lock-out and not conducting periodic inspections tobe sure lockout is being properly followed.
� A 40-year-old crane repairman wasstanding on a craneway assisting with the re-moval of a bearing cover. Another crane wasoperating and struck and dragged the deceased10 to 15 feet until the crane passed an indenta-tion in the wall where the deceased was depos-ited while the crane continued on. The employerwas cited for not enforcing lockout procedures.
Management CommitmentThese sad examples serve to illustrate
what is identified time and again duringMIOSHA inspections and investigations. Thatis, employers have often taken positive stepsto develop lockout-tagout programs for theirworkplace. However, the ongoing maintenanceand enforcement of the programs may not beadequate to ensure that lockout-tagout remainseffective.
An effective lockout-tagout program is nodifferent than any other workplace initiative.It takes research and time to develop a pro-gram that fits the workplace, strong efforts to
Do it Right–Above is proper procedure for electrical lockout on amachine disconnect.
6
� �� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � �By: Quenten Yoder, Safety ConsultantConsultation Education & Training Division
Educational Services SeminarsDate Location InformationJuly 17 Howell 517.546.3920July 24 Livonia 734.462.4448July 25 Lansing 517.394.4614July 31 Escanaba 906.786.5802Aug. 1 Mt. Pleasant 517.773.4817Aug. 7 Shelby Twp. 810.726.4553Sept. 19 Allendale 800.704.7676
To register, please call the information phonenumber. For questions on program content, pleasecontact the CET Division at 517.322.1809.
Seminar information was mailed to over 6,100public schools. Seminars were also held June 14in Jackson, and June 26 in Saginaw.
Educational Services
As a State Plan, the MIOSHA program issimilar in many respects to federal OSHA. Oneimportant difference is that MIOSHA rules ap-ply not only to the private sector, but also to thepublic sector–our requirements apply to state andlocal government. In those states where federalOSHA has authority, OSHA occupational safetyand health rules do not apply to public agencies.
MIOSHA has a five-year Strategic Planwhich was designed to improve services in keyareas and promote workplace safety and healthculture throughout Michigan. The plan focuseson both enforcement and voluntary complianceefforts for targeted industries, injuries, and ill-nesses. Critical activities and milestones will betracked and used to assess progress toward theachievement of the five-year goals.
MIOSHA is committed to helping public-sector employers establish strong safety andhealth programs at their worksites to protectpublic employees. As part of the MIOSHA Stra-tegic Plan, public-sector Educational Services(Standard Industrial Classifications 8210through 8222) were selected for special programattention.Educational Services–Performance Goal
Educational Services was chosen becauseBureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data indicatedinjury and illness incidence rates were four timeshigher for public-sector education than rates forprivate-sector education. The BLS data for 1996showed the public-sector incident rate at 8.1–versus a rate of 2.2 for comparable institutionsin the private sector.
The Educational Services Per-formance goal reads: Reduce injuriesand illnesses by 15 percent in one ofthe most hazardous public-sector in-dustries, Educational Services, SICCode 82. The category educationalservices includes: elementary andsecondary schools (SIC 8211); col-leges, universities, professionalschools and junior colleges (SIC8221); and junior colleges and tech-nical institutes (SIC 8222).Outreach Activities
The Consultation Educationand Training (CET) Divisionformed a team to determineMIOSHA’s outreach activities forthis performance goal. In 1999 and2000, CET developed a “Safety andHealth Program Guide for Educa-tional Institutions” and an “Educa-tional Services Kit.” The material in the guideis designed to aid individual educational insti-tutions in the development of effective activi-ties to minimize an employee’s exposure to work-place hazards.
The 58-page guide covers the followingareas: Recordkeeping; written safety and healthprograms, with a self-survey checklist; appli-cable MIOSHA standards; related bloodbornehealth issues; and a list of related CET materi-als and publications.
On Feb. 16, 2001, an introductory letter andsurvey questionnaire were sent to all publicschool superintendents (524) in the state. Theletter detailed the MIOSHA Strategic Plan edu-cational goal and asked for help in identifyingspecific employee safety and health concerns.
To date, the bureau has received 214 com-pleted surveys, an outstanding response rate.Following are the highlights to some of the keyquestions.
� More than 50 percent have no writtensafety and health program.
� In 68 percent of the districts there is adesignated person responsible for employeesafety and health activities.
� These areas were listed as major con-cerns: ergonomics, 53 percent; slips and falls,67 percent; chemical exposure, 35 percent; dis-ability management program, 58 percent; andemployee security, 50 percent.
� Respondents indicated the following ser-vices would be helpful: seminars, 50 percent; self-help printed material, 60 percent; sample writtenprograms, 66 percent; workplace assistance, 32
percent; updates on safety and health issues, 73percent; and staff training, 52 percent.
� More than 72 percent said they were in-terested in having their maintenance personneltrained in safety and health.
� More than 33 percent said they would liketo be contacted by a CET consultant. To date, everyrespondent who asked for CET assistance hasbeen contacted. To date, 72 school districts havebeen called and assigned a CET consultant.
Information from the survey was used todesign seminars and related materials to assisteducational facilities in complying with appli-cable MIOSHA regulations. (See the attachedsidebar for seminar information.)Areas of Concern
CET safety consultants have already con-ducted site visits to more than 10 school dis-tricts. These initial visits have revealed a sig-nificant need for information regarding MIOSHArequirements in the educational sector. The sitesurveys have identified the following criticalareas of concern.
MIOSHA Recordkeeping - Primary con-cern was the lack of a log of recordable injuriesas required by MIOSHA Administrative Rule13, Recordkeeping. Even though injury/illnessinformation was being kept, it was not being keptin the required “Log 200 ” format. Consequently,the analysis of occurrences in terms of types ofinjuries, illnesses, locations, etc. was not beingconducted. Recordkeeping is a fundamental partof any effective safety and health program, be-cause it helps identify patterns of accidents orillnesses.
Auto shops present safety and health issues in many schools.
Cont. on Page 17
Summer 2001
7
Workplace Safety and HealthMakes Good Business Sense
This column features successful Michigan companies that have established a comprehensivesafety and health program which positively impacts their bottom line. An accident-free workenvironment is not achieved by good luck—but by good planning! Creating a safe and healthyworkplace takes as much attention as any aspect of running a business. Some positive benefitsinclude: less injuries and illnesses, lower workers’ compensation costs, increased production,increased employee morale, and lower absenteeism.
The BBottom LLine
Barton Malow CompanyFounded in Detroit in 1924, Barton Malow Company func-
tioned as a general contractor for nearly 50 years. In the early 1970s,they broadened their company to include construction management,with full preconstruction services–coordinating projects from plan-ning through close-out.
In the early 1980s, the company was organized by markets–health care, stadiums, education, and corporate/industrial facilities–to develop a high level of expertise in the industries they serve.Project Planning, formed in 1986 to support these groups with areliable estimating system, has grown to over 30 engineers andarchitects and includes all facets of project planning, value engi-neering and manpower planning.
The corporation employs 1,600 full-time staff, including morethan 1,000 trades personnel, and has experience in 37 states. Theirrevenues for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, were in excess ofone billion dollars. They are headquartered in Southfield, MI, withregional offices in Maryland, Virginia, Arizona, Ohio and Georgia,and are consistently ranked among the top 20 builders in the nation.Corporate Philosophy
The construction industry is very a competitive segment oftoday’s rapidly changing economy. Barton Malow believes theircorporate success is tied directly to theirprofessional reputation. Their mission state-ment is: We build excellent solutions. Theybelieve the character of their company is asimportant as the structures they build.
Conducting a business with an empha-sis on professional integrity is the founda-tion of their corporate structure, and startswith each employee. Every action portraysan element of character that has the powerto build, or destroy, the company reputation.Barton Malow firmly believes that compa-nies with good reputations do more than justfollow the law–they treat people fairly,whether the law requires it or not.
Pressure to get new work, to reduceproject costs, or to complete projects on time–all are factors that may elicit an unethicalresponse. Such responses may be rational-ized by saying, “That’s how you get ahead inbusiness.” Barton Malow believes that is
not how you succeed in business. They have found that making ethicaldecisions creates an atmosphere of trust and increases client satisfac-tion. Their philosophy is to encourage each employee to make ethicaldecisions which will support the positive reputation the company hasearned.Safety Performance
Barton Malow’s long-established safety program, under the lead-ership of John Gleichman, Director of Safety and Loss Control,stresses the training and participation in safe work practices for allproject participants, and the establishment of safety systems fromthe earliest planning stages. The elimination of property damage isan added benefit of their safety program.
With 30 years experience in construction safety, Gleichman di-rects policies and practices to eliminate workplace injuries and occu-pational illnesses, and which also protect the general public neartheir jobsites. According to Gleichman, “We want every employee tobe able to go home in the same condition they came to work.”
Safety is a formal part of their corporate quality program. BartonMalow is ISO-9001 certified, and has a detailed safety manual. Itincludes directions on bid scope documents, hazardous materials,worker safety, project site security, and other topics.
To achieve their safety goals, the com-pany: Provides safety orientation for newemployees and ongoing training; has safetyprocedures in place to ensure accident pre-vention; measures its safety performance,and communicates the information to em-ployees; and evaluates subcontractor safetyperformance prior to bid awards and requiressubcontractor safety plans.
Rick Mee, Chief, MIOSHA Construc-tion Safety Division, and Jerry Faber,MIOSHA Construction Safety Consultant,both recommended Barton Malow for thiscolumn. Most large construction companiesreceive MIOSHA inspections on a regularbasis because of their size and the nature oftheir business. According to Mee, “Theircitation and ‘in compliance’ rate is signifi-cantly below the industry average, which isa testament to their commitment to thesafety of their employees.”
Interiors Group employee Joe Torres fastenshorizontal stiffeners at the new Barton MalowHeadquarters Building.
8
�������������� �������������������� ����� ������ �� ���
The MIOSHA Self-Help Program has pro-vided Michigan employers with the loan of ex-posure monitoring and measuring equipmentsince its inception in 1981. The program is man-aged by the Consultation Education & Training(CET) Division’s Onsite Consultation Program.The onsite program helps employers identify andcorrect potential safety and health hazards.
The primary purpose of the Self-Help Pro-gram is to assist employers conducting their ownevaluations of hazardous exposures in theirworkplaces. This free service provides limitedtechnical industrial hygiene guidance, monitor-ing and measuring equipment, sample analysesand general information. To get the most ben-efit from the program, employers must be trainedto use the equipment and must be sufficientlyfamiliar with today’s health hazards.
After 20 years of operation, CET adminis-tration determined it was necessary to review theSelf-Help Program, particularly in the areas ofequipment training, sampling strategies and mea-suring techniques employed within the program.Therefore, CET temporarily suspended the pro-gram to examine current methodologies and strat-egies, in an effort toward improving the program.
By: Bob Dayringer, CIH, Health ConsultantConsultation Education & Training Division
CET staff recently completed a review ofthe program policies, procedures and practices–and established new guidelines which will offeremployers the best self-help practices in Michi-gan. The Self-Help Program will again be avail-able to employers, effective July 1, 2001.Who is Eligible?
The program is targeted to assist smallemployers, typically with 250 employees or less.High-hazard industries will be given priority.High hazard is determined by matching theemployer’s primary or secondary Standard In-dustrial Classification (SIC) code to a SIC codelist of current high-hazard industries.
For example, a loan of noise monitoringequipment to employers in the following catego-ries would be given priority:
� Logging, sawmills, dimensional lumber,� Wood household furniture,� Foundries,� Fabrication of structural metal,� Metal stamping, and� Screw machine products.
What Equipment is Available?Both exposure monitoring equipment and
sample analyses are available for a number ofair contaminants including dusts, mists, metalfumes and organic vapors. Also, air velocitymeasuring equipment is available for evaluat-
ing ventilation systems, which relateto the reduction of employee air con-taminant exposures. Noise monitoringequipment is also available.
This program is intended to as-sist employers with specific concerns.It is not intended for plant-wide haz-ard studies, or regular and ongoing in-spections. Plant-wide hazard studiesand unique situations involving moni-toring are best addressed by requestingan onsite consultation visit or obtain-ing a private consultant.What Happens When I Call?
To request self-help services, con-tact the CET Division at 517.322.1809.An onsite health consultant will discussthe nature and scope of your request.The consultant will schedule the deliv-ery and training for the use of the moni-toring equipment. Specific MSDS’s maybe requested by the consultant to betterprepare for the selection of monitoringequipment.
While onsite, the consultant willdiscuss employee exposure samplingstrategy (including a review of the work
area, personnel and equipment), equipment op-eration, and the completion of monitoring paper-work. The consultant will ask that you sign anagreement stating that you will correct any prob-lems that are revealed through the monitoring.The consultant will then depart, leaving the em-ployer to conduct the monitoring.
Once the air and/or noise monitoring iscomplete, the employer must promptly returnthe monitoring equipment, any collected samplesand paperwork. They can be returned by mail,UPS, or in person. Upon their return, the healthconsultant will review the collected samples andpaperwork for completion and accuracy and sub-mit them to the MIOSHA Occupational HealthLaboratory for analyses.
When the analytical results are receivedfrom the laboratory, the health consultant willdetermine the exposures of the monitored em-ployees and will compare them to the applicableMIOSHA exposure limits. This information willbe summarized in a brief report to the employer.This service is available to an employer once ina three-year period.What Happens when an Employee OverExposure is Determined?
Employers who have employee exposuresin excess of an exposure limit will be providedwith information regarding how to reduce the ex-posure and/or protect the employee from the ex-posure. An employee exposure that exceeds theexposure limit is considered a serious hazard.
When a serious hazard is noted, the consult-ant will notify the employer and discuss hazardcontrol methods and a date for the hazard correc-tion. The consultant will later follow-up with theemployer to verify that the hazard has been cor-rected. Additional Self-Help exposure monitoringmay be necessary to verify the correction.How to Contact Us
Exposure monitoring is one component ofan employer’s total safety and health program–and is a valuable tool for providing workplaceprotection to employees. The CET Division canhelp employers develop a safety and health pro-gram, improve an existing program, or find thehelp to solve tough safety problems.
CET services include: onsite consultationsurveys and compliance assistance; safety andhealth development programs; training and edu-cation services, such as seminars, workshops andspecial programs; video and publications library;and responses to general MIOSHA or toxico-logical concerns. Please call the CET Divisionat 517.322.1809 for more information or to re-ceive any of the services.This employee is being monitored for air contaminants. �
Summer 2001
9
�
By: Gordon Spitzley, AnalystMIOSHA Information Division
������������������������ �������� ���
Michigan workers suffered significantlyfewer occupational fatalities in 2000, than in1999. The 59 program-related fatalities in 2000in Michigan is a substantial decrease from the87 fatalities reported in 1999.
This reduction is good news for Michiganworkers–and shows that employers and workersare making occupational safety and health a highpriority. The consequences of on-the-job deaths–in terms of human suffering, lost workdays, de-creased production, and increased compensationrates–dramatically decrease as fatalities decrease.
Only fatal cases that are program-relatedas defined by the Bureau of Safety and Regula-tion are compiled, analyzed and published.Therefore the data only includes fatalities thatfall under MIOSHA jurisdiction and does notinclude fatalities resulting from heart attacks,suicides, homicides, highway personal motorvehicle trips and aircraft accidents.
A fatal case is recorded as program-relatedif it occurred under one or more of the followingconditions:
� The incident was found to have resultedfrom violations of MIOSHA safety and healthstandards or the general duty clause.
� The incident was considered to be theresult of a failure to follow a good safety andhealth practice that would be the subject of asafety and health recommendation.
� The information describing the incidentis insufficient to make a clear distinction be-tween a “program-related” and a “non-program-related” incident, but the type and nature of theinjury indicates that there is a high probabilitythat the injury was the result of a failure to ad-here to one or more MIOSHA standards, thegeneral duty clause, or good safety and healthpractice.
Program-related fatalities have been re-corded since 1975 in Michigan. A high of 115fatalities occurred in 1977. There was a gradualdecrease until 1983 when 52 fatalities were re-corded, and then increased to 74 in 1986. A two-year decline to 64 cases in 1988 was recorded,before an increase to 76 in 1989.
Between 1989 and 1993 the number of fa-talities recorded dropped to 51. There were 61recorded during 1994, which decreased to 46 in1996. This is the lowest number of program-re-lated fatalities recorded in more than 20 years.The number of fatalities rose to 76 in 1997, droppedto 68 in 1998, and then increased to 87 in 1999.Industry Division
The largest number of fatalities occurredin the Manufacturing and Construction indus-
tries. The Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; Con-struction; Manufacturing; Transportation andPublic Utilities; Retail Trade; and Services in-dustry divisions experienced a decrease from1999 to 2000. Wholesale Trade and Public Ad-ministration showed increases during the sameperiod. The industries of Oil and Gas Extrac-tion and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate re-corded no fatalities in 2000. The largest decreasewas recorded in Construction, recording ninefewer fatalities in 2000 than in 1999.Occupation Group
The most affected occupation group in 2000with 16 fatalities was Construction Trades fol-lowed by Transportation and Material Movingwith 15. Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Help-ers and Laborers occupations recorded eight fa-talities, while five fatalities occurred in the Farm-ing, Forestry and Fishing occupation group.Event or Exposure
The number of victims that Fell to a LowerLevel during 2000 was 10. Sixteen of the fatali-ties were the result of being Struck by Objects.Victims being Caught In or Compressed byEquipment resulted in seven fatalities, and Con-tact with Electric Current accounted for eightfatalities.Nature of Injury or Illness
The nature of the fatal injuries or illnessesreported were Electric Shock, Electrocution witheight; Internal Injuries of the Trunk, 15; Asphyxia-tion, Strangulation, Drowning, Suffocation, three;and Burn, Heat, one. A significant number, ap-proximately 23 percent, of the fatalities were theresult of intracranial injuries to workers.Age and Gender
Employees between the ages of 21 and 40suffered about 49 percent of the fatal injuries.There were two fatalities to workers under theage of 21. The age groups of 21-25 and 51-55
both suffered nine fatalities, which was the sec-ond-highest number for any of the five-year agecategories following the age group of 26-30 with10 fatalities. The age groups of 56-60 sufferedsix fatalities. Of the 59 victims, 57 were maleemployees.Month of Occurrence
In 2000, September and December recordedthe highest number of fatalities, with eight each.Seven program-related fatalities were reportedduring February. July and August both recordedsix fatalities, while March and October recordedfive. November recorded three and June two.January recorded the lowest number with one.Day of the Week
The highest number of fatalities by day ofthe week was Wednesday with 14, followed byThursday with 13, while Tuesday recorded 12.Nine fatalities were recorded on Friday and sevenon Monday. There was one fatality recorded onSunday in 2000.Conclusion
In order for Michigan to reduce the num-ber of on-the-job fatality cases, it requires a con-scious effort on the part of employers to recog-nize and comply with MIOSHA standards, de-velop and implement safe and healthful work-ing procedures, and assure that employees ob-serve and practice these procedures. TheMIOSHA program offers on-site consultationand safety and health education and trainingopportunities to employers and employees aliketo help them achieve this goal.
The program-related fatality information forMichigan is compiled from the “Employers Ba-sic Report of Injury,” Workers Disability Form100s and from direct telephone reports of fatali-ties to the Bureau of Safety and Regulation. Fur-ther inquiries may be addressed to the MIOSHAInformation Division at 517.322.1851.
115111
89
7365 67
5259
6774 73
6476 72
60 6151
6148 46
7668
87
59
19771978
19791980
19811982
19831984
19851986
19871988
19891990
19911992
19931994
19951996
19971998
19992000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120 Michigan 1977 - 2000
Program-Related Fatalies
10
Migrant workers at a cherry processing plant in Michigan.
With summer upon us, a new growingseason is in progress. Agriculture is the sec-ond largest industry in Michigan, second onlyto automotive. According to Michigan agri-cultural statistics published in 1997, Michi-gan ranks number one nationally for produc-tion of black beans, cranberry beans, navybeans, blueberries, tart cherries, cucumberpickles, geraniums, hanging flowers and Eas-ter lilies. The state ranks second or third forthe production of all dry beans, beddingplants, celery, gladioli, asparagus, dark redkidney beans and fresh carrots. We are amongthe top five producers of such familiar cropsas apples, sweet cherries, tomatoes, peaches,plumbs and pears.
Michigan typically attracts more than40,000 migrant farm workers to help plant,cultivate, and harvest the numerous crops pro-duced. Due to the continued low unemploy-ment rate in Michigan and the nation as awhole, Michigan is in a position where wemust compete with other states to attract themigrant workers that are necessary to keepagriculture strong in our state.
The Interagency Migrant ServicesCommittee (IMSC) was established in 1970to coordinate the delivery of services for mi-grant households and to serve as a clearing-house for the exchange of views, problems,and possible solutions between all concernedparties in the area of migratory farm labor.
One function of the IMSC is to educatethe agricultural community and migrant worker
populations to resources, services and regula-tions that apply to their operations. The IMSCis at the forefront of educating migrant workersto the advantages of choosing Michigan as theplace to perform their agricultural service.
The Bureau of Safety and Regulationhas participated for several years on theIMSC for the purpose of informing agricul-tural growers and workers of Michigan Oc-cupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)regulations which apply to their operations.The following MIOSHA regulations apply toagricultural operations including migrantfarm workers.
� Section 14n (2) and (3), of Act 154,MIOSHA, which address providing potablewater, toilet and hand-washing facilities;
� Agricultural Field Sanitation Rules(1928.110, adopted by Section 14n of Act154);
� Temporary Labor Camps (Rule 4301);� Right to Know/Hazard Communication
(Part 430);� Occupational Air Contaminants and
Physical Agents (the old rules, R325.2401 et.seq. which became effective June 10, 1971);
� Agricultural Tractors (Part 51), FarmField Equipment (Part 53) and AgriculturalOperations (1928.21); and
� Any rules that specifically include ag-ricultural operations in their scope.
The regulations that most often becomean issue at agricultural operations are Sec-tion 14n of Act 154, and the Field SanitationRules. These rules delineate requirementsrelated to drinking water, toilet and handwashing facilities, and general sanitation re-quirements as outlined below.
The Field SanitationRules apply to farms where11 or more hand-labor em-ployees are present on anygiven day. This has been in-terpreted to mean 11 or moreemployees on any day withinthe last 12 months. The re-quirements of Section 14n (2)and (3) expand the coverageto all hand-labor workers,even if there is only one. Theemployer is required to pro-vide, at no cost to the employ-ees, all of the following.
Drinking Water -Drinking water must be pro-vided in locations readily ac-
cessible to all employees and must be po-table. Potable means it meets Michigandrinking water standards as established byAct 399 of 1976 and administrative rulespromulgated pursuant thereto. As a mini-mum, this requires water to meet the stan-dard of rule R325.10602 for coliform bacte-ria content. Where there are 11 or more em-ployees, the water must be suitably cool forthe temperature conditions and dispensed bysingle-use cups or by fountains.
Toilet and Hand Washing Facilities -Toilet and hand washing facilities must beprovided whenever work time plus transpor-tation time to and from the field exceedsthree hours. One toilet and hand washing fa-cility must be provided for each 20 employ-ees or fraction thereof. These facilities mustbe located together and as close as practical(no more than 1/4 mile) to work locationswhere possible, and in no case farther thanone mile. Where there are 10 or fewer em-ployees, these facilities must either be pro-vided by the employer as above or availableto the employees by using employer furnishedtransportation.
Toilet facilities must be ventilated andscreened, have self-closing doors latchablefrom the inside, and constructed to ensureprivacy. Toilet facilities must be operationaland include an adequate supply of toilet tis-sue. Hand washing facilities must have anadequate supply of potable water, soap, andsingle-use towels.
General - All facilities must be main-tained in a clean and sanitary condition andwaste must be disposed of in an appropriatesanitary manner. Employers must informemployees of the location of facilities andallow employees reasonable opportunity touse them. Where there are 11 or more em-ployees, the employer must inform all em-ployees of the importance of good hygienepractices to minimize adverse health effectsfrom heat, diseases, retention of urine, andpesticides.
Questions regarding MIOSHA regula-tions should be directed to the Bureau ofSafety and Regulation at 517.322.1814. Cop-ies of standards are available from theMIOSHA Standards Division at517.322.1845.
Questions related to the InteragencyMigrant Services Committee can be directedto Mr. Manuel Gonzalez, ChairpersonIMSC at 517.373.3567.
MIOSHA and . . .. . .Migrant Farm Workers
By: Robert Pawlowski, CIH, CSPRegional SupervisorOccupational Health Division
�
Summer 2001
11
����������MIOSHA recognizes the safety and healthachievements of Michigan employers andemployees through CET Awards, which are basedon excellent safety and health performance.
Radar Industries
Woolf Aircraft Products, Inc.
Multech, Inc.Multech, Inc., located in Baroda, received the CET Silver Award for achieving
in excess of two years without a lost/restricted day accident or illness. Multech wasformed in 1973, and has a license from 3M Company to apply adhesive/sealants tofastening devices, primarily for the automotive industry.
Ron Raade, Vice President and General Manager attributes their success totheir proactive approach and employee involvement. From their time of hire, Multech’s20 employees are encouraged to participate in virtually all aspects of the safety andhealth program. Employee orientation, training and input have been key factors. Ac-cording to Raade, “It all comes down to people.” CET Consultant Quenten Yodermade the award presentation.
Radar Industries of Warren received the Ergonomic Innovation Award onMarch 7th. This award is given to employers for innovative ideas, which have beenimplemented to reduce worker strain.
Radar Industries is a world leader in automotive stampings and assemblies, andhas three facilities in the greater Detroit area with nearly 200 employees. The awardwas presented to the Warren manufacturing facility.
“Because of the combined efforts of our manufacturing, human resources, andmaintenance departments, ergonomic considerations are taken into account when imple-menting new projects such as this,” said Radar Industries President DaveZmyslowski.
As Radar expanded in this new location, ergonomic features were a part of thelayout and design, particularly with the press room and welding equipment. TheWarren facility employs approximately 40 workers, and has had only one recordableinjury since they opened in May 2000.
The CET Division has worked with Radar Industries since 1995. CET Supervi-sor Connie O’Neill presented the award to the Radar management team.
CET Supervisor Connie O’Neill, CET Consultant Brian Dixon, andRadar Industries Director of Purchasing Nancy Bordato, PresidentDave Zmyslowski, and Vice President of Operations Brian Siess.
Multech Plant Manager Larry Fausac receives the CET SilverAward from CET Consultant Quenten Yoder.
Woolf Aircraft employees celebrate the Ergonomic InnovationAward. Examples of several ergonomic innovations aredisplayed.
Woolf Aircraft Products, Inc., of Romulus received the Ergonomic InnovationAward on April 30th. This award is given to employers for innovative ideas, whichhave been implemented to reduce worker strain.
Since 1942, Woolf Aircraft has produced high quality, tubular parts, weldmentsand sheet metal fabrications to customer specifications. They serve the aircraft, de-fense, commercial and transportation industries, and employ nearly 80 workers. Theaward is in recognition of their significant ergonomic improvements that benefit vari-ous employees who perform repetitious operations in their work assignments.
“By working smarter we are able not only to reduce injuries–but increase produc-tivity, improve product quality, and meet rigid delivery schedules in a very competi-tive global market,” said President Dan Woolf.
CET Safety Consultant Suellen Cook evaluated the proposal submitted by WoolfAircraft, and conducted an onsite review to verify all aspects of their ergonomic changes.CET Supervisor Sheila Ide presented the award to Woolf Aircraft President andOwner Dan Woolf, and safety committee members Leonard Pavilanis and Tim Downey.
Applications may be submitted to the Consultation Education & Training Division (CET) for thefollowing awards: Bronze Award, Silver Award, Gold Award, CET Plaque, ErgonomicInnovation Award, and Ergonomic Success award. For award criteria and applicationinformation, please check our website at: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/cet/cetaward.htm.
12
NewsWage & Hage & Hour
On April 3, 2001, CIS Director Kathleen Wilbur announced that a warrant was issued throughthe 42nd District Court for the owner of the New Baltimore Mancino’s Pizzeria and Grinders forviolations of the Youth Employment Standards Act following the death of a minor employee.
The four-count warrant was the result of the Wage & Hour Division’s investigation intothe death of 16-year-old Justin Mello, who was fatally shot while working at Mancino’s Pizze-ria and Grinders in New Baltimore, Michigan, on Oct. 21, 2000.
The Macomb County Prosecutor authorized issuance of a 4-count warrant against ownerKenneth Lynn Cook, Jr. Cook was arrested and arraigned on April 9, 2001. He was released ona $1,000.00 personal bond. Charges were as follows:
1. Working a minor without a work permit.2. Working a minor without a required meal or rest period.3. Working a minor excess hours work and school combined.4. Working a minor without adult supervision while handling cash.Counts 1-3 are misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or
a fine of not more than $500, or both. Count 4 is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonmentfor not more than one year, or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both.
More than 1,000 youth employment investigations are conducted every year based on acomplaint or information regarding the unlawful or unsafe employment of a minor to determineif there are violations of the Youth Employment Standards Act (PA 90 of 1978).
“In about 99 percent of these investigations we are able to quickly gain compliance by edu-cating the employer about the safe and legal employment of minors,” Wilbur said. “However, thiscase is the exception because it involved the death of a minor employee. When there is an injuryor death of an minor employee, CIS investigates and the findings are turned over to the localprosecutor for issuance of a warrant against the employer if it is determined that there is a viola-tion of the YESA. On average, the department makes 8 to 10 referrals a year to local prosecutors.”
According to statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), anestimated 60-70 minors in the country die from work-related accidents, while thousands morerequire emergency room treatment or hospitalization.
“This case sends a clear message to employers that they will be held accountable forfailing to abide by the laws that were created to protect working teens,” Wilbur said. “Weencourage parents, teachers, and working teens to become educated about the Youth Employ-ment Standards Act and to contact our Wage & Hour Division immediately if there are concernsthat an employer is not meeting these requirements.”
As thousands of teenagers began looking for a summer job, Governor John Engler issuedan Executive Declaration observing June as Youth Employment Month. This summer approxi-mately 390,000 teenagers aged 16-19 are expected be employed in Michigan.
As part of an ongoing effort to educate employers about child labor laws, the Wage andHour Division teamed up with the USDOL Wage & Hour Division to “walk the beat.” Investi-gators of both offices sought out emloyers in retail and fast food establishments, where themajority ot teenagers work–to talk about labor laws and distribute materials on youth employ-ment requirements.
Minors are required to have a work permit, which can be obtained in any Michigan schooldistrict. Generally youths must be at least 14 years old for most jobs, however kids as young as11 can work as a golf caddie, sports referee or as a farm worker.
Adequate adult supervision is also required for working minors. During the summer, mi-nors aged 14 and 15 can work from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., while minors 16 and 17 can beemployed between 6:00 a.m. and 11:30 p.m., for up to 48 hours per week.
Michigan child labor law requires that minors not be allowed to work more than five hourswithout a 30 minute break period.
While working alone, a 16-year-old fe-male minor became the victim of an armedrobbery at Hungry Howie’s in FarmingtonHills. The robbery occurred on May 6, 2001,at approximately 10:55 p.m., just minutes be-fore the scheduled store closing.
The results of a Wage & Hour Divisioninvestigation revealed that the adult supervi-sor had left the store to deliver pizzas prior tothe robbery.
The Wage & Hour Division’s investiga-tion established 19 violations of the YouthEmployment Standards Act involving the dateof the robbery and three prior work days. Theviolations involved included:
� Allowing a minor to work past sunsetor 8:00 p.m. without adult supervision at afixed location where cash transactions occur;
� Allowing a minor to work in a hazard-ous situation/without adult supervision priorto sunset or 8:00 p.m.;
� Allowing a 16 year old minor to workpast 10:30 p.m. on a school night;
� Allowing a minor to work more than48 hours per week, school and work combined;and
� Allowing a minor to work more than 5continuous hours without receiving a 30minute meal and rest period.
Oakland County Prosecutor, DavidGorcyca authorized warrants totaling 45 countsfor violations of the Youth Employment Stan-dards Act.
4-Count Warrant Issued for Mancino’s Ownerfollowing the Death of 16-year-old Employee
Summer Youth Employment
16-year-old becomes ArmedRobbery Victim while Working
Alone at Hungry Howie’s
For More Information
Wage & Hour Division
517.322.1825
www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/wh/home.htm
Summer 2001
13
Education & Training CalendarDate Course MIOSHA Trainer
Location Contact Phone
Co-sponsors of CET seminars may charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of equipment rental, room rental, and lunch/refreshment charges. Forthe latest seminar information check our website, which is updated the first of every month: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr/divisions/cet/cet_cal.htm.
August2 Industrial Machine Guarding Suellen Cook
Livonia Diane Burns 734.462.44483 Strategies for Nursing Homes & Long-term Care Facilities David Nelson
Muskegon Leona Adams 231.777.045413, 14, 15 Safety & Health Administrator Course Bernard Sznaider
Port Huron Sandy Potter 810.985.186514 Industrial Ergonomics, Back Safety & Noise Exposure Linda Long
Westland Toni Herron 734.427.520015 Strategies for Nursing Homes & Long-term Care Facilities Jenelle Thelen
Lansing Sandy Long 517.394.461420 Lockout/Tagout & Confined Space Entry Suellen Cook
Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.450023 MIOSHA Recordkeeping Requirements Lee Jay Kueppers
Flint Margo Aasland 810.323.1401September5 Lockout/Tagout & Confined Space Entry Linda Long
Adrian Don Lites 517.424.325011 Ergonomics Micshall Patrick
Grand Rapids Office Staff 800.704.767612 Confined Space Entry & Power Lockout Linda Long
Westland Toni Herron 734.427.520012 Powered Industrial “Truck Train-the-Trainer” Jennifer Clark-Denson
Monroe Vicki D. Sherman 734.384.412718 Ergonomics Micshall Patrick
Kalamazoo Lisa Peet 616.373.780720 When MIOSHA Visits Suellen Cook
Canton Jacqueline Schank 734.464.996424 Supervisors’ Role In Safety Richard Zdeb
Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.4500October2, 3, 4 Safety & Health Administrator Course
Dearborn Nancy Koehler 313.982.61319 Industrial Accident Prevention Strategies Linda Long
Adrian Don Lites 517.424.32508 & 10 Meat & Food Processing Operations Linda Long
Southfield Ed Ratzenberger 248.557.701011, 18, 25 Safety & Health Administrator Course Suellen Cook
Belleville Janet Millard 734.697.715115 MIOSHA’s Here Richard Zdeb
Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.450024 Supervisors’ Role in Safety Linda Long
Westland Toni Herron 734.427.520029 Building An Effective Safety Program Richard Zdeb
Southfield Pat Murphy 248.353.4500
14
Construction SafetyStandards Commission
LaborMr. Carl Davis**
Mr. Daniel CorbatMr. Andrew LangMr. Martin RossManagement
Mr. Peter Strazdas*Mr. Charles GatecliffMr. Thomas HansenMs. Cheryl HughesPublic MemberMr. Kris Mattila
General Industry SafetyStandards Commission
LaborMr. Michael D. Koehs*
Mr. James BakerMr. Tycho Fredericks
Mr. John PettingaManagement
Mr. Timothy J. Koury**Mr. Michael L. Eckert
Mr. Thomas PytlikMr. George A. Reamer
Public MemberMs. Geri Johnson
Occupational HealthStandards Commission
LaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung*
Ms. Cynthia HollandCapt. Michael McCabeMs. Margaret Vissman
ManagementMr. Robert DeBruyn**
Mr. Michael LucasMr. Richard Olson
Mr. Douglas WilliamsPublic Member
Vacant
*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 Update
New Standards Commission MemberThe newest appointment to the General Industry Safety Standards Commis-
sion is Thomas J. Pytlik. On March 28, 2001, Governor John Engler, appointedMr. Pytlik to represent management for a term which will expire March 26, 2004.
Mr. Pytlik is an Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S) Specialist with DowChemical Company in Midland. He’s worked for Dow for 25 years, with the last six inEH&S. He provides EH&S services for all contractor activities and Dow’s Site Engi-neering Group. He is a board member of the Great Lakes Safety Training Center(GLSTC) in Midland, Chairman of the GLSTC Standards Committee, and a memberof the Facilities Committee. He is a past Commissioner for Bay City, and a member ofthe Southend Citizens District Council in Bay City.
During his career at Dow, he has worked under the MIOSHA standards and isresponsible for implementation and compliance with MIOSHA standards at Dow. Hefeels that his work experiences allow him to contribute to the improvement in safetyperformance in our state and hopefully provide input that is valuable in the promulga-tion process. He hopes to gain much in knowledge and value from his association withthe Standards Commission, members, and staff.
Mr. Pytlik was born and raised in Bay City, MI. He is married with two sons. Heattended Bay City Central High School, and received a B.A. from Saginaw ValleyState University. He is also a veteran of the USAF from 1970 to 1973, including a tourof duty in Southeast Asia.
Public HearingThe MIOSHA Standards Division is holding public hearings for the General
Industry Safety Standards Commission for the following proposed amendment:General Industry: Part 74. Fire Fighting; R 408.17401 et seq.
August 9, 2001 August 15, 2001St. Ignace State Police Post Michigan Dept.of Community Health901 Graham Avenue Manty Conference Room 1BSt. Ignace, Michigan 49781 3423 N. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.1:00 to 3:30 p.m. Lansing, Michigan 48909
1:00 to 3:30 p.m.
The purpose of the hearings is to allow all interested parties an opportunity topresent data, views, and arguments relative to the proposed amendments. Attendeesare urged to submit a written summary of remarks as part of their presentation. Writ-ten comments for each set of proposed rules must be submitted as separate documents.
Persons unable to attend may submit written data to Standards Chief ConnieMunschy no later than 5:00 p.m., Aug. 30, 2001. A copy of the amended rules ap-peared in the Michigan Register, July 15, 2001, and may be obtained from ConnieMunschy, MIOSHA Standards Division, MI Department of Consumer & Industry Ser-vices, 7150 Harris Drive, P.O. Box 30643, Lansing, MI 48909.
The hearings will be conducted in compliance with the 1990 Americans withDisabilities Act, in an accessible building with handicapper parking available. For asign language interpreter or assisted listening devices, please call 517.373.0378 TDDor 1.800.SAY.ABLE T/V. Requests for materials in alternative formats can be made bycalling 517.322.1845.
Summer 2001
15
Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry
Part 18. Overhead and Gantry Cranes ................................................................. At Advisory CommitteePart 19. Crawler, Locomotives, Truck Cranes ..................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 20. Underhung and Monorail Cranes ............................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 56. Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases ........................... Final, effective 8/7/00Part 58. Vehicle Mounted Elevating & Rotating Platforms ................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 69. Compressed Gases ..................................................................................... Final, effective 8/7/00Part 74. Fire Fighting/Amendment #2 ................................................................... Public Hearings to be heldPart 93. Air-Receivers ............................................................................................. Final, effective 8/7/00
ConstructionPart 07. Welding & Cutting .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 10. Lifting & Digging ...................................................................................... Final, effective 1/4/01Part 14. Tunnels, Shafts, Cofferdams & Caissons ................................................ Informal approval by ORRPart 18. Fire Protection & Prevention ................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 20. Demolition .................................................................................................. Final, effective 1/4/01Part 22. Signs, Signals, Tags & Barricades .......................................................... Formal approval by ORRPart 26. Steel and Precast Erection ....................................................................... RFR approved by ORRPart 30. Telecommunications .................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewAd Hoc Communication Tower Erection .............................................................. Approved by Commission for review
Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry
Abrasive Blasting ........................................................................................................ Final, effective 6/6/01Air Contaminants ........................................................................................................ Final, effective 5/9/01Asbestos for General Industry ................................................................................... Final, effective 8/15/00Bloodborne Infectious Disease ................................................................................... Final, effective 10/18/01Ergonomics ................................................................................................................... Withdrawn 3/13/01Illumination R4104-4106 (Occupational Health rules only) ................................... Informal approval by LSBLead .............................................................................................................................. Final, effective 10/12/00Methylenedianiline ...................................................................................................... Final, effective 8/7/00Medical Services/First Aid R4401 ............................................................................. Informal approval by LSBPersonal Protective Equipment .................................................................................. Final, effective 9/28/00Powered Industrial Trucks R3225 (OH Rules only) ................................................ Rescinded due to duplicationRespirators in Dangerous Atmoshperes (OH Rules only) ....................................... Rescinded due to replacement
ConstructionGases, Vapors, Fumes, Dust & Mist R6201 .............................................................. Informal approval by LSBNoise in Construction R6260 ...................................................................................... Final, effective 10/6/00Personal Protective Equipment for Construction R6260 ........................................ Final, effective 8/15/00
Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of June 25, 2001)
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
16
V a r i a n c e sV a r i a n c e sFollowing are requests for variances and vari-ances granted from occupational safety stan-dards in accordance with rules of the Depart-ment of Consumer & Industry Services, Part12, Variances (R408.22201 to 408.22251).
Variances Requested Construction
Published July 20, 2001
Variances Granted Construction
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8-Material Handling: Rule R408.40833, Rule 833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerAmerican Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedAltair Engineering Building, TroyDetroit Lion Training Facility, DearbornName and address of employerBristol Steel & Conveyor Corp.Location for which variance is requestedCompuware Headquarters, Campus Martius, DetroitFord Rouge Complex, DearbornName and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedTroy Community Center, TroyWilliam Beaumont Hospital West Addition, TroyMichigan Catholic Conference Headquarters, LansingName and address of employerGeneral Steel Erectors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedLakes Development, BrightonName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMSX International, SouthfieldFarmington Hills Corp. Center, FarmingtonSolanus Casey Center, DetroitGuernsey Farm Freezer Addition, NorthvilleName and address of employerSova Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedMotorola Project, Farmington HillsTaylor Sports Complex, TaylorName and address of employerWhaley Steel Corp.Location for which variance is requestedSt. Joseph Mercy Hospital, YpsilantiOakland U; Edu. & Human Services Bldg., RochesterKvaerner Songer/kinder Morgan Power Co., JacksonName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedLion StadiumGeneral Motors, Milford
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 12 - Scaffolds and Scaffold Platforms: RuleR408.41233, Rule 1233 (1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to use a 14 inch wide platform ona swing stage scaffold according to certain stipulations.Name and address of employerD. C. Byers Company/DetroitLocation for which variance is requestedMidfield Terminal Parking Structure, Wayne County
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 13 -Mobile Equipment: Ref. #1926.1000 (a) (1&2) (b)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to work under overhead conveyorobstructions in an assembly plant to dig shallow founda-tion pad excavations without the use of rollover equip-ment providing certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerNagle PavingLocation for which variance is requestedWalbridge Ald. Vehicle Eng.Cen.Pkg Structure, Warren
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 26 - Steel & Precast Erection: Rule R408.42656(1) (a), rule 42656 (1) (a)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to use part 45, Safety Net Regula-tions in lieu of Part 26.Name and address of employerCoutour SteelLocation for which variance is requestedGM Global Wintergarden Project, DetroitName & address of employerMero Structures, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGM Global Wintergarden Project, Detroit
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32 - Aerial Lift Platforms: Rule R408.43209, Rule43209 (8)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name & address of employerHi-Tech Electric Co.Location for which variance is requestedMetro Airport Midfield Terminal Project, Detroit
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8-Material Handling: Rule R408.40833, rule 833(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to tandem lift structural steel mem-bers under controlled conditions and with stipulations.Name and address of employerDouglas Steel Erection CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedUof M Palmer Dr. Life Sciences Institute, Ann ArborName and address of employerJohnson Steel Fabrication, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedBorg Warner Powertrain Technical Center, Auburn HillsBreslin Student Events Center - Addition, East LansingName and address of employerMBM Fabricators & ErectorsLocation for which variance is requestedDetroit Water & Sewerage Dept., DetroitName and address of employerMcGuire Steel Erection, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedAshley Mews Townhomes, Ann ArborName and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedFord Heritage Assembly Plant, Dearborn
General Motors Tech Center, WarrenName and address of employerWhitmore SteelLocation for which variance is requestedFord Child Care, Sterling Heights
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 13 - Mobile Equipment: Ref. #19261000 (a) (1&2) (b)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow the employer to work under overhead conveyorobstructions in an assembly plant to dig shallow founda-tion pad excavations without the use of rollover equip-ment providing certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerMerlyn contractors, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedGeneral Motors Technological Center, Warren
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 14 - Tunnels, Shafts, Caissons and Coffererdams:R408.41482, Rule 1482(g)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employees to remain in the caisson under con-trolled conditions when material is being hoisted fromthe caisson and according to certain stimulations.Name and address of employerThe Millgard CorporationLocation for which variance is requestedDetroit Edison Monroe Power Plant, Monroe
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 8 - Material Handling and Part 20 - Demolition:Rules R408.40831 (8) and Rule R408.42034 (6)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow material to be dropped more than 20 feet out-side the exterior of the building without the use of a chute.Name and address of employerJKM RoofingLocation for which variance is requestedDetroit Public Schools Roof Replacement Program, Detroit
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 32-Aerial Lift Platforms: Rules R408.43209 Rule3209Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedDetroit Axle Plant Addition, DetroitFord heritage Assembly Plant, DearbornName and address of employerMichigan Mechanical Insulation, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedNorthwest Airlines Midfield Terminal Site, Romulus
Part and rule number from which variance is requestedPart 45 - Fall Protection: Ref. #1926.502 (g) (1) (ii)Summary of employer’s request for varianceWhen erecting precast concrete members, to allow thecontrol line to be erected not less than 6 ft. nor more than80 ft. from the edge.Name and address of employerAlberici - Walsh - PBMLocation for which variance is requestedMidfield Parking Structure, Detroit �
Summer 2001
17
Educational ServicesCont. from Page 6
�
Hazard Communication or EmployeeRight to Know - This standard establishes re-quirements for workplaces that use or producehazardous chemicals, and applies to all work-places covered by MIOSHA including schooldistricts. This impacts school personnel engagedin maintenance, groundskeeping, janitorial, foodpreparation, etc. It requires a written programwhich describes how the employer intends toimplement the requirements. Secondly, a list ofall hazardous substances must be compiled anda Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) obtainedfor each chemical. Employee training is a vitalcomponent of this standard, and appeared to belacking in many districts. Districts also seemedto have difficulty in developing a comprehensivehazardous material listing, which may indicate aneed for better communication between the vari-ous levels within the educational systems.
Personal Protective Equipment Standardfor General Industry, Part 33 - This standardrequires employers to conduct an assessment ofthe workplace in order to determine if any haz-ards are present to which employees are exposed(not students), that necessitates the use of sometype of protective equipment. The assessmentmust be in writing. Generally, districts seem tobe doing a good job in providing the neededequipment, the formal written analysis was lack-ing and enforcement and training do not appearto be uniformly applied.
Control of Hazardous Energy Sources -Commonly referred to as lockout-tagout, this stan-dard was an issue at the majority of the districtsvisited. The districts were aware that lockout wasrequired when the unintended release of energycould cause injury during service or maintenanceoperations. However, the need to develop a pro-gram and procedures, conduct training and au-dits of the procedures was almost universally lack-ing. Also, there appeared to be a need for greaterunderstanding of the requirement to lockout elec-trical circuits while engaged in such tasks aschanging ballasts in flourescent lights.
Confined Space - Schools must survey theirfacilities to determine whether any spaces existwhich would be considered a confined space.According to the MIOSHA Confined Space stan-dard, an area must be considered a confinedspace if it meets three requirements. First, it islarge enough to enter. Second, it is not intendedfor continuous occupancy. And third, it has thepotential for oxygen deficiency, toxic or explo-sive atmospheres, or engulfment or other physi-cal hazards exist. If a district requires employ-ees to enter confined spaces, a confined spaceprogram must be developed and implemented.Compliance Activities
In addition to CET outreach activities, thestrategies adopted for this performance goal alsocall for general industry safety or health inspec-tions in sites throughout the state identified ashaving large numbers of employees and with thehighest LWDCR (Lost workday case rates), aswell as at randomly selected sites. During the
initial strategic plan years, only a limited numberof inspections will be conducted. In subsequentyears, inspection activity will be increased.
The inspection approach uses workers’ com-pensation data to identify districts experiencinggreater numbers of compensable workers’ com-pensation injuries. A single educational facilitywithin the district is identified for inspectionalong with the support facilities which serve theeducational facility. For example, if an educa-tional facility receives maintenance from a cen-tral maintenance unit, that unit would be in-spected as well as the educational facility.
MIOSHA only has jurisdiction when thereis an employer/employee relationship and thereis exposure to a hazard. Consequently, only em-ployees of the educational institution would becovered by MIOSHA regulations. Students at-tending these institutions are protected byMIOSHA requirements to the extent that they maybe employed by the educational organization, ir-respective of student status.CET Services
It is hoped that MIOSHA program effortsto reach public sector education services willresult in not only a greater degree of compliancewith MIOSHA regulations, but achieve the evengreater goal of reducing workplace injuries andillnesses in the educational sector.
To learn more about MIOSHA requirementsthat apply to public-sector educational services,please contact the CET Division at 517.322.1809.CET Services include: seminars, onsite consult-ant visits, or information packets.
Distinguished Service AwardSafety Professional of the YearLynn C. O’Donnell, CIHExecutive DirectorAmerican Board of Industrial Hygiene
Lynn O’Donnell joined the Michigan SafetyConference in 1986 and has 15 years of uninter-rupted service. She served on the Industrial Hy-giene Division from 1986 to 1989, and 1998 topresent. Lynn was the Arrangements Chairper-son from 1989 to 1994, which is a year-long com-mitment. She has been on the Board of Directorssince 1987, culminating in her service as Presi-dent in 1994-95.
Lynn received the John J. Bloomfield Awardin May of 1981 for up and coming industrial hy-gienists and was elected to Fellow member statusof the American Industrial Hygiene associationin 1994. She served on that board from 1989 to1992. She has been President of the WesternMichigan Section of the American IndustrialHygiene Association and served on the GrandValley State University Occupational Safety andHealth Program Advisory Board for six years.Lynn has been Executive Director of the Ameri-can Board of Industrial Hygiene since 1991.
71st Annual Michigan Safety Conference
Timothy J. KouryManager of Environmental Health & Safety
Textron Automotive Company
Lynn O’Donnell and Timothy Koury.
Timothy J. Koury has served as Manager ofEnvironmental Health and Safety for Textron Au-tomotive Company since September 2000. Priorto that, he served as Safety Director for Blue WaterPlastics in Marysville, MI, for 14 years and wasresponsible for the environmental, health, andsafety programs. Blue Water Plastics has 11 na-tional locations, with over 1,300 employees.
The safety program established by Tim atBlue Water Plastics has been identified byMIOSHA as one of the best in the state. Themanufacturing facilities have a history of sevenMIOSHA inspections without a violation, cita-tion, or fine. The company received threeMIOSHA Ergonomic Success Awards.
Tim is currently Vice Chairperson of theMIOSHA General Industry Safety StandardsCommission, where he has been a member since1994. He has been active with the Society of thePlastics Industry in developing the HorizontalInjection Molding Standard.
18
Needlestick RevisionsCont. from Page 1
from hazards associated with bloodborne patho-gens. It does, however, specify in greater detailthe engineering controls, such as safer medicaldevices, which must be used to reduce or elimi-nate worker exposure.Exposure Control Plan
The revision includes new requirements regard-ing the employer’s Exposure Control Plan, includ-ing an annual review and update to reflect changesin technology that eliminate or reduce exposure tobloodborne pathogens. The employer must:
� Take into account innovations in medicalprocedure and technological developments that re-duce the risk of exposure (e.g., newly available medi-cal devices designed to reduce needlesticks); and
� Document consideration and use of appro-priate, commercially-available, and effective saferdevices (e.g., describe the devices identified ascandidates for use, the method(s) used to evaluatethose devices, and justification for the eventualselection).
No one medical device is consideredappropriate or effective for all circum-stances. Employers must select devices that,based on reasonable judgment:
� Will not jeopardize patient or em-ployee safety or be medically inadvisable;and
� Will make an exposure incident in-volving a contaminated sharp less likely tooccur.
The key to selection is appropriate, ef-fective and improved protection to reduceemployee exposure. Not all safer designsmeet these criteria. Field testing is a criti-cal component of the evaluation process.Employee Input
Employers must solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for di-rect patient care regarding the identifica-tion, evaluation, and selection of effectiveengineering controls, including safer medi-cal devices. Employees selected should rep-resent the range of exposure situations en-countered in the workplace, such as thosein geriatric, pediatric, nuclear medicine,emergency services, and others involved indirect care of patients.Documentation of Employee Input
Employers are required to document,in the Exposure Control Plan, how they re-ceived input from employees. This obliga-tion can be met by:
� Listing the employees involved anddescribing the process by which input wasrequested; or
� Presenting other documentation, in-cluding references to the minutes of meet-ings, copies of documents used to requestemployee participation, or records of re-sponses received from employees.Recordkeeping
Employers with employees who are oc-cupationally exposed to blood or other po-tentially infectious materials, and are re-quired to maintain a log of occupationalinjuries and i l lnesses under existingrecordkeeping rules (Part 11, Administra-tive Rules), must also maintain an addi-tional sharps injury log. At a minimum,the sharps injury log will contain the fol-lowing:
� The type and brand of device in-volved in the incident;
� Location of the incident (e.g., de-partment or work area); and
� Description of the incident.The sharps injury log may include ad-
dit ional information as long as anemployee’s privacy is protected. The for-mat of the log can be determined by theemployer. Employers with 10 employees orless are not required to keep the MIOSHAlog or the sharps injury log.
Modification of DefinitionsThe revised standard includes expanded
definitions of key terms relating to engineer-ing controls. Two terms have been added tothe standard, while the description of an ex-isting term has been amended.Engineering Controls
Engineering Controls include all mea-sures that isolate or remove a hazard fromthe workplace, such as sharps disposal con-tainers and self-sheathing needles. The origi-nal bloodborne pathogens standard was notspecific regarding the applicability of vari-ous engineering controls (other than the aboveexamples) in the healthcare setting.
The revision now specifies that “safermedical devices, such as sharps with engi-neered sharps injury protections andneedleless systems” constitute an effectiveengineering control, and must be used wherefeasible.Sharps with Engineered Sharps InjuryProtections
This new term includes nonneedle sharpsor needle devices containing built-in safetyfeatures that are used for collecting fluids oradministering medications or other fluids, orother procedures involving the risk of sharpsinjury. This description covers a broad arrayof devices, including:
� Syringes with a sliding sheath thatshields the attached needle after use;
� Needles that retract into a syringe afteruse;
� Shielded or retracting catheters; and� Intravenous medication (IV) delivery
systems that use a catheter port with a needlehoused in a protective covering.Needleless Systems
This new term defines devices whichprovide an alternative to needles for variousprocedures to reduce the risk of injury involv-ing contaminated sharps. Examples include:
� IV medication systems which admin-ister medication or fluids through a catheterport using non-needle connections; and
� Jet injection systems which deliver liq-uid medication beneath the skin or through amuscle.Background
OSHA originally published the Occupa-tional Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogensstandard in 1991, because of the significanthealth risk associated with exposure to vi-ruses and other microorganisms that causebloodborne diseases. Of primary concern wasthe human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),and the hepatitis B and C viruses. In Michi-gan, an occupational health standard essen-tially equivalent to the OSHA standard be-came effective July 15, 1993.
The standard set forth requirements foremployers with workers exposed to blood or
Above–Mary Ware, a clinic technician with the InghamCounty WIC Program, is using a safe blood-collectingdevice. Below–This close-up demonstrates thepermanently retractable, non-reusable lancet used byWare, which the Ingham County Health Department isevaluating.
Cont. on Page 19
Summer 2001
19
Cont. from Page 18
�
Needlestick Revisions
�
get the program off to a goodstart, followed by ongoing man-agement commitment and in-volvement to ensure the programtakes root and continues.
Management commitment iscritical in providing leadershipnecessary for success. Employeesmust be able to visibly see thattop management puts emphasison safety and health issues, in-cluding lockout-tagout. Line man-agers and supervisors must beconsistent in their commitmentand in following safety and healthrules and work practices.Lockout/TagoutRequirements
MIOSHA Part 85, Control ofHazardous Energy Sources, requires employ-ers to plan for the control of energy duringservicing and/or maintenance of machineswhere unexpected energization or motion,start up, or release of stored energy couldcause injury. It requires that employers planfor the control of energy by doing the follow-ing:
� Establish an energy control pro-gram,
� Develop, document and utilize lock-out/tagout procedures,
� P rovide employees appropr ia tetraining,
� Provide, at no cost to employees,equipment required by the lockout/tagout pro-cedures,
� Ensure continued competency throughinspections and retraining.
Part 85 covers servicing and maintenanceof machines, equipment and associated activi-ties. The purpose is to protect employees frominjury due to unexpected or unintended mo-tion, energization, start-up or release of storedenergy from the machine, equipment, or pro-cess.
Energy sources include electrical, pneu-matic, hydraulic, mechanical, thermal, andchemical. There may also be stored or re-sidual energy that may remain once the pri-mary energy source is shut down. Stored en-ergy may result from steam, air pressure,compression of springs, electrical capacitors,or gravity.
Normal production operations are notcovered by the standard. However, servicingand/or maintenance during normal productionoperations are covered by Part 85 in the fol-lowing circumstances:
� An employee is required to remove orbypass a guard or other safety device;
� An employee is required to place any
part of his or her body into an area on a ma-chine or piece of equipment where work isactually performed on the material being pro-cesses (point of operation);
� An employee is exposed to an associ-ated danger zone during a machine operatingcycle.
In addition MIOSHA Part 40, ElectricalSafety-Related Work Practices, addresses safework practices including lockout where thehazard to the employee is electrical.
Other MIOSHA standards which applyto specific processes or industries may alsocontain lockout requirements which may gobeyond Part 85 and Part 40. In these cases,the lockout requirement of the specific stan-dard preempts the tagout option contained inPart 85. However, the procedural and train-ing requirements of Part 85 continue to ap-ply as well so that the end result is a com-plete program for protecting employees fromenergy hazards.Join the Crusade
If your workers are required to performservicing or maintenance, must remove orbypass guards to perform a tasks, place anypart of their body in the point of operation ofa machine or is exposed to associated dan-ger, please join the crusade for full lockout-tagout compliance. Establish a program andprocedures, provide training and equipment,and make compliance a priority in your work-place.
Assistance in establishing or strength-ening your company lockout-tagout programis available by contacting the ConsultationEducat ion and Training Divis ion at517.322.1809. Consultants are available towork with companies in their workplace. Inaddition, an excellent resource, the Lockout/Tagout Compliance Guide, SP-27 is alsoavailable.
Lockout it OutCont. from Page 5
other potentially infectious materials. Em-ployers were required to implement an expo-sure control plan for the worksite with de-tails on employee protection measures. In theplan employers are to describe how they will:use a combination of engineering and workpractice controls; ensure the use of personalprotective clothing and equipment; and pro-vide training, medical surveillance, hepatitisB vaccinations, and signs and labels, amongother provisions.
In September 1998, OSHA asked thepublic for details on engineering and workpractice controls used to prevent needlesticks.They received nearly 400 responses from thehealthcare community. They learned that saferdevices exist, but they aren’t in widespreaduse–which means there are many needlesticksoccurring that could be prevented.
Based on the information received, OSHAupdated its bloodborne pathogens compliancedirective effective Nov. 5, 1999. The directivedid not change the standard, but it did clarifythe standard’s requirements. OSHA is currentlyin the process of issuing a new compliance di-rective, which upon adoption by MIOSHA, willguide our administration of the new needlestickprovisions.MIOSHA Outreach Services
MIOSHA is reaching out to educate em-ployers, healthcare workers, and the generalpublic on the new needlestick requirements.In accordance with our emphasis to “educatebefore we regulate,” MIOSHA has planned a90-day outreach and education effort be-fore enforcing the new provisions of the stan-dard on Oct. 18, 2001. Meanwhile, enforce-ment will continue for requirements containedin the original standard.
The Consultation Education and Train-ing (CET) Division is planning workshopsthroughout the state, in cooperation withhealthcare associations, to assist employerswith the revised standard. The three-hourworkshops will include: standard requirementsand revisions, elements of an exposure con-trol plan, engineering controls, selection cri-teria, and the new sharps injury log. Interestedhealthcare workers should contact CET Divi-sion Health Consultant Jenelle Thelen at517.322.1809 for details.
In March and April of this year, CET incooperation with six professional healthcareassociations, sponsored a series of seminarsexplaining the 1999 Compliance Directiveand new enforcement procedures.
The CET Division is available to supportyour healthcare education and training needs.Outreach kits are available through CET toassist employers with compliance activities.For information call 517.322.1809.
Do it Right–Above is proper lockout on an electrical panel.
20
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 Complaint Hotline 800.866.4674Fatality/Catastrophe Hotline 800.858.0397General Information 517.322.1814
Free Safety/Health Consultation 517.322.1809
Consumer & Industry ServicesBureau of Safety & RegulationP.O. Box 306437150 Harris DriveLansing, Michigan 48909-8143
(20,000 copies printed at a cost of $9,200 or $0.46 per copy.)
Website: www.cis.state.mi.us/bsr
517.322.1814 Doug Earle
517.322.1817 Deborah Grether
517.322.1817 Doug Kalinowski
PHONE CHIEF
517.322.1297 Diane Phelps
517.322.1856 Richard Mee
517.322.1809 Maryann Markham
248.888.8777 Jim Brogan
517.322.1831 Martha Yoder
517.322.1851 Ron Morris
517.322.1608 John Peck
517.322.1845 Connie Munschy
517.322.1825 Bill Strong
Director
Deputy Director
Deputy Director
DIVISION
Appeals
Construction Safety
Consultation Education & Training
Employee Discrimination
General Industry Safety
Information
Occupational Health
Standards
Wage & 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
