FFY 2006

Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR) and Minnesota Workplace Safety Consultation Annual Project Report (CAPR)

MNOSHA

December 2006

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2006
Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and - Minnesota Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC) Table of Contents Page Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Annual Performance Plan Results – FFY2006 ........................................................... 4 Strategic Goal #1 Compliance..................................................................................................................... 4 Consultation.................................................................................................................... 7 Strategic Goal #2 Compliance................................................................................................................... 14 Consultation.................................................................................................................. 19 Strategic Goal #3 Compliance................................................................................................................... 31 Consultation.................................................................................................................. 35 Special Accomplishments Compliance........................................................................................................................ 39 Consultation....................................................................................................................... 42 Mandated Activities ........................................................................................................................ 46 Appendix A – Memo: Agency Response to Construction Leadership Mtg. ................................... 50 Appendix B – MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Statistics Comparison by FFY .................... 51 Appendix C – MNOSHA Compliance Outreach Presentations ...................................................... 52 – Selected Compliance Outreach............................................................................... 53 Appendix D – Compliance Assistance Plan [CLOSED FFY06]...................................................... 54 Appendix E – Compliance Workskill Assessment [CLOSED FFY06 (App. B of ADM 5.1)] ........... 56 Appendix F – Workflow Analysis MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Workflow Chart & Procedures [CLOSED FFY06] . 62 MNOSHA Compliance Contestation Process Review/Recommendations........................ 68 Appendix G – Other, Compliance 2004: Management Improvement [CLOSED FFY06]
Part 1 – Survey: Start/Stop/Continue Summary ............................................................................. 70 Part 2 – Management Survey Summary.......................................................................................... 72

2005: Evaluation Projects / Reports (Executive Summaries)
General Duty Citation Review ......................................................................................................... 75 Fatality and Serious Injury Review .................................................................................................. 76 OSHA 31 Review ............................................................................................................................ 77 Experience Modifier Rate / OSHA Scheduling ................................................................................ 78 Isocyanate Initiative for Spray-on Truck Bed Liner Investigations ................................................... 79 Shadow Assignments Report .......................................................................................................... 80 R&S: ODI vs. Work Comp Data for inspection priority.................................................................... 83 R&S: Safety Incentives................................................................................................................... 85

2006: Evaluation Projects / Reports (Executive Summaries)
Trends on Minnesota OSHA Industrial Hygiene Samplings – 2003-2005 ....................................... 87 Summary of Contested Cases – July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............................................. 88
2

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2006
Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and - Minnesota Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC)

INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) program is administered by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI); the program became effective on August 1, 1973, with final State Plan approval being obtained on July 30, 1985. MNOSHA includes the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Compliance Division, which is responsible for compliance program administration (conducting enforcement inspections, adoption of standards, and operation of other related OSHA activities) and the Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC) Division which provides free consultation services, on request, to help employers prevent workplace accidents and diseases by identifying and correcting safety and health hazards. MNOSHA’s mission is: “To make sure every worker in the State of Minnesota has a safe and healthful workplace.” This mandate involves the application of a set of tools by MNOSHA including standards development, enforcement, compliance assistance, and outreach which enable employers to maintain safe and healthful workplaces. MNOSHA’s vision is to be a leader in occupational safety and health and make Minnesota’s workplaces the safest in the nation. MNOSHA is striving for the elimination of workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths so that all of Minnesota’s workers can return home safely. MNOSHA believes that to support this vision, the workplace must be characterized by a genuine, shared commitment to workplace safety by both employers and workers, with necessary training, resources, and support systems devoted to making this happen. The Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Strategic Plan for FFY2004 to 2008 established three strategic goals:

MNOSHA Compliance (OSH) Strategic Goals Goal 1: Reduce occupational hazards through compliance inspections

MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC) Strategic Goals Goal 1: Reduce occupational hazards through direct interventions

Goal 2: Promote a safety and health culture through compliance assistance, outreach, cooperative programs and strong leadership

Goal 2: Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, intervention, outreach, cooperative programs and strong leadership.

Goal 3: Strengthen and improve MNOSHA’s infrastructure

Goal 3: Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure.

The FFY2006-FFY2007 Performance Plan provided the framework for accomplishing the goals of the MNOSHA Strategic Plan by establishing specific performance goals for FFY2006-FFY2007. This combined SOAR and CAPR presents a review of the strategies used and results achieved in FFY2006. Separate appendices have been included to provide more detail in regard to specific performance goals. Special accomplishments as well as the successful completion of mandated activities are also discussed. _____________________________________________________________________________________
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 3 December 2006

GOAL SUMMARIES - SOAR for FFY2006 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN RESULTS
With few exceptions, MNOSHA Compliance’s FFY2006 performance goals have been achieved. Each of the FFY2006 performance goals and the activities and strategies used to achieve those goals are described below. Comments/discussion relating to accomplishment of Goal sub-items follows each chart.

Goal 1: Reduce occupational hazards through compliance inspections
How Progress in Achieving this Goal Will be Assessed 1. Percent reduction in injury and illness rates 1 for cases involving days away from work Baseline 9/30/03 A) BLS data: CY1999- 2001 avg = 136,100 B) MN Work Comp data: indemnity claims rate, 1999-2001 avg = 1.61 Target FFY 04 3% Results FFY 04 A) BLS 2002 actual =120,500, an 11% decrease from baseline B) 2003 actual =1.32, an18% decrease from baseline (DART 2003 data not available) CY2004 = 23 Target FFY 05 6% Results FFY 05 A) BLS 2003 actual = 111,600, an 18% decrease from baseline B) 2004 actual = 1.30, a 19% decrease from baseline. See comments following chart [1.1] Target FFY 06 9% Results FFY 06 A) BLS 2004 actual = 105,500, a 22% decrease from baseline B) 2005 actual = 1.28, a 20% decrease from baseline. See comments following chart [1.1] Target FFY 08 15%

2. Percent reduction in state fatality rate in MNOSHA’s jurisdiction 3. Number of hazards abated and establishments visited: a. Total hazards abated / establishments visited

CY 1999-2001 avg = 22 fatalities/year

1%

2%

See comments following chart [1.2] See comments following chart [1.3.]

3%

See comments following chart [1.2] See comments following chart [1.3]

5%

IMIS data FFY 2001-2003 avg = 3,989 hazards identified 2,082 establ. visited N/A

N/A

4,813 hazards identified 2,662 establishments visited

N/A

4,884 hazards identified 2,591 establishments visited

N/A

4,968 hazards identified 2,593 establishments visited

N/A

b. Establishment emphasis 1) Inspection emphasis Lead and silica Lumber and wood products Furniture and fixtures Paper and allied products Rubber and misc. plastics Food and kindred products Industrial machine and equipment Construction Public sector * Foundries * Meatpacking * Nursing Homes ** Printing and publishing 2) ***Secondary inspection emphasis Printing and publishing Auto dealers and service stations Communications Hotels and lodging * Personal and laundry services * Methylene chloride * Asthma * Architectural & structural metals * Couriers and messengers * Lumber and other constr. whlslers * Motor vehicle mfg. c. Ergo emphasis

60% of all programmed inspections

1,801 or 80% (80.4%) of all programmed inspections occurred in high hazard industries

60% of all programmed inspections

1,374 or 63% of all programmed inspections occurred in high hazard industries

70% of all programmed inspections

1,653 or 77% of all programmed inspections occurred in Primary Emphasis Industries

N/A

N/A

5% of all programmed inspections

4% of all programmed inspections conducted in FFY04 5% of baseline programmed inspections were conducted in FFY04

5% of all programmed inspections

5.5% (120) of all programmed inspections conducted in FFY05 See comments following chart [1.3]

3% of all programmed inspections

9% (202) of all programmed inspections were Conducted in Secondary Emphasis Industries

N/A

N/A IMIS data : FFY 2001-2003 avg days to close = 210 IMIS data: FFY 2001-2003 avg = 80%

Develop approach 10% decrease in daysto-close avg Maintain baseline 257 average days to close 84%

4. Number and timeliness of discrimination inspections conducted 5. Percent of designated programmed inspections
1 2

Ongoing support of WSC’s Ergo effort 20% decrease in days-to-close avg Maintain baseline

209 average days to close See comments following chart [1.4] 83.9%

Ongoing support of WSC’s Ergo effort 70% complete in 90 days Maintain baseline

See comments following chart [1.3] TBD 40%: See comments following chart [1.4] 83%
90% complete in 90 days

N/A

BLS data will change from LWDII rate for baseline to DART (Days Away or Restricted Transfer) rate for Target FFY05-08. The actual number will be defined as more data is available. The quantity of programmed inspections is variable; therefore no defined number is provided. * New industries included in inspection focus for FFY2006 and FFY2007. ** Shift from secondary emphasis to primary inspection emphasis for printing and publishing. *** Pilot inspection emphasis renamed secondary emphasis to more accurately reflect its purpose.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 4 December 2006

GOAL 1 - Comments
Goal 1.1 Reduction in Injury and Illness Rates: FFY06 target was a 9% reduction. MNOSHA Compliance exceeded this goal and continues to review new information to redefine scheduling approaches to reduce injury and illness rates. In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance revised its scheduling directive (MNOSHA Instruction ADM 2.1) to coincide with the federal fiscal year. Previously, the scheduling year began March 1 and ended February 28. In the second quarter of FFY06, the scheduling plan was extended through September 2006, and in October 2006 the plan was revised, thereby establishing the October 1 through September 30 scheduling year. In addition, the plan continued local emphasis programs (LEPs) for asthma, methylene chloride, and isocyanates and added tree trimming and removal and increasing BLS rates emphasis programs. New scheduling lists are being used for nursing homes, foundries, meat packing plants, and the public sector. MNOSHA Compliance plans to continue developing and utilizing information available through the Department of Economic Security and the Department’s Workers Compensation Division. The next scheduling approach will be established by October 1, 2007. 7525 Program. The 7525 Program is a penalty reduction incentive program available to qualified employers that links workers compensation claim rates and MNOSHA compliance penalties. This Program allows an employer to obtain a 75% reduction in penalties, provided they reduce their workers compensation claims by 25% within a one-year period. This plan provides employers in the State of Minnesota an economic incentive to reduce accidents and protect employees from harm. Participation in this Program does not preclude an employer from using consultation services; in fact, it is encouraged. Since its inception in FFY04, MNOSHA has offered the 7525 Program to 206 employers. Employers must contest to enter the 7525 Program. There are 64 employers who have entered the Program. By the end of FFY06, 23 employers have completed the Program. Of those, 52% (12 employers) were successful in achieving a 25% reduction in their workers compensation claims rate and, therefore, received the full 75% off the initial penalties. The rates for nine employers increased and, thus, they were required to pay the entire initial penalty dollars. The claims rates for two employers decreased less than 25% and they paid a pro-rated penalty in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Program. Goal 1.2 Reduction in state fatality rate: FFY06 Target was a 3% reduction in CY06. MNOSHA Compliance did not meet this goal. There were 25 fatalities in calendar year 2006. MNOSHA Compliance continues to address workplace fatalities in its outreach materials. In addition, a PowerPoint presentation that the Commissioner has used in the past to address construction fatalities is updated quarterly, in part, due to requests for the presentation from representatives of the construction industry. Also, one of the items identified for improvement at the Construction Leadership Meeting in FFY05 was to implement 100 percent fall protection at six feet (see Appendix A). A research project was conducted by a MNOSHA student intern and a subsequent report is pending approval by MNOSHA management. This item will carry over into FFY07.
MNOSHA

CY 1999-2001 average CY 2002 CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 Goal 1.3 -

22 25 26 23 26 25

14% increase from 1999-2001 average 18% increase from 1999-2001 average 4.5% increase from 1999-2001 average 18% increase from 1999-2001 average 13.6% increase from 1999-2001 average

Hazards abated / establishments visited. In FFY2006, MNOSHA investigators conducted 2,593 inspections in which 4,968 hazards were identified and cited. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the inspections conducted resulted in violations; 79% of violations were cited serious. MNOSHA continues to create incentives for employers to address safety and health issues through strong, fair, and effective enforcement of safety and health regulations. MNOSHA focused its programmed inspections to reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in certain emphasis industries. The FFY06 goal was for 70% of all programmed inspections to be in the Primary emphasis industries; MNOSHA actually achieved 77%. In addition, 9% of programmed inspections occurred in the Secondary emphasis industries exceeding the goal of 3%.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 5 December 2006

As part of an ergonomic focus, MNOSHA conducted 33 programmed inspections in the meat processing industry and nursing homes. Goal 1.4 – Discrimination inspections: FFY06 Target was to achieve 70% of cases complete in 90 days. In FFY06, MNOSHA’s Discrimination Unit did not attain the goal of the 70% of cases completed within 90 days. However, the percentage of cases completed within 90 days continues to increase and the backlog from previous years has been resolved. MNOSHA’s baseline for Discrimination cases completed within 90 days established in FFY03 was 16%. In FFY04 this increased to 18%, in FFY05 it was 26%, and in FFY06 this number continued to improve to 40%. When this same measure is analyzed from the assigned-to-investigator date, rather than from the case screened date, almost 59% of the cases completed in FFY06 were completed within the 90-day goal. At the beginning of FFY06, the Unit had 18 cases pending. During FFY06, the Unit opened an additional 39 cases and closed 51 cases, leaving only seven cases remaining open at the end of FFY06. During FFY06, a major transition occurred from working on cases that were over 90 days old, to staying current with all cases. During the fourth quarter of FFY06 all cases with an open lapse time of greater than 90 days were closed. During the fourth quarter, the final two cases from calendar year 2005 were closed, making the oldest case with a lapse time of less than 80 days. The end of FFY06 left the Unit with seven open cases with half of them having a lapse time of 40 days or less, and all of them expected to be closed in the first quarter of FFY07. The MNOSHA Discrimination staff continued refinement of the screening process, including the initial intake process and timely monitoring cases to ensure return of proper information to remain an active case. This is evident by the Unit’s number of screened and closed cases which was 54 in FFY06; this is the largest number of screened and closed cases in the last five years. Also, the third investigator added in FFY04 has allowed work with employers and employees on resolving disputed cases early in the process. This is noted by the increase of settlements, a total of eight for FFY06 (see Appendix B). This is the highest number of settled cases since FFY02. In addition to working on active cases, the Unit had a total of 120 additional contacts that resulted in 40 referrals, 26 outreach and 54 cases screened and closed. In addition to meeting the challenge of backlogged of cases, the Unit was involved in working with five cases that were found merit and were referred to the Attorney General’s office for litigation. All of these cases at the Attorney General’s office were resolved in FFY06. Also as noted in FFY05, MNOSHA revised its appeal procedure that had existed since FFY03. The new appeal procedure of utilizing the Director of MNOSHA to handle the appeals process rather than the Department’s Legal Services Division, has resulted in all cases appealed being resolved in less than 30 days. At the end of FFY06 there were no cases on appeal. Also, during FFY06 a complainant appealed to the MNOSHA review board. The Department’s legal staff advised the complainant that under statute (182.664 subd. 3) the MNOSHA review board does not have the jurisdiction to review the case. MNOSHA agreed with the opinion and the appeal was denied. The Discrimination investigators attended various training throughout FFY06. A four-day mediation training course to become a certified mediator was attended by the lead investigator to facilitate settling more cases prior to or during investigation. Also attended was Region V training in Chicago, which discussed the Sarbanes-Oxley cases and the need for a simple and consistent Final Investigative Report (FIR). The FIR that MNOSHA uses was supplied to Region V as a potential Region-wide model. Although MNOSHA does not handle Sarbanes-Oxley cases, the training covered a variety of advanced investigative techniques that can be used in OSHA investigations.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 6 December 2006

Goal Summaries – CAPR for FFY 2006 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) - Workplace Safety Consultation SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN RESULTS

Goal 1
Reduce occupational hazards through direct interventions Goal 1.1 Reduce injuries and illnesses by 4% annually How Progress in Baseline Target Achieving this Goal 9/30/03 FFY 06 Will be Assessed 1. Percent reduction A) BLS data: 12% in injury and CY1999- 2001 illness rates for avg = 136,100 cases involving days away from work

Results FFY 06 A) BLS 2004 actual = 105,500 a 22% decrease from baseline

Target FFY 07 16%

Results FFY 07

Target FFY 08 20%

Comments: Reduction in injury and illness rates: FFY06 target was a 12% reduction. WSC exceeded this goal and continues to promote WSC services to high hazard industries to reduce injury and illness rates.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 7 December 2006

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Lumber & Wood Products NAICS Code(s) Initial 321xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 24xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Industrial Machine & Equipment NAICS Code(s) Initial 333xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 35xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Furniture & Fixtures NAICS Code(s) Initial 337xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 25xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Construction NAICS Code(s) Initial 233- 235xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 15xx–17xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Paper & Allied Products NAICS Code(s) Initial 322xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 26xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Rubber & Misc. Plastics NAICS Code(s) Initial 326xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 30xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Logging NAICS Code(s) Initial 113310 Follow-Up
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Results 19 0

Health Activity Initial Follow-Up

Results 6 1

19 Results 13 6 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

7

8 2

19 Results 13 1 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

10

7 0

14 Results 549 75 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

7

75 24

624 Results 1 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results 0 0

99

1 Results 9 2 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

4 0

11 Results 5 2 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up
Page 8 December 2006

4 Results 0 0

SIC Code(s) 2411 Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Food & Kindred Products NAICS Code(s) Initial 311-312xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 20xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Nursing Homes NAICS Code(s) Initial 623110 Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 805x Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Printing & Publishing NAICS Code(s) Initial 323xxx & 511xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 27xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Auto Dealers & Service Stations NAICS Code(s) Initial 441xxx & 447xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 55xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Communications NAICS Code(s) Initial 515xxx & 517xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 48xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Hotels & Lodging NAICS Code(s) Initial 721xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Motor Vehicle Mfg. NAICS Code(s) Initial 336xxx Follow-Up
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

7 Results 13 1 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

5 0

14 Results 11 2 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

5

7 3

13 Results 8 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

10

3 0

8 Results 6 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

3

0 0

6 Results 0 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

0 0

0 Results 13 1 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

0 0

14 Results 0 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up
Page 9 December 2006

0 Results 0 0

SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Foundries NAICS Code(s) Initial 331xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Meat Packing NAICS Code(s) Initial 311xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Architectural/Structural NAICS Code(s) Initial 332xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Couriers/Messengers NAICS Code(s) Initial 492xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Personal & Laundry NAICS Code(s) Initial 812xxx Follow-Up SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Safety Activity Other NAICS Code(s) Initial All Other Follow-Up SIC Code(s) All Other Totals

0 Results 1 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

0 0

1 Results 4 1 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

1 0

5 Results 7 2 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

1

1 0

9 Results 0 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

1

0 0

0 Results 0 0 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

0 0

0 Results 115 10 Health Activity Initial Follow-Up Results

0

42 4

125

46

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 10 December 2006

Overall Project Activity Summary of Goal #1
Indicator Type Activity Measures Indicator Total Number of Safety Initial Visits Conducted for FFY 2006 Total Number of Safety Follow-Up Visits Conducted for FFY 2006 Total Number of Health Initial Visits Conducted for FFY 2006 Total Number of Health Follow-Up Visits Conducted for FFY 2006 Projected Activity in CAPP 565 Initial Safety Visits Results 787 Initial Safety Visits Comments 139 % of Projected Activity accomplished. 93 % of Projected Activity accomplished.

Activity Measures

110 Follow-Up Safety Visits

103 Follow-Up Safety Visits

Activity Measures

165 Initial Health Visits

159 Initial Health Visits

96 % of Projected Activity accomplished.

Activity Measures

16 Follow-Up Health Visits

34 Follow-Up Health Visits 213 % of Projected Activity accomplished.

Discussion of Activity Measures: Initial Visits: WSC accomplished 139 percent of the total projected safety initial visit activity in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS and logging. WSC accomplished 96 percent of the total projected health initial visit activity in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS. Training and Assistance (T&A) Visits: WSC accomplished 146 percent of the total projected safety and health T&A activity in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS and logging. Follow-Up Visits: WSC accomplished 93 percent of the total projected safety follow-up visits in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS. WSC accomplished 213 percent of the projected health follow-up visits in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS. Interventions: WSC accomplished 195 percent of the total projected safety and health intervention activity in MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS and logging. Overall Project Activity Summary: WSC accomplished 137 percent of the total safety and health activity (initial visits, T&A visits, follow-up visits and interventions) projected in the FY2006 CAPP.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 11 December 2006

2006 Minnesota Dept. of Labor & Industry WSC Annual Project Plan FFY 2006 and 2007 Industries
BLS DART rate 2005 BLS DAFW rate 2005

Industry name-SIC General Industry Primary Group Lumber & wood products Furniture and fixtures Paper and allied products Rubber and misc. plastics Food and kindred products Industrial machinery and equipment Foundries Meat Packing Skilled Nursing care facilities Printing and publishing Construction General Industry Secondary Group Architectural and structural metals Couriers and messengers Lumber and other construction materials (wholesale) Motor vehicle manufacturing

SIC code

Industry name-NAICS

NAICS code

24 25 26 30 20 35

Wood product manufacturing Furniture and related product mfg. Paper manufacturing Plastics and rubber products mfg. Food manufacturing Machinery manufacturing Primary metal manufacturing Animal slaughtering and processing

321 337 322 326 311 333 331 3116 623 323 23

3.8 5.7 2.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 8.9 6.1 5.7 3.2 4.3

2.1 3.2 0.8 2.3 1.4 1.7 2.7 0.9 2.6 1.6 3.1

805 27 15-17

Nursing and residential care facilities Printing and related support activities Construction

Architectural and structural metals manufacturing Couriers and messengers Lumber and other construction materials merchant wholesalers Motor vehicle manufacturing Transportation equipment mfg.

3323 492

4.6 7.8

2.9 3.2

4233 3361 336 812 441 447 7211

3.4 na 6.9 na 2.2 1.6 3.8 2.8

2.0 na 2.4 na 1.5 0.7 2.4 1.4

Personal Services Auto dealer and service stations

72 55

Personal and laundry services Motor vehicle and parts dealers Gasoline stations

Hotels and other lodging places state total private sector

70

Traveler accommodations

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 12 December 2006

developed claims
Industry Wood product manufacturing Machinery manufacturing Furniture and related product mfg. Construction Paper manufacturing Plastics and rubber products mfg. Food manufacturing Beverage and tobacco product mfg. Nursing and residential care facilities Printing and related support activities Publishing industries Motor vehicle and parts dealers Gasoline stations Traveler accommodations Architectural and structural metals manufacturing Couriers and messengers Animal slaughtering and processing Motor vehicle manufacturing Personal and laundry services Foundries Lumber and other construction materials merchant wholesalers NAICS code

employment 2003 16,715 34,667 12,459 131,854 13,149 16,980 46,102 2,225 51,572 30,796 24,723 35,211 25,769 32,243 8,335 10,592 15,978 2,663 27,744 4,656 5,428 2004 17,061 34,322 12,740 135,413 12,422 16,424 43,973 2,154 50,497 30,474 26,067 35,325 24,662 32,320 8,443 10,699 15,464 2,521 28,249 4,830 5,687 2005 17,176 34,418 13,130 136,564 12,099 16,016 43,340 2,198 49,256 32,104 25,142 34,479 23,957 32,753 8,416 10,520 15,780 2,405 28,498 5,024 5,765

indem rate per 100 2003 2.49 1.22 2.15 2.76 2.21 1.52 1.65 7.33 2.07 0.95 0.81 1.26 0.62 0.83 1.78 3.55 2.08 4.66 0.75 2.88 2.06 2004 2.49 1.21 2.22 2.64 2.04 1.62 1.53 6.64 2.23 0.92 0.61 1.15 0.67 0.83 1.78 2.96 1.71 3.37 0.66 3.48 1.37 2005 2.18 1.20 2.33 2.59 2.08 1.58 1.58 8.55 2.12 1.01 0.66 1.15 0.73 0.78 1.81 2.62 1.36 1.29 0.58 3.24 1.65

Pct change 03-04 -0.1% -0.9% 3.3% -4.4% -7.6% 6.6% -7.5% -9.4% 7.4% -3.1% -25.4% -8.0% 7.7% 0.1% 0.1% -16.5% -17.8% -27.6% -12.2% 20.9% -33.5% 04-05 -12.4% -0.8% 4.9% -1.6% 1.9% -2.5% 3.6% 28.8% -4.7% 9.5% 8.9% -0.8% 8.5% -6.5% 1.7% -11.5% -20.9% -61.8% -12.1% -6.7% 20.1%

2003 417 423 268 3,636 291 258 762 163 1,070 292 201 442 161 267 148 376 333 124 208 134 112

2004 425 415 283 3,571 254 266 672 143 1,125 280 158 408 166 268 150 317 265 85 186 168 78

2005 375 413 306 3,542 252 253 686 188 1,046 323 166 395 175 254 152 276 214 31 165 163 95

321 333 337 230 322 326 311 312 623110 323 511 441 447 721 332 492 3116 3361 812 3315 4233

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 13 December 2006

GOAL SUMMARIES - SOAR for FFY2006 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance (cont’d) Goal 2 Promote a safety and health culture through compliance assistance, outreach, cooperative programs, and strong leadership
How Progress in Achieving this Goal Will be Assessed 1. Increase in: a. Partnerships Baseline 9/30/03 # of FFY 02 partnerships: 2 Target FFY 04 1 new program Results FFY 04 1 new program. See comments following chart [2.1.a] 2 new sites Target FFY 05 1 new program Results FFY 05 1 new program See comments following chart [2.1.a] Target FFY 06 1 new program Results FFY 06 1 new program See comments following chart [2.1.a] Target FFY 08 5 new programs

b. Voluntary Protection Programs (MNSTAR) 2. Increase in total number of people participating in OSHA outreach/training in areas such as: a. Total b. Retail trade, eating/drinking places (youth) c. Immigrant and other hard-to-reach employers and employees d. Primary metal industries e. Transportation equipment f. Fabricated products g. Emerging businesses h. Construction 3. Participate in homeland security efforts at state and national levels 4. Develop a plan to identify opportunities where compliance assistance and cooperative 1 agreements will maximize our impact.

10

2 new sites

2 new sites

N/A

Establish baseline = 1,722

Baseline established

Increase 5% above baseline

2 new sites = 14 See comments following chart [2.1.b] Increased 89.7% above baseline: 3,267 participants. See comments following chart [2.2]

2 new sites

Increase 10% above baseline

4 new sites = 18 See comments following chart [2.1.b] Increased 182% above baseline: 4,866 participants. See comments following chart [2.2]

10 new sites 20% above baseline

Current practice N/A

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Develop plan to establish baseline

Plan developed

Implement plan

Ongoing See comments following chart [2.3] Plan implemented. See comments following chart [2.4]

Ongoing

Create full-time CA position
[See Goal 2 narrative, p. 10-11 FFY06-07 Perf. Plan]

Ongoing See comments following chart [2.3] See comments following chart [2.4]

Ongoing

TBD

5. Maintain response time and/or service level to stakeholders in areas such as: a) b) c)
1

Current practice

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing. See comments following chart [2.5]

Ongoing

Ongoing See comments following chart [2.5]

Ongoing

Telephone inquiries and assistance Written requests for information MNOSHA website information/updates

The compliance assistance activities are incorporated in various places in Goal 1, Items 1-2; and Goal 2, Items 1-4. Additional quantitative numbers will be defined with the inclusion of the proposed compliance assistance positions.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 14 December 2006

GOAL 2 - Comments
Goal 2.1.a Increase Partnerships by 1 in FFY05. During FFY06, MNOSHA entered into a formal Partnership agreement designed to reduce the number of injuries, illnesses and fatalities at participating construction industry employers. The Partnership initiative was jointly agreed upon with the Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (MN ABC). The specific goals of the new Partnership program are: • Emphasize reduction of injuries and fatalities from the four hazards that are the leading causes of death on construction sites: falls; being struck by; being caught in or between; and electrocution; • Increase the number of general and specialty contractors that implement effective safety and health programs and effective training for management, supervisors and employees; • Publicly recognize contractors with exemplary safety and health programs and site-specific plans; and • Promote open lines of communication between MNOSHA and the construction industry in pursuit of safety. The Partnership between MNOSHA and MN ABC acknowledges the importance of providing a safe, healthful work environment in construction and seeks a working relationship that creates mutual trust and respect among all parties – including project owners and construction workers – involved in the construction process throughout the state of Minnesota. Also during FFY06, MNOSHA continued to support and strengthen relationships with organizations that represent safety and health best practices. MNOSHA continued its work in the three previously established Partnerships including: UAW and Ford Motor Company Partnership, the Minnesota Machine Guarding Partnership, the CHASE Partnership (Associated General Contractors), and the National Association of Tower Erectors Partnership. Goal 2.1.b Increase VPPs by 2 in FFY06. MNSTAR is a voluntary protection program available to any size employer in Minnesota. The MNSTAR program relies mainly on the concept of self-assessment by the requesting employer and uses the federal VPP criteria (OSHA Instruction TED 8.4a, Revised Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) Policies and Procedures Manual). MNSTAR requires the employer’s commitment to complete an extensive application, which includes providing the WSC Unit with copies of all requested written policies and programs. The employer’s lost workday injury and illness rate must be below the state and national levels for their industry. Employers who meet all requirements for MNSTAR status are exempt from programmed inspections by MNOSHA Enforcement for three years. The MNSTAR VPP has been very successful since its inception in FFY1999. MNSTAR status has been awarded to both large and small employers in high-hazard and in state-targeted industries. At the close of FFY06, a total of 18 worksites had received certification. Four employers were certified as MNSTAR sites in FFY06. MNSTAR certified companies include: • Boise Cascade Corporation, International Falls, MN (SIC 2621) - 1161 individuals at worksite; awarded Star 9/3/99 • CF Industries, Inc., Glenwood, MN (SIC 5191) - 10 employees; awarded Star 4/13/00. • Minnesota Power, 27 facilities throughout Minnesota (SIC 4910) - 1,332 individuals in service area; awarded Star 10/15/00. • International Paper, Sartell, MN (SIC 2621) - 600 employees; awarded Star 2/15/01. • Marvin Windows and Doors, Warroad, MN (SIC 2431) - 2,425 employees; awarded Star 8/1/01. • Ah-Gwah-Ching Center, Ah-Gwah-Ching, MN (SIC 8051) – 229 employees; awarded Star 2/14/02. • Potlatch Corporation-Bemidji Lumbermill, Bemidji, MN (SIC 2421) – 94 employees; awarded Star 6/17/02. • Potlatch Corporation-Bemidji OSB Mill, Bemidji, MN (SIC 2493) – 239 employees; awarded Star 6/17/02. • IBM, Rochester, MN (SIC 3571) – 6,153 employees; awarded Star 7/16/02. • New Ulm Medical Center, New Ulm, MN (SIC 8062) – 470 employees; awarded Star 3/7/03. • Alexandria Extrusion Co., Alexandria, MN (SIC 3354) – 325 employees; awarded Star 9/30/03. • Louisiana Pacific Co., Two Harbors, MN (SIC 2493) – 143 employees; awarded Merit 2/12/04; awarded Star 4/15/05. • Weyerhaeuser, White Bear Lake, MN (SIC 2653) – 132 employees; awarded Star 7/22/04. • Specialty Minerals, Inc., International Falls, MN (SIC 2819) – 6 employees; awarded Star 4/7/05 • Midwest Electric Products – GE, Mankato, MN (SIC 3613) – 89 employees; awarded Star 10/7/05. • Flint Hills Resources – Pine Bend Refinery, Rosemount, MN (SIC 2911) – 700 employees; awarded Star 12/21/05. • Mankato Area Public Schools Administrative Office – Mankato, MN (NAICS 923110) 16 employees; awarded Star 8/24/06 • CBI Services, Inc. Rosemount, MN (NAICS 237990) – 300 employees; awarded Star 9/19/06
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 15 December 2006

Goal 2.2 In FFY06, increase number of people participating in outreach 10% above baseline. In FFY04, MNOSHA established a baseline of 1,722 participants per year for outreach training sessions covering various subject areas. During FFY06, MNOSHA Compliance conducted 54 presentations and exceeded baseline by 182% (4,866 participants). The target –10% above baseline, or 1,894— was exceeded by more than 157%. Each year, MNOSHA has five leading organizations that request outreach services from MNOSHA Compliance: Midwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety; Minnesota Safety Council; Minnesota Health and Housing Alliance; Associated General Contractors of Minnesota; and, American Society of Safety Engineers. In addition, MNOSHA has continued to host its popular Construction Breakfast seminar five times per year. The Construction Breakfast was developed to assist members of the construction industry responsible for worksite safety to stay current with MNOSHA standards. The Construction Breakfast provides a forum for members of the construction trades to discuss and share issues and experiences with the speaker, their peers and MNOSHA investigators in attendance. In FFY06, MNOSHA’s Construction Breakfast program continued to take an active role in keeping safety in the forefront as reflected in this year’s presentations. In order to continue this successful program, MNOSHA asked for and is receiving help from the industry to find ways to improve the Construction Breakfast program. Insurance agents, company safety directors, and safety consultants volunteered their time and expertise to meet with MNOSHA to brainstorm ways to help this program focus on the pertinent needs of this ever-changing industry. This focus group held several meetings. The first order of business was to put together a list of topics for the following year’s programs. After the topic list was decided, the group discussed ways to improve the presentations so that they would be more meaningful to the audience. The recommendations that were agreed upon and implemented during this year’s presentations included: • Allowing the focus group to help select the presenter; • Asking contractors and other stakeholders to participate in the presentations; • Using e-mail distribution to encourage smaller companies to attend; • Showing the hazards and best practices to abate these hazards; • Using improved graphics, when possible, to help support the topic; • Providing an information table with handouts for those who want them; and • Explaining what standard violations are being cited. MNOSHA will continue to assure that topics and content are presented in a useful manner. During FFY06, each Breakfast featured a presentation by a representative from the construction industry, followed by a MNOSHA investigator who discussed enforcement policy, recent inspection results and citations. Topics included skid steer safety; safety programs; AWAIR programs; tubular welded-frame scaffold safety; and crane certification. Overall, the Breakfast presentations attracted 459 people, with 136 people attending the presentation on scaffolding. This represents an average attendance of 91 participants for each Breakfast seminar. Audience participation by individuals in the strategic plan industries increased from 1,263 in FFY05 to 2,163 in FFY06 (see Appendix C). This represents a 58% increase. MNOSHA conducted only three presentations outside of the targeted industries. The targeted training opportunities are listed in Appendix C. It should also be noted that the largest percentage increase for training opportunities for MNOSHA from FFY05 to FFY06 occurred in Leading Organizations (see Appendix C). This increase was due to continued working relationships with the Minnesota Safety Council. MNOSHA also continues to participate in major safety conferences throughout the state. The division staffed displays at five different exhibitions in FFY06, which is one more than in FFY05. All five shows were well attended, with significant traffic at the MNOSHA booth and numerous questions were asked in regard to MNOSHA standards. During the fiscal year, MNOSHA created an outreach directive. The directive provides an overview of the types of outreach presentations that the division currently offers, and the procedures that are to be followed when processing and prioritizing requests. This process results in improved identification of outreach training opportunities which reach those individuals responsible for workplace safety and health. In addition to the outreach directive, MNOSHA established a procedure for the creation and revision of written material. New or revised publications during the fiscal year included: • Hexavalent chromium fact sheet (new) • MNOSHA Audiovisual Library (revised) • Building Owners’ Responsibilities for Asbestos (revised) • Concrete block loading/unloading hazard alert (new) • First aid kit fact sheet (revised)
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 16 December 2006

• • • • • • • •

MNOSHA recordkeeping standard booklet (revised) MNOSHA Workplace Inspections (revised) Expedited informal settlement agreements (EISAs) fact sheet (revised) The Bloodborne Pathogens directive (revised) Minnesota OSHA Workplace Inspections (revised) Clarification of MN Rules 5205.0675, Subp. 2 Overhead Doors fact sheet (new) Occupational Safety and Health Resources on the Internet fact sheet (revised) Partnership fact sheet (new)

In addition to specific publications, MNOSHA continues to publish its newsletter, Safety Lines. Some of the subjects covered in the past year included most cited standards, trenching, lockout/tagout, OSHI training, carbon monoxide, motor vehicle hazards, and the relationship between OSHA standards and NFPA 70E. MNOSHA also continues have a video lending library, which offers a selection of safety and health videos and DVDs available for a free two-week loan. There are, on average, about six requests per month. Goal 2.3 Homeland Security. The MNOSHA Compliance program continued to participate on the State Emergency Response Team. One Director from the Catastrophic Events Team (CEI) Team attended the MN Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) division meetings, and another Director and CEI team member participated in federal OSHA Homeland Security conference calls. Revisions to the Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) were submitted to HSEM in September 2006. These revisions incorporate the duties of the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the MN Department of Labor and Industry, portions of which were previously housed at the Minnesota Department of Administration. One Director and one CEI Team member completed the self-study course on Emergency Response to Terrorism (Q534). An overview of the National Response Plan was presented to the Directors in May 2006. All Directors participated in federal OSHA, Region 5 Pandemic Flu Table Top exercise in September 2006. In FFY05, the Division applied for a grant through Minnesota HSEM to fund assistance with homeland security issues, but was not awarded a grant. In FFY06, HSEM indicated that additional funding would be less than FFY05 levels and that MNOSHA would not likely receive funds; therefore, an application was not submitted. The online preparedness survey was begun in FFY05. Participation was limited and completion remains outstanding. Goal 2.4 Compliance Assistance in FFY06. In FFY 06, a full-time position was added to oversee MNOSHA's new MNSTAR in Construction program. This position is 23g funded and reports to the Director of Workplace Safety Consultation. This position coordinates facilitation of onsite teams; application review and process; development of pre-approval and approval reports; coordination of marketing and promotional activities related to the Award program and oversight of the Award ceremony; and, conducts outreach. As stated in the memo from Patricia Todd on page 53 (Appendix D) of the FFY05 SOAR, MNOSHA continued to focus on four major areas to improve compliance assistance. During FFY06, MNOSHA continued to streamline its outreach resources. In the four focus areas, MNOSHA continued its outreach goal by including the Safety Investigator III positions in outreach efforts throughout the state. In addition, MNOSHA has a Safety Investigator III and Industrial Hygienist III providing stakeholder assistance each day. This assistance is coordinated throughout the state by the St. Paul office. Back-up is provided by all investigative staff. By doing this, MNOSHA has used its resources efficiently, as noted by the increase of 58% in strategic plan industries—from 1,263 in FFY05 to 2,163 in FFY06—as stated in the narrative in Goal 2.2. A majority of these presentations were to emphasis industries and construction employers. In addition, MNOSHA continues using an investigator who is fluent in Spanish, and have requested the services of the Department’s Legal Analyst, who also is fluent in Spanish. In addition, MNOSHA provides written materials to the Department’s Community Services Representative who provides outreach services to immigrant and other hard-toreach employees and employers. MNOSHA uses Safety Investigator 4 / IH3s to develop and maintain partnership agreements. This promotes task variety for investigators and allows MNOSHA to use its resources effectively. In fact, MNOSHA continues its outreach efforts in the construction industry and has implemented a majority of the items in Appendix A. During FFY06,
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 17 December 2006

a PowerPoint presentation aimed at preventing fatalities in the construction industry was developed. “Hazardous Trends: A Closer Look at Fatalities in the Construction Industry” has been used by the Commissioner, MNOSHA staff, and Associated General Contractors of Minnesota. MNOSHA also was able to present to the metal casters association (primary metals and fabricated products industries) which will likely create a partnership for MNOSHA in FFY07. In FFY07, MNOSHA will continue to streamline and utilize it outreach services as stated in Goal 2.2. In addition, MNOSHA will continue to use a variety of resources to continue to increase Partnerships stated in Goal 2.1. Goal 2.5 In FFY06, maintain response time and/or service level to stakeholders. Every business day, MNOSHA continues to have two safety investigator 3 and industrial hygienist 3 on duty that answer questions primarily received through phone calls and e-mails. When additional assistance is necessary it is provided by other MNOSHA investigative staff. During FFY06, staff responded to approximately 8,100 phone calls, 1,400 e-mails, and 254 written responses. Over 98% of theses inquiries were answered within one day. During FFY06, 74% of phone calls, e-mails, and written responses were received from employers, consultants or other individuals requesting safety and health information. Most information is provided to callers during the initial phone call, while others are directed to the MNOSHA or federal OSHA websites, or another state agency for assistance. During FFY06, 26% of inquires where received from employees calling to file a workplace safety and health complaint. This resulted in 687 total complaints. Forty-two percent of the total complaints resulted in an onsite inspection with an average of 2.51 days response time. The remaining 58% of complaints were handled via MNOSHA’s phone fax system (non-formal complaint). MNOSHA also provides a variety of safety and health information on its website, including printable handouts and information about its audio visual library, which offers a selection of safety and health videos and DVDs available for a free two-week loan. The MNOSHA site also provides links to other websites where safety and health regulations and other information can be accessed. The number of hits to the main MNOSHA webpage increased from 60,761 hits in FFY05 to 70,278 hits in FFY06 (15%).

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 18 December 2006

Goal Summaries – CAPR for FFY 2006 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) - Workplace Safety Consultation SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN RESULTS

Goal 2
Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, interventions, cooperative programs and strong leadership Goal 2.1A Increase the number of employees and employers trained by 4% annually How Progress Baseline Target Results Target in FFY01 FFY 06 FFY 06 FFY 07 Achieving this Goal Will be Assessed 1. Percent 13,731 Increase in 17,220 training Increase in increase in training training participants – a training training participants participants 25% increase from participant participants in FFY01 by 12% baseline by 16%

Results FFY 07

Target FFY 08

Increase in training participant by 20%

Comments: The target was to increase the number of employees and employers trained annually by 4%. WSC has met this goal. WSC continues to promote consultation services to high hazard industries to increase the number participants attending training sessions.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 19 December 2006

Assessment:
Indicator Type Indicator Projected Activity in CAPP 130 Safety and Health Training, and Assistance visits Results Comments

Activity Measure

Total number of Safety and Health Training and Assistance Visits for FFY2006

190 Total Safety and Health Training and Assistance visits

166% of Projected activity accomplished Projected goals changed to intervention services in compliance with TED 3.6 chapter four.

Activity Measure

Total number of Safety and Health Training Interventions Conducted for FFY2006

170 Safety and Health Interventions

332 Safety and Health Interventions were conducted.

206 % of projected activity accomplished. Most training sessions were changed to intervention services in compliance with TED 3.6 chapter four.

Web Site - During FFY2006, WSC continued to utilize its own website as an effective communication resource for employees and employers. Employees and employers outside the state also view our website. Employers can find out about WSC specific information and have the ability to request consultation services by filling out a form on-line. WSC also posts all of their scheduled training sessions on the web. All parties interested may download a complete copy of the brochure for dates, locations, and a description of the training to be conducted. During FFY2006 WSC put three new training programs on the website. One on Emergency Eyewash Requirements, one on Heat Stress, and one on Respiratory Protection. These PowerPoint can be downloaded and used by employers to train their employees. WSC staff developed all of these programs. During FFY2006 there were 9073 hits on the WSC website. Alliance Training Sessions – During FFY2006 WSC focused on training sessions in association with their alliances. During FFY 2006 WSC conducted several joint training sessions with their alliances. Some of the training included; four OSHA 10-hour Construction courses, 11 sessions on NFPA 70/Arc Flash, participation in a one-day Safe Patient Handling Conference sponsored by Allina Health Systems, and WSC staff conducted five training sessions at the annual Minnesota Safety Conference. WSC hopes to expand training in association with their Alliances during FFY2007. Construction Breakfast – The Construction Breakfast seminar series started in FFY2006 at two locations in greater Minnesota. During March a third location was added as a trial location. Attendance was good and the demand for continued participation was high. The third location was added to the schedule starting in September. The topic for the first breakfast seminar in FFY2006, held in November 2005, was Health Hazards in Construction. There were a total of 7 attendees, bad weather kept attendance low. The second breakfast seminar series was held in January 2006 and the topic was Confined Space Entry. There were a total of 22 attendees. The third breakfast seminar series was held in March 2005 and the topic at two locations was Fatality/Serious injury review, there were a total of 33 attendees. The topic at the third location in March was Fall Protection. There were a total of 25 attendees. The 4th breakfast seminar series was held in May 2006 and the topic was Residential Fall Protection. There were a total of 16 attendees. No breakfast seminars were held during the summer months. The breakfast seminar series resumed again in September 2006 at three locations. The September breakfast seminar topic was Fall Protection; there were 38 attendees. The breakfasts will continue to be held every other month through May of 2007.

General Industry Luncheons – WSC has continued to partner with four local area safety and health organizations in greater Minnesota and holds bimonthly luncheon seminars with them. During FFY2006 WSC held 13 luncheon meetings with the four organizations. The training topics vary for each location covering a wide range of OSHA regulations including; machine guarding, electrical/arc flash, AWAIR, industrial ventilation, and solvent handling. There were a total of 232 attendees at these sessions.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 20 December 2006

Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.1B Annual Performance Goal Indicators

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, interventions, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Increase the number of participants in the MNSHARP Program by four new employers in FFY 2006. Add four new MNSHARP employers with at least two from the selected industries.

Activity Measures: • Increased number of employers inquiring about MNSHARP program. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Increased number of employers who engage in the MNSHARP Deferral process. Primary Outcome Measures: • Number of employers certified as MNSHARP sites. • • • • • • • • • • Target small high-hazard strategic employers who have received full-service consultations. Target small high-hazard employers who have received compliance programmed inspections. Place program information on web site to encourage more employer participation. Provide public recognition at MN Safety Council’s annual Governor’s Award Luncheon. Encourage program participants to mentor other small employers into the MNSHARP Deferral program. Publish news releases in MNOSHA’s Safety Lines newsletter and send to Federal OSHA. Showcase employer’s accomplishments through the Department’s web site publication of press releases. Continuously reduce the average DART rate of current participants. Reduced workers’ compensation claims or premiums. Recognize employers through cabinet-level participation at employer’s worksite for flag raising ceremony.

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • IMIS data • Log of applications/certifications for program Intermediate Outcome Measures • Voluntary reporting of OSHA 300 log data from MNSHARP participants and partnership employers Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS survey data • MN Workers’ Compensation data • OSHA 300 log data Number of MNSHARP certified sites at beginning of FFY 2003

Baseline

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 21 December 2006

MNSHARP Program Assessment:
Indicator Type
Activity Measure

Indicator
Number of companies certified as MNSHARP sites.

Projected Activity in CAPP
4

Results
During FFY2006, WSC retained nineteen participants in the MNSHARP program. Four new participants received MNSHARP certification. Met 100% of goal.

Comments
Twenty three total certified participants in the MNSHARP program. MNSHARP DART and TCR averaged to 60% below and 48% below the Federal BLS statistics.

#

Participation Period

Establishment Name & Location

Site SIC EE’s Cod

National Average 2004

Site Average 2005

% of Federal BLS rate. ±

Start Date
1 5/8/05

End Date
5/8/07 Altimate Medical st 262 West 1 Street Morton, MN 56270 Anderson Automatics, Inc. 6401 Welcome Ave. North Brooklyn Park, MN 55429 Mereen Johnson Machine Co. 4401 Lyndale Ave. North Minneapolis, MN 55412 Roberts Automatic Products, Inc. 880 Lake Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Rochester Meat Company th 1825 7 Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 E.J. Ajax and Sons 7773 Ranchers Road Fridley, MN 55432 Phillippi Equipment Company 2875 Highway 55 Eagan, MN 55121 Murphy Warehouse, Co. Company th 701 24 Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414 Lovegreen LLC 2280 Sibley Court Eagan, MN 55122 22 3842 339113 3451 332721 TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART 5.9 3.1 7.5 3.3 5.7 2.1 7.5 3.3 9.3 6.4 9.6 4.5 4.6 2.3 9.3 5.6 7.4 3.3 9.3 1.8 0.09 9.3 2.3 7.5 1.1 4.0 0.6 5.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.3 3.3 2.4 6.1 2.0 1.4 -69% -71% +24% -30% +32% -48% -47% -82% -40% -47% -100% - 100% -71% -46% -65% -57% -18% -39% -85%

2

5/8/05

5/8/07

74

3

5/8/05

5/8/07

95

3553 333210

4

5/8/05

5/8/07

100

3451 332721

5

8/1/05

8/1/07

250

2013 311612 3469 332116

6

4/1/06

4/1/08

50

7

9/20/0 5

9/20/07

26

5082 423810

8

9/30 /06

9/30/0 8

150

4225 492110

TCR DART TCR

9

9/30 /06

9/30/0 8

25

3449 332323

DART TCR

10

3/16

3/16/0

Minnesota Freezer

24

4222

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 22 December 2006

#

Participation Period

Establishment Name & Location

Site SIC EE’s Cod

National Average 2004

Site Average 2005

% of Federal BLS rate. ±

Start Date
/05

End Date
7 Warehouse th 820 E. 13 St. Albert Lea, MN 560073404 Malco Products 14080 State Hwy. 55 NW Annandale, MN 553023457 Morrissey, Inc. 9304 Bryant Ave. So. Bloomington, MN 55420 Bayer Built Woodwork, Inc. 24614 US Hwy. 71 Belgrade, MN 56312 Bayer Trucking, LLC Truck Shop East East on 245 St. Belgrade, MN 56312 Lifecare Bimedical, Inc. 3515 Lyman Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 Huisken Meat, Co. 245 Industrial Drive Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 Anchor Block, Co. 2300 McKnight Road North St. Paul, MN 55109 Zenith Products 9177 Zachary Lane Maple Grove, MN 55369 Scott Equipment Co. 605 Fourth Avenue NW New Prague, MN 56071 Anchor Block Co. 13450 Johnson Memorial Dr. Shakopee, MN 55379 D & D Commodities, Ltd. Highway 75 South Stephen, MN 56757 Reynolds Food Packaging 21925 Industrial Blvd Rogers, MN 55374 Anchor Block Co. 8201 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 493120 DART 5.8 1.4 -76%

11

3/19 /05 7/1/ 05 9/28 /05

3/19/0 7

168

3423 332212 3469 332116 5031 423310

TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART TCR DART

8.0 3.9 9.6 4.5 6.9 3.4 4.7 3.2 4.3 2.3 9.3 6.4 8.1 5.7 8.1 5.7 11.2 5.6 8.1 5.7 7.1 4.7 8.3 4.8 8.1 5.7

6.0 2.2 6.3 1.4 4.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 9.4 2.4 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 2.5 4.6 2.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.5 6.1 4.1

-25% -44% -34% -69% -35% +6% - 100% - 100% -86% -87% -3% -64% -75% -65% -100% -100% -42% -55% -43% -60% -82% -72% -84% -90% -25% -25%

12

7/1/07

92

13

9/28/0 7

200

14

9/28 /05 4/7/ 06 4/7/ 06 8/11 /06 8/11 /06 9/23 /06 10/3 /06

9/28/0 7

3

4231 488490 2833 325411 3842 339113 3271 327331 3271 327331 3523 333111

15

4/7/08

180

16

4/7/08

53

17

8/11/0 8 8/11/0 8 9/23/0 8 10/3/0 8

95

18

12

19 20

70

TCR
32 3271 327331 DART

21

12/1 5/05

12/15/ 06

TCR
39 2048 311119 DART TCR 190 3089 326199 DART TCR 47 3271 327331 DART

22

12/1 5/05

12/15/ 06

23

6/8/ 06

6/8/07

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 23 December 2006

“MNSHARP” (Minnesota Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program) is a voluntary, consultation-based program, which assists small high-hazard employers in achieving safety and health improvements and recognizes them for doing so. Eligibility is limited to employers with up to 250 workers at the work site or less than 500 employees corporate-wide. MNSHARP participants receive a comprehensive safety and health consultation survey, which results in a one-year deferral status while the action plan is completed. During that year, participants must correct identified hazards and develop and implement an effective safety and health program with full employee involvement. MNOSHA Compliance exempts the employer from compliance-programmed inspections for one year while in deferral status. When the employer meets all requirements, and the DART (Days Away Restricted Transfer) and TCR (Total Case Incident Rate) is below the national average for their industry, a MNSHARP Certificate of Recognition is awarded and MNOSHA Compliance exempts the employer from compliance-programmed inspections during its first year of certification. If an on-site safety and health survey by the WSC Division reveals that the employer is continuing to meet the program requirements, the employer’s certification is renewed and the employer continues to be exempt from compliance programmed inspections for two additional years. On average, the TCR of the 23 employers in MNSHARP was 48 percent below their national industry average. On average, the DART rate of the 23 employers in MNSHARP was 60 percent below their national industry average.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 24 December 2006

Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.1C Annual Performance Goal Indicators

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, interventions, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Increase the number of participants in the MNSHARP Inspection Deferral Program by four in FFY 2006. Add four new MNSHARP Inspection Deferrals.

Activity Measures: • Increased number of employers inquiring about the MNSHARP deferral program. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Increased number of employers who engage in the MNSHARP process. Primary Outcome Measures: • Number of companies in Inspection Deferral status. • • • • • • • • • • Target small high-hazard strategic employers who have received full-service consultations. Target small high-hazard employers who have received compliance programmed inspections. Place program information on web site to encourage more employer participation. Provide public recognition at MN Safety Council’s annual Governor’s Award Luncheon. Encourage program participants to mentor other small employers into the MNSHARP Deferral program. Publish news releases in MNOSHA’s Safety Lines newsletter and send to Federal OSHA. Showcase employer’s accomplishments through the Department’s web site publication of press releases. Continuously reduce the average DART rate of current participants. Reduced workers’ compensation claims or premiums. Recognize employers through cabinet-level participation at employer’s worksite for flag raising ceremony.

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • IMIS data • Log of applications/certifications for program Intermediate Outcome Measures • Voluntary reporting of OSHA 300 log data from MNSHARP deferral participants. Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS survey data • MN Workers’ Compensation data • OSHA 300 log data Number of MNSHARP deferrals working towards MNSHARP certification at the beginning of FFY 2003.

Baseline

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 25 December 2006

MNSHARP Deferral Program Assessment:
Indicator Type
Activity Measure

Indicator
Number of new Deferral MNSHARP sites.

Projected Activity in CAPP
4

Results
During FFY2006, four new participants received MNSHARP deferral certification. Met 100% of goal

Comments
Two other work sites are presently working towards deferral status for FFY2006.

#

Participation Period Start Date End Date

Establishment Name & Location

Si SIC EE’ Cod/ s

National Average 2004

Site % of Federal Average BLS rate. 2005 ±

1

9/19/05

3/19/07

Timber Roots 1100 North Jefferson, PO Box 109 Wadena, MN 56487 St. Anne of Winona 1347 West Broadway Winona, MN 55987 Riverwood Healthcare Center 200 Bunker Hill Drive Aitkin, MN 56431 Pollux Manufacturing, Inc. 650 Taft Street, NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 Anderson & Dahlen, Inc. 6850 Sunwood Dr NW Ramsey, MN 55303 Worldwide Dispensers nd 78 2 Avenue S Lester Prairie, MN 55354

171

2439 321214

TCR DART

14.3 6.9 9.7 5.8 9.7 5.8

15.8 11.0 26.9 21.0 5.6 4.4

+10.5% +59.4% +177% 262% -42.3% -24.1%

2

9/19/05

3/19/07

210

8051 623110

TCR DART TCR DART

3

2/9/06

2/9/07

340

8051 623110

4

2/28/06

2/28/07

26

3281 327991

TCR DART

8.9 5.2 12.7 4.5 8.3 4.8

29.3 4.9 11.7 4.5 2.7 0.0

+229% -5.8% -7.9% Same -67% -100%

5

5/12/06

5/12/07

140

3444 332439 3089 326199

TCR DART TCR DART

6

5/19/06

5/1907

77

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 26 December 2006

Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.1D Annual Performance Goal Indicators

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, interventions, cooperative programs and strong leadership. The 100% state funded staff will establish and increase the number of Alliances with MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation by two in FFY 2006. The 21(d) staff will participate in providing training, outreach and intervention. Maintain existing Alliances and add two new Alliances.

Activity Measures: • 100% state funded staff will design promotional pamphlets and market program. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Director and 100% state funded supervisor will market program to employers, trade and business associations, etc. Primary Outcome Measures: • Increased number of Alliance agreements signed. • • • Director and supervisor will identify business groups, associations, and organizations related to the selected industry groups to promote alliance program. 100% state funded staff will provide assistance as needed. Director, supervisor, and 100% state funded staff will establish Alliance agreements and get signatures from Presidents and CEO’s. The Assistant Commissioner of Labor and Industry signs all Alliances. Showcase Alliances on DLI website.

Strategies

Data Source(s) Activity Measures: • Local spread sheet Intermediate Outcome Measures • Local spread sheet Primary Outcome Measures: • Information Report of Federal OSHA • IMIS Baseline Number of Alliances at the beginning of FFY 2003.

Indicator Type

Indicator

Projected Activity in CAPP 2 Signed Alliance Agreements

Results

Comments

Activity Measure

Number of Alliance Agreements during FFY2006

3 Alliance Agreements were signed during FFY2006

100% of Projected Activity accomplished

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 27 December 2006

STATE PLAN STATE *MnOsha Consultation Unit
State Organization/Company Plan State

DATE
Draft Allian Kick-off Signing ce Meeting State Signe /Concluded Devel Held oped

OTHER PARTICIPANTS
Consultation Other
Organization Signe Implementation Team Member Implemen tation Team Member

Subject(s) of Alliance

Union Involvement

United Building Center (UBC)

Develop safety and health MN training materials for UBC

No

7/11/06

MN

FED OSHA Region V

Marble Institute of America

Jointly develop and MN deliver training courses

No

3/10/06

MN

FED OSHA Region V

Printing Industry of Minnesota

Jointly develop and MN deliver training courses

No

10/11/05

MN

FED OSHA Region V

FFY 2006 Program Activities
Combined Totals by Goal Planned/Actual Visits *Recognition (R)1 *Exemption (E) *Exemption/Recognition1 (E/R) New Renewal S&H S&H PreRecognition and Exemption Programs S&H Other NonVisit Related Activities2 S&H

Annual Performance Goal

Initial Visits

Training and Assistance Safety Health

Follow-Up

Alliances

Safety Performance goal 1.1 Results of goal 1.1 Performance goal 2.1.A Results of goal 2.1.A Performance goal 2.1.B Results of goal 2.1.B Performance goal 2.1.C Results of goal 2.1.C Performance goal 2.1.D Results of goal 2.1.D Combined Safety and Health Activities 565 787

Health 165 159

Safety 110 103

Health 16 34 856 1,083 130 190

S&H

110 190

20

100 332 4 6 4 6 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 4

70

1 3 Planned 730 Actual 946 Planned130 Actual 190 Planned126 Actual 137 Planned 986 Actual 1,273 Planned 4 Actual 6 Planned 8 Actual 8 Planned 4 Actual 4 Planned170 Actual 332

1

Planned 2 Actual 3

Enter the number of projected new and renewal Recognition (R), Exemption (E), and Exemption and Recognition (E/R) sites separately in this column 2 Activities reflected in this column must be entered on the Intervention Form (Form 66), so that they can be captured in the IMIS. States working with Small Business Development Centers should record activities on this worksheet and on the Intervention Form in order to get credit when the funding formula is calculated

1

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 28 December 2006

Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.2A: Annual Performance Goal:

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Develop a plan to promote systematic approaches to safety and health in Minnesota workplaces Review training, outreach, and intervention plan annually to determine effectiveness and make changes as needed so that strategic goals are being met.

Indicators

Strategies

Activity Measures: • Review and update existing outreach, cooperative and intervention plans Intermediate Outcome Measures • Existing outreach plan is modified and aligned to match the goals outlined in the FFY 2006 plan Primary Outcome Measures: • The outreach, intervention and training goals are being met. • Utilize existing outreach plan. • Review existing outreach and training and make appropriate adjustments so that the needs of the current 5-year strategic plan are met. • Identify and implement adjustments, including targeting new areas and developing new training, that increase the impact of consultation services and leadership activities Activity Measures: • IMIS Intermediate Outcome Measures • IMIS Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS survey data • IMIS None

Data Source(s)

Baseline

Assessment: WSC suspended the quarterly training sessions for at least one year. In place of the quarterly training sessions WSC focused outreach efforts through the Alliances. The Alliances provide an opportunity to work with motivated employers in high hazard industries. WSC currently has nine signed Alliances. WSC has also made some adjustments with the Construction Breakfast training sessions that have been held in four locations throughout the state. In addition WSC is trying to establish some informal partnerships to help promote attendance at the sessions.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 29 December 2006

Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.2B: Annual Performance Goal

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Participate in homeland security efforts at state level. Provide training and outreach assistance through alliances with MNOSHA Enforcement, the Department of Public Safety and other public/private entities. Activity Measures: • Train staff who will provide employers support. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Trained staff participation in mock drills. Primary Outcome Measures: Provide intervention (Formal training, speeches, etc.) to small employers through seminars and attendance at employers’ safety days, conferences, etc. • Designate staff to participate on the Enforcement Catastrophic Event Inspection team.

Indicators:

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • Number of interventions at the state level. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Number of interventions at the state level. Primary Outcome Measures: • Number of interventions at the state level. None

Baseline

Assessment: The MNOSHA Safety Consultation unit has developed a one four-hour module of training for small businesses to be delivered in FFY2006. Emergency preparedness training has been provided to one staff person who will participate in Homeland Security activities with the MNOSHA Compliance staff. There is no clear direction from Federal OSHA on the role of the 21(d) Consultation program. When we receive direction, Consultation will strengthen its role.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 30 December 2006

GOAL SUMMARIES - SOAR for FFY2005 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance (cont’d) Goal 3 Strengthen and improve MNOSHA’s infrastructure
How Progress in 1 Achieving this Goal Could Be Assessed Baseline 9/30/03 Target FFY 04 Results FFY 04 Target FFY 05 Results FFY 05 Target FFY 06 Results FFY 06 Target FFY 08

1. Review rules annually for effectiveness: ongoing evaluation, development of rules, standards, guidelines and procedures

Current practice

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing See comments following chart [3.1] Training identified. See comments following chart [3.2] Solutions researched. See comments following chart [3.3] Survey promoted, feedback gathered and analyzed. See comments following chart [3.4] Workflow analyses conducted. See comments following chart [3.5]

Ongoing 50% of directives are updated in 5-yr cycle Training Implemented for core items for investigators

2. Conduct a comprehensive work skill assessment and generate a workforce development and retention plan

N/A

Complete assessment

Assessment complete.

Training identified for core items for investigations

3. Identify and verify performance measurements generated at the federal level in regard to our overall performance

Current practice

Identify problems with current performance measures Evaluate online options

Problems identified.

4. Survey employers and employees on our effectiveness

5. Develop a workflow analysis and identify potential strengths and weaknesses of the services we provide to stakeholders

-2001 Employer survey results -2003 Employee survey results Current practice

Online survey available.

Determine potential solutions for performance measure problems Promote online survey option; gather feedback and analyze quarterly

Review and verify performance data for Discrimination Unit

Ongoing 59% complete. See comments following chart [3.1] Training revised and implemented. See comments following chart [3.2] Data reviewed and verified. See comments following chart [3.3] Survey further promoted. See comments following chart [3.4]

Ongoing

Training identified for all core items

Performance measures are accurate

Further promote on-line surveys

Continually improve performance based on survey comments

Develop workflow analysis of current process

Workflow analysis conducted.

Develop workflow analysis of abatement verification and discrimination processes

Develop workflow analysis of contestation process

Process reviewed and analyzed. See comments following chart [3.5]

Ongoing

1

The Goal 3 issues have a cause-and-effect relationship with the Goal 1 and 2 issues. Consequently, the outcome of achieving this goal is success in achieving the other two goals. For this reason the performance measures included for Goal 3 are more activity-oriented than outcome oriented. FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 31 December 2006 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

GOAL 3 – Comments
Goal 3.1 In FFY06: Conduct Annual Review of Rules/Standards, Guidelines and Procedures, with 50% of directives updated in 5-yr cycle The MNOSHA Compliance Directives Coordination Team (DCT) is charged with coordinating and managing the MNOSHA internal information system. The DCT consists of one MNOSHA management analyst, two MNOSHA program analysts, as well as two MNOSHA Management Team directors. This group monitors federal standard/policy activity and coordinates updates to all relevant MNOSHA standards, directives, and policies accordingly. MNOSHA adopts federal standards by reference and/or develops MN-specific standards when necessary to support MNOSHA program goals. Federal standards/amendments adopted in FFY06 include: Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards; Roll-Over Protective Structures; Steel Erection; Slip Resistance of Skeletal Structural Steel; and Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium. In addition, Minnesota-specific standards are reviewed annually by the Agency, and obsolete rules are recommended for repeal. In FFY04, the DCT developed and implemented a five-year plan for managing and updating MNOSHA Compliance’s catalog of directives. Staff has been selected to review and revise directives. Eleven directives were reviewed in FFY04, an additional 42 were reviewed in FFY05, and two new directives were written in FFY05. In FFY06, of the total assigned to staff for the year, 25 were completed. Of the 135 directives scheduled for review and development in the five-year plan, 80 have been completed to date (59%). Goal 3.2 FFY06: Implement training for core items. During FFY 2006, MNOSHA revised and implemented ADM 5.1 MNOSHA Investigator Training Plan to concur with the list of key workforce skills identified in Appendix B of the directive to the core investigator training requirements. The revised directive was approved and implementation in FFY06. Major changes included revisions to Phases I, II and III of the new investigator training plan (ADM 5.1, Appendices D-1, D-2 and D-3) and the creation of two spreadsheets to track the new investigator field activities. The 11 new investigative staff members hired during FFY06 went through all three phases of new hire training, and each has an individual professional development plan developed specifically for them. To aid in the facilitation of staff professional development, MNOSHA conducted several training courses during the fiscal year. All staff completed the annual ERTK refresher training, which included a unit on noise, at the MNOSHA Global Meeting on October 27, 2005. In addition, all staff received training on the new phone procedures, including a discussion on customer service. Fifteen staff members attended the annual 8-hour HAZWOPER refresher training on December 14. In order to enhance presentation skills, the training officers and several designated staff members attended a training session on how to use the LCD projector in the Redwood Room. The OSHA Training Institute (OTI) conducted two courses locally during the fiscal year, OSHA 2015 Hazardous Materials and OSHA 3010 Excavation, Trenching and Soil Mechanics. This saved the Division considerable time and expense, primarily in the cost of travel between Minnesota and the Chicago area. A total of 42 investigators attended the two classes. In addition, several staff members from other public sector entities also participated in both sessions, providing staff with the opportunity to interact with their peers in other agencies. The excavation course was conducted at the Minnesota and North Dakota Laborers Training Center, which provided not only an excellent opportunity for hands-on training, but also a chance to work with the union and foster a positive relationship. In the second quarter, the Division contracted with a nationally recognized expert to conduct two two-day classes on the revised NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Twenty staff members attended the introductory session, while 13 attended the intermediate class. Several members of the Workplace Safety Consultation Division participated in the intermediate level course as well. Forty-six staff members also participated in other OTI classes, either at OTI, online or through the Great Lakes Great Lakes Regional OSHA Training Institute Education Center. These included: • OSHA 898 OSHA Workplace Violence Awareness • OSHA 1020 Basic Accident Investigation • OSHA 1410 Inspection Techniques and Legal Aspects • OSHA 2010 Hazardous Materials • OSHA 2030 Basic Electrical Principles • OSHA 2040 Machinery and Machine Guarding, • OSHA 2050 Cranes & Rigging Safety for Construction
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 32 December 2006

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

OSHA 2070 and 2075 Fire Protection and Life Safety OSHA 2225 Respiratory Protection OSHA 2230 Industrial Toxicology OSHA 2264 Permit-Required Confined Space Entry OSHA 2360 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems OSHA 3030 Concrete, Forms and Shoring OSHA 3080 Principles of Scaffolding OSHA 3110 Fall Arrest Systems OSHA 3150 Tower Safety OSHA 3280 Industrial Hygiene Chemistry OSHA 3300 Safety & Health in the Chemical Processing Industries OSHA 3400 Hazard Analysis in the Chemical Processing Industries OSHA 3460 Emergency Response to Terrorism

In addition, 15 investigators attended courses conducted by other organizations, including the following: Trainers’ Creativity Day Camp Certified Civil Mediation Skills Training Asbestos Inspector Initial Training Asbestos Inspector Refresher Training Asbestos Inspector/Management Planner Refresher Training 8-Hour HAZWOPER Refresher Excel Basics NITON XRF Spectrum Analyzer Training Noise Exposure Assessment (online) Personal Influence and Leadership Introduction to Occupational Health 3M Respiratory Protection Course Use of HVAC Systems to Limit the Spread of Airborne Microorganisms FEMA IS 100 Introduction to Incident Management and IS 200 ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action (online) Pressroom Safety Seminar MNOSHA has 90 staff members registered for OTI classes and 4 with other providers in FFY 2007, with requests for three OTI courses to travel to MNOSHA during the fiscal year: • OSHA 2010 Hazardous Materials • OSHA 2040 Machinery and Machine Guarding Standards • OSHA 3080 Principles of Scaffolding Goal 3.3 FFY06: Review and verify performance data for Discrimination Unit. During FFY06, performance data for the Discrimination Unit on the SAMM and whistleblower applications was reviewed. The review verified that the data on both the SAMM and the whistleblower applications was correct. No further action is needed. Goal 3.4 Survey employers and employees: In FFY06, further promote on-line surveys. MNOSHA values the opinions of the employers and employees involved in compliance inspections. In addition to mailin surveys collected in FFY01 and FFY03, MNOSHA Compliance evaluated and implemented separate online Internet surveys for employers and employees recently involved in a MNOSHA Compliance inspection. The online Internet surveys allow ongoing tracking of the inspection experiences of any employers and employees choosing to log on and participate. The survey requests information regarding the employer’s or employee’s perspective of the investigators knowledge of OSHA rules and regulations, ability to answer questions, ability to explain the employee or employer’s rights and obligations, how useful the information provided by the investigator and the inspection itself will be in improving workplace safety and health, how satisfied the employer or employee was with the inspection, what their understanding is of why their worksite was chosen for an inspection, as well as any additional comments. These online
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 33 December 2006

Internet surveys are a valuable tool for MNOSHA to analyze and improve its one-to-one interactions with employers and employees as well as to provide feedback to the investigative staff regarding their efforts to promote a safety and health culture throughout Minnesota worksites. In addition to the employer/employee survey, MNOSHA Compliance launched a Website Satisfaction survey in FFY04, to encourage feedback from stakeholders to facilitate continuous improvement of MNOSHA’s website. Survey responses are evaluated quarterly. In FFY05, in an effort to gather more feedback, MNOSHA Compliance re-designed its webpage to make the online surveys more visible and attractive to stakeholders. The MNOSHA website address will be added to all new business card orders for staff. The OSHA information sheet and inspection booklet, handouts provided to every employer inspected, now include the MNOSHA website address. And mentioning the website to employers is now an item on the inspection checklist used by investigators in the field. MNOSHA will continue to evaluate and improve ways to gather feedback through its website. In FFY06, online surveys were mentioned to participants at Construction Breakfast seminars, and investigators continue to mention it to employers in the field reaching new employers each day. Also, the template for the Industrial Hygiene report promotes the MNOSHA webpage. Goal 3.5 Develop workflow analysis of contestation process FFY06. In FFY06, the contestation process was reviewed. The committee that reviewed the contestation process held several meetings to discuss the current process and options to improve the process. In addition, the committee examined data regarding the contestation process, particularly the length of time at various stages of the contest process. The committee discovered that prior improvements in the process were working well. In late FFY05, the St. Paul principal investigators began drafting contest settlement agreements, removing that entire function from the Legal Services unit of the Department. The contestation committee calculated the number of days between the time the file is referred to Legal Services to the Final Order date. Prior to that time, the average number of days between the time Legal Services received the file to the final order date was 72. Since then, the average number of days dropped to 34, over half of what it was. The committee made recommendations to change the Notice of Contest form to reduce errors (see Appendix F). Two of those recommendations were approved by the OMT and will be implemented in FFY07.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 34 December 2006

Goal #3 Performance Goal 3.1A

Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure. Develop and implement a marketing plan, focusing MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation assistance towards employers with the highest workers’ compensation cost and the highest injury and illness rates within the targeted industries. Annually create a marketing plan tailored to meet the strategic goals for FFY 2006. Activity Measures: • Use Economic Security employers’ information. • Use workers’ compensation injury information. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Compile employers list and promote consultation services. Primary Outcome Measures: • Improve number of targeted employers request services. Use special marketing services Free radio and television advertising. Direct cold calling Use employers group fax Use direct mail Press releases

Annual Performance Goal Indicators:

Strategies

• • • • • •

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • BLS • Workers’ Compensation data • Economic Security data • IMIS Intermediate Outcome Measures • BLS • Workers’ Compensation data • Economic Security data • IMIS Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS • Workers’ Compensation data • Economic Security data none

Baseline

Assessment:
The MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation unit has effectively used its outreach, intervention, and training to promote its consultation activities. The unit has used the Minnesota Safety Hazard Abatement Grant Program participants list as another venue for promoting its on-site consultation program. Other marketing activities are listed below:

• • • • •

MNOSHA website • Trade and business association presentations Press releases • Word of mouth and through satisfied customer referrals Speakers Bureau • Alliances and construction partners Health alliance convention Direct mailing to targeted industries from the state’s workers’ compensation unit data and from the Department of Economic security employers’ information.
Page 35 December 2006

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Goal #3 Performance Goal 3.1B Annual Performance Goal Indicators:

Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure. Increase in the number of staff to receive certification training in FFY 2006 (CSP, CIH, ASP) Assess staff training needs and appropriate budget to accomplish training for certificates. Activity Measures: • Secure commitment and provide annual training to staff to position them for examinations. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Motivate staff for annual testing and provide annual funding. Primary Outcome Measures: Add one certification once every two years. Provide OTI training; CD-Rom, class room or web based training as needed to prepare staff to test for certifications.

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • Secure staff commitment. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Allocate study time and ensure staff sit for exam. Primary Outcome Measures: • Staff takes exam and passes.

Baseline

4 CSP’s 2 CIH

Assessment:
WSC added one ASP during FFY06. WSC sent three staff to the ASP/CSP exam preparation course during FFY06. To date, one staff person has taken and successfully passed the ASP exam and CSP exam in FFY06.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 36 December 2006

Goal #3 Performance Goal 3.1C Annual Performance Goal Indicators:

Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure. Develop and implement effectiveness measures and ensure MARC and CAPR requirements are met and maintained in FFY 2006. Meet all of the requirements outlined in the Consultation Annual Project Plan (CAPP) and MARC. Activity Measures: • Review and approve assessment of monthly and quarterly MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation Intermediate Outcome Measures • Review of MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation activity during quarterly monitoring with Federal OSHA Area Director and Region V Consultation Program Manager. Primary Outcome Measures: • CAPR • • Promote MNOSHA WORKPLACE SAFETY CONSULTATION services in line with the 5-year strategic plan and the CAPP. Monitor MNOSHA WORKPLACE SAFETY CONSULTATION activity weekly and monthly by reviewing IMIS data and make adjustments in staff work assignments if necessary to stay on track with CAPP. With assistance from the department’s Research and Statistics Unit, conduct annual effectiveness study and publish results.

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • IMIS and workers’ compensation data Intermediate Outcome Measures • IMIS • OPTMS • MARC • Workers’ compensation data Primary Outcome Measures: • IMIS • OPTMS • MARC • Annual effectiveness study or report CAPP, MARC

Baseline

Assessment: The MNOSHA Consultation program has met the CAPP and MARC requirement for FFY 2006.
• • • • • • • Percent of initial visits in large hazard establishment…98.52% Percent of initial visits to smaller businesses…96.40% Percent of visits where consultants conferred with employee…100% 4A through 4C on closed cases only…100% Percent of serious hazards verified no later than 90 days…100% Total number of visits planned vs. actual from CAPP…130% (Planned 986 and 1,273 conducted) SHARP goal met, Deferral goal met, and Intervention goal exceeded. Page 37 December 2006

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Goal #3 Performance Goal 3.1D Annual Performance Goal Indicators:

Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure. Improve MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation strategic management of human capital in FFY 2006. Annually plan and develop a staff-training plan with a focus on emerging safety and health issues. Activity Measures: • Ensure OSHA has the skills, capabilities and diversity to accomplish its mission by conducting a comprehensive workforce skills assessment and implementing a human capital/workforce development plan. Intermediate Outcome Measures: • Ensure future leadership by implementing a succession plan. • Enhance future technical competencies by creating incentives for professional development. Primary Outcome Measures: • Improve recruitment, development, diversity, and retention of talent. Implement an effective safety and health program within OSHA. • • • Send staff to OTI and other relevant training sources. Send staff to local and specialized academic institutions to enhance knowledge, skills and abilities. Implement alliances with trade and business associations to be monitored by experiences professionals.

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • Baseline staff skills assessment. Intermediate Outcome Measures: • Annual MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation training plan. Primary Outcome Measures: • Certificate for completion of training courses Results of initial staff skills assessment FFY 2003

Baseline

Assessment: The MNOSHA Consultation Unit met its annual staff development plan for FFY2006. The unit made improvements by having one staff person successfully pass the ASP exam and the CSP exam in 2006. The staff also participated in local and OTI courses. Example of staff development courses attended include: Applied Ergonomics, ASP Prep Course, CSP Prep Course, #2050 Crane Safety, #3500 Demolition, Electrical Safety, #2450 Evaluation of Safety Health Systems, Successful Performance Management, Conflict Awareness, Management Skills, PowerPoint 2000, #1410 Inspection techniques, #1000 Initial Compliance, #1050 Safety Standards, VPP Application Workshop, #2210 Industrial Ventilation, #2360 HVAC Systems, and two staff members worked as an OSHA Industrial Hygienist and Damage Assessment Specialist for the Hurricane Katrina response.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 38 December 2006

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2006
- Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and - Minnesota Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC)

SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In addition to traditional compliance activities, MNOSHA also concentrates efforts in other areas aimed at assisting employers to make their workplaces safer and healthier. Some achievements for FFY2006 include:

Compliance:
General Accomplishments. In FFY2006, the MNOSHA Compliance staffing level was approximately 86 people. Thirteen new investigators were trained. The Field Safety and Health Manual (FSHM) was re-issued. The Field Compliance Manual (FCM), and Case File Prep Manual (CFPM) were updated. In addition, the directives maintenance project continued, and several directives were updated in FFY06 (see Goal 3.1). Included was a new Outreach directive (see Goal 2.2 narrative). Also, MNOSHA changed its scheduling cycle to match the federal fiscal year. This change will be implemented in FFY07. A few of MNOSHA Compliance’s process improvement efforts are already indicated in other sections of this annual report, including understanding and optimizing discrimination resources, defining work skills, and developing an ongoing directive review and update process. The following process improvements were made during FFY06: Legislative/Program Changes On FFY05, the State of Minnesota passed a law, effective July 1, 2007, requiring the certification and regulation of crane operators. In FFY06, MNOSHA began a mass mailing campaign reminding stakeholders that the increased demand for certification training is inevitable and encouraging them to begin preparing for this change. Follow-up letters will be sent every 6 months until the July 1, 2007 deadline. The information has been posted on the MNOSHA website. Along with a number of private training organizations, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (MNSCU) currently has four technical colleges providing certification training. In addition, MNOSHA has conducted a construction breakfast on this topic throughout the state. Presentation material and a related Q&A has been posted on MNOSHA’s website. In late FFY06, MNOSHA Compliance, MNOSHA Consultation and Construction Codes and Licensing (CCLD) were consolidated under a new Assistant Commissioner to create the “Safety Codes & Services Division.” Consolidating these three units under one Assistant Commissioner will provide stakeholders with a single source to seek compliance assistance in safety code and regulatory standards. This consolidation will also provide a broader resource base for each unit. Reports In order to track where the division is conducting inspections each quarter, MNOSHA established a spreadsheet that tracks the NAICS inspection goals as stated in the strategic plan. The spreadsheet lists the primary and secondary inspection emphasis for each inspection, and calculates the percentage of inspections in each of the strategic areas. This spreadsheet ensures that all programmed inspections are conducted within the agreed-upon guidelines. Employee Retention/Hiring MNOSHA developed and implemented new changes to its hiring practices including the modification of its hiring grid to allow compensation that better matches with candidate qualifications. As a result, the Department’s Human Resources Division has been able to better screen candidates, resulting in a candidate pool better aligned with MNOSHA’s needs. A recruitment team was developed and implemented to promote MNOSHA job opportunities at colleges and job fairs and to recruit potential employees. In addition, the recruitment team developed a PowerPoint presentation introducing MNOSHA, to go along with a “Job opportunities with MNOSHA” brochure. As a result, two summer interns (graduate students) were hired to conduct research projects that include: fall protection standards, employee exposures, employee/employer surveys, reasons employers contest.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 39 December 2006

Staff Training/Development MNOSHA created a three-phase specific training unit for staff that includes: • Phase I - Provided upon new hire training and includes all safety training, Human Resource training and the day-to-day operation of MNOSH • Phase II - Provided three times per year and includes the IMIS system and hazard identification training • Phase III - Provided once annually and includes in depth subject training such as fall protection, machine guarding, air contaminants, etc. All investigators were trained and are now sharing phone duty responsibilities, which includes providing coverage one to two days a month. Duties include providing compliance assistance, answering e-mails and letters, and receiving complaints/serious injury reporting from employers and employees. In addition, the changes in phone duty did not significantly increase MNOSHA employee complaints. In fact, from FFY05 to FFY06 employee complaints that MNOSHA received declined by approximately 4%. Compliance Assistance Two IH staff members were deployed to New Orleans for two weeks in FFY06 to provide assistance for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. MNOSHA received very positive feedback on the assistance these two individuals provided to Region 5, which made a request that their stay be extended an additional 14 days, which was granted. Technology MNOSHA Developed an Access Database for inspection report writing quality improvement. Report writing quality comments are categorized into five areas: 1Bs, Penalties, SAVE/AVD, Narrative and Hazard ID. The reviewer enters the data which identifies error trends. Feedback is provided to investigators through quarterly reports and charts. The development phase of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry OSHA IMIS Enhancement project was started in the second quarter of FFY06. Project completion and rollout is scheduled for early FFY08. The goal of the project is to enhance the functionality and provide a stable software and hardware environment to be used by MNOSHA for compliance and enforcement activities. New functionality is being designed and developed to augment and improve the interfaces that were previously available through the IMIS system on the NCR. Great care is being taken to ensure that the captured data will be transferred to the Federal OSHA systems in a manner that is consistent with the current processes. Additional features are being built into the system to provide a document management system that will offer a paperless imaging environment for documents, digital pictures and recordings. This will allow the file for inspections, accidents, complaints, referrals and discrimination cases to be stored electronically and be made available simultaneously to users throughout the state. Workflow features are also designed to facilitate the electronic routing of files between investigators, administrative staff and other users. The following activities have been completed or are in progress: • The new data model has been completed and the database is up and running on the new hardware platform. • Development work has been completed on approximately 35 reports that replicate and enhance the reports that were previously available in IMIS (micro-to-host reports, standard reports, local ACE reports, Informix ACE reports and Access reports). • Development and testing continue on the letter templates that are used to dynamically generate the letters, notices, invoices, citation packages, etc., from data that is captured in the database. • Development and testing is continuing on the interfaces that are used to capture the data that was previously entered via IMIS interfaces. • Functionality has been designed and developed to transfer and synchronize the data between the new database environment and the IMIS database environments that exist on the NCR. Flow of data to Federal OSHA will be without interruption. • Design and development work has started on the functionality for the document management components of the new system. Grassroots: For the second straight year, MNOSHA and the Department’s Communication Unit began the task of revising and publishing “Grassroots,” the annual publication of the OSHA State Plan Association (OSHSPA). Timely publication and distribution of the FFY06 edition was accomplished in late FFY06. Oregon OSHA will publish the FFY07 edition.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 40 December 2006

Communication and Management Effectiveness (Conclusion) MNOSHA, as well as all organizations, can improve communication and management effectiveness. In each staff meeting, management asked what communication should continue, stop, and start. Included is an overview of input obtained as a result of this exercise. (See Appendix G, for the entire Summary.) It was decided by the management team to implement the following changes: 1. Define what teams are active. 2. Update layout of the central electronic information folder. 3. Provide a summary of changes along with an updated copy of the directive. 4. Send as much information out electronically as possible. 5. Define and adhere to a chain of command. 6. Update Friday email to staff to provide more detail. 7. Meet DLI’s new legislative liaison. 8. Include electronic path on memos. 9. Share quarterly monitoring information with staff. 10. Define the official communication tool for teams, staff minutes, OMT and DCT. 11. Update ADM 8.1 so the hyper-links work. 12. Generate a list of acronyms. MNOSHA had completed all but item 2 at the end of FFY04. The layout of the central electronic folder was updated in FFY05. Also in FFY05, MNOSHA began implementing Perfect Law software among the Principal safety investigators and IH 3 staff who conduct informal conferences. In addition, it was agreed to try to: communicate assignments prior to putting them in writing; give as much time as possible to implement changes; seek input from staff on policy and/or program changes; provide more positive feedback; use a more open management style; and, complete performance reviews in a timely manner. In FFY05, the MNOSHA OMT read a management effectiveness book, titled, “Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment,” by William C. Byham, Ph.D., and attended a seminar on “Fish in the Workplace.” In FFY06 and beyond, MNOSHA management will strive to maintain all efforts that were achieved as a result of this Communication and Management Effectiveness project. All items specified were addressed and completed. Evaluation Projects/Reports: MNOSHA Compliance and the DLI Research and Statistics Division conducted the following research projects in FFY05 and FFY06 to help MNOSHA improve as an organization (see Appendix G for Executive Summaries): • Determine whether Experience Modifier Rates can be incorporated into MNOSHA’s scheduling plan as an additional factor to aid in the selection of companies under target industry lists. • Analyze OSHA-31 data for MNOSHA from January 2003 through June 2005 for trends and inconsistencies in time reporting for inspection activities and program support for investigators and compared data to federal OSHA statistics. • Review General Duty citations issued April 2002 through April 2005 and recommended modification of specified Minnesota Rules to clarify hazards due to the prevalence of the citation identified. • Analyze fatalities, catastrophes, and serious injuries investigated from January 2000 through June 2005 and develop informative letters to those Minnesota industries identified with a high number of fatal and serious accidents that occurred in within their SIC. • Analyze data from a 2004 Health inspection program targeting isocyanate exposure in the spray-on truck bed relining industry. • Compare Workers’ Compensation Claims and OSHA Data Initiative Cases to determine whether it makes sense to continue using both sources and ascertain what, if anything, can be learned to improve MNOSHA’s targeting strategies. • Analyze Workers’ Compensation Safety Incentives in Minnesota and offer ideas for expanding these incentives in the Assigned Risk Plan (ARP). ● Analyze trends on Minnesota OSHA Industrial Hygiene Samplings – 2003-2005 ● Analyze the Summary of Contested Cases – July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 41 December 2006

Consultation:
Loggers’ Safety Education Program (LogSafe). This program, which is 100% state-funded and administered by the WSC unit, provides safety training through eight-hour seminars throughout the state. The goal of the program is to help reduce injuries and illnesses in the logging industry through onsite consultation services, outreach and training seminars. In order to receive workers’ compensation premium rebates from the Targeted Industry Fund, logger employers must maintain current workers’ compensation and they and their employees must have attended, during the previous year, a logging safety seminar sponsored or approved by the WSC unit. During FY2006, WSC conducted 15 logger safety seminars with 477 employees and 512 employers in attendance for a total of 989 participants. There were 79 interventions conducted statewide with 1865 participants. The intervention and training sessions conducted included (1) CPR/first aid, (2) chain saw/PPE, (3) Welding safety, (4) Workers’ compensation, (5) Equipment fire prevention, (6) OSHA Logging Operations standard, (7) OSHA mock enforcement inspection for logging, (8) safe work practices, and (9) hazard recognition. Ten on-site consultations and two follow-up visits were conducted. Five training sessions covering chain saw safety and tree felling techniques were conducted for the University of Florida with 173 public sector employees participating. WSC conducted a satisfaction survey during the spring Logsafe training sessions with 87% response rate (730 of 839 seminar participants). Survey Results: • Participants are generally quite satisfied with the quality of the training they receive: 88% were satisfied with the meeting facilities, 85% were satisfied with the training, 88% were satisfied with the instructor’s knowledge and 89% were satisfied with the instructor’s ability to answer their question. • Employers had slightly lower average satisfaction scores, and sole proprietors had slightly higher ones. • The greatest dissatisfaction, though small, is with the usefulness of the training in day-to-day work: 77% were satisfied with the usefulness of the seminar’s content in their day-to-day work. • Participants would like to see training on mechanized equipment, forest workers diseases, equipment repair, LP gas safety and work & hour restrictions. • Participants like the current one-day, eight-hour seminars: 23% would like to see web-based training offered, 25% were interested in a half-day safety seminar and a half-day safety consultation visit, 22% were interested in customized safety training. Workplace Violence Prevention Program. This program helps employers and employees reduce the incidence of violence in their workplaces by providing on-site consultation, telephone assistance, education and training seminars, and a resource center. This program is targeted toward workplaces at high risk of violence, such as convenience stores, service stations, taxi and transit operations, restaurants and bars, motels, guard services, patient care facilities, schools, social services, residential care facilities, and correctional institutions. The Workplace Violence Prevention Program is a 100% state-funded program and is administered by the WSC unit. In the period between Jan 11, and September 30, 2006 of FFY06, WSC received over 70 violence-related contacts. The results of these contacts included 12 violence prevention training sessions covering 400 private sector employers and employees, 10 interventions where the employer was contacted by telephone or writing, and approximately 30 referrals to police, OSHA enforcement, the Attorney Generals Office or other governmental agencies. Safety Grants Program. This 100% state-funded program, which is administered by the WSC unit, awards funds up to $10,000 for qualifying employers on projects designed to reduce the risk of injury and illness to their employees. Qualified applicants must be able to match the grant money awarded and must use the award to complete a project that reduces the risk of injury or disease to employees. During State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2005, a total of 180 safety grants were awarded to private and public sector employers (e.g., schools, higher education facilities, cities, counties, and state agencies). These grants were applied toward projects with total costs of $4.4 million; employers contributed approximately $3.4 million of the total. Purchased: JetVacs, Fall Protection Equipment, gas monitors, patient lifts, cranes, trench boxes, defibrillators, fire and smoke alarms, chlorine leak detectors, Personal Protection Equipment, dust collectors, delimber, vests, paint booths, ergonomic furniture, eye wash stations, etc. Ergonomics Program: Due to budget cut-backs, one designated Ergonomics consultant position was eliminated in June-06, leaving one position available to assist employers in reducing the occurrences of Work-Related Musculo-Skeletal Disorders (WMSD). In addition, the industrial hygienist for public sector worksites provides additional ergonomic assistance for public sector establishments. The main responsibilities of the positions are to educate Minnesota employers and employees on the recognition and control of risk factors associated with WMSD. This will be accomplished through development of training & education presentations and materials, on-site ergonomic evaluations, and providing resources on ergonomics and the control of WMSD, on the DLI web site.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 42 December 2006

Nursing Home Study In an effort to maximize impact in reducing WMSD within the state, initial efforts focused on the nursing home industry, through the development and commencement of a nursing home study. This study is assessing the injury & illness impact, at 26 nursing home facilities that chose to obtain assistance, from Workplace Safety Consultation, (WSC) compared to those facilities that do not. Currently, the study is approaching its final year - 2007. This study began in January 2004. To further educate facilities on managing ergonomics in long-term care facilities, five ½-day educational sessions were provided to representatives of the nursing homes in the study. All but two facilities attended the sessions. The sessions were held in Duluth, Bemidji, Mankato, and two in St. Paul. To ensure an adequate number of facilities attended, additional facilities in the Bemidji area were invited to attend that session. The sessions outlined, in detail, approaches to take in identifying and controlling ergonomic risk factors that contribute to a large percentage of injuries, in long-term care. The sessions were held in December 2005 and March 2006. A total of 59 employees representing 30 employers attended these sessions. Additional on-site consultative assistance was provided to five of the facilities in the study. Currently, on-site assistance and training has been limited to those facilities requesting further assistance from WSC. Strategic Plan To establish a long-range plan for the ergonomics program, strategic planning sessions were held with representatives from business, academia, and government, to brain-storm ideas on future direction of the program. The sessions focused on ideas for implementing four key areas of the program: 1) research, 2) on-site consultations, 3) outreach, training & education, and technical assistance, and 4) ergonomic best-practices. A strategic plan was drafted based on discussion and feedback during the sessions. Ergonomic Consultations Beginning in July 2006, a new approach has been implemented for ergonomic consultations. In an effort to better ensure that action is taken to minimize ergonomic risk factors, based on WSC consultant findings, ergonomic risk factors and ergonomic management deficiencies listed as ‘serious’ will be assigned an abatement time-frame, similar to hazard items identified during a typical consultation visit. These ‘serious’ items will be associated with existing injury occurrences at the facility and will have known methods available for correction of the deficiencies. Additional ‘otherthan-serious’ items and recommendations will also be summarized, for risk factors where no significant injury history is associated. Correction of these risk factors will have a direct impact on reducing associated injuries and risk of injuries in the facilities. Previous consultations provided only recommendations but no assigned abatement time-frames for any items. As of October 2006, 13 serious and 5 other-than-serious hazard items have been issued, in addition to recommendations to reduce other potential risk factors noted. The AWAIR Statute is the standard used to issue serious and other-than-serious hazard items. A number of consultation requests have been received from nursing homes throughout the state, partly, as a result of hearing about the nursing home project and services available through WSC. The main focus has mainly been on managing risk factors associated with resident handling tasks. A total of 20 ergonomic consultations were provided for various general industry, public sector, and long-term care sites. Eight additional safety & health consultations were provided that included ergonomic evaluation of specific work tasks and work areas. Ergonomic Best-Practices One of the responsibilities of the ergonomics program is to provide assistance on reducing ergonomic risk factors. As a result, an ‘Ergonomic Best-Practices’ web-site has been established, to high-light ergonomic interventions that have helped MN employers reduce injury risk. The web-site was initiated through a partnership with IBM – Rochester. By identifying and documenting ‘best-practices’ through on-site consultations and submissions by employers, the site is planned to be an extensive resource, of successful ergonomic interventions, implemented by employers within the state. Alliance Activity As a result of an alliance with Allina Hospitals and Clinics, and through their partnership with the MN Nurses
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 43 December 2006

Association (MNA), a 1-day ‘Safe Patient Handling’ Conference was held, in conjunction with the MNA annual conference, in St. Paul. Representatives from the three groups worked to develop the conference. WSC representatives participated directly in the conference, through exhibiting a WSC booth and as a speaker, for one of the conference presentations. Efforts are on-going to continue an alliance with Allina Hospitals and Clinics to promote the establishing and communicating best practices for patient handling, in healthcare facilities. Ergonomics Training A total of fourteen formal training presentations were provided on ergonomics, for private sector employers. Four additional sessions were provided on Injury & Illness Recordkeeping on the OSHA 300 Log, in conjunction with the nursing home study. A summary of training is provided below. Managing Ergonomics in the Workplace: (nursing home study) • five sessions Injury & Illness Recordkeeping on the OSHA 300 Log: (nursing home study) • four sessions Ergonomics Overview (on-site training) • six sessions Managing Ergonomics in the Workplace (on-site training) • two ½-day sessions Managing Ergonomics in the Workplace – Reducing Risk Associated with Resident Handling (nursing home study participant) • one session Interventions and other technical assistance A number of interventions were conducted, in the form of on-site training and technical assistance, off-site technical assistance, conferences, outreach, and planning activities. A total of 51 interventions were conducted, 16 by the public sector consultant.

INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
All fulltime WSC consultants have previously worked for two or more years as compliance officers in the MNOSHA Enforcement Division, giving them the necessary skills to identify hazards while performing on-site consultation surveys. As part of an orientation process with the consultation program new consultants receive extensive review of the consultation process, including on-site procedures, consultation policies, forms completion and establishment of a case file. Following orientation, the new consultant will accompany one or more principal consultants in on-site field consultations. During the consultant's probationary period, under the direction of the supervisor, the new consultant participates in the Web-Based OTI course 1500 and the TED 3.6 - Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual (CPPPM). Additionally, new consultants are enrolled into OTI Course #2450, which is essentially the evaluation of safety and health programs. New consultants also receive training on using the web based Consultation Form 33, and the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services Facilitation course. As one primary function of the WSC program, employers and employees can receive offsite technical assistance by phone, addressing standards interpretation, abatement assistance, hazard prevention and control methodologies, and appropriate referrals to other agencies for non-OSHA related issues. Telephone assistance is also offered describing WSC program requirements and obligations to employers wishing to initiate on-site consultation services at their worksite. This information is also found on the MNOSHA Web site. The MNOSHA Web site is accessible to employers and employees at www.doli.state.mn.us. This Web site contains information on WSC programs and the WSC outreach-training schedule. In addition, WSC receives, and within 24 hours responds to, numerous E-mail inquiries that range from federal standards interpretation to state specific directives. During on-site consultation visits, WSC consultants follow the current 1908 regulations, state policies and procedures, and the mandatory checklist requirements. Use of the checklist ensures that the consultants cover all required information, including the employer's obligation to correct all identified serious hazards in a timely manner. The separation and independence (relationship) between MNOSHA Enforcement and WSC is included among the checklist items.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 44 December 2006

Consultants generate a written report after each visit, which is mailed to the employer. For General Industry Safety reports, the employer receives the written report within 15 working days after the closing conference. For Construction Safety reports, the employer receives the written report within five working days after the closing conference. For Health reports, the employer receives the written report within 30 days after the closing conference. The report identifies the hazards and relates each hazard to the appropriate federal or state standard number that is in violation. The report also provides a recommendation for options on how to correct each of the identified hazards and a mutually agreed upon date of correction. Employers are obligated to respond in writing on how they have corrected each identified serious hazard. Approximately five percent of the consultants’ time is spent conducting follow-up visits verifying that hazards have been corrected. The WSC program follows the Federal Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual - TED 3.6. In addition, WSC internal policies and protocols have been developed to further guide program activities and maintain consistency. Information regarding WSC programs, performance and program issues, are discussed in periodic staff meetings, memos, E-mails and OMT meeting minutes. Consultant activity is monitored via weekly planned activity entries on the electronic WSC calendar, monthly activity logs. On a weekly basis, each consultant is given a copy of a report indicating previous consultation activity with uncorrected hazards. This process ensures that employers are contacted regarding the timeliness of their corrective actions. The director ensures that correct federal or state standards have been referenced for the identified hazards by reviewing case files for safety and health consultations. This process ensures accuracy and consistency of the WSC program. Each consultant undergoes an annual performance evaluation conducted by either the WSC program director or supervisor to ensure the CAPP goals are being met by each consultant.

On a quarterly basis, a monitoring meeting is held with the Federal Area Director to discuss progress made towards the state's strategic plan CAPP goals, quality control issues, and opportunities for corrective action when warranted. The MARC, CAM, SAM and SIR are the basis of the quarterly discussion Marketing of WSC services is accomplished: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) During outreach training sessions conducted throughout the state, Through dissemination of training information at www.doli.state.mn.us, Through publication of press releases, WSC Speakers Bureau, In cooperation with our Alliances throughout the state, Participation in booths during trade and business association conferences throughout the state, and Participation at annual AGC, ABC and Minnesota Safety Council meetings.

Customer satisfaction surveys are conducted with each consultation. Outreach training sessions conducted by WSC staff include course evaluations to determine participant levels of satisfaction.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 45 December 2006

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2006 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance MANDATED ACTIVITIES
Activities mandated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are considered core elements of Minnesota’s occupational safety and health program. The accomplishment of these core elements is tied to achievement of the State’s strategic goals. Many mandated activities are “strategic tools” used to achieve outcome and performance goals. “Mandated activities” include program assurances and state activity measures. Fundamental program requirements that are an integral part of the MNOSHA program are assured through an annual commitment included as part of the 23(g) grant application. Program assurances include: Unannounced, targeted inspections, including prohibition against advance notice; First instance sanctions; A system to adjudicate contestations; Ensuring abatement of potentially harmful or fatal conditions; Prompt and effective standards setting and allocation of sufficient resources; Counteraction of imminent dangers; Responses to complaints; Fatality/catastrophe investigations; Ensuring employees: * Protection against, and investigation of, discrimination * Access to health and safety information * Information on their rights and obligations under the Act * Access to information on their exposure to toxic or harmful agents Coverage of public employees; Recordkeeping and reporting; Voluntary compliance activities. Mandated activities are tracked on a quarterly basis using the SAMM (State Activity Measures) Report which compares State activity data to an established reference point. Additional activities are tracked using the Interim State Indicator Report (SIR). A comparison of MNOSHA activity measures for FFY04, FFY05 and FFY06 is provided in the tables beginning on the following page. Significant improvement was seen in these mandated activities in FFY06: -Complaint inspections were conducted within an average of 2.5 days, significantly lower than the goal of 9 days; -Complaint investigations were conducted within an average of 0.5 days, significantly lower than the goal of 2 days. -MNOSHA safety programmed inspections results in 71.7% with serious/willful/repeat citations versus the national average of 58.2%. -MNOSHA health programmed inspections results in 60% with serious/willful/repeat citations versus the national average of 51.4%.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 46 December 2006

COMPARISON OF FFY04, FFY05, and FFY06 ACTIVITY MEASURES
MNOSHA Compliance
STATE ACTIVITY MANDATED MEASURES (SAMMs)
Goal/ National Data 9

Performance Measure Average number of days to initiate complaint inspections Average number of days to initiate complaint investigations Percent of Complaints where complainants were notified on time Percent of complaints and referrals responded to within 1 day – Imminent Danger Number of denials where entry not obtained % of serious/willful/repeat violations verified – Private % of serious/willful/repeat violations verified – Public Average number of calendar days from opening conference to citation issue – Safety Average number of calendar days from opening conference to citation issue – Health % of programmed inspections with serious/willful/repeat violations – Safety % of programmed inspections with serious/willful/repeat violations – Health Average violations per inspection with violations – Serious/willful/repeat Average violations per inspection with violations – Other Average initial penalty per serious violation (Private Sector Only) % of total inspections in public sector

FFY04

FFY05

FFY06

Comments The average number of days to initiate a complaint inspection remains well below the established goal. The average number of days to initiate a complaint investigation decreased in FFY06 and is well below the established goal. MNOSHA continues to timely notify all complainants. All imminent danger complaints were responded to within one day. There were no denials where entry was not obtained in FFY 06. MNOSHA has continued to concentrate efforts to address verification of abatement. MNOSHA has continued to concentrate efforts to address verification of abatement. The average number of calendar days from opening conference to citation issue for safety cases remained steady and is well below the national average. The average number of calendar days from opening conference to citation issuance for health cases remained steady and is well below the national average. The percent of programmed safety inspections with serious/willful/repeat violations remains above the national average. The percent of programmed health inspections with serious/willful/repeat violations remains above the national average. MNOSHA remains slightly above the national average for the number of violations per inspection with S/W/R violations. MNOSHA remains below the national average for other-than-serious violations. The average initial penalty per serious violation remains below the national average. The number of public sector inspections increased in FFY06.

5.00

2.63

2.51

2.09

1.09

.49

2

100

100

100

100

97.96 2 58.70 77.42

100 0 71.34 83.33

100 0 72.02 82.14

100 0 100 100

24.87

23.65

21.53

47.4

54.84

35.67

35.96

60.2

66.88

71.29

71.71

58.2

60.81

60.61

60.07

51.4

2.13

2.19

2.12

2.1

.47

.49

.52

1.3

722.18 3.9

830.19 5.63

796.98 7.55

1,282.70 5.7

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 47 December 2006

STATE ACTIVITY MANDATED MEASURES (SAMMs)
Goal/ National Data 229.3

Performance Measure Average lapse time from receipt of contest to first level decision Percent of 11(c) investigations completed within 90 days % of 11(c) complaints that are meritorious % of meritorious 11(c) complaints that are settled

FFY04

FFY05

FFY06

Comments The average lapse time from receipt of contest to first level decision decreased in FFY 06 and remains below the national average. The percent of 11(c) investigations completed within 90 days improved significantly in FFY06. The percent of merit cases increased in FFY06 and is in line with the national average. The percent of meritorious cases settled increased in FFY 06 and is consistent with the national average.

135.41

163.96

142.44

18.18

26.09

40.38

100

14.55

15.94

19.23

21.1

100

54.55

80

85.7

Data Source: State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) – October 29, 2006.

INTERIM STATE INDICATOR REPORT (SIR)
Performance Measure Enforcement (Private Sector) % Programmed InspectionsSafety Enforcement (Private Sector) % Programmed InspectionsHealth Enforcement (Private Sector) % Programmed Inspections with Violations – Safety FFY04 FFY05 FFY 06 Goal/National Data Comments The percent of programmed safety inspections in the private sector continues to be significantly higher than the national average. The percent of programmed health inspections in the private sector continues to be significantly higher than the national average. The percent of programmed safety inspections with violations in the private sector continued to increase in FFY06 and remains above the national average. The percent of programmed health inspections with violations in the private sector increased in FFY06 and remains above the national average. The percent of serious violations in safety cases declined slightly in FFY06. The percent of serious violations in health cases increased in FFY06 and is above the national average. The percent of safety cases with abatement periods greater than 30 days remained steady and well below the national average. The percent of health cases with abatement periods greater than 60
Page 48 December 2006

91.1

89.8

89.4

59.2

58.1

60.2

61.8

38.2

70.8

73.7

74.2

64.8

Enforcement (Private Sector) % Programmed Inspections with Violations – Health Enforcement (Private Sector) % Serious Violations – Safety

66.1

56.6

58.2

48.8

80.4

79.7

78.4

77

Enforcement (Private Sector) % Serious Violations – Health Enforcement (Private Sector) Abatement Periods for Violations Safety % > 30 days Enforcement (Private Sector) Abatement Periods for

75.5

72.5

74.9

64

4.3

4.9

5.6

19.5

10.4

8.9

11.5

12.5

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

INTERIM STATE INDICATOR REPORT (SIR)
Performance Measure Violations Health % > 60 days Enforcement (Private Sector) Average Penalty – Safety Other-than-Serious Enforcement (Private Sector) Average Penalty – Health Other-than-Serious Enforcement (Private Sector) Inspections per 100 Hours – Safety Enforcement (Private Sector) Inspections per 100 hours – Health Enforcement (Private Sector) % Violations vacated FFY04 FFY05 FFY 06 Goal/National Data Comments days increased in FFY06 but remains below the national average. The average other-than-serious penalty for safety cases decreased in FFY06 and remains well below the national average. The average other-than-serious penalty for health cases remains well below the national average. The number of inspections per 100 hours – safety increased in FFY 06. The number of health inspections per hundred hours remains above the national average. This measure does not accurately reflect MNOSHA’s system where employers must contest prior to scheduling an informal conference. This measure does not accurately reflect MNOSHA’s system where employers must contest prior to scheduling an informal conference. The penalty retention rate for private sector inspections remained steady and above the national average. The percent of programmed safety inspections remained steady in FFY06. The number of programmed health inspections in the public sector decreased significantly in FFY06. The percent of serious violations for public sector safety inspections is consistent with those in the private sector. The percent of serious violations in health cases in the public sector decreased in FFY06. MNOSHA continues to vacate a lower percentage of violations after contestation than the national average. MNOSHA continues to reclassify fewer violations after contestation than the national average. MNOSHA’s penalty retention rate continued to increase in FFY06.

210.60

265.70

203.80

1050.40

241.7

281.10

271.2

807.70

3.7

3.5

4.2

5.0

2.5

2.8

2.3

1.7

.1

.1

0

4.5

Enforcement (Private Sector) % Violations Reclassified

0

0

0

4.1

Enforcement (Private Sector) % Penalty Retention Enforcement (Public Sector) % Programmed Inspections – Safety Enforcement (Public Sector) % Programmed Inspections – Health Enforcement (Public Sector) % Serious Violations – Safety

78.9

77.5

77.4

62.2

81.7

91.9

90.8

N/A

13.6

31.8

16.3

N/A

78.4

72.6

77

N/A

Enforcement (Public Sector) % Serious Violations – Health Review Procedures % Violations Vacated Review Procedures %Violations Reclassified Review Procedures % Penalty Retention

88.5

78.6

73.8

N/A

10.6

15.8

12

24.6

11.5

12.5

12.1

14

53

54.3

57.7

49.2

Data Source: Interim State Indicator Report (SIR) – September 2006.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 49 December 2006

Appendix A
Labor and Industry - a trusted resource utilized by employees and employers
STATE OF MINNESOTA

Date: April 29, 2005 To: Construction Leadership Meeting attendees And Interested Parties

From: Commissioner Scott Brener Assistant Commissioner Roslyn Wade Subject: Agency response to the construction leadership meeting
A special meeting on March 11, 2005, sought your advice, input and support. During January and February 2005, Minnesota OSHA investigated four construction-related fatalities and four general-industry fatalities. The purpose of this meeting was to find ways to address this alarming fatality rate, specifically in the construction industry. The items specifically identified during the meeting for improvement (see attachment) have been utilized to continue to develop the MNOSHA Compliance and Workplace Safety Consultation units. The following will be implemented: • Look at employees presently licensed, such as plumbers and electricians, to determine what additional safety and health training could be provided. • Educate city inspectors about basic safety and health requirements. • Evaluate other state OSHA plan incentives or approaches for the construction industry. • Implement a social marketing approach to educate employees how bad safety and health practices can impact their family. • Provide more information to small residential contractors. • Send safety grant application to small employers if MNOSHA Compliance does an inspection. The following recommendations will require evaluation prior to an implementation decision: • Tie excellent, safety and health performance to a reduction in workers' compensation rates in order to provide more financial incentive for employers. • Implement 100 percent fall protection at six feet. • Determine how to help small employers cover a portion of the cost associated with safety and health training. • Develop a transportable, training communication tool, such as an employee card that indicates an employee has completed a certain course. I want to express my appreciation for your input and ongoing support toward reducing this alarming fatality rate.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 50 December 2006

APPENDIX B

Discrimination Statistics Comparison by FFY
FFY 2003 Number of Cases Opened
withdrawn settled dismissed settled other merit

FFY 2004 47
0 3 7 2 0

FFY 2005 48
9 3 50 2 5

FFY 2006
39 4 8 37 0 2

62
5 7 47 1 1

Number of Cases Closed After Investigation Number of Cases Referred Number of Cases Screened & Closed Number of Outreach Cases Number of Cases Open at End of the FFY

68

55

69

51

4

11

39

40

35

33

29

54

42

31

31

26

46

38

17

7

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 51 December 2006

APPENDIX C

Quarterly Outreach Statistics FFY 2006
Total Attendance Q1 Q2 Q3 Total Outreach Strategic Presentations
(Manufacturing and Construction)

Q4 853

YTD 4866

Number of Presentations Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 21 30 23 16

YTD 90

Average Attendance Q1 Q2 Q3 36 61 62

Q4 53

YTD 54

766

1829

1418

244 60 0 0

753 0 0 270

1049 0 35 90

117 0 0 0

2163 60 35 383

5 1 0 0

4 0 0 4

9 0 1 3

1 0 0 0

19 1 1 7

49 60 0 0

188 0 0 0

117 0 35 30

111 0 0 0

114 60 0 55

Youth Immigrant (Hard to Reach) Emerging Business Professional S & H Presentations
(Strategic(Consultants / Loss Control Reps))*

45 312 150

157 806 0

297 253 60

0 465 0

499 1836 210

N/A 10 2

N/A 20 0

N/A 11 1

N/A 11 0

N/A 42 3

N/A 31 75

N/A 40 0

N/A 23 60

N/A 40 0

N/A 34 70

Leading Organizations Other Construction Breakfasts (Strategic)* Number of Days Provided a Booth at a Conference Shaded groups are included in the count of Strategic Presentations and Leading Organizations to prevent double counting.

78

128

136

117

459

1

2

1

1

5

78

64

136

117

91

1450

580

1360

300

3690

3

2

3

1

9

483

290

453

300

410

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 52 December 2006

Selected Compliance Outreach 5000 4500 4000 3500 Participants 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2003 2004 Year 2005 2006
Strategic Presentation Leading Presentation Construction Breakfast Training Outreach

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 53 December 2006

(CLOSED FFY06)
Department of Labor and Industry — a trusted resource utilized by employees and employers OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: September 30, 2004 Patricia Todd Compliance Assistance Plan

Appendix D

As part of the FFY’04 Performance Plan for MNOSHA a target was established to develop a compliance assistance and cooperative agreement plan that would maximize our impact. In determining how to establish this plan I reviewed: what Federal OSHA provides in regard to compliance assistance, what our WSC unit provides, what MNOSHA provides, and where we need to improve. The type of compliance assistance Federal OSHA provides is: outreach and services to help employers prevent and reduce workplace fatalities, illnesses, and injuries. These include compliance assistance information, publications and tools; education and training courses; free onsite consultation services; and provides information and training about Federal OSHA requirements. The compliance assistance activity is located in the compliance area of OSHA. The types of cooperative agreements provided by Federal OSHA include: alliances, consultation, partnerships, and voluntary protection program. As defined in their five-year strategic plan and annual performance plans the WSC unit: participates in alliances, certifies MNSHARP companies, certifies MNSTAR companies, participates in homeland security efforts, and provides outreach. The outreach areas of focus include: youth through DLI Labor Standards and Apprenticeship, small business owners, construction, primary metals, transportation, fabricated products, ergonomics, and workplace violence. As defined in MNOSHA’s five-year strategic plan and annual performance we: participate in partnerships, handle daily contact with external stakeholders, participate in homeland security, and provide outreach. The outreach areas of focus include: youth, immigrant and hard to reach employees and employers, primary metals, transportation, fabricated products, emerging business, and construction. I recommend that we divide up these various activities in order to optimize our resources and to better serve our external stakeholders: WSC Alliances MNSHARP MNSTAR WSC Outreach Activities Youth through Labor Standards and Apprenticeship Ergonomics Workplace Violence Transportation MNOSHA Partnerships Daily contact external stakeholders Homeland Security MNOSHA Outreach Activities Youth through schools. Immigrant employees and employers Construction Primary metals and fabrication

The basis for the outreach division is: • Youth can be contacted through various mediums. The WSC unit has developed an ongoing relationship with Labor Standards and Apprenticeship and MNOSHA has developed a relationship with schools. This approach would build off the present system.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 54 December 2006

• • • • •

WSC has hired two full-time people to handle ergonomics and therefore, should be in charge of that outreach activity. WSC has a full time position allocated to workplace violence training. One of the main injuries encountered within transportation can be related to ergonomics; therefore, it is a good fit for WSC. MNOSH listed immigrant and hard to reach employers and employees as an area of focus in our strategic plan and performance plan. MNOSHA is working with members of the primary metals and fabrication to develop a partnership. It is a logical extension to also focus on outreach.

In addition, MNOSHA is working with safety and health professional organizations to deliver outreach on policy and complying with MNOSHA standards. In order to accomplish these areas of focus within MNOSHA I recommend: 1. Fill a vacant training officer position within MNOSHA compliance capable of interacting with immigrant and hard to reach employees and employers. 2. Allocate a principal/IH3 to develop and maintain our partnership agreements. 3. Focus MNOSHA outreach resources in: construction, primary metals and fabrication, youth through the schools, and professional organizations. 4. Apply for a FFY’05 grant through HCSM to fund a fulltime position in regard to Homeland security. If this position does not get funded then maintain our present activity level. During FFY’05 we will be starting the implementation of this plan.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 55 December 2006

[CLOSED FFY06 (remains in App. B of ADM 5.1)]

Appendix E
8/30/04 Updated: 9/30/05

MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)
LEGEND GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS GREATER MN PRINCIPALS OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

Priority Rank Frequency
C – Core B – Beyond Core
0 1 2 3 5 G. I. INVESTIGATORS Initial Only Annually Every 2 years Every 3 years Every 5 years
Refresher Available

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

SOFT SKILLS
Writing (Appendix C) Presentation/0utreach (Appendix C) Time Management (Appendix C) Organizational Skills related to Case Files (Appendix C) Interpersonal Communication (Appendix C) Interviewing (Appendix C) Conflict Resolution (Appendix C) Managing Change (Appendix C) Problem Solving (Appendix C) Team Building (Appendix C)
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/0

C/0

C/0 B/0

C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0

B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0 C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

B/0

C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/1 C/0 C/3 B/0

C/1 C/0 C/3
B/0

Page 56 December 2006

MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)
LEGEND GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS GREATER MN PRINCIPALS OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

Priority Rank Frequency
C – Core B – Beyond Core
0 1 2 3 5 G. I. INVESTIGATORS Initial Only Annually Every 2 years Every 3 years Every 5 years
Refresher Available

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Handling/Responding to Criticism (Appendix C) Peer Debriefing for Fatalities (Appendix C) Burnout Issues (Appendix C) Decision Making (Appendix C) Train the Trainer (Appendix C) Adult Learning Principles (Appendix C) Training Program Development (Appendix C) Creative Training Techniques (Appendix C) Phone Handling Procedures (Appendix C) Display Booth Assembly/Procedures (Appendix C) Dealing with the Public (Appendix C)

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3 B/0 B/0

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3 B/0 B/0

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3 B/0 B/0

C/1 C/1 C/1 C/3 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/3

C/1 C/3

C/1 C/3

C/1 C/3

C/1 C/3
B/0 B/0 B/0

B/0 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3

C/3

C/3

C/3

C/3

C/3

C/3

C/3

C/3 B/0

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/1

C/0

HARD SKILLS
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 57 December 2006

MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)
LEGEND GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS GREATER MN PRINCIPALS OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

Priority Rank Frequency
C – Core B – Beyond Core
0 1 2 3 5 G. I. INVESTIGATORS Initial Only Annually Every 2 years Every 3 years Every 5 years
Refresher Available

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Employee Right-To-Know (OSHI protection) DLI Emergency Procedures Basic Electrical Standards, OSHA 2030, 3095
Machine Guarding, OSHA 2040, 2045 Fire Protection & Life Safety, OSHA 2070, 2075 Hazardous Materials, OSHA 2010, 2015 Power Press Safeguarding, OSHA 3040 Professional Development, OTI Defensive Driving, MSC
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1 B/0

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1 B/0

C/1 C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/1 C/1

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/3 C/3

C/0 B/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/3 C/3 B/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/3 C/3

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/3 C/3 B/3 C/3 B/0 B/0

B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3

B/3 C/3

B/3 C/3

Page 58 December 2006

MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)
LEGEND GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS GREATER MN PRINCIPALS OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

Priority Rank Frequency
C – Core B – Beyond Core
0 1 2 3 5 G. I. INVESTIGATORS Initial Only Annually Every 2 years Every 3 years Every 5 years
Refresher Available

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Fall Protection Standards, OSHA 3110 Excavation Standards, OSHA 3010 Scaffold Standards, OSHA 3080 Concrete Forms & Shoring, OSHA 3030 Intro to Industrial Hygiene, OTI/MSC/INT Ind. Ventilation, OSHA 2210 or U of M Course Ind. Toxicology, OAHA 2230 or U of M Course Respiratory Prot., OSHA 2220 or 3M Course Industrial Noise, OSHA 2200 Advanced Electrical Training, OSHA 3090 Confined Spaces, OSHA 2260 Spray Finishing, OSHA 3100 Inspection Process/Procedures (Appendix D-2)

B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0

B/0 B/0 B/0

B/0 B/0 B/0

B/0 B/0 B/0

C/0 C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 59 December 2006

MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)
LEGEND GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS GREATER MN PRINCIPALS OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

Priority Rank Frequency
C – Core B – Beyond Core
0 1 2 3 5 G. I. INVESTIGATORS Initial Only Annually Every 2 years Every 3 years Every 5 years
Refresher Available

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Inspection Techniques and Legal Aspects, OSHA 1410 Standards/Directive Knowledge (Appendix D-3) Hazard Recognition (Appendix D-3) Accident Investigation, OSHA 1020 Biohazards, OSHA 2340 Demolition, OSHA 3500 Discrimination Training, INT/0TI Compliance Training (Appendix D-3) Statutory Knowledge (Appendix D-2) Company Background Search (Appendix D-2) Case File Preparation, INT Discrimination Case File Preparation, INT/0TI

B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0

B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

TECHNICAL SKILLS
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 60 December 2006

MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)
LEGEND GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS GREATER MN PRINCIPALS OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

Priority Rank Frequency
C – Core B – Beyond Core
0 1 2 3 5 G. I. INVESTIGATORS Initial Only Annually Every 2 years Every 3 years Every 5 years
Refresher Available

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Microsoft Office Digital Camera (Appendix D-2) GroupWise (Appendix D-1) IMIS-Basic 31, 1b, OSHA 1, Input Skills (Appendices D-1 and D-2) Operation/Calibration of Equipment, INT Web Based Applications (Appendix D-2) Scanning (on-the-job training) AV Equipment Operation (on-the-job training) CD Creation/Duplication (Appendix D-2) Phone Operation (Appendix D-2) IMIS Report Skills
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0

C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0

C/0

Page 61 December 2006

(CLOSED FFY06)

APPENDIX F

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 62 December 2006

APPENDIX F

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 63 December 2006

(CLOSED FFY06) MNOSHA COMPLIANCE DISCRMINATION WORKFLOW INTAKE THROUGH COMPLETION
I. INTAKE A. Phone calls. All phone intake messages are returned. 1. Call backs a. b. If the potential complainant is available a screening is done.

Appendix F

If the potential complainant is not home, a message is left to contact the discrimination investigator making the call. Two attempts will be made to reach the caller. If not reached, the code logged into access is outreach. i. If the potential complainant articulates a prima facie case, the case will be opened as a new file. A prima facie case must have protected activity, Respondent knowledge, adverse employment action, must be reported within 30 days of the adverse employment action and MNOSHA must have jurisdiction. Investigator opens Access and obtains a case number to start the process.

ii. If the potential caller does not articulate a prima facie case, the investigator explains why there is no prima facie case, and they are sent a screen and close letter. The investigator opens Access database and obtains a case number, enters in all data, and writes a screen and close letter. The screen intake sheet and the screen & close letter are saved in the Screen & Close file for the current year. The code logged into Access is Screen & Close. The letter is then sent out by the investigator. iii. If the potential caller does not have a case that is under the jurisdiction of MNOSHA, they will be referred to the appropriate agency. The investigator will enter into Access, obtains a case number and enter in all data. The code logged into Access is Referral. B. New cases 1. Once a new case has a case number (entered into Access): a. b. c. d. e. The investigator fills out the screening document/questionnaire Recommendation form is done Letter to the Complainant is done A letter to the Respondent is done Designation of representative form is done.

All these are saved to a file created on the G drive for discrimination, in the appropriate years file. The investigator then goes to the USDOL’s Whistleblower website and enters all the information, including a NAICS code. This generates the federal ID number for this case. * A copy of what is known as the OSHA 87 (Case Activity Worksheet) is printed from the whistleblower site. Copies are made of the two letters, questionnaire, designation of rep form, and the OSHA 87. Certified letters are then prepared and sent to Complainant and Respondent. The file is prepared with the copies of the letters, designation of rep form, questionnaire, recommendation and OSHA 87. 2. Non-cooperation a. Files are monitored for responses from Complainant and Respondent. i. No response from Complainant.
Page 64 December 2006

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

The Complainant is called on the telephone. If there is no response the Complainant is sent a second letter and another copy of the questionnaire to fill out. They are informed that this must be returned within 10 days of receipt of the letter. The letter include copies of the previous proof of service. A copy of the letter is also sent via first class mail. ii. If there is still no return of the questionnaire, the Complainant is sent a dismissal/closure letter, along with a chronology of attempts to reach them and copies of proof of service. The letter is sent by certified mail. No response from Respondent. Respondent is sent a second letter informing them if they do not cooperate in this investigation, the decision in the case will be based on the information supplied by the Complainant. Proof of service is also sent. The letter is sent by certified mail. II. CASE ASSIGNED A. Preparation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Read all materials from intake, Complainant submissions and Respondent submissions. Understand the probable motivations and make note of strong points, weak points and inconsistencies. Call or send a letter of introduction to the Complainant that you have been assigned the case. Prepare a list of witnesses Prepare a chronological schedule of events. Check timeliness. File date must be within 30 days of adverse employment action. Outline the discrimination elements and prepare interview questions a. Protected activity b. Respondent knowledge c. Adverse Employment Action d. Nexus i. Timing ii. Animus iii. Disparate Treatment e. Respondent Defense – look for pretext f. Dual Motive Case 8. Review Compliance files if available and make copies of relevant forms, look for notes from the OSHI that may relate to discrimination or Respondent knowledge, talk to OSHI as needed. If additional information is needed from either side call and follow up with a confirming letter to ask for the information. iii.

9.

10. Assemble the physical file with tabs to facilitate finding material during interviews – see “Index Numeric” and “Index Alphabetic” templates for organization. 11. Set up telephone log from templates and note every conversation. 12. Look for possible solutions or settlements and discuss with both parties.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 65 December 2006

B. Interviews 1. Interviews should be recorded with digital recorders when possible. 2. In person interviews: The witness is given a printed copy of the Tennessen warning. The witness may read the warning or be read the warning by the investigator. The investigator should ask on the recording if the witness has any questions and answer those questions. The witness should sign, date and provide an address on the warning. 3. Phone interviews: The Tennessen warning may be sent to the witness prior to the interview for their review or it may be read to them over the phone. The witness should be asked if they have any questions. 4. Complainant interview should include: a. Confirm protected activity, knowledge and adverse action b. Review timing – go back to previous problems c. Look for pretext d. Review witness list and ask what they will say e. Explain Respondent defense and ask for Complainant response f. Review present employment status, remind Complainant of duty to mitigate losses, record wages, time off work, etc. g. Ask for expected outcome 5. Respondent interviews may be done at Respondent location, their representative’s office or at DLI. a. Management witnesses may have legal counsel present during interview. Non-management witness shall not have management representatives present unless they request it. Nonmanagement may have a Union representative or a representative of their choice present for the interview. b. Offer any possible settlement or solution to minimize costs and make Complainant whole. c. Witness interviews should include: i. Review Complainant relationship and work history

ii. Ask each witness for their version of events leading up to the adverse action that occurred for Complainant. iii. Ask specific questions to confirm or refute Complainant’s allegations.

6. Post Interviews: If additional information was requested, follow up with a confirming letter. 7. Download the digital recording to your computer in the dictation module, record to a CD. If the case is going to the AG or with approval from OMT Director, send a note to Word Processing to transcribe the interview if needed. Use a non-scratch pen (Sharpie) to record file number and interview name on the CD. A. File Completion 1. Assemble all file materials in the blue folder 2. Begin the FIR to formalize your thoughts and the logic of your decision 3. If not already done, prepare the list of events in chronological order leading up to the adverse action. 4. Review and understand all facets of the file a. Understand the elements and prepare the defense or be ready to show where there is sufficient evidence
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 66 December 2006

for MNOSHA to meet its burden in establishing the elements of a prima facie case. b. During finalization of the FIR, the investigator may find it helpful to talk to other investigators and OMT Director. If the case is to be merit finding, investigator must discuss the case with the OMT Director in charge of discrimination before contacting Complainant or Respondent. Director of MNOSHA Compliance must approve the merit finding before the file can be turned over to the Attorney Generals office. 5. Calculate back pay if needed. 6. Closing Conference a. If the file is non-merit, contact Complainant and provide information on why case did not meet merit standard. Explain that Complainant has the right to review the decision for a period of 15 days. b. If the file is merit, Contact Complainant to establish what would make them whole. Then contact Respondent to inform them of the merit finding and what the Complainant is requesting. If Respondent accepts, draw up a settlement agreement. This step may require the investigator to mediate or negotiate between the parties. If no settlement is reached the case will be forwarded to the Attorney Generals office upon approval of Director of MNOSHA Compliance. 7. Complete Final Investigative Report 8. Present the completed file to OMT Director for approval and signature. 9. Update the Access database with FIR date and decision 10. Update Federal Whistle blower site with decision, date, back pay if applicable, etc. and print a new Case Activity Worksheet. Sign the Case File Worksheet with the filed date. 11. Prepare closing letters a. If the decision is merit or non-merit prepare the letter from templates. Use previous cases for guidance when needed. b. Make copies c. Send out all correspondence via certified mail d. Staple the green delivery confirmation cards to the letter copy when they are returned. e. Monitor the appeal period 12. Assemble all materials with the blue, twin prong fastener files. Use the Case file organization template found in “templates” to arrange the file and act as a guide for the index.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 67 December 2006

APPENDIX F

OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: PHONE: SUBJECT:
September 22, 2006 OMT Carrie L. Darmody, Ev Kuehl, Terri Brennan, Shirley Reese, Mike Barthen 284-5132 Contestation Process
A trusted resource utilized by employees and employers …

The OMT asked this committee to review the contest process and determine if it is efficient, if files are being completed in a timely fashion, and secondarily, whether it appears burdensome to employers. We examined data in the Contest Access database. Prior to August 2003, the average number of contests per year for 4 years was 290. The number of contests increased about 20% from 2004 to 2005, based upon an August through July year. We used August through July to be able to make a full year’s comparison. The number of contests has remained constant for the past 2 years and currently, we receive an average of 30 contests per month. The numbers are as follows: August 2003 – July 2004 August 2004 – July 2005 August 2005 – July 2006 302 361 378

We also examined various time frames during the contest process. Keep in mind that the Contest database has evolved over the years. We examined data only when it existed. For example, we didn’t start tracking the final order date until June of 2004. For each time period, we have indicated the number of entries or contests and the time period for which we have data. Days Between Receipt of Notice of Contest and Date Secretary Schedules Informal Conference 869 entries September 2003 – May 2006 Days 0-10 11-20 21-30 over 30 days Cases 317 296 159 97 Percentage 36.5 34 18.3 11.2

This is analysis of the number of days that lapse between the date the Notice of Contest is received and the date that the secretary schedules the case for an informal conference. The date the secretary schedules the conference is distinguished from the actual date of the informal conference. We used the date that the conference is scheduled as opposed to the date that it occurs because we have little control over the date it occurs due to the availability of the Principal/IH3, the employer, and the employer’s attorney, if any. As the chart above indicates, almost 90% (88.8%) of cases are scheduled for an informal conference within 30 days. The average number of days to schedule an informal conference is 17. Included within this time frame is the time it takes for Shirley to follow up on incomplete notices of contest, review the file to be sure the NOC is timely, run a search on the Secretary of State database, and enter data, often identical data, in three databases: Access, IMIS and Perfectlaw. It also includes the time it takes for the secretary to check the availability of the Principal/IH3, a conference room, and the employer’s attorney, if any, time to prepare and fax an informal conference letter, and time to reschedule the conference, if necessary. We do not capture data to reflect the many circumstances that arise with a NOC that can consume time. For example, we know that many conferences are rescheduled, but we can not identify from the Access database which cases or how many were rescheduled. Of the 97 cases that were scheduled more than 30 days from the date the NOC was received, the bulk of them occurred in 2004 and 2005. To date, only 10 cases in 2006 were scheduled more than 30 days from the NOC receipt date.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 68 December 2006

Days Between the Informal Conference Date and the Date the File is Submitted to Ev or Carrie 1198 entries January 2002 – May 2006 This time period reflects the time that the file is in the hands of the Principal/IH3. It includes the time it takes for the Principal/IH3 to draft the informal conference memo, time to negotiate further with the employer, time to consult with a supervisor or Legal Services attorney, and time to obtain additional information from the employer. The circumstances vary depending on the employer and the nature and result of the informal conference. Because the Principal/IH3s began drafting settlement agreements in August 2005, we separated the data into two groups. Prior to August 2005, the Principal/IH3 submitted the file to Ev or Carrie within an average of 18.33 days. Post August 2005, the average number of days dropped to 16.34. The overall average is 17.92 days. Days Between the Date the File is Submitted to Legal Services to the Final Order Date 411 entries June 2004 - May 2006 This data was most astounding. This time frame reflects the amount of time the file is in the hands of Legal Services and the employer. It includes the time it takes for Carrie Rohling and Bill Bierman or Marie O’Neil to review the agreement, time to prepare a cover letter and send the agreement, time for the employer to review and seek approval of the agreement, time for the employer to process the check, and time for the employer to return the agreement. Before the Principal/IH3s started drafting agreements, Legal Services drafted all of the agreements. Prior to August 2005, the average number of days between the time Legal Services received the file to the final order date was 72. Since August 2005 the average number of days dropped to 34, over half of what it was. This is an astounding drop. One would assume then that the Principal/IH3s are spending more time on the files, but the data above shows that this is not the case. Recommendations The committee believes that the process leading up to the informal conference runs well, with some exceptions. We suspect that delays in processing contests often occur because the employer requests that the informal conference be rescheduled. To prevent rescheduling, the secretaries could contact the employer first to check his or her availability, but it was determined a few years ago that that was too time consuming. An obvious source of inefficiency is the data entry of identical data in three different databases, but we are constrained by the IMIS system. We are hopeful that the IMIS redesign project will eliminate most of the duplicative data entry. While the contest process itself runs wells, the clerical staff juggles the process with numerous competing tasks, such as citation processing and violation abatement, that are high priorities and/or time sensitive. Without additional clerical staff, we don’t believe the secretaries can process the contests any faster, particularly given the rise in the number of inspections. Shifting responsibility for drafting the settlement agreements to the Principal/IH3s has greatly reduced the time it takes to close a contest. We recommend that the Principal/IH3s continue to draft the settlement agreements. In addition, we recommend that principal/IH3s consistently request that the employer sign and return the agreement and pay the penalty within 10 days, so that employers do not delay the process. With regard to employers, we have strived over the years to develop a Notice of Contest form that contains thorough and accurate information and is easy for employers to complete. In addition to late contests, which are often the result of the employer’s failure to read the form or take the due date seriously, some common errors include failing to complete the section on posting the notice of contest and failing to notarize the oath at the bottom of the form. We have the following recommendations to improve employers’ completion of the form: • Color-code the form. Highlight the due date information and notary requirement in red to alert the reader to critical pieces of information. In addition, we recommend that we highlight the sections to be completed by employer in another color, so that the employer can readily identify the portions they must complete. We realize that color-coding the NOC will require that the secretary print the form on a color printer or send the form to a vendor for color copying. Label boxes 3A & 3B “Union” & “Non-Union”, followed by the current descriptions, so that employers can more readily identify which box to complete. Bring a sample of a completed form to the closing conference and discuss it with employer.

• •

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 69 December 2006

(CLOSED FFY06)
Summary of Start/Stop/Continue Communication Input

Appendix G

December 29, 2003 Start: In general the input was to: define a chain of command, organize the “g drive”, seek more input from staff, define the communication tool for the organization, and provide more positive feedback. Policy Changes • • • • • • • • • • • Allow enough time for staff to figure out how to implement changes. Memos should have more detail and it would be nice to have significant changes put into formal memo procedure. More staff input with policy changes. Provide investigators with paper copies of policies/procedures if they want them. Directives status updates should be published somewhere. Ensure specific changes are communicated to all employees. Have supervisors communicate information from the OMT meetings to the staff verbally. Formalize a method for employee input through a suggestion box. Send out more information on changes, i.e., OSHA 300 change. Get investigators’ input when making policy/equipment/technology changes. Could a monthly summary be sent on Federal Register changes?

G:/Drive or Network • • • • Update ADM 8.1; some of the hyper-links don’t work. Clean up forms on network. Put all meeting notes on the “g-drive”. Send “g-drive” CD’s to home offices quarterly.

Chain of Command • • OMT should go to Ev when help is desired from support staff instead of going directly to them. Identify approval process and chain of command when an OSHI has the need to talk to a resource for additional technical help.

Performance • • • Provide more individual performance feedback. More feedback on performance other than just numbers. Reward good work.

Meeting and/or Minutes • ● ● ● Expand the OMT meeting notes to include: o Clarify any changes and the impact on staff o Give direction on how to accomplish the changes Define acronyms. Start having a GreaterMN staff meeting. Have more opportunities for large group discussions.

Management • • • • Use good communication skills. Initiate a management accountability program via an employee survey to be reviewed by the commissioner. Listen to staff and challenge the idea not the person. Manage by respect.

Written Forms of Communication • Put the path for the “g drive” on the bottom of memos so they can be found. • Use the subject line feature located in GroupWise when sending out emails so staff won’t have to open an
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 70 December 2006

email that doesn’t pertain to them. Send a letter to employers who are in compliance.

Miscellaneous • • • • • Meet the new legislative liaison. Have the DCT approve all clothing used for employee recognition. Include a reference in 1B’s if you spoke to a principal or OMT about a citation. Clarify what is the official OMT communication tool. Provide a list of appropriate contacts on topics.

Stop: In general the recommendations are to: use less acronyms, stop rumors, and limit the distribution of paper copies. • Stop asking for input on this subject in general, it has been asked enough. • Stop rumor mongering; check out rumors before spreading them. • Regarding rumors, don’t know who to go to for clarification. • Reduce distribution of paper copies of items such as serious injuries and fatalities. • Don’t email scanned documents to home offices, it locks up the computer. • Attach monthly performance charts to all emails instead of directing users to a network site. • Stop the paper avalanche and new initiatives. • Stop using (so many) acronyms. • Stop forgetting about GreaterMN when communicating. • Stop restricting communication of case files to other investigators and principals. • Stop threatening employees. • Quit opinion shopping as it relates to case files for purposes of sequestering a more politically favorable outcome. • Stop Friday email, unless more detail is provided. Continue: In general staff like getting information electronically such as staff meeting minutes, performance data, and Friday emails. Also paper copies of directives and manuals must still be available. • Keep doing what is presently being done. • Continue to send meeting minutes via email. • Continue OMT/DCT minutes; they are great. • Continue Friday emails and perhaps do a “week in review” and/or “next week in review”. • Continue sending all information that is presently being sent. • Keep allowing paper copies of directives and manuals. • Keep OMT minutes but add more detail and rearrange minutes by subject matter. • Continue legislative updates. • Continue to provide quarterly staff reports for the overall MNOSHA division and for individual performance. • Keep sending out division performance data. • Continue to acting as a resource for field investigators. • Continue developing OTI training locally. • Keep providing IH support from metro. Do differently: In general staff would like information shared and issues resolved quicker, for the DCT to provide an overview and details of changes, and better definition of the “g drive” layout. • Decisions need to be made quicker about questions/issues raised by staff. • Need more emails to staff from their supervisors regarding OMT decisions and other important topics. • In email announcements to staff about directive changes, DCT should include a general list of the changes along with the actual directive. • DCT needs to know more quickly about new programs or other important changes that require a lot of implementation tasks. • When assignments are made, make sure people who have been assigned are aware of the assignment before a general announcement is made. • Identify where the staff and team minutes are located on the “g drive”. Define what teams are active.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 71 December 2006

(CLOSED FFY06)
A ll O S H A C o m p lia n c e M a n a g e r s e x c e p t P a t ric ia T o d d
N um ber of responses: 62

Appendix G

Im pr ov em en t

=

1

2

4

3

Ex ce lle nt

Sa ti sf ac t

Q u alit y 1. C o m m u n ic a te s a n d liste n s w e ll, u n d e r sta n d s, an d is c le ar w h e n sp e ak in g t o m e . 2 . I n vo lve s o u r te am in p la n n in g an d p r o b le m -so lvin g w h e n it is a p p r o p r iate . 3 . I s a vaila b le w h e n I n e e d t o d isc u ss t h in g s . 4 . "P itc h e s in " w h e n I am o ve r lo a d e d an d u n d e r sta n d s w h a t to d o ; isn 't af r a id to d o th e "d ir ty w o r k " if n e c e ssa r y . 5 . P la n s w e ll so a s n o t t o m ak e u n n e c e ssa r y w o r k fo r e ve r y o n e . 6 . N o t ic e s w h e n I d o a g o o d jo b o r g o th e "e x t r a m ile " a n d e x p r e sse s a p pr e c iat io n . 7 . M o t ivate s m e t o d o m y ve r y b e st w o r k . 8 . T e lls m e ab o u t im p r o ve m e n ts I c an m ak e w ith o u t "p u t tin g m e d o w n ." 9 . S h o w s r e sp e c t fo r m y id e as ab o u t w a y s to m a k e th in g s w o r k sm o o th e r ; u se s t h e m o r e x p lain s w h y th e y c an 't b e u se d . 10 . S h a r e s im p o r ta n t in f o r m at io n f r o m "u p sta ir s" so w e k n o w w h a t's g o in g o n o r w h at's g o in g to h ap p e n . 11. A c t s in a p o sitive w ay ; c a r e s ab o u t m o r ale a n d tr ie s to k e e p it h ig h ; e x p r e s se s e m o tio n s ap p r o p r ia te to situ a tio n . 12 . A c k n o w le d g e s w h e n c o n f lic ts ar ise an d w o r k s t o so lve th e m w ith o u t p la c in g b lam e . 13 . T r e ats all te am m e m b e r s f air ly ; a vo id s h avin g "p e ts;" t r e at s e ve r y o n e w ith e q u al r e sp e c t. 14 . E n c o u r ag e s m e to t ak e in itiative in p la n n in g m y w o r k . 15 . H e lp s an d su p p o r ts m y le ar n in g n e w th in g s to im p r o ve m y sk ills b y at te n d in g t r a in in g o r w o r k in g in n e w ar e as o n th e jo b . 16 . E stab lish e s p o lic ie s w it h in p u t f r o m o th e r s; is c o n siste n t in a p p ly in g p o lic ie s t o a ll st af f . 17 . E n c o u r ag e s m e to a ssu m e 10 0 p e r c e n t r e sp o n sib ilit y f o r e x c e lle n c e in m y w o r k ; d o e sn 't "sn o o p e r vise " to m a k e su r e I 'm d o in g m y jo b . 18 . A d m it s m ist ak e s an d a p o lo g iz e s w h e n ap p r o p r ia te . 19 . A c t s m o r e lik e a g o o d te am le ad e r th an a h o tsh o t, h e avy h an d e d b o ss; is r e sp e c te d b y te a m m e m b e r s. 2 0 . G ive s m e f e e d b a c k o n m y p e r f o r m an c e o n a r e g u la r b a sis so I d o n 't f e e l su r p r ise d in a f o r m al r e vie w .

Ve ry

N

25 23 28 26 20 28 24 23 29 19 32 24 27 28 27 22 34 27 36 21

28 27 22 19 28 23 23 23 23 27 19 21 19 26 23 23 19 18 18 23

5 9 7 12 7 5 11 12 8 13 8 10 10 7 10 12 7 12 6 11

3 2 3 2 5 6 3 3 2 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 2 4 2 6

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I n e a c h c e ll: T h e n u m b e r o f re s p o n s e s to th is q u e s tion at t h is s c o r e .

O V E R A L L A V E R A G E : 3 .1 7

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 72 December 2006

U

ns at is fa ct o

Go od

or y

=

=

ee ds

ry

=

=

0

Manager: Patricia Todd
Number of responses: 61
0

Quality 1. Communicates and listens well, understands, and is clear when speaking to me. 2. Involves our team in planning and problem-solving when it is appropriate. 3. Is available when I need to discuss things. 4. "Pitches in" when I am overloaded and understands what to do; isn't afraid to do the "dirty work" if necessary. 5. Plans well so as not to make unnecessary work for everyone. 6. Notices when I do a good job or go the "extra mile" and expresses appreciation. 7. Motivates me to do my very best work. 8. Tells me about improvements I can make without "putting me down." 9. Shows respect for my ideas about ways to make things work smoother; uses them or explains why they can't be used. 10. Shares important information from "upstairs" so we know what's going on or what's going to happen. 11. Acts in a positive way; cares about morale and tries to keep it high; expresses emotions appropriate to situation. 12. Acknowledges when conflicts arise and works to solve them without placing blame. 13. Treats all team members fairly; avoids having "pets;" treats everyone with equal respect. 14. Encourages me to take initiative in planning my work. 15. Helps and supports my learning new things to improve my skills by attending training or working in new areas on the job. 16. Establishes policies with input from others; is consistent in applying policies to all staff. 17. Encourages me to assume 100 percent responsibility for excellence in my work; doesn't "snoopervise" to make sure I'm doing my job. 18. Admits mistakes and apologizes when appropriate. 19. Acts more like a good team leader than a hotshot, heavyhanded boss; is respected by team members. 20. Gives me feedback on my performance on a regular basis so I don't feel surprised in a formal review.

8 5 9 5 6 11 4 5 3 6 8

19 12 19 9 12 12 17 16 17 17 11

13 15 24 24 20 16 16 15 19 16 13

6 8 4 9 7

13 15 16 22 12

17 16 24 16 14

12 6 4 5

20 15 16 13

16 14 15 17

OVERALL AVERAGE: 2.08
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 73 December 2006

= 2 N Im ee pr d s ov em en U t ns = 1 at is fa ct or y =

4

3

=

Go od

lle

ce

Ve ry

Ex

Sa

ti

sf

ac t

nt

or

=

y

11 19 4 7 17 9 15 12 11 15 19

7 6 1 8 4 7 5 6 5 3 8
In each cell: The number of responses to this question at this score.

14 16 6 4 14

5 5 3 8 10

5 13 11 11

6 6 11 6

Summary Scores
Ex ce p t To d d 3 4 2 5 6 7 M

1

an ag er

an ag er

ll M gr s

an ag er

an ag er

an ag er

Response Rate Average score High score Low score

A

79% 3.17 3.42 2.97

M

100% 3.56 3.71 3.43

M

50% 3.48 4.00 2.67

M

91% 3.38 3.81 3.00

M

70% 3.37 3.86 2.86

M

100% 2.89 3.11 2.22

M

88% 2.72 3.14 2.29

an ag er

78% 2.08 2.54 1.84

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 74 December 2006

an ag er

APPENDIX G

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Division
Report on the Analysis of General Duty Citations from April 2002 Through April 2005
Summary
General Duty Clause The general duty clause is used by OSHA to ensure the protection of workers from serious and recognized workplace hazards. The general duty clause can only be issued when there is an absence of an OSHA standard that applies to the hazard, which can result in a vast range of apparent hazards cited. A project was conducted to examine the general duty clause citations issued from April 2002 through April 2005 to assess citation trends. About 318 citations were collected and entered into a database for the analysis of repeating conditions for citations. General Duty Clause Citation Results Among the 318 general duty citations reviewed, over 60 distinct hazards were identified. The following apparent hazards were found to contribute to the majority of the citations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Fall hazards—Aerial lifts Fall hazards—Forklifts Equipment—Protection from Hazards Equipment—Maintenance Equipment—Seatbelts PVC—Compressed Air Transmission Biological hazards

Recommendations In response to the analysis of the general duty clause citations, it is recommended that the corresponding Minnesota Rules be modified to clarify the following hazards due to the prevalence of the citations: 1. Fall hazards from aerial lifts due to employees not wearing personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) on self-propelled, extensible boom aerial lifts. − Add a subpart to MN Rule 5205.0750 (Motorized Self-Propelled Vehicles) to include fall hazard citations related to non-vehicle mounted aerial lifts (e.g. JLG, Genie, etc.) Fall hazards with forklifts as a result of employees not wearing PFAS or employees working on platforms without appropriate guardrail systems. − A subpart to MN Rule 5205.0760 (Powered Industrial Truck Operations) could be added requiring the use of fall protection and guardrail systems with personnel baskets. Equipment hazards due to inadequate protective measures such as pipe threaders without a positive pressure “deadman” switch. − MN Rule 5205.0870 (Foot Actuated Machines) could have a subpart included to require “deadman” switches on all pipe threading machines. Equipment hazards as the result of improper or inadequate maintenance. − Add a subpart to MN Rule 5205.0660 (Maintenance Goals) to incorporate the requirement of proper maintenance for all tools and equipment. Equipment hazards of forklifts with a rollover protection structure (ROPS) not being equipped with seatbelts. − A subpart to MN Rule 5205.0760 (Powered Industrial Truck Operations) could be added to require the presence and use of seatbelts in all forklifts installed with a rollover protective structure. PVC pipe hazards associated with the transport of compressed air. − The MN Rule 5205.0710 (Alteration of Tools and Equipment) could possibly be used to cite the hazard or MN Rule 5205.0711 could be added to clarify the use of PVC piping with compressed air.
Page 75 December 2006

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

APPENDIX G

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Division
Report on the Analysis of Fatalities and Serious Injuries in Minnesota from January 2000 through June 2005

Summary Fatalities and Serious Injuries In the state of Minnesota, all fatalities and catastrophes that occur due to a work-related incident are investigated by MNOSHA. Many serious injuries are investigated as well. A project was conducted to examine the fatalities and serious injuries investigated from January 2000 through June 2005 to assess trends relating to the nature of the accident, type of industry involved, and types of OSHA violations that were contributory to the incident. Fatality and Serious Injury Results From January 2000 through June 2005, 139 fatalities, 1 catastrophe, and 188 serious injuries were investigated by MNOSHA. The following information on the major distribution of fatalities and serious injuries was observed: • 1. 2. 3. 4. Fatalities Crushed By = 34% Fall = 28% Struck By = 14% Other = 23%

• Serious Injuries 1. Crushed By = 27% 2. Amputation = 26% 3. Fall = 16% 4. Electrical Contact = 7% 5. Other = 24% Recommendations In response to the analysis of the fatalities and serious injuries investigated, it is recommended that informative letters be sent to the following industries due to the prevalence of fatal and serious accidents that occurred: • Highway and Street Construction, Except Elevated Highways (SIC 1611) and Local Trucking Without Storage (SIC 4212). Information on the hazards of workers being crushed by moving vehicles and/or from falling loads and methods to prevent such accidents should be provided to these industries. Metal Stampings (SIC 3469). The hazard of workers contacting moving machine parts on mechanical power presses and methods to ensure the safe use of such equipment should be addressed for this industry. Electrical Work (SIC 1731). This industry should be notified of the hazards of electrical work and of methods to prevent electrical injuries and electrocutions. Roofing, Siding and Sheet Metal Work (SIC 1761), General Contractors- Nonresidential Buildings, Other than Industrial Buildings and Warehouses (SIC 1542), and Concrete Work (SIC 1771). Information on the hazard of workers not using proper fall protection while working from roofs and scaffolding should be provided to these industries. Water, Sewer, Pipeline, and Communications and Power Line Construction (SIC 1623). Notification of the hazard of trench cave-ins and guidelines on safe work practices for constructing and working in trenches should be addressed for this industry.
Page 76 December 2006

• • •

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

APPENDIX G

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Division
Report on the Analysis of OSHA-31 Data from January 2003 through June 2005

Summary
OSHA-31 Data The OSHA-31 (S) Weekly Program Activity Report form is used to assess the allocation of time spent on program activities by MNOSHA staff. Time spent for inspection activities and program support is broken down into the following categories: • Compliance Activity for Safety and Health Inspections − Involves time allocated to case prep, travel, on-site activities, report prep, other conferences, litigation, and denial cases for inspections. • Program Support and Compliance Assistance − Includes time spent on outreach activity, nonformal complaints, training, professional duties, and program support/admin. This project was conducted to examine the OSHA-31 data for MNOSHA from January 2003 through June 2005. The collected data was analyzed for trends and inconsistencies in time reporting for inspection activities and program support for MNOSHA investigators and was compared to federal OSHA statistics. OSHA-31 Data Results The following information regarding the allocation of time spent by OSHIs was found: • Inspections = 40.9% − Case Prep = 6.4% − Travel = 10.6% − On-Site Activities = 21.7% − Tech Support = 2.4% − Report Prep = 45.9% − Other Conference = 5.1% − Litigation = 7.7% − Denial = 0.0% • Outreach = 3.4% • Phone = 2.4% • Training = 6.1% • Professional Duties = 11.1% • Support and Administration = 12.3% • Leave-Unavailable Hours = 15.2% Comparisons were made between the different units within MNOSHA (i.e. Construction, Health, Metro Safety, and Greater Minnesota). It was found that units were similar in the reporting of time for inspection and program support activities. In addition, MNOSHA data was compared to Federal OSHA data and both State and Federal plans yielded a similar allocation of time. OSHA-31 Data Analysis The following main issues were observed in the analysis of the OSHA-31 data: • A large number of OSHIs who had completed their trainee status did not have their trainee title changed in the IMIS system. • OSHIs were logging time for inspections and using their OSHI identification number under inspections that were being conducted while in training. • An OSHI did not follow the MNOSHA ADM 1.1-1 (Appendix A) as data from the OSHA-31 forms was not being reported to the nearest 0.5 (half) hour, but rather to the nearest 0.1 hour. Conclusions Analysis led to the following recommendations: • Add instructions to the MNOSHA ADM 1.1-1 directive on how to properly log inspection hours while under trainee status. • Develop a process to ensure OSHIs are removed from trainee status in IMIS once their training has been completed in order to provide accurate OSHA-31 data and inspection reports from the IMIS system.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 77 December 2006

APPENDIX G

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Report on the Experience Modifier Rate for Possible Incorporation with OSHA Scheduling Practices

Summary
The EMR The experience modifier rate (EMR) is a rating factor used by insurance companies to determine the insurance premium of a company for workers’ compensation coverage. The EMR compares the claim profile of the employer to a projected claim profile for employers of similar size in the same industry. In Minnesota, the projected claim profile is determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). The EMR is calculated as follows: 1. Claim statistics from three complete years of experience are used. 2. Claim Statistics include all medical-only and indemnity/loss time claims incurred in the three years for a company. 3. The claim statistics are then compared to the amount of claims projected for the companies within that specified industry. 4. EMR = (Actual Claims / Expected Claims) If EMR = 1.00, the company is considered to have an average rating. If EMR > 1.00, the company has incurred an increased amount of claims in comparison to the industry standard. If EMR < 1.00, the company has a decreased amount of claims. NOTE: In the insurance industry, an EMR ≥ 1.2 is generally considered an indicator of deficient safety and health performance. Previous OSHA use of EMRs A study was conducted by California OSHA prior to 2002. Companies with an EMR of 1.25 or greater were identified for enforcement inspections and consultation assistance. • For enforcement purposes, the study indicated that regardless of the EMR value, there was a lack of correlation between the EMR and the number of OSHA violations issued at a site. • For consultation purposes, companies under the High Hazard Consultation Program with EMRs exceeding 1.25 were targeted for assistance. It was determined that assistance intervention for targeted companies provided an average decrease of 25% in EMR. Options 1. Incorporate EMR into the MNOSHA scheduling plan as an additional factor to aid in the selection of companies under target industry lists. Companies with an EMR of 1.25 or higher would receive greater priority in the inspection process. 2. Remain with the current scheduling plan. 3. Provide this report to the MNOSHA Workplace Consultation Unit. Companies with EMRs exceeding 1.25 could be used for consultation marketing purposes. Recommendations The results of the report indicate that the EMR should not be used in the scheduling plan for inspections with MNOSHA for the following reasons: • The EMR has several limitations including bias towards larger companies/larger payroll and it is not an indicator of current safety performance at a company. • The EMR is not a useful predictor of workers’ compensation losses that are the result of direct violations of MNOSHA regulations and standards. • Obtaining the EMR would be difficult as not all companies have an EMR with their insurance and it would cost money to get EMRs for interstate companies. • The EMR is similar to the indemnity claim rate, which is already being used under the Employment and Economic Development Data Planning Guide (ES).

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 78 December 2006

APPENDIX G

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Division
Report on the Isocyanate Initiative for Spray-on Truck Bed Liner Investigations from April 2004 Through June 2005

Executive Summary
Introduction The urethane spray-on truck bed liner industry has been growing rapidly and it is estimated that over 2,000 businesses are in operation in the United States. Increasing knowledge of health hazards and even a fatality in Michigan related to spraying truck bed liners has initiated concern among occupational safety and health agencies. The major hazard associated with the bed liners is the exposure to isocyanates, generally MDI, during the application process. The spray gun used for application aerosolizes the product which introduces MDI into the ambient air. In order to prevent exposures to this airborne MDI, such measures as proper engineering controls (i.e. enclosures and ventilation), and respiratory protection must be employed. MNOSHA Isocyanate Initiative As a result of the hazards associated with MDI for spray-on truck bed liners, the MNOSHA Health Unit implemented an initiative to inspect companies involved in the application of urethane truck bed liners. Sampling was conducted for MDI during the liner application process. Other aspects relating to the health of employees were also investigated such as respiratory protection programs, engineering controls, and Employee Right-To-Know programs. Isocyanate Initiative Results From April 2004 through June 2005, 32 bed liner companies were inspected and resulted in 27 companies where sampling was able to be conducted. Sampling results obtained reveal that 67% (18 of the 27 companies sampled) of the businesses had overexposures to MDI. Overexposures averaged approximately 7 times in excess of the established limits and ranged from 1.2 to 26.5 times the PEL. Inspections with significant results included the following situations: • A company had exposures to MDI 26.5 times the PEL − Exposure was compounded by inadequate respiratory protection. • Another business was exposing an assistant in addition to the truck bed liner sprayer. − Assistant for the process was exposed to 12.5 times the MDI PEL. Overexposure was caused by the assistant being positioned near the exhaust fan. • A company had levels of MDI exceeding the PEL by 1.2 times at the air intake for the supplied air respirator. − Supplied air system was located outside of a tarp enclosed area, but still inside the room where spraying was conducted. Inspections also indicated significant violations at the companies and the following citations were commonly issued: • Respiratory protection 1910.134(a)(2) = 26 citations • Engineering controls 1910.1000(e) = 17 citations • Overexposure to MDI 1910.1000 (a)(3) = 17 citations • Right-To-Know (RTK) Written Program 5206.0700 (1)(B) = 12 • RTK Training 5206.0700 (1&2) = 6 citations • RTK Training Records 5206.0700(1)(D) = 4 citations • RTK Training Frequency 5206.0700(1)(G) = 2 citations • Other (2 for compressed air for cleaning, 6 electrical hazards, 2 use of portable electrical equipment)= 10 citations TOTAL CITATIONS = 94 Conclusions and Recommendations In response to the high incidence of overexposure with the spray-on truck bed liner industry identified by MNOSHA, it is recommended that information be conveyed to employers regarding the health hazards associated with exposure to MDI in the bed liner product. The following information for employers should be included as a means to possibly prevent further exposure with bed liner companies: • Engineering Controls—Ventilation systems to capture, dilute, and direct the spray aerosol can be an important factor in reducing exposures to MDI for workers. • Administrative/Work Practice Controls—Keep sprayers and assistants involved in the application of the bed liner process away from the spray by having employees spray the material while standing along the side of the truck bed and keeping employees away from the flow of contaminated air. Reduction in exposure can also be achieved by using a process for spraying that uses lower temperatures, decreased pressures, and uses materials with lower concentrations of MDI. • Personal Protective Equipment—Ensure that proper practices are followed regarding the use of respirators such as storage, maintenance, fit testing, positioning of clean air intake for SAR, and medical evaluations. Also, ensure that proper precautions are taken to protect against skin contact with MDI by using coveralls, chemical suits, gloves, face protection, head and neck coverage, all need to be used to cover all exposed areas of skin on workers applying the bed liner. • Right-To-Know Training—Information on the potential hazards associated with MDI (occupational asthma, skin dermatitis, sensitization, etc.) needs to be supplied to employees. Information could be supplied to employers through means of outreach presentations, letters, and/or articles to increase awareness on the hazards of sprayon truck bed liners and on measures to take for reducing exposures to MDI.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 79 December 2006

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 80 December 2006

APPENDIX G

Minnesota OSHA and University of Minnesota Shadow Assignments Report
Prepared by Alden Hoffman, Clayton Handt July 28, 2005

I. Abstract During the Winter 2005 school semester, twelve students from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health PUBH 5172, Industrial Hygiene Applications course accompanied Minnesota OSHA (MNOSHA) industrial hygienists and industrial hygiene engineers on compliance inspections. The purpose of this exercise was to provide students with an opportunity to learn more about OSHA’s activities and to experience, first-hand, an inspector’s work. It also presented MNOSHA a unique opportunity to showcase a portion of its enforcement program. Each student accompanied an inspector once during the semester to observe an inspection and interactions with business owners and employees. Students prepared a short paper on their experience which was included with their overall grade for the course. At the conclusion, each group was asked a short survey on their reaction to the experience. Based on their responses, this was a positive experience for all the students and for most of the inspectors. II. Course Background The goal of the PUBH 5172, Industrial Hygiene Applications course is to develop a better understanding of the “practice” of industrial hygiene, applying the principles of recognition, evaluation and control. This course is taught every other year and is a requirement for completion of the industrial hygiene masters program. The students are pursuing a masters degree in the industrial hygiene program, which is housed in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Sciences. Some of the students are completing their degrees while others are in their first year of the two-year program. III. History of Project This project began with a discussions between Associate Professor Lisa Brosseau, and OMT Director Alden Hoffman at the October 13, 2004 Occupational Medicine Advisory Board meeting at Regions Hospital. Associate Professor Brosseau and Mr. Hoffman are both members of this advisory board. Mr. Hoffman received a followup email on October 15, 2004 which began to describe the proposal. Once approval was granted, planning was undertaken to develop an introductory letter for students’ use and for Mr. Hoffman to visit the class near the start of the semester to inform the students about MNOSHA in general and the expectations of this project. On January 26, 2005 Mr. Hoffman was the featured speaker at Professor Brosseau’s class. Students were informed of MNOSHA’s scheduling procedures, inspection priorities, rights of inspectors, owners, employees. The confidentiality of
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 81 December 2006

the visits was stressed by both Mr. Hoffman and Professor Brosseau. Student names and contact information was obtained at this time and later matched with MNOSHA staff. The inspectors were asked to contact the students within the first two weeks of February for eventual field work in March and April. This would allow the students time to prepare their project papers before the end of the semester in early May. IV. Field Visits Thirteen inspectors were involved in this project. Newly hired inspectors were not included in this project. One was unable to schedule a mutually available time. One other inspector traveled twice with a student and found both establishments out of business. A third inspector and student found no activity at the worksite. Of the remaining ten inspections, nine were routine Programmed inspections, the other being an employee complaint inspection. There was no attempt made to control the worksites scheduled. Each inspector followed their normal process of selection. There was limited sampling conducted on the ten visits and students were only able to observe air sampling at three sites. The size of the facilities ranged from 20-400 employees, with an average of about 120 employees. See Appendix A for more details on the types of industries inspected. Although an introductory letter had been prepared, none were needed as all employers expressed no hesitation in allowing the student to accompany the inspector. V. Surveys At the conclusion of the field visit and prior to the end of the course, each group was asked a short survey on their reaction to the experience. As this was the first project of its type, many of the questions dealt with the logistics of getting the two groups together. Students enjoyed the experience and would like to see it continue for the next class. For the inspectors, all but two had little difficulty scheduling an inspection with the student and expressed the need for students to be more flexible. Other responses included limiting the number of students to one commenter suggesting this not be done again. VI. Discussion This was a unique method to showcase the MNOSHA program to future health and safety professionals. It also has potential for recruitment although many students in this year’s class already had employment arrangements prior the close of the semester. One student was later hired as a permanent inspector within two months of the conclusion of the class. All of the students and most of the inspectors thought the experience was worthwhile. MNOSHA investigators are frequently asked to include other individuals during their inspections, from recently hired inspectors, to visiting occupational medicine physicians three months per year, to occasional department Cabinet members. Both sides thought that better site selection was needed. Larger facilities with more to see were desired by the students, while investigators selected more moderately sized facilities to counter the extra time being taken because they were not on their own. Expectations were different among the two groups. Where MNOSHA generally feels it is more advantageous to see air sampling “in action” (generally a 6-8 hour experience), students were more pressed for time and preferred a shorter stay. The OSHIs were asked to contact the students within the first two weeks of February for eventual field work in March and April. Neither group had significant issues in contacting each other to arrange convenient dates, although one pair was unable to arrange a convenient date. Moving field assignments earlier to February would coincide with the current schedule for visiting Occupational Medicine physicians from Regions Hospital, which currently involves 3-5 health inspectors.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 82 December 2006

Recognition should be made to the twelve employers who allowed the students into their facilities without hesitation. VII. Recommendations As this class is offered every other year, MNOSHA should consider repeating this in 2007. Even with the time allotted, scheduling visits still proved challenging. Once class enrollment is set, it would be possible to begin the process earlier in the semester to allow both groups nearly ten weeks to complete the visits. Improvements are needed in explaining the field experience such as on days of air sampling, inspectors will be spending the entire day there and that students are free to leave as needed. There was no assigned inspections for this project. Employers too small will not provide much to witness while very large employers may take too long to inspect and the student is unlikely to be present for the entire visit. A size range of approximately 35-75 employees may be optimum for this project. It was fortunate that the number of experienced inspectors and the number of students was an exact match this semester. This is not expected in the future and changes may be necessary. These might include limiting the students to just those who are in their final year, or including MNOSHA’s Greater MN industrial hygienist, or including MNOSHA’s Consultation industrial hygienists. It is not recommended that two students accompany one inspector to a given worksite.

The following Appendices to this report have not been included, but will be furnished upon request. Appendix A - Demographics of Employers Inspected Appendix B - Student Survey Feedback Appendix C - Inspector Survey Feedback

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 83 December 2006

APPENDIX G

Comparing Workers’ Compensation Claims and OSHA Data Initiative Cases
September 2005 Eleni Messiou and Brian Zaidman

Executive Summary
The performance of the Minnesota OSHA (MNOSHA) compliance inspection program depends on targeting establishments that will most benefit from inspections. MNOSHA uses the information collected by the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) as its primary source to identify establishments for compliance inspections. This information is supplemented by a list produced from the state’s workers’ compensation indemnity claims (WC claims) database. The completeness of injury and illness reporting in the ODI has been a perennial question and this project compared the data available from the two data sources to help MNOSHA management make decisions regarding whether to continue using both sources and how to improve inspection targeting. Employers’ ODI responses for calendar 2003 injuries and illnesses were compared with their workers’ compensation claims. The following are the report’s major findings: • Of the 1,701 employers in the ODI, only 44 percent matched to an employer with 2003 WC claims. Among the employers not matching to WC claims, 42 percent had no cases with days away from work and 14 percent had DAFW cases with an average of two or fewer days away from work and hence were less likely to have WC claims. Only 25 percent of employers were unmatched or did not have obvious reasons for not matching. Many of the match failures among employers with DAFW cases were found to be due either to misidentification or to differences in reporting deadlines in the OSHA and workers’ compensation programs.

Even for many of the employers with records in both systems, the number of cases was often very different. An in-depth analysis of three samples of employers was carried out to identify the reasons for discrepancies in the number of cases. For these employers, the full OSHA log (Form 300) was sent to the department to enable comparisons of individual injury and illness cases. • For employers found to have more WC claims than the number of ODI cases with days away from work (DAFW cases), the main reasons for the discrepancy were found to be: 1) the OSHA log was not amended when a case’s status changed; 2) disputed WC cases were omitted or misreported in the log; 3) log reporting was incorrect; or 4) the WC database was not establishment-specific.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 84 December 2006

For employers found to have fewer WC claims than DAFW cases, the main reasons for discrepancy were found to be: 1) log entries did not meet the indemnity threshold to appear in the WC claims database; and 2) mismatches from differences in identifying employers and cases in the two databases.

Most employers initially found to have an equal number of WC claims and DAFW cases were confirmed to have accounted properly in both programs. None of the employers participating in the detailed analysis were found to have intentionally falsified their OSHA log. Most discrepancies between the OSHA logs and the WC claims were a result of technical differences between the two programs or common OSHA recordkeeping errors. • The WC claims and ODI databases contain similar information. For individual work establishments, however, there are often enough differences between the data sources that both sources are needed to develop a complete picture of the workplace safety and health conditions. The analysis supports the current MNOSHA practice of using both databases for targeting establishments for compliance inspections.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 85 December 2006

APPENDIX G

Workers’ compensation safety incentives
Christian Rummelhoff and David Berry Research & Statistics Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry October 3, 2005

Executive summary
This paper describes safety incentives in Minnesota’s workers’ compensation insurance system and offers suggestions for expanding the incentives available in the Assigned Risk Plan (ARP). The ARP is the state-run insurer of last-resort for employers unable to obtain insurance from private insurers in the “voluntary market.” Employers may be in the ARP because they are small, have a poor loss history, are in a dangerous industry, or have been in business a short time and have only a limited loss history. The ARP accounts for 38 percent of all insured employers; since these employers tend to be relatively small, they account for only 5.9 percent of insured payroll and 7.7 percent of insured indemnity claims.2 Current incentives include the following: Experience rating. Employers in the voluntary market and the ARP are subject to experience rating if their annual premium is at least $3,000 (about 44 percent in the voluntary market and 11 percent in the ARP). The employer’s premium is adjusted according to its own recent losses relative to the average for similar employers. Since prior losses are a weak predictor of future losses for small employers, the “experience modification factor” has only a slight sensitivity to actual losses for small employers but becomes more sensitive to losses for larger employers. Merit rating. Non-experience-rated employers in the ARP are subject to “merit rating.” Merit rating provides a 33-percent premium credit to employers with no wage-loss claims during the last three years, no adjustment if there has been one wageloss claim, and a 10-percent debit for two or more claims. The legislature enacted merit rating to provide premium relief to employers that had superior safety records but were unable to benefit from experience rating. Deductible plans. Deductible plans reduce premium if the employer accepts responsibility for losses up to a limit. Deductibles are popular in the voluntary market but seldom used in the ARP. Schedule rating. Schedule rating, available only in the voluntary market, provides a premium credit or debit on the basis of employer characteristics—such as safety equipment or training—that are not reflected in the employer’s experience modification factor. Retrospective rating. Also limited to the voluntary market, retrospective rating adjusts premium to reflect losses for claims that arose during the policy period, usually with a cap on final premium. This option is used primarily by large employers. Dividend plans. Dividend plans, available only in the voluntary market, return a portion of premium to the insured after policy expiration, on the basis of actual loss experience. Safety inspection credit. The ARP conducts 800-1,000 safety inspections annually of members with poor safety records or in high-risk industries. Inspected employers receive a one-year, one-percent credit or debit, respectively, for each

2 Indemnity claims are claims in which cash benefits are paid to the injured worker or survivors to compensate for wage loss, permanent impairment, or death. About 20 percent of all paid claims are indemnity claims; the remainder have only medical costs.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 86 December 2006

recommendation they implement or fail to implement. Voluntary-market insurers may award a three-percent credit to employers requesting safety consultations (separate from schedule rating), but this is seldom used. Pricing programs in Minnesota’s voluntary market generally follow nationwide conventions; therefore, it seems unrealistic to contemplate changes there. Since the ARP is run by the Department of Commerce (through third-party administrators), it presents an opportunity for considering enhancements to pricing programs to increase safety incentives. The preponderance of smaller employers in the ARP presents a special challenge in adjusting premium to reflect risk, since past losses are a weak predictor of future losses for those employers. The following possible changes in ARP pricing seem worthy of consideration: Incorporate more years of experience into the experience-rating formula. A longer experience period would be less subject to random fluctuation than the current three-year period, and would thus be a better reflection of the employer’s underlying level of risk. This would allow the formula to be made more sensitive to loss history for all employers, and would allow more small employers to be experience-rated. Introduce schedule rating. This could provide an additional basis for recognizing superior safety practices for small employers, whose actual loss histories are unreliable indicators of underlying risk. It could also provide immediate rewards for safety improvements for larger employers until these are realized in reduced losses. Modify merit rating. The 33-percent credit for employers without wage-loss claims during the past three years is a statutory provision not based on actuarial analysis. While it provides a strong safety incentive for small employers, it takes away much of the pricing variation that would otherwise be available for distinguishing among different loss records for other employers. Further, many employers receiving the 33-percent credit are being rewarded for good luck rather than for a truly low level of risk. Introduce a modified form of retrospective rating. In the current retrospective-rating formula (voluntary market only), actual losses have greater than dollar-for-dollar effect on final premium3 (although there are minimum and maximum premium factors). The formula could be modified for use in the ARP by making final premium less sensitive to actual losses and reducing the total-premium cap for small employers. With appropriate modifications of this type, retrospective rating could be made mandatory in the ARP. These are merely items to consider, not actual recommendations. Development of actual proposals would require careful study by the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Labor and Industry, and the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Insurers Association (the state’s workers’ compensation rating bureau and data service organization). A modification of the 33-percent merit-rating credit would require a statutory change. Other changes could be accomplished by rule. Any proposal for change should be evaluated according to how well it achieves the goal of pricing insurance according to the actual risk presented by the insured.

3 This is because loss-adjustment expenses increase with actual losses.
FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 87 December 2006

Executive Summary
Trends on Minnesota OSHA Industrial Hygiene Samplings – 2003-2005
The industrial hygiene sampling database was created in order to analyze the data from industrial hygiene reports from the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005. The database information came from industrial hygiene reports that are completed by OSHA investigators that work in OSHA’s health unit. The purpose of the database was to be able to: • Identify and classify contaminants • Categorize exposure levels • Recognize trends The database contains information that: • Classifies the Company • Identifies the Contaminant • Identifies Citations Received • Provides Additional Comments

Industrial Hygiene Sampling Database Analysis
After completing an analysis of the sampling database, the following results were found: • There were seven different types of inspection done, the most common type was target inspections. • Target inspections were conducted 296 times with 125 (42%) overexposures identified as a result of the inspection. • Inspections conducted as a result of a complaint resulted in 30 overexposures. • Referral inspections were conducted 36 times, 23 of those referrals came from OSHA safety investigators and resulted in three overexposures. • OSHA investigators used five different sampling methods, the most common used by far was the direct reading. • Hexavalent chromium samples taken from the database resulted in PEL’s below the current limit and also below the limit under the new standards regulations. • There were 10 different contaminants, sampled numerous times, that consistently yielded results below the PEL. • Companies that employ less than 25 employees were the most likely to have exposures to contaminants over the PEL.

Conclusions
The sampling database can be an effective tool to evaluate what contaminants are being sampled and what the level of exposure was. With that information correlation can be made between certain industries being more at risk for overexposures, certain populations being more effected, and if scheduling of certain industries is accurate.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 88 December 2006

Executive Summary
Summary of Contested Cases July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006
This report presents the results of a review of OSHA inspection files that were contested between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. The purpose of the review was to examine trends in the reasons cases were contested, determine if contestation rates were different for the different OSHA work units, and determine if certain industries were more likely to contest than others. An existing database of contested cases was updated for this study. The database contains the information that allows: º The industry to be classified º Relevant dates of the cases º What was contested º Case and Final Order Information

Contested Cases Analysis
After completing an analysis of the database, the following results were found: º There were 21 industries that contested 5 or more times within the July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 time period. º The vast majority of companies contested the violation itself (91%) and the abatement period (91%). In all contested cases, the employer contested the penalty, indicating their perception that the penalties were excessive. There were no distinguishing reasons that employers contested the OSHA citation. º A total of 2,557 inspections were conducted by the health and safety investigators resulting in 1,540 citations issued by safety investigators with 299 contested cases (19.4%) and 301 citations issued by health investigators resulting in 58 contested cases (19.3%). º Contestation rates for construction inspections were slightly less overall than for general industry, although somewhat higher for the few health inspections included in this review. º In construction industries, safety investigators conducted 1,069 inspections resulting in 765 citations issued with 143 (18.7%) of the cases contested. Health investigators conducted 40 inspections resulting in 20 citations issued and 5 cases contested (25%). º A contestation rate of 19% was observed for all units within Minnesota OSHA during the given time frame. While a program such as the Expedited Informal Settlement Agreement (EISA) was adopted, in part, to reduce the contestation rate, a more recent program (7525) requires an employer to contest the citation in order to participate. This report did not review the impact of the EISA program. This report did not review the impact of the EISA program. Introduction of the 7525 program did not noticeably affect the contestation rate.

FFY2006 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 89 December 2006