Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)Vol. 10, No. 4 Fall 2006

Cont. on Page 18

In This IssueDirector’s Column 2

MIOSHA Fatality Alert 3

Great Lakes SHARP Award 4

Herman Miller MVPP Award 5

Forklifts – General Industry 6

Fork Trucks – Construction 7

Forklifts – CO Hazards 8

Safe PIT Operations 9

“Take a Stand” Companies 10

Home Builders Alliance 11

Construction CET Award 11

CET Awards 12

Education & Training Calendar 13

Standards Update 14

Tree Trimming Initiative 16

Variances 16

MIOSHA News Quiz 17

A utility operator drove off a loading dock in reverse, and was fatallypinned when the truck overturned.

Forklift FatalitiesEmployers Urged to Step-Up Efforts to Ensure Safe Powered Industrial Truck UseThis special edition of the MIOSHA News focuses on preventing injuries anddeaths among workers who operate or work around powered industrial trucks(PIT). This year in Michigan, five workers have died from PIT-related incidents.This edition of the MIOSHA News contains a variety of informational articlesand references to help increase awareness of hazards and safe work practices.

By: Martha Yoder, Acting DirectorMIOSHA Program

It’s easy to see why jobs driving poweredindustrial trucks–also known as forklifts, forktrucks, pallet trucks, rider trucks, hi-los, lifttrucks and other names–are highly sought afterin workplaces throughout Michigan. It just lookslike fun! But like any other powered vehicles,operating powered industrial trucks is seriousbusiness.

The National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health (NOISH) estimates thateach year in the United States, nearly 100workers are killed and another 20,000 are se-riously injured in PIT-related incidents. From1980 to 1994, there were 1,021 worker deathsdue to traumatic injuries suffered in PIT-re-lated incidents.

The NIOSH investigations of PIT-relateddeaths indicate that there are workers and em-ployers who may not be aware of the risks ofoperating or working near powered industrialtrucks. Nationally, the three most common PIT-related fatalities involve:

Forklift overturns,Workers on foot struck by forklifts, andWorkers falling from fork lifts.

NIOSH investigations of these accidentsindicate that contributing factors include the fac-tory environment, the PIT, and operator actionscan all contribute to fatal injuries. In addition,many workers assigned to drive forklifts are notaware of the safety procedures necessary to re-duce the risk of injury and death.Forklift Fatalities in 2006

During 2006, Michigan has experiencedfive worker deaths as a resultof powered industrial truck ac-cidents. These tragic accidentsare summarized below.Forklift Driver – Age 35:Pinned by overturned truck.

The employee worked ata production welding facilityproducing automotive parts,and had been on the job lessthan one month as a second-shift forklift driver.

The employee was loadingthe truck at the dock with emptyparts bins. The employee drovehis truck outside to retrieve

2

From theMIOSHA

Director’sDesk

By: Martha B. Yoder,ActingDirector

New InitiativesTo ImproveSafety & HealthExcellence

It is a privilege to “step-in” for Doug Kalinowski during the nextfew months while he serves as Acting Deputy Director of the Depart-ment of Labor and Economic Growth. In this interim position, he is re-sponsible for a variety of programs that impact the workplace. ActingDeputy Director Kalinowski is responsible for Michigan’s unemployment,wage and hour, workers’ compensation, and MIOSHA program areas.We know the programs under his leadership will benefit from the samepassion for excellence and doing the right thing that he has demonstratedin MIOSHA.Special MIOSHA News Issue

This special issue of the MIOSHA News provides a number of ar-ticles and a quiz focusing on the safety and health issues of poweredindustrial truck use. Can there be any more frequently used piece of equip-ment across industries? Powered industrial trucks have greatly improvedthe ability of workplaces to handle and move bulky, heavy, and large loadsquickly.

Unfortunately, each year in Michigan we see worker deaths in-volving this equipment both in general industry and construction envi-ronments. This issue is intended to raise awareness of the require-ments for safe use and operation, as well as the potential hazards. Wehope it is the springboard for discussions and action in your workplacethat will keep workers safe.Tree Trimming and Removal

This issue includes an article announcing a new MIOSHA initia-tive focusing on increasing safety diligence in the tree trimming andremoval industry. To date in 2006, there have been four worker deathsrelated to tree trimming and removal. In response, MIOSHA devel-oped a special mailing to the industry that includes a fact sheet ofindustry hazards and precautions, a PowerPoint presentation for em-ployer to use in their in-house training efforts, and applicable MIOSHAstandards.

It is also anticipated that enforcement presence will increase withinthe next few months. The goal is to raise awareness, and identify andcorrect hazards, to keep workers safe while performing tree trimmingand removal work.“Connecting MIOSHA to Industry”

MIOSHA has adopted a new coordinated approach for fiscal year2007, “Connecting MIOSHA To Industry,” to increase MIOSHA effec-tiveness.

No matter what strategy MIOSHA implements or the workplacesvisited, the mission is the same: To improve the safety and health ofworking men and women. The goal of this new strategy is to ensurethat MIOSHA interventions are educational, informative, and useful,whether conducted by consultation or enforcement staff.Target Employer List

This new approach calls for one list of workplaces identified forMIOSHA visits that will be used by both enforcement and consultationfor scheduling general industry workplace visits. The list was com-

piled using information from a variety of data sources including workers’compensation, unemployment, the federal OSHA Data Initiative, employerdirectories and other sources.

It focuses on priorities identified in the MIOSHA Strategic Plan:Furniture and fixtures, primary metal industries, fabricated metal prod-ucts, industrial machine and equipment manufacturing, transportationequipment production, and other workplaces experiencing higher num-bers of worker injuries and illnesses.

General Industry Safety and Health Division compliance staff willuse the assignments for routine, planned inspections. Consultation Edu-cation and Training (CET) staff will use the assignments to call on work-places to offer voluntary safety and health assistance.Employer Notification

To introduce the strategy, a letter will be sent to employers in-cluded on the target employer list. The letter is intended:

To alert them that their workplace is included,Toencourage proactive steps to review their existing safety andhealth management systems, andTo offer MIOSHA consultation services.

Internally, the directors of the consultation and enforcement divi-sions drafted a protocol to provide guidance on how CET and enforce-ment activities will be coordinated when visits to workplaces overlap.Increased Communication

To assist staff in moving toward greater information sharing, MIOSHAis working with a professional facilitator aimed at increasing our effec-tiveness when explaining requirements and sharing information.

With the help of the facilitator, we hope to:Acquire a better understanding of various corporate culturesand organizational structures.Improve communication and ability to assist high-hazard employers develop safety and health systems.Develop and share safety and health success stories of Michiganworkplaces.

This coordinated, comprehensive approach will allow MIOSHA toreach more Michigan workplaces with information that enhances cur-rent efforts to protect their workers.

Through “Connecting MIOSHA to Industry” we are making itour goal to spread the message that taking time to follow MIOSHAregulations can prevent workplace tragedies and enhance the overallcorporate bottom line. We believe this emphasis on information sharing andoutreach will have impressive results by encouraging lasting safety andhealth improvements.

Previous columns have emphasized the critical role that commu-nication plays in MIOSHA’s future and in the work of safety and healthprofessionals. Through proactive sharing of information, experiencesand best practice successes–important and lasting changes can be madethat will “Make a Difference” in eliminating fatalities, injuries andillnesses.

Fal l 2006

3

MIOSHA Fatality AlertMIOSHA Urges Employers to Proactively Protect their Workers

The company installed this new platform, after an employed climbedon a piece of plywood to service equipment, and fell to his death.

Worker ProtectionThrough September 25, 2006, there have

been 34 program-related fatal workplace ac-cidents in Michigan. MIOSHA is remindingemployers and workers that workplace deathscan be prevented.

The 34 program-related fatal workplaceaccidents is an increase from last year.Through August 2005, there were 27 deaths.The calendar year total for 2005 was 36.

Employers have a legal obligation to pro-vide a safe and healthy work environment foremployees The MIOSHA Act requires em-ployers to provide “a workplace free of rec-ognized hazards that are likely to cause deathor serious physical harm to the employees.”The purpose of MIOSHA safety and healthrules is to set minimum requirements andprovide guidelines for identifying and correct-ing the hazards contributing to injuries, ill-nesses and fatalities.

The MIOSHA program is required tomonitor the safety and health conditions inworkplaces covered by the MIOSHA Act. Ourinspection system focuses on Michigan work-places with the highest injury and illnessrates. We want to target worksites where wecan do the most good. In addition, consulta-tion activities are focused where the greatestpotential for improvement exists.

MIOSHA urges proactive attention tosafety and health diligence in all workplaces.Fatal accidents can be prevented when employ-ers develop and implement safety and healthmanagement systems. These systems includenot only following MIOSHA rules, but empha-size the need for ongoing strong leadershipsupport, employee involvement, worksitemonitoring, and training. Eeffective workersafeguards must be applied at every jobsite.August 2006 Fatalities

Work-related injuries and disease take asignificant human and economic toll.

According to the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),each day in the U.S., an average of 9,000workers sustain disabling injuries on the job,16 workers die from an injury sustained atwork, and 137 workers die from work-relateddiseases.

The Liberty Mutual Research Institutefor Safety estimates 3.7 million workplaceinjuries in 2004 cost businesses more than

$150 billion in direct and indirect costs.Ten Michigan workers lost their lives on

the job during August 2006. This comparesto three during August 2005. The ultimateright of every worker is to return home safely.

The 10 Michigan MIOSHA-related fatalaccidents in August 2006 are:

August 6 – Escanaba – A Carnival RideAttendant, age 36, was pinned between thetrailer fender well and tire while loading car-nival rides.

August 7 – Cassopolis – An Electrician,age 34, received a fatal electric shock whileinstalling a spotlight from a ladder.

August 8 – Ruth – A Laborer, age 40,was struck by a truck that was backing upduring a road milling operation.

August 9 – Farmington Hills – The Part-Owner of a Construction Company, age 54,was crushed between the front end and thebucket of an earth-moving machine.

August 9 – Ontonagon – A ConcreteTruck Driver, age 30, was found pinned be-tween a front-end loader and a conveyor.

August 21 – Flint – A Welder, age 23,was pinned between a powered industrialtruck and a vehicle.

August 24 – Battle Creek – A ProcessOperator, age 36, was killed when a pieceof equipment used to make cereal exploded.

August 28 – Roseville – A Tool and DieMaker, age 42, was struck by a die whilemoving the die with an overhead crane.

August 30 – Flint – A Truck Driver, age59, was pinned between a truckand the loading dock while help-ing another driver.

August 31 – Moline – A Car-penter, age 62, fell while install-ing J-channel from a roof.

While nothing can ever re-place a life lost–one way to honorthese workers is to thoroughly in-vestigate the circumstances sur-rounding the accident and to usethe findings to make sure a simi-lar tragedy is prevented.Hazard Prevention

Most employers take theirworkplace safety and health re-sponsibilities very seriously. Em-ployers are encouraged to analyzetheir workplace and to adopt a

safety and health program that addresses theirspecific hazards and needs.

Worksites that implement safety stan-dards appropriate to their industry can mini-mize or eliminate employee exposure to haz-ards. A comprehensive safety and health man-agement system is the best framework to helpemployers protect their workers and complywith MIOSHA standards.

The key elements are:Management commitment,Employee involvement,Workplace analysis,Hazard prevention and control, andSafety and Health training.

The MIOSHA Consultation Educationand Training (CET) Division has consultantsavailable to help employers create safety andhealth systems, develop accident preventionprograms, and implement long-term solu-tions. Companies can call the CET Divisionat 517.322.1809 for any of their safety andhealth needs. Information on MIOSHA out-reach services can also be found on ourwebsite at: www.michigan.gov/miosha.

For more information on MIOSHA stan-dards, companies can contact the Construc-tion Safety and Health Division at517.322.1856, or the General Industry Safetyand Health Division at 517.322.1831.

MIOSHA’s goal is to ensure that effec-tive tools and training are available to em-ployers and to help prevent workplace inju-ries, illnesses and fatalities.

4

Back: Joe Wondergem, Material Handler; Jason Triest, Safety &Health Mngr.; Don Ehlers, Millwright; Steve Tachick, FinishingLine. Front: Dawn Cain, Finishing Line; Daren Hunter, WastewaterTreatment Plant; and Carla Golueke, Process Operator.

Congratulations Great Lakes!Great Lakes Pulp & Fibre Receives SHARP Award for Safety and Health Excellence

On July 27th, Great Lakes Pulp & Fibre inMenominee became the sixth facility in the stateto receive the prestigious SHARP Award for anexemplary safety and health management sys-tem. The award ceremony was part of thecompany’s 10th Anniversary celebration.Recognizing 10 Successful Years

“This is an outstanding day for Great LakesPulp & Fibre–you are celebrating your 10th An-niversary and you are receiving an award fewcompanies will achieve,” said DLEG DirectorRobert W. Swanson. “Your decision to producea high-quality product, while protecting yourworkers and the environment–makes you oneof Michigan’s Economic All Stars.”

The Michigan Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (MIOSHA) established theMichigan Safety and Health Achievement Rec-ognition Program (SHARP) Award to recognizeemployers that have achieved safety and healthexcellence far beyond their peers. The MIOSHAprogram is part of the Michigan Department ofLabor & Economic Growth (DLEG).

DLEG Director Robert W. Swanson andMIOSHA Acting Director Martha B. Yoder pre-sented the award to Robert C. Garland, Presi-dent & CEO; Rich Olson, Mill Manager; ToddClausen, Operations Manager; and JasonTriest, Safety Manager; who accepted on behalfof all the mill’s employees.

“Great Lakes Pulp & Fibre is a world classmill that produces high-quality recycled pulp.We place the safety and well-being of our em-ployees above all else,” said Garland. “Thisaward is a reflection of our commitment to a

safe work environment and weare all very proud of this ac-complishment.”Providing OutstandingProtection

These public officials rec-ognized the company on theiroutstanding achievement:George Krah, Mayor ofMenominee; Bob Harbick,Mayor of Marinette; EricStrahl, Menominee City Man-ager; Darrell Eland, Presidentof the Marinette andMenominee Chamber of Com-merce; Tom Casperson, StateRepresentative.

“We are honored to presentthis prestigious award to the

employees and management of Great Lakes Pulp& Fibre,” said Yoder. “We applaud your decisionto make safety and health an integral part of yourcompany culture. You are sending the messagethat protecting your workers is a sound businessdecision.”

The Michigan SHARP Program targets smallmanufacturers–to help them develop, implementand continuously improve the effectiveness of theirworkplace safety and health management system.SHARP provides an incentive for employers toemphasize accident and illness prevention by an-ticipating problems, rather than simply reacting tothem.Establishing Best Practices

The North American Industry Classifica-tion System (NAICS) Code forGreat Lakes Pulp & Fibre is 322121– Paper (except Newsprint) Mills,which is classified as a high-haz-ard industry. They employ 104workers, and their incidence ratesare well below the national aver-age for their NAICS code. TheirTotal Case Incidence Rate was 2.9in 2004-compared to 3.7 for theBureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)industry average. Their Total DaysAway/Restricted Cases (DART)was 0.0 in 2004-compared to 1.7for the BLS industry average.

“The Michigan SHARP Pro-gram requires a comprehensive con-sultation visit, and the correction ofall serious workplace safety and

health hazards,” said Yoder. “Great Lakes Pulp &Fibre has developed a safety and health systemthat provides outstanding protection for their work-ers.”

The company’s safety and health managementsystem incorporates each of the seven required el-ements: Hazard Anticipation and Detection; Haz-ard Prevention and Control; Planning and Evalua-tion; Administration and Supervision; Safety andHealth Training; Management Leadership; and Em-ployee Participation. The MIOSHA evaluation teamconsisted of Bob Dayringer, Onsite Senior HealthConsultant, and Bill Shane, Onsite Senior SafetyConsultant.

Some of Great Lakes Pulp & Fiber’s bestpractices include:

A hazard reporting system with requiredresponses,

A “Process and Equipment Change” pro-cedure,

An effective personal protective equip-ment (PPE) program,

Review of near misses,An incentive program that has quarterly

reviews tied to employee safety performance, andAn active safety committee that conducts

monthly inspections.Great Lakes Pulp & Fibre is one of

Menominee’s major employers, and is a state-of-the-art de-inked pulp mill. At full capacity, themill can produce over 163,000 metric tons peryear of high-quality recycled pulp with charac-teristics that equal or exceed that of hardwoodvirgin fiber. Their guiding principle is: “Do notsettle for mediocrity!

Martha Yoder, MIOSHA; Bill Shane, MIOSHA; Todd Clausen, OperationsMngr.; Rob Garland, President/CEO; Bob Swanson, DLEG Dir.; BobDayringer, MIOSHA; Jason Triest, Safety Mngr.; Rita Canady, DLEGDeputy Dir.; Rich Olson, Mill Mngr.; and Chris Passamani, MIOSHA.

Fal l 2006

5

Herman Miller’s 171st day shift employees participated in theirMVPP Star celebration. All shifts were served an ice cream sundaebuffet in recognition of their safety and health achievement.

Congratulations Herman Miller!Herman Miller’s 171st Facility Receives State’s Highest Safety and Health Award

On July 21st, Herman Miller’s 171st Avenuefiling and storage manufacturing facility within thecompany’s Spring Lake campus received theMichigan Voluntary Protection Program (MVPP)Star Award MIOSHA for workplace safety andhealth excellence.

“Herman Miller is an economic powerhousethat is helping to fuel Michigan’s manufacturingrecovery,” said DLEG Director Robert W.Swanson. “Your exceptional leadership in safety,health and the environment sends a strong mes-sage that protecting workers makes good businesssense.”Creating Great Places to Work

MIOSHA Acting Director Martha B.Yoder presented the Star Award to the 171stAvenue Operations General Manager NancyHoughtaling. State and local officials, corporateleaders and MIOSHA representatives were onhand to congratulate employees and managementon their outstanding achievement.

“Our corporate mission and purpose is fo-cused on creating great places to work–for ourcustomers and also for our Herman Miller em-ployees,” said Brian Walker, Herman Miller’sPresident and Chief Executive Officer. “A keyelement of that mission is creating a safe, healthyand productive work environment. Our employeeowners are driving continuous improvement inthese critical areas, and it is on the strength oftheir energetic commitment that we earn thisaward.”

This is the most prestigious safety and healthaward given in Michigan. MIOSHA established theMVPP program in 1996 to recognize employers

actively working toward achiev-ing excellence in workplacesafety and health.Driving ContinuousImprovement

“Every team memberplayed an important part in thisaccomplishment and this awardis evidence of their efforts,” saidHerman Miller’s CasegoodsGeneral Manager NancyHoughtaling. “Receiving thisaward is both exciting and moti-vating, as it is another step onour continuous improvementjourney.”

The incidence rates at theHerman Miller 171st Avenue filing and storage fa-cility are well below the Michigan average for theirindustry SIC/NAICS code 2522/337214. Their to-tal case incidence rate was 4.8 in 2002, 5.0 in 2003,and 4.8 in 2004-compared to the Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) Michigan industry average of 6.3in 2002 and 2003, and 7.8 in 2004. The total day’saway/restricted cases (DART) rate was 2.2 in 2002and 2003, and 2.4 in 2004-compared to the BLSMichigan industry average of 3.7 in 2002 and 2003,and 4.6 in 2004.

“National VPP sites experience 60 to 80 per-cent less lost work day injuries than would be ex-pected of an average site in their industry,” saidYoder. “Not only does the MVPP program sig-nificantly reduce injuries and illnesses–it also hasa tremendous impact on the bottom line.”Reaching for Excellence

The 171st facility employs 800workers on three shifts, and manufac-tures filing and storage products. TheMIOSHA review team conducted 31formal and 26 informal interviews dur-ing the site visit. The team examinedeach of the required elements of theirsafety and health management system,and found them to effectively addressthe scope and complexity of the haz-ards at the site. The MIOSHA reviewteam consisted by Doug Kimmel,CET MVPP Specialist; FredKirkland, CET Health Consultant;and Quenten Yoder, CET SafetyConsultant.

Areas of excellence include:Safety Audit System. The

site General Manager, Site Safety

Specialist, Work Team Leaders, and team mem-bers conduct audits (assessments) monthly andquarterly. Areas audited include Housekeeping,Fall Prevention, PPE, Fire Prevention, Chemi-cal Use and storage, Machines, Energy SourceLockout, Industrial Vehicles, Electrical Safety,Communication, and Administrative Require-ments.

Checklists are used during the audit andwhen completed the information from thechecklist is entered into the site’s ETQ data-base. Queries can be made from the databasefor tracking performance by supervisor, de-partment, and details such as proper use ofPPE (safety glasses, etc). Annual evaluationsare also conducted and the results are pre-sented to General Managers, Corporate Di-rectors and Operations Managers. Communi-cation and Administrative Requirements as au-dited areas are true innovations.

Excellence Through Quality (ETQ)program. This is the site “corrective action pre-ventive system” for reporting and tracking of haz-ards. The ETQ program was originally devel-oped through ISO 9000 requirements. Qualitypersonnel monitor for timeliness and comple-tion of necessary corrections.

Herman Miller helps create great places towork, heal, learn, and live by researching, design-ing, manufacturing, and distributing innovativeinterior solutions that support companies, orga-nizations, and individuals all over the world. Thecompany’s award-winning products, comple-mented by furniture-management and strategicconsulting services, generated $1.74 billion inrevenue during fiscal 2006. For additional infor-mation visit www.HermanMiller.com.

The Herman Miller’s 171st Avenue Spring Lake facility’s Safety Teamand MIOSHA staff celebrated their MVPP Star recognition.

6

Cont. on Page 19

Powered Industrial TrucksGeneral Industry InvestigationsBy: Eva Hatt, Safety ManagerGeneral Industry Safety and Health Division

Bad Example–MIOSHA rules require use of asecured platform, with hand- and mid-rails, foremployees working from fork trucks.

Bad Example–MIOSHA rules prohibit the use of counterweights inorder to exceed the lifting capacity of fork lifts.

Powered industrial trucks are one of themost commonly used pieces of equipment andare found in manufacturing, warehousing, re-tail, and marinas to name a few.

Powered industrial trucks are also referredto as fork lifts, hi-los, fork trucks, mules, and tugs.They are used to carry, push, pull, lift, stack, or tiermaterials.

Due to the high use throughout a variety ofindustries, it is a piece of equipment that is foundon almost every inspection conducted by theMIOSHA General Industry Safety and HealthDivision. Michigan has a specific safety standard,Part 21, Powered Industrial Trucks, that pro-vides for employee and operator protection wherethey are being utilized.

MIOSHA also has an Occupational HealthStandard, Part 310, Air Contaminates, thatregulates occupational exposure to carbon mon-oxide which is created by propane fueled pow-ered industrial trucks. MIOSHA standards andassociated l inks can be viewed atwww.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.Complaint Investigations

The General Industry Safety and Health Di-vision conducts investigations of employee com-plaints and accidents. Within the past nine months,MIOSHA has responded to 60 complaints related

to powered industrial truck issues. Thecomplaint investigations resulted in ci-tations for 98 rule violations, with totalinitial assessed penalties of $28,150.Rule violations of 2154, 2176 and 2131of the General Industry Safety Stan-dard Part 21, Powered IndustrialTrucks, constitute 57 percent of theviolations issued.

Rule 2154(1) states: An em-ployer shall provide the employee witha permit to operate a powered indus-trial truck only after meeting the re-quirements prescribed in 2151, 2152,and 2153. These are the rules thataddress operator selection, trainingand testing prior to issuing operatorpermits.

Rule 2176 states: An employer shall ensurethat a highway truck and trailer shall not beboarded by a powered industrial truck before thehighway truck and trailer has its brakes set andnot less than two wheels blocked or be restrainedby other mechanical means installed in a mannerthat will hold the trailer from movement.

Rule 2153 states: An employer shall testan employee before authorizing the employee tooperate a powered industrial truck, except amotorized hand truck. The test shall check theemployee’s:

(a) Operating ability.(b) Knowledge of the equipment.(c) Knowledge of state safety standard rules 2171 to 2193 of Part 21.(d) Knowledge of daily checks.

Complaint Case StudiesBelow are recent examples of employee

complaint investigations resulting in citations fora variety of powered industrial truck violations.Case 1–Exceeding Capacity

The complainant alleged that powered in-dustrial trucks were being used over their ratedcapacity and being modified without manufac-tures approval. Upon investigation it was learnedthat the powered industrial trucks were beingused to lift materials exceeding the rated capac-ity by adding counterweights to the powered in-dustrial truck. Holes had been drilled in the forksand attachments had been added to a set of forks.Powered industrial truck operators were foundto have expired permits. Citations with initialassessed penalties of were issued for:

Rule 2132(2) – Modifications that af-fect the safety of the truck made without manu-

facturers approval.Rule 2132(1) – Counterweights installed

on the back of trucks.Rule 2154(1) – Truck operators not pro-

vided with valid operating permits.Rule 2193(d) – Trucks being used to lift

materials beyond rated capacity.Rule 2131(1) – Horns or audible warn-

ing devices not operational on trucks.Case 2–Leaking Oil

A worker at a manufacturing facility allegedthe hi-los were leaking oil. The investigation re-vealed the following violations:

Rule 2154(1) – Hi-lo operators did nothave permits.

Hi-lo leaking oil creating a slip hazardsin violation of General Industry Safety StandardPart 1 General Provisions Rule 15(3).

Rule 2131(1) – Horns or audible warn-ing devices not operational on hi-lo.

Rule 2163(3) – L.P. gas cylinders notrestrained on hi-lo.Case 3–Mechanical Issues

A complaint investigation at a major retailestablishment resulted in violations of Part 21being issued. The employee complaint listedvarious concerns with the operation of poweredindustrial trucks that included: defective or nobrakes on fork lifts, broken gas pedal, batterycover missing, and lack of operator training. Thefollowing items were cited:

Rule 2152(1) – Truck operator nottrained in safe operation requirements.

Rule 2171(2) – Truck missing gas pedal.Rule 2161(1)(a) – Brakes not func-

tional on several trucks.

Fal l 2006

7

Construction Industry InspectionsBy Patricia Meyer, Safety ManagerConstruction Safety and Health Division

Cont. on Page 19

Bad Example–This trash box fell over, severelyinjuring the employee, because it was not secured.

Bad Example–Improper use of a fork truck to install roof trusses.Workers are not allowed to be transported with materials.

Rough terrain fork trucks have become acommon piece of equipment in all aspects of theconstruction industry. Masons use them to loadblock onto scaffolds, carpenters use them to movelumber, and ironworkers use them to bolt upstructural steel. Manufacturers have designedfork trucks with booms that will extend over 100feet! Some fork trucks are even equipped withcontrols that can be operated from an attachablework platform.Accident Case Studies

Below are examples of MIOSHA Construc-

tion Safety and Health Division accident investi-gations resulting in citations for a variety of roughterrain fork truck violations.Case 1–Repositioning Causes Fall

In September 2004, an employee was work-ing out of a wooden trash-box that was elevatedon the forks of a rough terrain fork truck. Theemployee was installing flashing at the roof levelof a two-story home under construction. A sec-ond employee at ground level attempted to movethe fork truck to a new location when the trash-box fell off the forks, along with the employee.

The employee fell approximately 20 feet tothe ground suffering cuts and contusions to thehead and the right side of the body. The trash-boxwas inappropriate for use as a scaffold platformand was not positively secured against the back ofthe forks with a mechanical device so that the plat-form cannot tip or slip. The employer was citedfor several violations of MIOSHA Part 12, Scaf-folds and Scaffold Platforms. This incident could

have resulted in a fatality!Case 2–Contact Causes Electrocution

In November 2003, a 22-year-old construc-tion worker was attempting to raise a portablegenerator onto the roof of a building using arough terrain fork truck. The load on the forktruck came in contact with a power distributionline. In an attempt to get away from the hazard,the employee exited the cab of the fork truck.Upon contacting the wet muddy ground the em-ployee received a fatal electric shock.

The employer was cited for violations of Part1, General Rules, including operating the pieceof equipment too close to power lines. Part 1,Rule 115, requires that a minimum distance of

10 feet be maintained from an ener-gized power line. This minimum dis-tance increases as the voltage of theelectrical source exceeds 50 kilo-volts.Case 3–Roll Over Causes Fatality

In January 2003, a 21-year-oldconstruction worker was operatinga rough terrain fork truck with theload raised. Having the load raisedelevates the center of gravity of thefork truck and load, making the forktruck more susceptible to roll over.The fork truck was attempting to goaround a car that was parked on sitewhile traversing up an incline.

Due to the incline and the highcenter of gravity, the fork truckrolled over backward and then onto

its side. The employee fell off and was crushedto death between the ground and the fork truck.The employer was cited for several violationsof MIOSHA Part 13, Mobile Equipment, in-cluding inadequate training, the fork truck wasnot equipped with a seat belt, and the employeedid not use a seat belt.All Three of the Above Accidents CouldHave Been Prevented!

The possibilities for use of the rough ter-rain fork truck are endless. Along with all thisnewer technology and methods of using forktrucks, there are more reasons for safety con-cerns. The operators of fork trucks must havethe appropriate training and skill to safely oper-ate the specific type of lift they are using.

There is a vast difference when using a forktruck to move block from one area to another orto hoist lumber up through a second story win-dow opening, compared to elevating an iron-

worker in a fork truck work platform 80 feet inthe air to make a connection. It’s imperative thatthe operators are properly trained and able tooperate these pieces of equipment safely. Theemployer must provide this training and evalu-ate operators before they are allowed to operatea fork truck.Construction Safety Standard Part 13, MobileEquipment

MIOSHA Part 13, references ASME/ANSIB56.1, Safety Standard for Rough Terrain Fork-lift Trucks. Therefore, when alleging a violationfor deficiencies or improperly using a rough ter-rain fork truck, MIOSHA may issue a general dutyviolation with a reference to ASME/ANSI B56.1.However, the training requirements for operat-ing a fork truck are located in Part 13,1926.602(d). The training requirements for a forktruck with or without a personnel platform arethe same as those for a powered industrial truck.Construction Safety Standard Part 12, Scaffoldsand Scaffold Platforms

When using a rough terrain fork truck thatis equipped with a work platform to elevate per-sonnel, the rules that apply are located in Part12, Rules 1243, 1244, 1245 and 1246.General Safety Practices when Operating RoughTerrain Fork Trucks

Make sure back-up alarms are work-ing properly. Use a signal person when the op-erator cannot visually see.

Rough Terrain Fork Trucks

8

Carbon Monoxide HazardsPowered Industrial TrucksBy: Eric Zaban, CIHSenior Industrial HygienistConsultation Education and Training Division

Agriculture, construction and general indus-try employees are exposed to carbon monoxide(CO) when using fuel-burning equipment indoors.This toxic gas may become dangerously elevatedif the equipment is not maintained and ventilationis inadequate.

Employers are responsible for maintainingair contamination concentrations within the lim-its required by Part 301, Air Contaminants.

Powered industrial trucks, automobiles,manlifts, floor burnishers, generators, powerwashers, compressors, concrete cutters and con-crete trawlers are some examples of fuel-burn-ing equipment that emit this toxic gas. With acombination of engine tuning (periodic mainte-nance), mechanical exhaust ventilation, exposuremonitoring, and employee training, employers canensure exposures remain below Michigan’s per-missible exposure limit (PEL) of 35 ppm for aneight-hour time weighted average.Warning Signs of CO Poisoning

The National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH) has recommendedthe immediately dangerous to life and health(IDLH) concentration is 1200 ppm. This lethalpoison is colorless, tasteless, odorless and non-irritating. Excessive exposures cause weaknessand confusion and exposed individuals may havetrouble seeking safety.

Indoor air contamination levels may rise

quickly, even in relatively open spaces with ventila-tion. Therefore, it is imperative that employers trainemployees to recognize sources and warning signsof CO poisoning; light-headedness, dizziness, nau-sea, headache, visual disturbances, changes in per-sonality, and confusion.

In addition, employees who use fuel-burn-ing equipment indoors should be made aware ofthe medical attention that may be required whenemployees become poisoned. Victims should beremoved from the exposure and given oxygen.Placement in a hyperbaric chamber may be nec-essary in cases of severe poisoning.Maintaining Low CO Emissions

Carbon monoxide is one of many chemi-cals found in engine exhaust. Powered indus-trial trucks, because of their prevalence, are oneof the chief sources of CO in the workplace.Generation rates vary with vehicle power andfuel type. When feasible, electric-powered ve-hicles or tools can be used. Liquid propane gas(LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) anddiesel are better fuel choices than gasoline, al-though all produce CO.

To achieve good vehicle performance whilemaintaining low CO emissions, vehicle enginesshould be in good working condition and properlymaintained. Employers should request lift truckmaintenance providers tune their vehicles using anexhaust gas CO analyzer to limit CO emissions.Tuning fuel-burning equipment for substantial re-ductions in CO emissions can be accomplished withminimal reduction in power.

Specifically, periodic engine maintenance tun-ing should include:

Use proper-sized carburetorsdesigned for optimum air and fuel mix-ture balance,

Service the air cleaner regu-larly.

Adjust engine timing permanufacturer’s specifications.

Use a CO analyzer designedfor tailpipe exhaust sampling when ad-justing the fuel system.

Since fuel economy is bestwhen CO is near 0.5 percent, any COabove this level indicates wasted fuel.Preventing CO Poisoning

In 1996, NIOSH published analert, Preventing Carbon MonoxidePoisoning from Small Gasoline-Pow-ered Engines and Tools, with the fol-lowing recommendations for employ-

ers and equipment users:Do not allow the use of gasoline-pow-

ered equipment inside buildings or partiallyenclosed areas unless exhaust is located outside.

Learn to recognize the signs and symp-toms of CO overexposure.

Use personal CO monitors equipped withaudible alarms to warn workers when CO is ex-cessive.

Substitute less hazardous equipment.If an employee has symptoms, turn off

equipment and go outdoors. Call 911 for medicalattention – Do not drive a motor vehicle.CET Division Case Study

A CET Division Onsite Health Program cus-tomer uses six LPG lift trucks to carry roll-formedaluminum siding. They own and maintain their ownlift trucks, so our previous report recommendedCO exposure monitoring during winter months.Recently, they requested a follow-up survey toconfirm their progress.

During the morning opening conference,ambient levels of CO were over 50 ppm in pro-duction areas. This was in spite of the companyproviding significant general exhaust ventilation.Clearly, one or more of the lift trucks were emit-ting excessive CO. Until recent technological ad-vances, industrial hygienists identified poorly tunedlift trucks using a copper tube and hand pump tofill sample bags.

Inexpensive color-change detector tubeswere used to read the amount of CO in the testbag. Results were inexact but were accurateenough to determine which trucks were in mostneed of tuning. Now, MIOSHA’s industrial hy-gienists are equipped with Blanke portable ex-haust gas analyzers, providing a much more ac-curate method of assessing the hazards associ-ated with lift truck exhaust.

We performed direct tailpipe testing foreach lift truck. The last truck we tested was theculprit, emitting about 7 percent CO (70,000ppm). That truck was immediately taken out ofservice. Then, we used a personal CO monitorto watch ambient CO levels drop to below 15ppm. The hazards that employees would havefaced as 70,000 ppm of CO was emitted couldhave been quite serious, even with typical dilu-tion ventilation. This situation is not unusualand points to the need for routine maintenancefor health reasons.

For more information, please contact theConsultation Education and Training (CET)Division at 517.322.1809.

Eric Zaban, CIH, CET Division, demonstrates use of an exhaustgas analyzer for Jennifer Johnson, Human Resources Generalist,Great Lakes Industry, Inc., Jackson.

Fal l 2006

9

Cont. on Page 19

Good Example – SMW Automotive, in Port Huron, has a very good PITsafety program, including daily documented inspections for all forkliftsand annual operator refresher training.

Powered Industrial TrucksBuilding a Safety ProgramBy: Howard Simmons, Onsite Safety ConsultantQuenten Yoder, Safety ConsultantConsultation Education and Training Division

MIOSHA General Industry Safety Standard,Part 21, Powered Industrial Trucks, has beenin effect since 1971, yet serious employee inju-ries and near-miss incidents continue to occureach year involving the operation of poweredindustrial trucks.

To combat these serious occurrences, em-ployers must take positive steps to address safepowered industrial truck (PIT) operations.A Team Approach to Safe Operations

Employers that proactively address thesafety and health of their workplace, includingpowered industrial truck operation and pedes-trian safety are successful in preventing acci-dents, injuries and deaths.

These employers build comprehensivesafety and health systems addressing all aspectsand conditions of the workplace. A comprehen-sive approach to powered industrial truck pro-grams, like all workplace systems, requires ac-tive involvement by managers, supervisors, andemployees.

Top management must make a commit-ment of time and resources to ensure effectivetraining, follow-up and monitoring takes place.Supervisors must be held accountable for theperformance of employees operating poweredindustrial trucks.

A person knowledgeable of PIT capabili-ties and limitations should be included in theselection process to avoid selection of a PIT thatis not compatible with the environment or ca-pable of safely performing the needed lifts.

As with all aspects of a quality system,rules, policies and instructions for powered in-dustrial truck operations should be documented,periodically reviewed, and monitored for con-tinued effectiveness.

Supervisors have front line responsibilityto insure that vehicles are adequately equipped,properly operated and that operators maintainthe required abilities and knowledge to safelyperform the assigned tasks prior to the issuanceof an operating permit.

Employees designated as powered indus-trial truck operators should consider the assign-ment as a serious responsibility that should notbe taken lightly. Powered industrial truck op-erators have an obligation to ensure the safetyof all others in the immediate area.

Operators must stay alert, respect areas des-ignated for pedestrian traffic, and stay aware oftheir surroundings at all times. Operator respon-sibilities include following load rating charts,lifting restrictions, and manufacturers and com-pany instructions for safe operation.Frequently Asked Questions

Below are common questions MIOSHA’sconsultation staff receives frequently on safetyrequirements for powered industrial trucks.Equipment and Operating PracticesWhat is considered a powered industrial truck?

Part 21 defines a powered industrial truckas a mobile, power driven vehicle used to carry,push, pull, lift, stack, or tier material. This in-cludes forklifts, high-lift trucks, motorized handtrucks, industrial tractors, low-lift trucks, andreach trucks. The appendix of Part 21 includesdiagrams of the types of trucks covered.Is seat belt use required on a PIT?

Part 21 does not require seat belt use on apowered industrial truck. However, when a truckis equipped with a seat belt, it is recommendedthe belts be worn.Can an employer make modifications to apowered industrial truck?

Yes, with the written approval of the manu-facturer of the truck or an engineer knowledge-able of the subject.Who is responsible for chocking trailers?

Part 21 requires that two wheels be chockedand the brakes set, before entry by a fork truck. Itdoes not specify this as an operator responsibil-ity. Many employers post signs stating that twowheels must be chocked. It isrecommended that operators vi-sually check prior to entry, toassure that chocks are in placebefore entry.Operator SelectionIs there an age restriction onPIT operators?

Yes, employees under 18years of age may not drive aPIT. Employers should consultwith the DLEG Wage & HourDivision, for information on ap-propriate work for employeesunder 18 years of age.Does an employee need a validMichigan driver’s license?

No. However, the visionscreening given as part of issu-ing a Michigan driver’s license

can be used to meet the visual acuity require-ment. In the absence of a driver’s license, othertesting must be completed prior to issuing a PITlicense. An important component of visual acu-ity for driving a PIT is peripheral acuity equiva-lent to that required for a driver’s license.What are the physical requirements for PIToperators?

An operator must have normal physical ca-pabilities, which means effective use of all fourlimbs. Operators must be of a sufficient heightand have coordination of eyes, hands, and feet.(A prosthetic device is considered a limb whenit can be used to operate the controls.)Who can train and issue permit to poweredindustrial truck operators?

Many employers are under the impressionthat the state certifies trainers to train people inthe operation of PITs. This is not the case. Prob-ably this misconception has arisen becauseMIOSHA’s Consultation Education and Train-ing (CET) Division frequently offers PoweredIndustrial Truck Train-the-Trainer courses.MIOSHA offers this training to employers toprovide information that will assist in their re-sponsibility to provide PIT training.

It is left to each employer to determinewho is qualified in the organization, or to con-tract with someone from outside who the em-ployer deems qualified. When selecting theright person to appoint as the designated train-ers, past experience, training, and operationalskills should be considered.

10

MIOSHA MIOSHA“T“Take a Stand Dae a Stand Day”y”Across the state, 133 employersparticipated in “Take a StandDay” for workplace safety andhealth on August 16th!

In this second annual campaign, MIOSHAdedicated more than 110 professional staff tovisit Michigan high-hazard industries targetedby our Strategic Plan.

MIOSHA safety and health professionals–including compliance staff, outreach consultants,managers, and supervisors–were scheduled on“Take a Stand Day” to provide one-on-one con-sultations. There were no citations or fines forparticipating workplaces. However, participantsagreed to correct all serious conditions.

This unique campaign offered employersthe opportunity to partner with MIOSHA–with-out fear of fines or penalties–to improve theirwork environment.

During the consultation visit, MIOSHA staffworked cooperatively with the companies to rec-ognize hazardous conditions and to addresssafety and health issues. MIOSHA staff focusedon areas of direct concern to the employers.

“These participating companies understandthat a strong safety and health system is an im-portant part of being successful in today’s glo-bal economy,” said MIOSHA Acting DirectorMartha Yoder.

MIOSHA sent information to over 20,000 em-ployers statewide, with more than 220 companiesresponding. MIOSHA could not schedule all theresponding companies on “Take a Stand Day,”however; all companies were scheduled for a con-sultation visit from the Consultation Education andTraining (CET) Division.

Howard Simmons, MIOSHA Onsite Safety Consultant(not pictured), conducted a hazard survey at HydroAluminum, in Cedar Springs. Chris Bennett, QualityManager/Safety Director, and John Smith, EDMTechnician, discuss lockout procedures.

Gerry Dike, MIOSHA Health Officer Specialist(center), visited Judson Center, in Royal Oak. Fromleft are Margaret Frausto, VP of OrganizationalDevelopment, and Sue Monterosso, Director ofAdministrative Services.

Lahti Fabrication, Inc., in Royal Oak, participated in“Take a Stand Day.” From left are Joe LeBlanc,MIOSHA Safety Officer; Kirk Peterson, GeneralManager; and George Lahti, President.

Bill Shane, MIOSHA Senior Onsite Safety Consultant(center), conducted a hazard survey at CambronEngineering, Inc., in Bay City. From left are SteveSheppard, President, and. Dave Ferrio, Vice President.

Koegel’s Meats, Inc., participated in “Take a StandDay.” From left are Mark Richard, MIOSHA SeniorSafety Officer; John Koegel, President, Koegel’sMeats; John Hodgson, MIOSHA District Supervisor;and James Lay, General Manager, Koegel’s Meats.

MIOSHA Senior Safety Officer Chuck Slavik,with Randy Gawel, Plant Manager, ProgressiveStamping Company (D.E.), Inc., in Royal Oak.The company requested a comprehensive wall-to-wall inspection.

Wyandotte Industries, Inc. requested a “Take aStand Day” visit. From left are Terry Eichenberg,MIOSHA Safety Officer; Charles Collier, MIOSHASenior Safety Officer; Jerry Szpondowski, Owner;and Christine Szpondowski, Sales/Safety Director.

Fal l 2006

11

CET AwardsWalbridge Aldinger

One of the Nation’s Top ConstructionCompanies Receives Prestigious Gold Award

Walbridge employees celebrated working over 34 months and three millionhours–without a lost time accident.

On August 29th, Walbridge Aldinger received the Gold Award fromMIOSHA for an outstanding safety and health record. On everyWalbridge project is a banner displayed with the company motto thatreads: “If it is not safe–I won’t do it, and I won’t let others do it.”

Walbridge Aldinger has worked more than 34 months andover three million hours–without a lost time accident.

Presenting the award were DLEG Director Robert W. Swansonand MIOSHA Acting Director Martha B. Yoder. Accepting on behalfof all Walbridge employees were Group Vice President and CFO VincentDeAngelis and Assistant VP of Safety Health and EnvironmentalStephen B. Clabaugh.

I am honored to present this award today to Walbridge Aldinger,”said Swanson. “Throughout Michigan, North America and worldwide–Walbridge is recognized as a leader in the construction industry. Yourcommitment shows worker protection goes hand-in-hand with qualityservices.”

“This award was earned by every Walbridge employee, includingour union trades personnel, who have worked on projects the last 34months and over three million hours without a lost time injury,” saidWalbridge CEO and Chairman John Rakolta, Jr.

“Walbridge shares a common vision to provide all employees andsubcontractors with a healthful and safe workplace,” said Clabaugh.“Walbridge’s safety program has total commitment on all managementlevels and receives top priority.”

The active integration of Walbridge’s Safety and Health Program,along with enforcement of safety polices and recognition for implemen-tation of the program, endorses the ultimate goal of zero injuries. It iskey that design through construction is done with safety polices andprocedures to support the quality of life on all Walbridge projects byensuring that, “Everyone goes home the way that they came towork.”

The award was presented at Walbridge’s United States PostalService Northeast Metro Processing and Distribution Center construc-tion project. Walbridge Aldinger has a long and distinguished historycovering over 89 years of service in the construction industry.

Michigan Association ofAssociation ofHome Builders AllianceAlliance

On July 27th, DLEG Director Robert W. Swanson announced the sign-ing of a strategic alliance between the Michigan Association of Home Build-ers (MAHB) and MIOSHA to protect the safety and health of workers inMichigan’s residential construction industry.

“We are proud to sign this alliance and embrace its primary goal–toprovide a safe and healthy work environment for all employees in theresidential construction industry,” said Swanson.

Signing the alliance were: Lee Kitson, MAHB President (Lee KitsonBuilder Inc.); Robert L. Filka, MAHB CEO; Robert W. Swanson, DLEGDirector; and Martha B. Yoder, MIOSHA Acting Director.

“As an industry we need to improve our safety record; as an associationwe owe it to our members to help them make their job sites safer,” saidKitson. “This alliance is an important step in bringing needed safety educa-tion and training to our members.”

“We are pleased to team up with MIOSHA to make an important differ-ence in construction safety–one with lasting and far reaching effects,” saidFilka. “Educating employers and workers is the first step to ensuring every-one on the job site returns home safely each evening.”

The MAHB is the voice of the building industry in Michigan. Theyare a professional trade association, comprised of local home builderassociations and their builder and associate members.

The key goals of this alliance include:Provide the means to a safe and healthy work environment for all

employees in the residential construction industry;Significantly reduce the number of work site accidents within the

residential construction industry;Promote increased awareness of worker safety and health ben-

efits to MAHB members;Work with local home builders associations to promote worker safety

and health through CET Division education and training opportunities;Provide CET safety and health hazard surveys at participating

jobsites; andIncrease communication and collaboration between MIOSHA and

the residential construction industry.While participation by individual employers is voluntary, MIOSHA antici-

pates that contractors, who embrace the goals of the partnership and who striveto provide a safe and healthy workplace, will experience a decrease in work-place accidents and illnesses, and a decrease in workers’ compensation costs.

Lee Kitson, MAHB President, (Lee Kitson Builder Inc.); Martha Yoder, MIOSHAActing Director; Robert Swanson, DLEG Director; and Robert Filka, MAHBCEO.

12

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

BorgWarner’s Cadillac facility was recognized with the BronzeAward for safety and health diligence. Plant Manager Jeff Addisonand the Safety Team accepted the award on behalf of all employees.

Workplace safety is one of TEREX|SIMPLICITY–Durand’s corevalues. They qualified for the Bronze Award because team membersincorporate safety into their continuous improvement efforts.

(Front) Ken Mayer, Larry Harris, Doug DuBois, MIOSHA ActingDirector Martha Yoder, and Brad Booth. (Rear) Brandt Brownrigg,Dave Farner, and Bill Barrett.

BorgWarner – CadillacOn July 24th, BorgWarner Thermal Systems’ Cadillac facility received the Bronze

Award from MIOSHA for an outstanding safety and health record.“BorgWarner is one of our Automotive All Stars! Since 1928, your name has

been synonymous with automotive innovation—you power the cars that power America,”said DLEG Director Robert W. Swanson.

Director Swanson presented the award to Plant Manager Jeff Addison and theSafety Team, who accepted on behalf of all employees. Day shift employees, electedofficials and invited guests attended the ceremony and luncheon.

“No issue is of more fundamental importance to our company, our productivityand our ability to meet the increasing challenges of our industry, than the health andsafety of BorgWarner employees,” said Addison.

The Cadillac plant employs nearly 270 workers and produces fan clutches anddrives, shutters, and control systems for automotive applications. Auburn Hills-basedBorgWarner Inc. is a product leader in highly engineered components and systems forvehicle powertrain applications worldwide.

Textron Fastening Systems – HollyOn August 15th, Textron Fastening Systems’ North Holly Road Operations received

the Silver Award from MIOSHA for an outstanding safety and health record.MIOSHA Acting Director Martha B. Yoder presented the award to Larry Har-

ris, Operations Manager, and Safety Committee members: Ken Mayer, BrandtBrownrigg, Doug DuBois, Brad Booth, Dave Farner, Jim O’Dea, and Jim Devine.

“Our safety performance has been achieved through teamwork. Everyone hasmade significant contributions–so we would like to recognize every employee for thisachievement,” said Harris.

North Holly Road Operations’ outstanding safety and health record came fromseveral areas, including: a solid Multi-Year Plan geared towards safety; daily safetyshift huddles with all employees; weekly supervisor audits with employee involve-ment; and monthly training during plant meetings.

The plant employs 70 employees, and manufactures internally and externallythreaded fasteners for the automotive industry. Headquartered in Troy, Textron Fas-tening Systems Inc. is a leading provider of engineered fastening systems.

TEREX|SIMPLICITY – DurandOn August 23rd, TEREX|SIMPLICITY of Durand received the Bronze Award

from MIOSHA for an outstanding safety and health record.DLEG Acting Deputy Director Doug Kalinowski and MIOSHA Acting Director

Martha Yoder presented the award to General Manager Jason Adams, who ac-cepted on behalf of all employees. Eric Bauer, Director, Occupational Health &Safety, TEREX, congratulated the company on its achievement.

“Our team members are our most important asset and their safety is our toppriority. Without their dedication and commitment, we would not be in a position toreceive this award,” said Adams.

The plant’s safety performance is attributed to the safety awareness of all employ-ees. They achieved this through weekly safety talks and monthly safety audits withcorrective actions. UAW Local 743, Region 1-C, represents production employees.

Since 1921, TEREX|SIMPLICITY has been a leader in the manufacture of heavy-duty screens and feeders for the construction industry. Terex Corporation is a diver-sified global manufacturer with 2005 revenue of $6.4 billion.

Fal l 2006

13

Education & Training CalendarDate Course MIOSHA Trainer

Location Contact Phone

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

December4 & 5 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Patrick Sullivan

Adrian Adriane Truss 517.371.15505 Supervisor’s Role in Safety and Health Jerry Swift

Niles Chris Smith 269.687.56485 Machine Guarding, JSA, and Operator Training, Lockout/Tagout Richard Zdeb

Warren Holger Ekanger 586.498.41005 Top Ten Occupational Health Violations: How To Avoid Them Dave Humenick

Holland Brian Cole 800.690.031411 & 12 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Tom Swindlehurst

Traverse City Adriane Truss 517.371.155012 MIOSHA Recordkeeping for Construction Karen Odell

Brighton MJ Takagi 810.227.621013 General Fall Protection Patrick Sullivan

Bloomfield Hills Patricia DuFresne 248.972.113313 Excavations: The Grave Danger & Mobile Equipment Hazards Patrick Sullivan

Bloomfield Hills Patricia DuFresne 248.972.113314 Recorkeeping of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Lee Jay Kueppers

Warren Lisa Spagnuolo 586.498.410019 Excavations: The Grave Danger & Mobile Equipment Hazards Patrick Sullivan

Warren Holger Ekanger 586.498.410021 & 22 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Jim Dykes

Gladstone Adriane Truss 517.371.1550January4 Recorkeeping of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Karen Odell

Howell Janie Willsmore 517.546.39209 Fall Protection for Residential Construction Patrick Sullivan

Brighton MJ Takagi 810.227.62109 & 10 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Jim Dykes

Sault Ste Marie Brian White 906.228.231211 Recorkeeping of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Debra Gundry

Lansing Suzy Carter 517.394.461411 Health Issues In Construction Jim Dykes

Sault Ste Marie Brian White 906.228.231211, 18 & 25 MIOSHA’s Fundamentals of Safety and Health Lee Jay Kueppers

Warren Lisa Spagnuolo 586.498.410016 Powered Industrial Truck: Train-The-Trainer Doug Kimmel

Onaway Shelly Hyatt 231.546.726416 Supervisor’s Role in Safety and Health Richard Zdeb

Warren Holger Ekanger 586.498.410016 & 17 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Patrick Sullivan

Port Huron Bonnie DiNardo 810.989.578816 & 17 MIOSHA 10-Hour for Construction Jim Dykes

Ironwood Brian White 906.228.2312

14

Construction SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. D. Lynn Coleman

Mr. Patrick “Shorty” GleasonMr. Gregg A. NewsomMr. Larry Redfearn**

ManagementMr. Donald V. StaleyMr. Peter Strazdas

Ms. Valerie J. WarrenMr. Timothy B. Wise*

General PublicVacant

General Industry SafetyStandards Commission

LaborMr. Dwayne F. Betcher*

Mr. William L. BorchMr. Karl E. Heim

Mr. Jeffrey RadjewskiManagement

Mr. Dennis M. EmeryMr. Thomas J. Pytlik**Mr. George A. Reamer

VacantGeneral Public

Vacant

Occupational HealthStandards Commission

LaborDr. G. Robert DeYoung*

Ms. Margaret Robinson FavilleChief Ricardo L. LongoriaMs. Margaret Vissman**

ManagementMr. David L. GlynnMr. John E. Miller

Mr. Gary R. NovakMr. Ronald J. Torbert

General PublicMr. Satyam R. Talati

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

StandarStandards Updateds UpdateNew Standards – Hexavalent Chromium

The Occupational Health Standards Commission directed MIOSHA to adopt the new OSHAregulations on occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium for construction and general in-dustry. The following new standards were effective on August 7, 2006:

Occupational Health Standard, Part 604, Chromium (VI) in Construction,Occupational Health Standard, Part 315, Chromium (VI) in General Industry.

The new standard lowers MIOSHA’s permissible exposure limit (PEL) for hexavalent chro-mium, and for all chromium (VI) compounds, from 52 to 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air asan 8-hour time-weighted average.

Hexavalent chromium compounds are a toxic form of the element chromium and are man-made and widely used in many different industries. Employees can inhale airborne hexavalentchromium as a dust, fume or mist. The major health effects associated with exposure to hexavalentchromium includes lung cancer, skin ulcerations, and allergic/ irritant contact dermatitis.

Hexavalent chromium compounds are widely used in the chemical industry as ingredientsand catalysts in pigments, metal plating and chemical synthesis welding on stainless steel orhexavalent chromium painted surfaces.

Michigan employers with 20 or more employees must comply with these rules by Novem-ber 27, 2006. Employers with 19 or fewer employees must comply by May 30, 2007, except forengineering controls. All employers are required to have engineering controls implemented nolater than May 31, 2010. There are some exemptions for low exposure, portland cement andpesticides.

MIOSHA’s Consultation, Education and Training (CET) Division will develop outreachprograms for employers covering the protective provisions of the new hexavalent chromiumstandards.

Your can print a copy of these standards from our website, www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards. If you would like to be put on our electronic mailing list for future notificationsof changes, send an email to listserv@listserv.michigan.gov.

MIOSHA Delays Requirement for Slip Resistance on Skeletal Structural SteelRule Delayed – Slip Resistance

MIOSHA Construction Standard, Part 26, Steel Erection, Rule R 408.42616(3), states that slipresistance of skeletal structural steel must meet a specified level of slip resistance when measuredusing American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods. This provision addressesthe slip resistance of walking surfaces of coated structural steel members.

The technical developments that needed tooccur for employers to comply with the provisionby its effective date, July 18, 2006, have not oc-curred. The ability to comply with the slip resis-tance provision depends upon two technical devel-opments: (1) completed industry protocols for sliptesting equipment, and (2) the availability of suit-able slip resistant coatings.

ASTM may withdraw the test methods alto-gether because they are brand-specific rather thangeneric. Lack of completed test methods has de-layed the development of suitable slip resistant coat-ings. In addition, there has not been adequate test-ing of coatings to determine whether they have suf-ficient durability in the variety of applications inwhich they will be used, especially in corrosiveenvironments.

MIOSHA will continue to monitor the statusof the slip resistance provision.

Fal l 2006

15

Occupational Safety StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 05. Scaffolding (Joint w/GI-58 & CS-32) ..................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 08. Portable Fire Extinguishers .................................................................... Amended, effective 5/15/06Part 17. Refuse Packer Units ................................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 19. Crawler, Locomotive, & Truck Cranes ................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPart 20. Underhung Cranes & Monorail Systems ............................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 50. Telecommunications (Joint) .................................................................... Final, effective 10/11/05Part 58. Vehicle Mounted Elev. & Rot. Platforms (Joint w/GI-5 & CS 32) ..... At Advisory CommitteePart 62. Plastic Molding ......................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 79. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ................................................................................... At Advisory Committe

ConstructionPart 01. General Rules ........................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 02. Masonry Wall Bracing ............................................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 12. Scaffolds & Scaffold Platforms ............................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 22. Signals, Signs, Tags & Barrucades ......................................................... Submitted to JCAR 8/8/06Part 26. Steel Erection ............................................................................................ Public hearing 9/25/06Part 28. Personnel Hoisting in Steel Erection ...................................................... Public hearing 9/25/06Part 29. Communication Towers ........................................................................... At Advisory CommitteePart 30. Telecommunications (Joint) .................................................................... Final, effective 10/11/05Part 31. Diving Operations .................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 32. Aerial Work Platforms (Joint w/GI 58) ................................................. At Advisory Committee

Occupational Health StandardsGeneral Industry

Part 301. Air Contaminants for General Industry ................................................ Approved by Commission for reviewPart 315. Chromimum (VI) for General Industry ................................................. Amended, effective 8/7/06Part 504. Diving Operations ................................................................................... Approved by Commission for reviewPart 526. Open Surface Tanks ................................................................................. Reviewed by internal staffPart 528. Spray Finishing Operations ................................................................... Reviewed by internal staffPart 529. Welding, Cutting & Brazing .................................................................. Approved by Commission for reviewPending Diisocyanates ............................................................................................ Submitted to SOAHR for reviewPending Ergonomics (Joint) ................................................................................. At Advisory CommitteePending Latex .......................................................................................................... Approved by Commission for review

ConstructionPart 601. Air Contaminants for Construction ...................................................... Submitted to SOAHR for reviewPart 604. Chromimum (VI) for Construction ....................................................... Amended, effective 8/7/06Part 681. Radiation in Construction - Ionizing and Nonionizing ...................... Final, effective 10/10/05

Status of Michigan Standards Promulgation(As of August 29, 2006)

The MIOSHA Standards Section assists in the promulgation of Michigan occupational safetyand health standards. To receive a copy of the MIOSHA Standards Index (updated March2006) or for single copies and sets of safety and health standards, please contact the Stan-dards Section at 517.322.1845, or at www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.

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

16

V a r i a n c e s

Following are requests for variances andvariances granted from occupationalsafety standards in accordance withrules of the Department of Labor & Eco-nomic Growth, Part 12, Variances(R408.22201 to 408.22251).

Published October 23, 2006

Variances Granted Construction

Variances Requested Construction

Variances Requested General Industry

Variances Granted General Industry

Part number and rule number from which variance isrequestedPart 10: Lifting & Digging Equipment - RuleR408.41005 a(2), Rule 1005 a(2); Reference ANSIStandard B30.5 “mobile and Locomotive Cranes”. 1994Edition; Section 5-3.2.1.2bSummary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to rig certain loads to the load lineof a crane above the overhaul weight in accordance withcertain stipulations.Name and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedFowlerville High School, Fowlerville

Part number and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 32: Aerial Work Platforms - R408.43209, Rule3209; R408.43209, Rule 3209 (8)(b); andR408.43209, Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail systemof an aerial lift for limited use as a work platform pro-vided that certain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerBumler Mechanical, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedBosch New Office and Lab, PlymouthName and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedHenry Ford Hospital, West BloomfieldName and address of employerLimbach Co., LLCLocation for which variance is requestedMGM Grand Casino, DetroitName and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedDCX WTAP, Warren

Part number and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 17: Refuse Packer Units: Rule 1732(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to utilize an interlocked gatein conjunction with stop bars and uniform trash carts inlieu of the fixed barrier.Name and address of employerKnape & VogtLocation for which variance is requested2700 Oak Industrial Park Dr NE, Grand Rapids

Part number and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 14: ConveyorsSummary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to use a cable system to se-cure laundry bags when bags are being conveyed in lieuof a pan or screen type guard over walkway, passagewayor work areas.Name and address of employerArrow Uniform RentalsLocation for which variance is requested6400 Monroe, Taylor

Part number and rule number from which varianceis requestedPart 17: Refuse Packer Units: Rule 1732(1)Summary of employer’s request for varianceThe employer has requested to utilize an interlocked gatein conjunction with stop plates, uniform trash containersplace by powered industrial trucks in lieu of the fixedbarrier.Name and address of employerODL Inc. Plant 1 & 2Location for which variance is requested215 E Roosevelt Ave., Zeeland

Part number and rule number from which variance isrequestedPart 32: Aerial Work Platforms - R408.43209, Rule 3209;Rule 3209 (8); Rule 3209 (8)(b); and Rule 3209 (9)Summary of employer’s request for varianceTo allow employer to firmly secure a scaffold plank tothe top of the intermediate rail of the guardrail system ofan aerial lift for limited use as a work platform providedcertain stipulations are adhered to.Name and address of employerDee Cramer, Inc.

Location for which variance is requestedUniv. of Michigan Cardio Vascular Center, Ann ArborName and address of employerJohn E. Green CompanyLocation for which variance is requestedLittle River Casino, ManisteeName and address of employerMichigan Mechanical Insulation, Inc.Location for which variance is requestedUniv. of Michigan Cardio Vascular Center, Ann ArborName and address of employerMidwest Steel, Inc..Location for which variance is requestedT. R. E. MGM Detroit Grand Casino, DetroitBarton-Malow Providence Park Hospital, NoviName and address of employerMonroe Plumbing & HeatingLocation for which variance is requestedUniv. of Michigan Cardio Vascular Center, Ann ArborName and address of employerSuperior Electric Great Lakes Company.Location for which variance is requestedGM Powertrain, Pontiac

A worker was electrocuted after making contact witha live power line while trimming from this tree.

Employers in the tree trimming and removalindustry are encouraged to step-up efforts to pro-tect workers on the job.

As of August 31, 2006, four of 19 MIOSHAGeneral Industry program-related workplacefatalities involved workers in tree trimming andremoval. Because of the number of workplacefatalities, MIOSHA is proactively providing in-formation and increasing enforcement resourcesin this industry.

A 22-year-old male was electrocuted af-ter making contact with a live power line dur-ing a power line clearance operation.

A 35-year-old male was electrocutedafter making contact with a live power line whiletrimming from a tree.

A 49-year-old male was pinned under atree that fell due to an incorrect cutting technique.

A 49-year-old male was struck in the headwhen a rope being used to lower a limb broke.

MIOSHA is launching an extensive aware-ness campaign to alert employers in the tree trim-ming and removal industry that they must pro-vide appropriate training and protection.

Three MIOSHA General Industry SafetyStandards impact the industry: Part 53, TreeTrimming and Removal; Part 33, Personal Pro-tective Equipment; and Part 58, Vehicle Mountedand Rotating Work Platforms.

MIOSHA Occupational Health StandardPart 380, Occupational Noise Exposure for Gen-eral Industry, also effects the industry. MIOSHAstandards can be viewed at www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.

A PowerPoint presentation, Tree Trim-ming and Power Lines, can be accessed on theMIOSHA website at www.michigan.gov/miosha,by selecting “Tree Trimming” in the “Spotlight”section. To receive consultation or training onthis subject, please call the Consultation Edu-cation and Training (CET) Division at517.322.1809.

Tree TrimmingrimmingInitiative

Fal l 2006

17

Questions

M I O S H A N e w s Q u i z

Answers

Topic: Powered Industrial Trucks

1. True or False – There is a standard that re-quires ventilation in a warehouse when a pro-pane powered industrial truck (PIT) is used.2. True or False – Powered industrial trucktrainers must be certified by MIOSHA to pro-vide training.3. Operator instruction must include:

A. Lecture, discussion, interactive computerprograms, video, written materials, or similarformal approaches.

B. Practical training on use of the equip-ment.

C. Testing of the operator’s performance.D. All of the above

4. True or False – An employer may issue per-mits that can be used by more than one personand that are valid for up to five years.5. A permit must include which of the fol-lowing:

A. Firm and employee name.B. Employee’s date of birth.C. Employee’s date hired.D. Maximum speed that PIT may be driven.

6. True or False – When an employee has a validPIT operator permit issued by a previous em-ployer, it is still necessary to provide formaland practical training and testing before issu-ing a new permit.7. True or False – The proper way to drive aPIT when the load blocks the driver’s forwardvisibility is to drive with the load trailing.8. True or False – It is acceptable to allow an-other person to “hitch” a ride on a PIT for shortdistances.9. True or False – When electric trucks are used,employers must provide both appropriate per-sonal protective equipment and suitable facili-ties for quick drenching or flushing of eyes andbody.10. True or False – Additional counterweightscan only be added to a PIT with written ap-proval of the PIT manufacturer.11. Special areas for refueling a PIT must beposted and located at least how far from a sourceof open flame or spark:

A. 15 feetB. 20 feetC. 25 feetD. 30 feet

12. True or False – An employer must deter-mine whether there are hazardous areas inthe workplace where gases or vapors, com-bustible mixtures, or ignitable fibers arepresent that require a truck specially

equipped for the environment.13. PIT operators must receive refresher train-ing when:

A. Observed operating in an unsafe manner.B. Involved in an accident or a near-miss in-

cident.C. An evaluation reveals that the operator

is not operating the truck safely.D. Assigned to a different type of truck or

conditions change in the workplace.E. All of the above.

14. True or False – A platform attached to theforks to lift employees is not required for liftsunder 10 feet.15. True or False – The PIT daily checks thatare required at the beginning of each shift mustbe in writing.

1. True – Ventilation is covered by MIOSHA Oc-cupational Health Standard, Part 520. Propanepowered trucks should be tuned periodically tomaintain low carbon monoxide (CO) emissions,and CO levels should be measured in truck ex-haust and in the ambient air regularly to ensurethat the permissible limits for CO are not ex-ceeded.2. False – It is the employer’s responsibility toauthorize an individual to train who has “theknowledge, training, and experience to train andevaluate the competence of the operator.” Thestandard does not speak to certification. Rule2152.3. D – Training must include both formal andpractical training and testing per Rule 2152(4).4. False – A permit must be issued to each op-erator and is valid for not more than three years.Rule 2154.5. A – Rule 2154(6) lists eight items that mustbe included on a permit including the firm andemployee name.6. False – An employee who has a valid PIToperator permit issued by another employer maybe tested without first meeting the training re-quirements of the standard. Rule 2153(3).7. True – Rule 2185.8. False – No employee except the operator isallowed to ride on a PIT unless the truck is spe-cifically provided with a passenger seat locatedunder the overhead guard.9. True – When there is a potential for employeeexposure to injurious corrosive electrolyte so-lutions (e.g. sulfuric acid) associated with bat-tery powered industrial trucks. Rule 2164.

10. True – The manufacturer must provide as-surance that the truck will meet the stabilityrequirements of ANSI B56.1-1993, “SafetyStandard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks.”Rule 2132.11. C – 25 feet. Rule 2163(2).12. True – PITS operating in an environmentcontaining the substances above must beequipped as prescribed in NFPA 505-2996,“Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions,Maintenance, and Operation of Powered Indus-trial Trucks.” Rules 2155 and 2178.13. E – 2152 (3).14. False – An employee shall only be lifted when thereis a platform attached to the forks by enclosedsleeves, a safety chain or a mechanical devicein a manner that the platform cannot tip or slip.Rule 2167(1).15. False – Daily checks are not required to bedocumented in writing, although it is a recom-mended best practice. Rule 2171(1).All MIOSHA standards are available at:www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards.

PermanentMIOSHA

Location

Effective November 8, 2006

MIOSHA will be returning to ourpermanent location in the GeneralOffice Building.

During our remodeling project, theLansing offices were movedtemporarily to the Hollister Buildingin downtown Lansing.

Our physical address is:State Secondary ComplexGeneral Office Building7150 Harris DriveLansing, Michigan 48913

For all correspondence–pleasecontinue to use our post office boxes.

Phone numbers will remain the same.

For phone numbers and mailingaddresses, please visit our website,www.michigan.gov/miosha.

18

Cont. from Page 1Forklift Fatalities

A newly hired hi-lo driver was fatally injured whenhis truck tipped over during travel with the forksfully extended.

more empty parts bins, but did not return. Whenco-workers noticed and went to check, theyfound the forklift outside, lying on its side nearthe empty parts bin storage area.

The employee was pinned under the up-per frame. There were no witnesses to the inci-dent. There was no load on the forks and themast was telescoped up. It was speculated bythe investigating police that speed might havebeen involved.

Based on MIOSHA and police findings, itwas determined that travel through the yard tothe empty bins required a right turn, then a leftturn to approach the stack of empty bins. Pho-tos showed an arc path going into the secondturn. Apparently during travel the center of grav-ity changed and the vehicle carried over ontoits right side. The front wheel of the vehicleleft a rotational mark on the ground.

As the truck tipped over, the employee leftthe seat and was crushed by the outside of theupper rear cage. A second forklift on site wasused to lift the downed vehicle and remove theemployee. The truck was new at the beginningof 2006 and documentation of preventive main-tenance was provided and reviewed.

The employer was cited for two Seriousviolations of Part 21, Powered Industrial Trucks.A violation was cited for failing to provide train-ing, testing or a permit. The second citation wasfor failing to prohibit travel with the load en-gaging means elevated.Millwright – Age 59: Employee struck by afalling piece of equipment

The employee worked at an automotivemanufacturing plant, and sustained a fatal head

injury when a crated transfer conveyor component,weighing approximately 816 pounds, fell off the truckand struck the employee in the head.

An employee was assigned to unload a semi-trailer of equipment. The first pick was from thedriver’s front side. The second pick was an elec-trical panel box from the front passenger side.The third pick was on the passenger side and wasa 19-foot section of straight conveyor. The em-ployee lifted the fourth pick and proceeded to backabout 25 feet, then lowered the forks when com-ing to a stop.

Another employee was standing on theground at the driver’s side rear tire area, di-recting the unloading operation. The next loadwas tilting toward this employee. The employeethrew his hands into the air as if to stop theload. It fell off on top of the employee, crush-ing his body and head into the road.

All millwrights had extensive training toinclude lifting and rigging. The investigationrevealed no violations of MIOSHA standardsand no citations were issued.Utility Operator – Age 46: Employee foundwith forklift on top of him.

The employee worked at a manufacturingplant that produces ball bearings. The deceased,a third-shift utility worker, drove off the receiv-ing loading dock. It was the employee’s firstweek on the third shift. Operating the forkliftwas part of his job duties. The deceased wastrained and certified through the employer’s on-site training program and had previous years ofexperience at another employer.

The employer had documentation support-ing training and testing for the employee. Therewere not witnesses to the accident or eventsprior. The deceased was discovered by anotheremployee who was traveling through the receiv-ing area, and noticed lights shining on a walland the truck’s forks up against a wall in thetruck well. The observing employee called an-other worker and they discovered the victim.

The operator was found pinned face downbetween the truck and the concrete floor withthe overhead guard across his back. The otheremployees freed the deceased by manually lift-ing the truck enough to slide him from under it.Paramedics pronounced him dead at the scene.

Based on the position of the truck, it ap-pears the operator drove off the dock whiletraveling in reverse. The counterweights werebroken off and laying to the side. The forkswere up and leaning against a wall. The ve-hicle was approximately three and a half feetfrom the end of the dock. This distance givesthe appearance that the truck was traveling ata fairly fast rate.

The MIOSHA Safety Officer verified thatdaily checks of the truck were done. The unionverified that the employer provides adequatetraining and responds to employee safety train-ing and requests. Monthly meetings are held

covering various topics.There were no MIOSHA issues found di-

rectly related to the fatality. The employer wascited an Other-than Serious violation with nopenalty for not having the victim’s permit prop-erly filled out to indicate a restriction forglasses. Two safety recommendations were alsoprovided to the employer suggesting that docu-mentation be maintained for daily checks andthat rear view mirrors be installed on the trucks.Welder/Yard Helper – Age 23: Employeepinned between forklift and a vehicle.

The employee wokred at an outdoor ad-vertising company. The employee was pinnedwhile trying to stop the powered industrial truckfrom hitting a vehicle. This fatality remains un-der investigation by MIOSHA.Owner – Age 33: Run over by forklift.

The deceased was the owner of a metalfabrication shop. The owner of the business wasrun over by a powered industrial truck whilecharging the battery. Investigation of this fatal-ity is not yet complete.Proactive Culture Can Prevent Tragedies

It’s hard to image a work world withoutforklifts. Use is commonplace throughout a widerange of industries, regardless of size. If a work-place has material to be moved, it’s a prettysure thing there is a powered industrial truckon site to help. These devices have made it pos-sible to handle and move large loads efficiently.

While nothing can ever replace the liveslost through the workplace tragedies describedabove, the memory of these workers can be hon-ored through proactive measures that ensureneedless deaths do not happen.

To ensure these types of accidents do nothappen to other employees, MIOSHA is urgingproactive measures by all employers using pow-ered industrial trucks. Employers should reviewtheir program, instructions, and operations toensure that adequate protection is provided.

A solid powered industrial truck programincludes worker training, testing and licens-ing; inspections and maintenance; techniquesfor load lifting and travel; and pedestriansafety. In addition, employers should considerother environmental hazards such as lighting,and engineering controls that move worksta-tions, control panels, and equipment awayfrom aisles.

Through strong proactive measures, em-ployers can ensure the safety and health of pow-ered industrial truck operators and pedestrians.For more information on how to establish pro-grams and create safe work environments, seeadditional articles and resource references inthis addition of the MIOSHA News.

For information on MIOSHA standards,companies can contact the ConstructionSafety and Health Division at 517.322.1856,or the General Industry Safety and Health Di-vision at 517.322.1831.

Fal l 2006

19

Cont. from Page 6Cont. from Page 9General Industry InvestigationsBuilding a PIT Safety Program

Operator TrainingWhat must be covered in operator training?

Training must be specific to cover capaci-ties of the equipment and the attachments thatwill be used, as well as the purpose, use, andlimitations of controls. Operators must be trainedon how to make daily checks.Will formal training alone, such as watching avideo, be sufficient?

No, practical training and a performancetest is also is required. A potential operator maywork for 30-days, under the close supervision ofan authorized individual.Once initial training is completed, when isadditional training required?

When there is a change in the work envi-ronment; the equipment used; or the operator isnot conforming to safe operational practices, suchas driving too fast, dropping loads, or violatingother work rules.Testing and PermitsDoes MIOSHA require any specific topics tobe covered on the test?

Yes, operator tests must include operatingability, knowledge of the equipment, informa-tion on Part 21 rules, and how to perform dailychecks. The CET Division has a sample opera-tor test available to employers, but it is recom-mended that employers customize the test tocover their own, unique conditions.Is it required that the test be in writing?

While Part 21 does not specifically requirethat the test be in writing, it is highly recom-mended that written tests be give and maintainedby the employer for verification and trackingpurposes.How long is a PIT operator permit valid?

An operator permit is valid for a period ofthree years. At the end of the three years, em-ployers must retest operators and renew the per-mit. It also recommended that refresher trainingbe provided.Is specific information required on the permit?

Part 21 specifies information that must beincluded on the permit in Rule 2154(6). Thepermit must include: the firm name; operatorname; operator I.D. number (if any); name ofissuing authority; type of truck authorized tooperator; operator restrictions, including thenature of the restrictions (if any); the date is-sued; and the expiration date. A sample permitis included in the standard. In addition, the CETDivision has a sample permit that can be used.Additional Resources

Additional information, resources and up-coming training sessions on safe operation andMIOSHA requirements for powered industrialtrucks, are available on the MIOSHA website atwww.michigan.gov.miosha or by calling theConsultation Education and Training (CET) Di-vision at 517.322.1809.

Case 4–Inadequate TrainingAn employee of a small manufacturing firm

alleged inadequate training for handling L.P. gascylinders and defective trucks being used in thefirm. The investigation resulted in citations beingissued for:

Not training employees in the properuse and handling of L.P. gas cylinders underthe Hazard Communication standard, Rule1910.1200(h).

Rule 2131(1) – No horn or audible warn-ing device provided on truck.

Rule 2134(2) – Defective tires on trucks.Rule 2154(1) – Truck operators had per-

mits issued from a previous employer.Rule 2171(1) – Daily truck safety checks

not being performed at beginning of shift.Case 5–Carbon Monoxide Issues

An employee complaint alleging dust andblue smoke at a small industrial firm was re-cently investigated. The investigation revealedan over-exposure to carbon monoxide due tothe use of propane-fueled lift trucks. This in-vestigation resulted in citations being issued forviolations of the Air Contaminants Health Stan-dard, Part 310, and Hazard CommunicationHealth Standard, Part 430:

Rule 3(a)(iii) – Employee exposed to car-bon monoxide exceeding the allowed limits in 8hours.

Rule 3(a)(iii) – Employees exposed to aconcentration of carbon monoxide in excess of theceiling limits.

Rule 1910.1200(h)(1) – Employees nottrained in the hazards of carbon monoxide pro-duced by propane fork trucks.

Employers are reminded that, like all aspectsof their workplace safety and health system, pow-ered industrial truck programs need monitoring andregular review to avoid developing the kinds ofissues outlined above.

Cont. from Page 7Construction Industry Inspections

State Minimum WageIncreased on October 1st

Michigan’s minimum wage increased to$6.95 per hour on October 1, 2006. Theincrease covers nearly all Michigan workers.The minimum hourly wage will increasefurther on July 1, 2007, to $7.15, and on July1, 2008, to $7.40.

Detailed information about the increase andother changes to Michigan’s minimum wagelaw is on the state’s Wage & Hour Divisionwebsite: www.michigan.gov/wagehour. Youcan also call the Wage & Hour Division withyour minimum wage questions at517.335.0400 on weekdays between 8:00a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

An operator must wear a seat belt at alltimes when operating the fork truck.

Take care when traveling on unevenground and slopes. Keep the boom and load aslow as possible when traveling.

Maintain proper power line clearances.Don’t allow any riders on the equipment.Be sure to lower the boom, shut off the

engine, and engage the parking brake when ex-iting the operator’s station.

Do not park the fork truck on an inclineand leave it unattended. If you must park on anincline, block the wheels.

Do not leave the fork truck unattended.(Truck is unattended when the operator is 25 feetor more away and in view, or at anytime the truckis not in view of the operator.)

Do not allow anyone to stand or passunder the elevated portion of a fork truck,whether empty or loaded.

Do not exceed the rated load of the ma-chine or the forks.

Make sure all loads are secured.Drive slowly and in accordance with con-

ditions at the site.Safety Practices when Elevating Personnel

A pre-lift meeting must be conducted.Securely attach the work platform to the

back of the forks.The work platform must be in compli-

ance with Rule 1243(5):1. Continuous guardrail system withtoeboard.2. Safety factor of four times the maximum intended load.3. Wood planking, steel plate or gratingbolted or welded to the bottom of theplatform.4. Permanent sign that specifies themaximum number of passengers, IDnumber, and the maximum rated load.5. High-visibility color or marking.The length of the work platform can only

be the distance between the forks plus 10 incheson either side of the wheelbase.

The elevated personnel must wear a har-ness and lanyard that is attached to a suitableanchorage point.

The operator of the fork truck must re-main in the operator station while an employeeis elevated.

No horizontal movement (driving) whilean employee is elevated. Employees must exitbefore repositioning the fork truck.

Don’t use the guardrails to climb on, sup-port materials, or support other work platforms.

Don’t use ladders, planks, railings, orother material to gain more height or reach.

For more information on workplace hazardsplease visit the MIOSHA website atwww.michigan.gov/miosha.

20

Michigan Occupational Safetyand Health AdministrationActing Director: Martha Yoder

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

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

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

Editor: Judith M. Shane

Michigan Department ofLabor & Economic GrowthDirector: Robert W. Swanson

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

(25,000 copies printed at a cost of $11,158 or $0.45 per copy.)

Website: www.michigan.gov/miosha

How To Contact MIOSHA

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

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDLANSING MI

PERMIT NO 1200

MIOSHA HotlineFatality/Catastrophe Hotline

General InformationFree Safety/Health Consultation

Injury & Illness Recordkeeping

800.866.4674800.858.0397517.322.1814517.322.1809517.322.1848

517.322.1814 Martha Yoder517.322.1817 John Peck

Acting DirectorActing Deputy Director

DIVISIONAppeals

Construction Safety & Health

Consultation Education & Training

General Industry Safety & Health

Management & Technical Services

517.322.1297 Jim Gordon

517.322.1856 Bob Pawlowski

517.322.1809 Connie O’Neill

517.322.1831 John Brennan

517.322.1851 Ron Ray (Acting)

OFFICE PHONE MANAGERAsbestos Program

CET Grant Program

Employee Discrimination Section

Management Information Systems Section

Standards Section

517.322.1320 George Howard

517.322.1865 Louis Peasley

248.888.8777 Jim Brogan

517.322.1851 Bob Clark

517.322.1845 Marsha Parrott-Boyle

PHONE DIRECTOR

The Department of Labor & Economic Growth is an equal opportunity employer/program.This newsletter will be made available in alternate formats on request.