FFY 2005

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

MNOSHA

December 2005

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2005
Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and - Minnesota Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC) Table of Contents Page Introduction................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Annual Performance Plan Results – FFY2005 ....................................... 4 Strategic Goal #1 Compliance................................................................................................. 4 Consultation................................................................................................ 7 Strategic Goal #2 Compliance............................................................................................... 14 Consultation.............................................................................................. 18 Strategic Goal #3 Compliance............................................................................................... 29 Consultation.............................................................................................. 32 Special Accomplishments Compliance.................................................................................................... 36 Consultation................................................................................................... 37 Mandated Activities .................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A – Memo: Agency Response to Construction Leadership Meeting ......... 48 Appendix B – FFY05 MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Statistics ...................... 49 Appendix C – MNOSHA Compliance Outreach Presentations .................................. 50 Appendix D – Compliance Assistance Plan ............................................................... 51 Appendix E – Compliance Workskill Assessment Chart ............................................ 53 Appendix F – Workflow Analysis MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Workflow Chart and Procedures ....... 60 Appendix G – Other, Compliance 2004: Management Improvement Part 1 – Survey: Start/Stop/Continue Summary ........................................... 66 Part 2 – Management Survey Summary ....................................................... 69 2005: Evaluation Projects / Reports (Executive Summaries) General Duty Citation Review ....................................................................... 72 Fatality and Serious Injury Review ................................................................ 74 OSHA 31 Review .......................................................................................... 76 Experience Modifier Rate / OSHA Scheduling .............................................. 78 Isocyanate Initiative for Spray-on Truck Bed Liner Investigations................. 80 Shadow Assignments Report ........................................................................ 82 R&S: ODI vs. Work Comp Data for inspection priority ................................. 85 R&S: Safety Incentives................................................................................. 87
2

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2005
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 Goal 2: Promote a safety and health culture through compliance assistance, outreach, cooperative programs and strong leadership Goal 3: Strengthen and improve MNOSHA’s infrastructure MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC) Strategic Goals Goal 1: Reduce occupational hazards through direct interventions Goal 2: Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, intervention, outreach, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Goal 3: Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure.

The FFY2005 Performance Plan provided the framework for accomplishing the goals of the MNOSHA Strategic Plan by establishing specific performance goals for FFY2005. This Combined SOAR and CAPR presents a review of the strategies used and results achieved in FFY2005. 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. _____________________________________________________________________________________
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 3 December 2005

GOAL SUMMARIES - SOAR for FFY2005 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN RESULTS
With few exceptions, MNOSHA Compliance’s FFY2005 performance goals have been achieved. Each of the FFY2005 performance goals and the activities and strategies used to achieve those goals are described below. Comments/discussion relating to accomplishment of Goal sub-items follow 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 for cases involving days away from work1 Baseline 9/30/03 A) BLS data: CY1999- 2001 avg = 136,100 B) MN Work Comp data: indemnity claims rate, 19992001 avg = 1.61 CY 1999-2001 avg = 22 fatalities/year Target FFY 04 3% Results FFY 04 A) BLS 2002 actual = 120,500, an 11% decrease from baseline B) 2003 actual = 1.32, an 18% 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] See comments following chart [1.2] See comments following chart [1.3.] IMIS data FFY 2001-2003 avg = 3,989 hazards identified 2,082 establ. visited N/A 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 2) Pilot inspection emphasis N/A Printing and publishing Auto dealers and service stations Communications Hotels and lodging c. Ergo emphasis 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 N/A 4,813 hazards identified 2,662 establishments visited N/A 4,884 hazards identified 2,591 establishments visited N/A 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

1%

2%

5%

b.

Establishment 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

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

N/A 5.5% (120) of all programmed inspections conducted in FFY05

Develop approach

Ongoing support of WSC’s Ergo effort 257 average days to close 20% decrease in days-toclose average Maintain baseline

TBD See comments following chart [1.3] 209 average days to close See comments following chart [1.4] 83.9% 90% complete in 90 days N/A

4. Number and timeliness of discrimination inspections conducted

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

5. Percent of designated programmed inspections

10% decrease in days-toclose average Maintain baseline

84%

1

BLS data will change from LWDII rate for baseline to DART (Days Away or Restricted Transfer) rate for Target FFY 05-08.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 4 December 2005

GOAL 1 - Comments
Goal 1.1 Reduction in Injury and Illness Rates: FFY05 Target was a 6% reduction. MNOSHA Compliance continues to review new information and redefine scheduling approaches to reduce injury and illness rates. In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance conducted a complete review of its scheduling directive (MNOSHA Instruction ADM 2.1); and established new local emphasis programs for asthma, methylene chloride, and isocyanates. A five-year scheduling list is 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 DLI’s Workers Compensation Division. The next scheduling approach will be established by April 1, 2006. 7525 Program. In FFY04, MNOSHA Compliance established a 7525 Program, 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 MN 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, the 7525 Program has been offered to 113 employers, with the majority of those (75) offered during FFY 05. Because an employer must contest in order to enter the 7525 Program, the number of accepted employers (23) is much lower than those offered the program for FFY05. MNOSHA expects the number of employers accepted into this program to increase significantly in FFY06 as the settlement agreements to those employers offered the program are completed. Analysis of the affect of the 7525 Program on worker’s compensation rates will not be available until FFY06 when employers will begin to complete the program. Goal 1.2 Reduction in state fatality rate: FFY05 Target was a 2% reduction. The target for FFY05 was a 2% reduction in fatalities for the calendar year 2005. MNOSHA Compliance did not meet this goal. There were 26 fatalities in calendar year 2005, eight of which occurred in the first quarter of the year. Most of the fatalities in the first quarter were in the construction industry. Given the unusually high number of fatalities at the beginning of the year, the Commissioner of DLI and MNOSHA representatives met with numerous stakeholders in the construction industry to heighten awareness and discuss strategies to reduce the number of fatalities (see related memo from the Commissioner in Appendix A). Several items were identified and a subgroup continues to meet to evaluate strategies to implement recommendations.
MNOSHA

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

22 25 26 23 26

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

Hazards abated / establishments visited. In FFY2005, MNOSHA Compliance investigators conducted 2,591 inspections in which 4,884 hazards were identified and cited. Seventy percent (70%) 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 Compliance focused its programmed inspections to reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in certain emphasis industries. The FFY05 goal was for 60% of all programmed inspections to be in the primary emphasis industries; 63% was actually achieved. In addition, 5.5% of programmed inspections occurred in the pilot emphasis industries exceeding the FFY05
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 5 December 2005

goal of 5%. As part of an ergonomic focus, MNOSHA Compliance conducted 7 programmed inspections in the meat processing industry and nursing homes. Goal 1.4 – Discrimination inspections: FFY05 Target was to decrease the days-to-close average by 20% from baseline. In FFY05, the Discrimination Unit of MNOSHA Compliance did not attain the goal of decreasing the daysto-close average by 20%. However, upon review of the available whistleblower reports, as well as the mandated measures on the SAMM and in an effort to be better aligned with Federal OSHA’s goals, MNOSHA determined that a more appropriate measure is the percentage of cases completed within 90 days. MNOSHA Compliance’s baseline for Discrimination cases completed within 90 days established in FFY03 was 16%. In FFY04 this increased to 18% and in FFY05 this number continued to improve to 26%. When this same measure is analyzed from the date the case is assigned to an investigator rather than from the date the case is screened, 79% of the cases completed in FFY05 were completed within the 90-day goal. At the beginning of FFY05 the Discrimination Unit had 38 cases pending. During FFY05, the Unit opened an additional 48 cases and closed 69 cases, leaving only 17 cases remaining open at the end of FFY05. The number of cases closed during FFY05 is the largest number of cases closed in the last five years. This substantial increase in cases closed led to a significant decrease to the backlog of cases. Staff continued to refine the screening process, including the initial intake process and monitoring cases, to ensure return of proper information to remain an active case. Also, a third investigator was added and the Unit is currently able to proactively work with employers and employees to resolve disputed cases early in the process. Significant progress was made. In addition to working on active cases, the Unit had a total of 99 additional contacts that resulted in 39 referrals, 31 outreach events, and 29 cases screened and closed. In addition to meeting the challenge of the case backlog, the Unit settled two cases that resulted in job reinstatement and back pay. Additionally, five cases were found to have merit and have been referred to the Attorney General’s office for litigation. During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance also revised its appeal procedure that has existed since 2003. The current average appeal lapse time is 106 days. The lapse time for new cases is expected to decrease to 30 days with the Director of MNOSHA Compliance handling the appeal process rather than the Department’s Legal Services Division.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 6 December 2005

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS IN ACHIEVING CAPR PERFORMANCE GOALS
Goal #1: Performance Goal 1.1: Reduce Occupational hazards through direct interventions Reduce injuries and illness rates in 14 separate industry groups 4% in FFY 2005 by focusing MNOSHA WORKPLACE SAFETY CONSULTATION resources on workplaces within the selected industry groups; • Lumber & Wood Products • Industrial Machine & Equipment • Furniture & Fixtures • Construction (Lead & Silica) • Paper & Allied Products • Rubber & Misc. Plastics • Logging • Food & Kindred Products Annual Performance Goal: Indicators Pilot Emphasis • Printing and Publishing • Auto Dealers & Service Stations • Communications • Hotels & Lodging Reduce injury and illnesses rates for cases involving days away from work at worksites receiving direct intervention, within the selected industry groups by 4% annually. Activity Measures: • Number of on-site consultations conducted • Number of training assistance conducted • Number of interventions conducted • Re-evaluate strategies for conducting consultation visits within the selected industries. Intermediate Outcome Measures: • Percent of on-site consultations with identified hazards Primary Outcome Measures: • Percent change in DART rates in selected industries. • Percent change in Workers’ Compensation indemnity claims • Promote consultation services to employers using workers’ compensation data to identify employers’ with high injury and illness rates within the selected industry groups. Implement local strategic initiatives within the overall framework of MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation performance goals Develop and implement alliances and other cooperative efforts with employers and the occupational safety and health community to identify and address significant workplace hazards, emphasizing those targeted by MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation performance goals. Maintain adequate staffing levels and provide training to staff to assure knowledge and competence in successfully completing consultation visits and training for the selected industry groups. Promote safety and health programs through the MNSHARP and MNSTAR programs. Prioritize and respond in a timely manner to requests for consultation services. Ergonomics Emphasis • Nursing Homes

Strategies

• •

• •

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 7 December 2005

Data Source(s)

Activity Measures: • IMIS Intermediate Outcome Measures • IMIS Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS survey data • IMIS • MN Workers’ Compensation indemnity claim data BLS data 1999-2001 ; IMIS 2001-2003

Baseline

Goal 1.1 Lumber & Wood Products NAICS Code(s) 321xxx SIC Code(s) 24xx Totals Goal 1.1 Industrial Machine & Equipment NAICS Code(s) 333xxx SIC Code(s) 35xx Totals Goal 1.1 Furniture & Fixtures NAICS Code(s) 337xxx SIC Code(s) 25xx Totals Goal 1.1 Construction NAICS Code(s) 233- 235xxx SIC Code(s) 15xx–17xx Totals Goal 1.1 Paper & Allied Products NAICS Code(s) 322xxx SIC Code(s) 26xx Totals

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 20 0 20 Initial Follow-Up

Results 0 0 0 Results 2 0 2 Results 0 0 0 Results 84 21 105 Results 0 0 0

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 17 6 23 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 18 1 19 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 589 83 672 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 5 1 6 Initial Follow-Up

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 8 December 2005

Goal 1.1 Rubber & Misc. Plastics NAICS Code(s) 326xxx SIC Code(s) 30xx Totals Goal 1.1 Logging NAICS Code(s) 113310 SIC Code(s) 2411 Totals Goal 1.1 Food & Kindred Products NAICS Code(s) 311-312xxx SIC Code(s) 20xx Totals Goal 1.1 Nursing Homes NAICS Code(s) 623110 SIC Code(s) 805x Totals Goal 1.1 Printing & Publishing NAICS Code(s) 323xxx & 511xxx SIC Code(s) 27xx Totals Goal 1.1 Auto Dealers & Service Stations NAICS Code(s) 441xxx & 447xxx SIC Code(s) 55xx Totals

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 5 0 5 Initial Follow-Up

Results 1 0 1 Results 0 0 0 Results 2 0 2 Results 33 8 41 Results 0 0 0 Results 0 0 0

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 14 0 14 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 13 2 15 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 17 3 20 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 4 2 6 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 6 2 8 Initial Follow-Up

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 9 December 2005

Goal 1.1 Communications NAICS Code(s) 515xxx & 517xxx SIC Code(s) 48xx Totals Goal 1.1 Hotels & Lodging NAICS Code(s) 721xxx SIC Code(s) 70xx Totals Goal 1.1 Other NAICS Code(s) All Other SIC Code(s) All Other Totals

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 8 8 16 Initial Follow-Up

Results 0 0 0 Results 6 0 6 Results 11 8 19

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 2 2 4 Initial Follow-Up

Safety Activity Initial Follow-Up

ResultsHealth Activity 109 16 125 Initial Follow-Up

Overall Project Activity Summary of Goal #1
Indicator Type Activity Measures Indicator Total Number of Safety Initial Visits Conducted for FFY 2005 Total Number of Safety Follow-Up Visits Conducted for FFY 2005 Total Number of Health Initial Visits Conducted for FFY 2005 Total Number of Health Follow-Up Visits Conducted for FFY 2005 Projected Activity in CAPP 565 Initial Safety Visits Results 827 Initial Safety Visits Comments 146 % of Projected Activity accomplished. 114 % of Projected Activity accomplished.

Activity Measures

110 Follow-Up Safety Visits

126 Follow-Up Safety Visits

Activity Measures

165 Initial Health Visits

139 Initial Health Visits

84 % of Projected Activity accomplished.

Activity Measures

16 Follow-Up Health Visits

37 Follow-Up Health Visits 231 % of Projected Activity accomplished.

Discussion of Activity Measures: Initial Visits: WSC accomplished 146 percent of the total projected safety initial visit activity in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS and logging. WSC accomplished 84 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 166 percent of the total projected safety and health T&A activity in workplaces in the
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 10 December 2005

MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS and logging. Follow-Up Visits: WSC accomplished 114 percent of the total projected safety follow-up visits in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAIC’s. WSC accomplished 231 percent of the projected health follow-up visits in workplaces in the MNOSHA strategic plan NAIC’s. Interventions: WSC accomplished 206 percent of the total projected safety and health intervention activity in MNOSHA strategic plan NAIC’s and logging. Overall Project Activity Summary: WSC accomplished 158 percent of the total safety and health activity (initial visits, T&A visits, follow-up visits and interventions) projected in the FFY2005 CAPP.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 11 December 2005

2005 Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry Minnesota DART and DAFW rates from the 2003 and 2004 BLS surveys NAICS 2003 2003 DAFW 2004 2004 code(s) DART rate rate DART rate DAFW rate

SIC industry Lumber & Wood Products

NAICS Industry

Wood product manufacturing

321xxx

5.7

2. 2.6.6

5.6

2.6

Industrial Machine & Equip. Machinery manufacturing Furniture and related product manufacturing Construction

333xxx

2.9

1.2

3.7

2.0

Furniture & Fixtures Construction Paper & Allied Products Rubber & Misc. Plastics Logging Food & Kindred Products

337xxx 23xxxx

5.3 4.3

2.4 2.8

4.9 3.8

2.5 2.6

Paper manufacturing Plastics and rubber products manufacturing Logging

322xxx

3.1

1.6

3.8

1.9

326xxx 113310

3.9 NA

1.5 NA

4.6 NA

2.2 NA

Food manufacturing Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing Nursing and residential care facilities

311xxx 312xxx

5.4 NA

1.4 NA

5.5 NA

1.4 NA

Nursing Homes

623xxx

7.5

3.1

5.2

3.0

Printing and related support Printing & Publishing activities Publishing industries Auto Dealers & Service Stations Motor vehicle and parts dealers Gasoline stations Broadcasting Telecommunications Accommodation Other

323xxx 511xxx

3.5 1.3

1.4 0.8

2.8 1.2

1.1 0.8

441xxx 447xxx 515xxx 517xxx 721xxx

2.7 27 NA 1.4 2.6 NA

1.2 1.6 NA 0.9 1.6 NA

3.7 2.0 NA 0.4 3.1 NA

2.5 1.2 NA 0.3 1.7 NA

Communications

Hotels & Lodging Other

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 12 December 2005

2005 Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry Workers' compensation indemnity claim rates for WSC focus industries Federal fiscal years 2003 and 2004 NAICS Industry NAICS code(s) FFY 2003 FFY 2004 employment employment indemnity indemnity percentage change rate FFY rate FFY 2004 2003 indemnity indemnity 2004 per claims (thousands) (thousands) 2003 per claims 100 100 workers workers 414 420 16715 16980 2.48 2.47 -0.1% 416 263 3,660 287 259 12 752 165 1,078 291 199 442 163 45 115 268 406 289 3,616 243 271 18 661 147 1,122 280 161 416 166 78 84 275 34,623 12,427 131,142 13,141 16,958 805 46,057 2,223 51,538 30,752 24,686 35,101 25,632 5,823 15,565 32,162 34,138 12,610 132,521 12,386 16,371 815 43,811 2,143 50,372 30,300 25,912 34,874 24,125 5,731 14,939 31,996 1.20 2.12 2.79 2.18 1.53 1.49 1.63 7.42 2.09 0.95 0.81 1.26 0.64 0.77 0.74 0.83 1.19 2.29 2.73 1.96 1.66 2.21 1.51 6.86 2.23 0.92 0.62 1.19 0.69 1.36 0.56 0.86 -1.0% 8.3% -2.2% -10.2% 8.4% 48.2% -7.6% -7.6% 6.5% -2.3% -22.9% -5.3% 8.2% 76.1% -23.9% 3.1%

Wood product manufactur 321xxx Machinery manufacturing Furniture and related product manufacturing Construction Paper manufacturing Plastics and rubber products manufacturing Logging Food manufacturing Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing Nursing care facilities Printing and related support activities Publishing industries Motor vehicle and parts dealers Gasoline stations Broadcasting Telecommunications Accommodation 333xxx 337xxx 23xxxx 322xxx 326xxx 113310 311xxx 312xxx 623110 323xxx 511xxx 441xxx 447xxx 515xxx 517xxx 721xxx

The indemnity claims data were available from the Minnesota workers' compensation claims database. Indemnity claims in Minnesota are claims with more than three calendar days of work disability, including the day of injury or reported illness. Claim counts were multiplied by a year-specific development factor to estimate the ultimate number of indemnity claims. The same development factor was used for all industries.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 13 December 2005

GOAL SUMMARIES - SOAR for FFY2005 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 Target FFY 04 Results FFY 04 Target FFY 05 Results FFY 05 Target FFY 08

# of FFY 02 partnerships: 2

1 new program

1 new program. See comments following chart [2.1.a] 2 new sites.

1 new program

1 new program See comments following chart [2.1.a] 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]

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

10

2 new sites

2 new sites

10 new sites 20% above baseline

N/A

Establish baseline = 1,722

Baseline established.

Increase 5% above baseline

3. Participate in homeland security efforts at state and national levels 4. Develop a plan to identify opportunities where compliance assistance and cooperative agreements will maximize our impact. 5. Maintain response time and/or service level to stakeholders in areas such as: a) b) c) Telephone inquiries and assistance Written requests for information MNOSHA website information/updates

Current practice N/A

Ongoing

Ongoing.

Ongoing

Develop plan to establish baseline Ongoing

Plan developed.

Implement plan

Current practice

Ongoing.

Ongoing

Ongoing See comments following chart [2.3] Plan implemented. See comments following chart [2.4] Ongoing. See comments following chart [2.5]

Ongoing

TBD

Ongoing

GOAL 2 - Comments
Goal 2.1.a Increase Partnerships by 1 in FFY05. During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance entered into a formal partnership agreement with the UAW and Ford Motor Company. Goals of the partnership agreement are for Ford management and employees to work cooperatively to provide a common vision in providing Ford employees a safe and healthful workplace. This partnership enables MNOSHA to meet and discuss safety and health challenges openly with the UAW and Ford Motor Company staff in order to benefit the employees of the State of Minnesota. Also during FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance continued to support and strengthen relationships with
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 14 December 2005

organizations that represent safety and health best practices. MNOSHA continued its work in the three previously established partnerships including: 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 FFY05. 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 FFY05, a total of 14 worksites had received certification. Two employers were certified as MNSTAR sites in FFY05. 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.

Goal 2.2 In FFY05, Increase number of people participating in outreach 5% above baseline. In FFY04, MNOSHA Compliance established its baseline of 1,722 people participating in MNOSHA outreach/training per year in various areas. In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance conducted 42 presentations and exceeded baseline by 89.7% (3,267). The target of 5% above baseline (1,808) was exceeded by more than 80%. Each year, five leading organizations request outreach services from MNOSHA Compliance. They include: 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 provide its popular construction breakfast five times per year. The construction breakfast was developed as a resource for members of the construction industry who are responsible for construction-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 and other field investigators in attendance. Participants are encouraged to ask questions, and express opinions and safety concerns in an open and respectful
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 15 December 2005

environment. In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance’s construction breakfast program continued to take an active role in keeping safety in the forefront as reflected in this years’ presentations. Several MNOSHA investigators and employees, two attorneys from the Attorney General’s Office, a Department of Health industrial hygienist, and a private company’s safety director, contributed exceptional effort to present pertinent safety information. These presentations were targeted at clarifying OSHA statutes, standards, and rules that will ultimately reduce workplace hazards in the construction industry. Presentations in FFY05 reflected a variety of topics that were suggested by last year’s audience and industry stakeholders. The topics included lead hazards, skid steer and backhoe worksite safety, AWAIR and the employee right-to-know program, most cited standards and fatal statistics, multi-employer responsibilities and inspection procedures, and residential fall protection. The presentations attracted 470 people with a record 139 people attending the presentation on residential fall protection. Overall, participants in the construction breakfast program increased 34% from FFY04. In addition to the construction breakfast program, MNOSHA continues to participate in major safety conferences throughout the state. MNOSHA staffed a booth with safety and health professionals, and provided speakers at the Minnesota Safety Council Conference, the Associated General Contractors Safety Days, and the American Society of Safety Engineers Professional Development Conference. Topics of presentations at these events included MNOSHA Update, Fall Protection and Lockout/Tagout. In addition to the wide variety of presentations to traditional safety and health participants, MNOSHA Compliance increased strategic plan presentation participation from 601 participants in FFY04 to 1,263 participants in FFY05. This represents a 52% increase in participation. In addition to live presentations, MNOSHA Compliance continues to provide valuable safety and health material via its website. Hazard Alerts regarding Falls from Ladders used in Advertising Sign Maintenance, Tree Felling, Carpenter Bracket Scaffolds, and Motor Vehicle Safety were added in FFY05. In addition, the following booklets were also added: Clarification of MN Rules 5205.0675, subp. 2, Overhead Door (new); Sheet of variances (new); Contents of a first aid kit (new); Guideline for releases of hazardous substances that may require an emergency response (new); Recordkeeping requirements for training (new); Employee Right-To-Know model program for small employers (new); MNOSHA’s most frequently cited standards, 2004 (updated); MNOSHA’s most frequently cited standards for the construction industry, 2004 (updated); Emergency eyewash and shower (updated); Occupational Safety and Health resources on the Internet (updated). Additionally, MNOSHA Compliance created a new directive that sets up parameters for written communication that is to be shared with stakeholders. This directive (ADM 3.22) outlines how a Fact Sheet, Hazard Alert and/or Fatal File is to be designed and reviewed within MNOSHA Compliance. The MNOSHA Fatal Files will be developed on significant accidents that occur. MNOSHA feels that this information, when shared with stakeholders, will help prevent future similar fatalities. MNOSHA continued online publication of its quarterly Safety Lines newsletter in FFY05. Also, MNOSHA staff served as technical advisors for the publication “To Compliance and Beyond,” a newsletter developed for small businesses. MNOSHA also has a video lending library, which offers a selection of safety and health videos and DVDs available for a free two-week loan. Goal 2.3 Homeland Security. The MNOSHA Compliance program continued to be an active participant on the State Emergency Response Team. Two Directors from the Catastrophic Events Team (CEI) Team attended the two-day Minnesota Incident Management System course in June 2005. Team members reviewed the Emergency Response Contingency Plan (MNOSHA Instruction CPL 2.94) in July and updates were made to several response checklists in September. The online preparedness survey was begun, with anticipated completion to occur in FFY06. The Division applied for a FFY05 grant through Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 16 December 2005

Management (HSEM) to fund assistance with homeland security issues. MNOSHA submitted an application memo to HSEM, but was not awarded a grant. Additional funds will be made available, and MNOSHA will have another opportunity to apply for funding during the first quarter of FFY06. Goal 2.4 Implement Compliance Assistance Plan in FFY05. As stated in Appendix C – the FFY04 memo regarding the Compliance Assistance Plan – MNOSHA Compliance focused on four major areas to improve compliance assistance. This plan was primarily carried out through the reorganization of outreach resources. During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance posted and conducted interviews for a vacant training officer position. It was then determined that MNOSHA could better accomplish its outreach goal by including the newly-created safety investigator III positions in outreach efforts throughout the state, and by having phone assistance coordinated throughout the state by the St. Paul office. By doing this, the two existing training officers are available to provide back-up assistance to the information officer, but no longer have responsibility for daily coverage of phones, freeing them up to concentrate on outreach activities. This has allowed MNOSHA to use its staff resources more effectively. In addition to reassigning responsibilities within the Division, MNOSHA Compliance has promoted an investigator who speaks fluent Spanish, hired another investigator that writes fluent Spanish, and can request the services of the department’s legal analyst, who also speaks fluent Spanish. In addition, MNOSHA also works with the department’s newly-hired community services representative, who proactively provides outreach services to immigrant and other hard-to-reach employees and employers. MNOSHA Compliance did not directly allocate a Principal Safety Investigator/IH3 to develop and maintain partnership agreements. Instead, MNOSHA Compliance assigned an additional Principal Investigator to the Greater Minnesota area, and decided to implement all of the partnership agreements through each of the various work units impacted. All of the investigative units are covered by one or more of these agreements. MNOSHA Compliance has focused its outreach efforts in the construction, primary metals and fabricated products industries; for youth through various school programs; and through professional organizations. As stated in Goal 2.2, MNOSHA Compliance increased the number of presentations for the strategic plan industries by 52%; a majority of these presentations were to construction employers. MNOSHA Compliance’s construction breakfast also experienced an increase in participation of 34%. MNOSHA Compliance assigned two staff members to develop two PowerPoint presentations to assist with outreach presentations for the primary metals and fabricated products industries. The two presentations are designed for different audiences: the first for employees with new responsibilities in the area of machine safeguarding; and, the second for those with some experience in the field. Both presentations also discuss the most frequently-cited standards in these industries. Goal 2.5 In FFY05, maintain response time and/or service level to stakeholders. Every business day, MNOSHA Compliance has two safety and health professionals on duty that answer questions primarily received through phone calls and via e-mail. In the past, MNOSHA had a primary information officer assigned to provide better customer service. MNOSHA currently has an information officer and an industrial hygienist III assigned to answer these inquiries. Additional assistance is provided as needed by Health, General Industry, Greater Minnesota and Construction. These two positions respond to approximately 5,700 phone calls and 1,400 e-mails each year. Over 98% of theses inquiries are answered within one day. These phone calls and e-mails are received from three primary sources – employees, employers and consultants – and cover a wide variety of topics. The employees usually call to file workplace safety complaints; the employers and consultants call to obtain information on how to comply with MNOSHA standards. 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. MNOSHA Compliance also provides a variety of safety and health information on its website, including printable handouts and information about its video 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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 17 December 2005

to the main MNOSHA webpage increased from 56,166 hits in FFY04 to 60,761 hits in FFY05.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 18 December 2005

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS IN ACHIEVING CAPR PERFORMANCE GOALS (cont’d)
Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.1A Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Increase familiarity, through interventions, outreach, and training, with MNOSHA standards, regulations, and reference materials among stakeholder groups, which include; Youths – Focus on apprenticeship participants, retail trade and eating & drinking establishments. Small Business Owners – Focus on targeted employers in Goal number 1.1. Workplace Violence – Focusing on industries with high incidences of workplace violence Targeted industries – MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation selected industries with a focus on silica and lead in construction. Primary metal industries Transportation equipment Fabricated products Ergonomics – Targeting industries with high rates of MSD’s (nursing homes). Annual Performance Goal: Indicators Increasing the number of people trained in the above stakeholder groups by 4% in FFY 2005. Activity Measures: • Number of employers requesting training • Number of business organizations/associations requesting training Intermediate Outcome Measures • Number of training sessions conducted Primary Outcome Measures: Number of persons that attended training • Work with Labor Standards and Apprenticeship Unit to incorporate safety and health curriculum and training to apprenticeship program participants. • Prioritize requests so that 90% of consultation services are with small employers • Provide training and outreach assistance to employers who have workplace violence concerns • Promote training and outreach services in the targeted industries selected by MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation. • Promote and provide training and outreach services via the web, direct mailing, mass faxing, and part of on-site consultation visits. • Utilize Alliances to promote our outreach and training services Activity Measures: • IMIS Intermediate Outcome Measures • IMIS Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS survey data • IMIS IMIS data and State workers compensation data for FFY 2001

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Baseline

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 19 December 2005

Assessment:
Indicator Type Activity Measure Indicator Total number of Safety and Health Training and Assistance Visits for FFY2005 Projected Activity in CAPP 130 Safety and Health Training, and Assistance visits Results 216 Total Safety and Health Training and Assistance visits Comments 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 FFY2005

170 Safety and Health Interventions

351 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.

During FFY2005, 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. WSC has also put two PowerPoint training programs on the website. One was on Blood Borne Pathogens and the other on Recording Hearing losses. These Power Points can be downloaded and used by employers to train their employees. WSC staff developed both of these programs. During FFY2005 there were 8479 hits on the WSC website. Quarterly Training – The quarterly training sessions were re-started again during the first quarter of FFY2005. During the first quarter of FFY2005, WSC in conjunction with our training partner organizations throughout Minnesota, conducted seven half-day training seminars covering the following safety management topics: (1) Recordkeeping requirements, and (2) Electrical Standards for General Industry. Total attendance at the seven-first quarter seminars was 68 individuals. All of the second quarter FFY2005 training sessions were cancelled because of poor attendance. During the third quarter of FFY2005 WSC in conjunction with our training partner organizations throughout Minnesota, conducted three half-day training seminars covering the following safety topics: (1) Fatal Facts, and (2) Ergonomics. Total attendance at the three third quarter seminars was 27 individuals. During the fourth quarter of FFY2005, WSC in conjunction with our training partner organizations throughout Minnesota, conducted one half-day training seminar covering the following safety management topic: (1) Safety and Health for Public Sector Employers. Total attendance at the fourth quarter seminars was 12 individuals. Construction Breakfast – The Construction Breakfast seminar series continued in FFY2005 at four locations in greater Minnesota. The topic for the first breakfast seminar in FFY2005, held in November 2004, was Health Hazards in Construction. There were a total of 15 attendees. The second breakfast seminar series was held in January 2005 and the topic was Fatality/Serious Injury Review. There were a total of 71attendees. The third breakfast seminar series was held in March 2005 and the topic was Residential Construction. There were a total of 30 attendees. The 4th breakfast seminar series was held in May 2005 and the topic was Health Hazards. There were a total of 12 attendees. No breakfast seminars were held during the summer months. The breakfast seminar series resumed again in September 2005 at two locations. The September breakfast seminar topic was Rough Terrain Forklifts; there were 47 attendees. The breakfasts will continue to be held every other month through May. General Industry Luncheons – WSC has continued to partner with four organizations in greater Minnesota and holds bimonthly luncheon seminars with them. During FFY2005 WSC held 19 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, and recording hearing loss. There were a total of 367 attendees at these sessions.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 20 December 2005

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

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Increase the number of participants in the MNSHARP Recognition Program by 4 new employers in FFY 2005. Add four new MNSHARP employees. Activity Measures: • Number of employers inquiring about MNSHARP program Intermediate Outcome Measures • Number of employers who engage in the MNSHARP process Primary Outcome Measures: Number of companies certified as MNSHARP sites • Target small high-hazard strategic employers who have received fullservice consultations. Target small high-hazard employers who have received compliance inspections. Conduct statewide training in safety and health program requirements. Place program information on web site to encourage more employer participation. Provide public recognition at MN Safety Council annual convention. Encourage program participants to mentor other small employers. Provide safety abatement grant support to participants who qualify. Implement safety and health training partnerships. Implement safety committee effectiveness training to strengthen employee involvement. Republish news releases in Safety Lines newsletter. Showcase employer’s accomplishments through the Department’s web site publication of press releases. Continuously reduce the average LWDII 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 • • • • • • • • • Impact • • • •

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 2004

Baseline

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 21 December 2005

MNSHARP Program Assessment:
Indicator Type
Activity Measure

Indicator
Number of new Deferral MNSHARP sites.

Projected Activity in CAPP
4

Results
During FFY2005, four new participants received MNSHARP deferral certification. Met 100% of goal

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

Indicator Type
Activity Measure

Indicator
Number of companies certified as MNSHARP sites.

Projected Activity in CAPP
4

Results
During FFY2005, WSC retained thirteen participants in the MNSHARP program. Six new participants received MNSHARP certification. Met 125% of goal

Comments
Nineteen total certified participants in the MNSHARP program. MNSHARP DART and TCIR averaged to 71% below and 56% below the Federal BLS statistics.

“MNSHARP” (Minnesota Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program) is a voluntary, consultationbased 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 Enforcement exempts the employer from complianceprogrammed inspections for one year while in deferral status. When the employer meets all requirements, and the DART (Days Away Restricted Transfer) and TCIR (Total Case Incident Rate) is below the national average for their industry, a MNSHARP Certificate of Recognition is awarded and MNOSHA Enforcement 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 TCIR of the 19 employers in MNSHARP was 56 percent below their national industry average. On average, the DART rate of the 19 employers in MNSHARP was 71 percent below their national industry average.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 22 December 2005

Strategic Goal #2: Performance Goal 2.1C: FFY2005 Performance Goal: Indicators

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership. Increase the number of participants in the MNSHARP Inspection Deferral Program by four in FFY 2005. Add four new MNSHARP Inspection Deferrals. Activity Measures: • Number of employers inquiring about MNSHARP deferral program Intermediate Outcome Measures • 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 inspections. • Conduct statewide training in safety and health program requirements. • Place program information on web site to encourage more employer participation. • Provide public recognition at MN Safety Council annual convention. • Encourage program participants to mentor other small employers. • Provide safety abatement grant support to participants who qualify. • Implement safety and health training partnerships. • Implement safety committee effectiveness training to strengthen employee involvement. • Republish news releases in Safety Lines newsletter. • Recommend employers who show promise into the program. • • • • Showcase employer’s accomplishments through the Department’s web site publication of press releases. Exceed the number of employers by showing an increase in employers who meet qualifications. Continuously reduce the average LWDII rate of current participants. Reduced workers’ compensation claims or premiums.

Strategies:

Impact

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 2005.

Baseline

MNSHARP Deferral Program Assessment:
Indicator Type
Activity Measure

Indicator
Number of new Deferral MNSHARP sites.

Projected Activity in CAPP
4

Results
During FFY2005, four new participants received MNSHARP deferral certification. Met 100% of goal

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

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 23 December 2005

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

Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership Increase the number of Alliances with MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation by two in FFY 2005. Maintain existing alliances and add two new alliances. Activity Measures: • Design promotional pamphlets and market program. Intermediate Outcome Measures • Director and team leaders to market program to employers, trade and business associations. Primary Outcome Measures: • Number of Alliance agreements signed. • Identify business groups, associations, and organizations related to one of the selected industry groups and promote alliance program. • Establish an alliance agreement and get signatures from Presidents and CEO’s. • Identify business groups, associations, and organizations related to one of the identified stakeholder groups for outreach and training and promote alliance program. • Showcase alliances on DLI website. Activity Measures: • IMIS Intermediate Outcome Measures • IMIS Primary Outcome Measures: • BLS survey data • IMIS Number of Alliances at the beginning of FFY 2005.

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Baseline

Indicator Type

Indicator

Projected Activity in CAPP 2 Signed Alliance Agreements

Results

Comments

Activity Measure

Number of Alliance Agreements during FFY2005

2 Alliance Agreements were signed during FFY2005

100% of Projected Activity accomplished

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 24 December 2005

STATE PLAN STATE *MNOSHA Consultation Unit State Plan State

DATE

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Organization/ Company

Alliance for the Polyurethanes Industry

MN

Minnesota Mechanical Contractors Association

MN

Consultation Other Implemen Draft Signing Kick-off Implementation Subject(s) Union tation OrganizaAlliance /Conclu Meeting State Sig-nee Sig-nee Team of Alliance Involvement Team tion Developed ded Held Member Member Develop FED safety and OSHA health OH Region V training materials WI Indiana 7/12/05 NO for the OSHA spray-on IL truck bed Michigan liner OSHA industry Education, in the form of safety and health 8/23/05 YES training for Mechanical Contractors

2005 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 Safety Health 165 139

Training and Assistance Safety Health

Follow-Up Safety 110 126 Health 16 37

Alliances S&H

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

565 827

856 1,129 130 216 4 6 4 6 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 4 1 2 1 100 351 70

110 216

20

Planned 730 Actual 966

Planned130 Actual 216

Planned126 Actual 163

Planned 986 Actual 1,345

Planned 4 Actual 6

Planned 8 Actual 8

Planned 4 Actual 4

Planned170 Actual 351

Planned 2 Actual 2

1

Enter the number of projected new and renewal Recognition (R), Exemption (E), and Exemption and Recognition (E/R) sites separately in this column

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.

2

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 25 December 2005

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. 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 2005 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

Indicators

Strategies

Data Source(s)

Baseline

Assessment: WSC will suspend the quarterly training sessions for at least one year. Attendance at the nine locations through out the state has declined, making it ineffective. In place of the quarterly training sessions WSC will focus outreach efforts through their Alliances. The Alliances will provide an opportunity to work with motivated employers in high hazard industries. WSC currently has seven signed Alliances with another one pending. WSC has also made some adjustments with the Construction Breakfast training sessions that have been held in four locations throughout the state. Poor attendance at a couple of the locations has resulted in some location changes. In addition WSC is trying to establish some informal partnerships to help promote attendance at the sessions.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 26 December 2005

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

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.

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 FFY2005. 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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 27 December 2005

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 08

1. Review rules annually for effectiveness: ongoing evaluation, development of rules, standards, guidelines and procedures 2. Conduct a comprehensive work skill assessment and generate a workforce development and retention plan 3. Identify and verify performance measurements generated at the federal level in regard to our overall performance 4. Survey employers and employees on our effectiveness

Current practice N/A

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Complete assessment

Assessment complete.

Training identified for core items for investigations Determine potential solutions for performance measure problems Promote online survey option; gather feedback and analyze quarterly Develop workflow analysis of abatement verification and discrimination processes

Current practice

Identify problems with current performance measures Evaluate online options

Problems identified.

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

Training identified for all core items Performance measures are accurate

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.

Continually improve performance based on survey comments Ongoing

Develop workflow analysis of current process

Workflow analysis conducted.

GOAL 3 - Comments
Goal 3.1 In FFY05, conduct Annual Review of Rules/Standards, Guidelines and Procedures. 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 FFY05 include Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus; Mechanical Power Presses; Telecommunications; Hydrogen; Controlled Negative Pressure REDON Fit Testing Protocol; Standards for Shipyard Employment;
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. FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 28 December 2005 Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)
1

Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; and the Standards Improvement Project – Phase II. The biennial statutorily-required update to MN Rules 5208.1500, Standard Industrial Classification List for AWAIR, was completed in FFY05. 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/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. Of the 135 directives scheduled for review and development in the five-year plan, 55 have been completed (41%). Goal 3.2 FFY05: Identify training for core items. During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance worked on the goal of identifying training for core item for investigators by making extensive changes to the training directive, ADM 5.1. The changes included: addition of the formative evaluation and educational background sheet, addition of the workforce skill set, revising core requirements, changes in new investigator training schedules, incorporation of the updated employee performance appraisal form and clarification and documentation regarding training opportunities for experienced staff. To accomplish the training, MNOSHA Compliance updated all of its training schedules and now use Groupwise to schedule all training. Included in ADM 5.1, Appendix D-1, D-2 and D-3, are 69 units that have been scheduled for the 17 new investigative staff hired by MNOSHA Compliance during FFY05. The updated schedule involves additional staff and streamlines resources on each subject for each new investigator. In addition to the training of new investigators, MNOSHA staff attended 34 different classes that included 140 staff training slots. The course average is from five to nine days. The classes attended include a wide variety of major topics such as: fall protection, electrical principals, industrial ventilation, inspection techniques and legal aspects. MNOSHA sponsored events included an 8-hour hazardous waste operations and emergency response refresher, two courses presented by the OSHA Training Institute – OSHA 3160 Steel Erection and OSHA 3100 Spray Finishing, and Coating Principles. In order to further develop the soft skills, MNOSHA has included in ADM 5.1, Appendix C, a list of locations for soft skill development and purchased a CD for each of the soft skills to aid each supervisor helping staff to become proficient in soft skills as well as technical skills. Goal 3.3 FFY05: Determine potential solutions for performance measures problems. Meetings were held in third quarter FFY04 to review data elements in SAMM and SIR reports. Discrepancies in the SIR report were identified and a memo transmitted to the federal OSHA Area Director in fourth quarter FFY04. The report was forwarded to a recommended federal contact person, but there has been no response to date. ITS staff was directed to develop internal reports to provide data for the incorrect SIR information. Studies were conducted in FFY05 to determine how to integrate a data collection system, streamline the process, and incorporate imaging technology to improve overall performance. Goal 3.4 Survey employers and employees: In FFY05 promote online survey, gather and analyze feedback. MNOSHA values the opinions of the employers and employees involved in compliance inspections. In addition to mail-in 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 Internet surveys are a valuable tool for MNOSHA to analyze and improve its one-to-one interactions with employers and employees
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 29 December 2005

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. Goal 3.5 Develop workflow analysis of abatement verification and discrimination processes in FFY05. In FFY04, MNOSHA Compliance reported on the efforts made to reduce the lapse time for health citation issuance. While the year’s average was 54 days, the fourth quarter‘s average was 36 days and the expectations were that MNOSHA health staff would meet the annual goal of 35 days. In FFY05, the average citation issuance lapse time was reduced 37% from 54 days to 34.5 days. The goal was met. In FFY05, process improvements were made regarding tracking and abatement verification. Prior to FFY05, monthly abatement status reports were generated. Beginning in FFY05, the reports were improved, generated weekly, and provided to clerks and Directors/Supervisors, to better track abatement progress. Also in FFY05, the work flow process for discrimination was reviewed. Meetings to discuss the current workflow and options regarding revising the workflow were held in quarters 1 and 2. Implementation of recommendations occurred primarily in the third quarter. The workflow analysis was a prime driver in reducing the case load of the discrimination unit and has proven to be a useful tool in training new discrimination investigators. (See workflow chart in Appendix F.)

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 30 December 2005

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS IN ACHIEVING CAPR PERFORMANCE GOALS (cont’d)
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 2005. 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 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

Annual Performance Goal Indicators:

Strategies

Data Source(s)

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 onsite 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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 31 December 2005

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 2005 (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:
The MNOSHA Consultation unit has added one staff with appropriate credentials, and a temporary worker.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 32 December 2005

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 2005. 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 2005.
• • • • • • • Percent of initial visits in large hazard establishment…99.38% Percent of initial visits to smaller businesses…98.02% 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…132% (Planned 856 and 1,129 conducted) SHARP goal met, Deferral goal met, and Intervention goal exceeded.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 33 December 2005

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 2005. 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 FFY 2005. The unit made improvements by hiring one individual with CSP credentials. The staff also participated in local and OTI courses. Other staff did not meet their training needs because OTI courses were cancelled. Example of staff development courses included (1) Applied Ergonomics, (2) Form 33, (3) Construction Safety, (4) Local Safety Council courses, and the OSHA 502, etc.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 34 December 2005

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2005
- 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 FFY2005 include:

Compliance:
General Accomplishments. In FFY2005, the MNOSHA Compliance staffing level was approximately 92 people. Fifteen 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 FFY05. 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 FFY05: Communication and Management Effectiveness 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.” Technology MNOSHA Compliance conducts evaluation of potential new equipment and/or technology throughout the year. This allows for identification of potential end-of-year purchases. In FFY05, MNOSHA purchased 77 new noise
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 35 December 2005

dosimeters for field investigators with PC interface capabilities. The capability of this technology represents a better and more efficient way to present monitoring results to employers. Health Scheduling: The MNOSHA Compliance Health Director and Supervisor met with representatives of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) in FFY05 to discuss efforts to impact the prevalence of occupational asthma. Using data provided by MDH, MNOSHA initiated a pilot inspection program in selected industries suspected of using contaminants which may contribute to asthma. Grassroots: In FFY05, MNOSHA and the DLI 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 FFY05 edition was accomplished in September 2005. MNOSHA will also publish the FFY06 edition. Evaluation Projects/Reports: MNOSHA Compliance and the DLI Research and Statistics Division conducted the following research projects in FFY 2005 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). IH Students Shadow MNOSHA: During the Winter 2005 school semester, 12 students from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health PUBH 5172, Industrial Hygiene Applications course accompanied MNOSHA Compliance 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 overall responses, this was a positive experience for the students and the inspectors. (See Appendix G).

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 FFY2005, WSC conducted 17 logger safety seminars with 525 employees and 532
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 36 December 2005

employers in attendance for a total of 1057 participants. There were 22 training sessions tied to a previous initial consultation with 734 participants. There were 78 interventions conducted statewide with 1,887 participants. The intervention and training sessions conducted included (1) CPR/first aid, (2) chain saw/PPE, (3) AWAIR safety and health program, (4) Right-to-Know program, (5) hearing conservation, (6) lockouttagout, (7) fire extinguisher training, (8) safe work practices, and (9) hazard recognition. Fourteen on-site consultations visits were conducted. WSC conducted a satisfaction survey with 92% response rate (861 of 939 seminar participants). Survey Results: • • • • • Participants are generally quite satisfied with the quality of the training they receive: 85% were satisfied with the meeting facilities, 78% were satisfied with the training, 87% were satisfied with the instructor’s knowledge and 83% 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: 7% of employers versus 3% of others were dissatisfied 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 and global positioning systems. Participants like the current one-day, eight-hour seminars (31%) and would like to see it offered more at logger education conferences. About half as many responses were received for “conduct an eighthour on-site Logsafe training on a specific piece of equipment” and roughly the same number for “ a half-day Logsafe seminar and a half-day Safety Consultation visit”.

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 FFY2005, WSC conducted 45 violence-related intervention presentations covering 1,390 private sector employers and employees. WSC has partnered with the Minnesota Corporation Citizenship Initiative program to help develop information for employers on how to address domestic violence in the workplace. 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 Task Force. Ergonomic specialist positions: In July – 2003, two positions were created to assist employers in reducing the occurrences of Work-Related Musculo-Skeletal Disorders (WMSD). The positions were created in response to recommendations made by the Ergonomics Task Force, which convened the summer of 2002. 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 website. In an effort to maximize impact in reducing WMSD within the state, initial efforts will focus on the nursing home industry. Part of this focus has included the development and commencement of a nursing home study. This study is assessing the injury & illness impact, at nursing home facilities that choose to obtain assistance, from
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 37 December 2005

Workplace Safety Consultation compared to, those facilities that do not. The study requires volunteers, who are willing to make a commitment, to reduce WMSD, through the acquisition of lift & transfer equipment. And the development and implementation of required elements of an ergonomics management system, and associated work policies. This study began in January of 2004. 26 employers are now committed to the study. All 26 employers have received their initial comprehensive safety and health on-site consultation visits. As a result of these visits, the consultants identified 651 safety and health hazards. These hazards have been corrected on a timely basis. The estimated penalty savings is about $256,000. Example of hazards included the following: Health Hazards Hazard Category: Blood-borne Pathogens Right-to-Know Permit-Required Confined Space OSHA 300 Log Asbestos Number of Instances 92 38 12 47 5 Safety Hazards Hazard Category: AWAIR Machine Guarding Electrical Eye Wash Stations Walking/Working Surfaces Lock-out/Tag-out Fall Protection Exist Access Labor-Management Safety Committee Number of Instances 65 71 154 9 20 56 13 8 10

Nursing Home Study Ergonomic Visits
As part of the nursing home study, 41 ergonomic consultations were conducted to assist the study participants in the identification and management of ergonomic risk factors that contribute to worker injury. Other Primary Ergonomics Visits
A total of 22 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. Ergonomics Training Twenty formal training presentations were provided on ergonomics, for private and public sector employers. Workplace Safety Consultations quarterly training – (3 sessions) – Ergonomics A total of 18 employers and 24 employees attended the sessions. Training in partnership with the Minnesota Safety Council: Supervisor’s Role in Managing Ergonomics (5 sessions) A total of 74 employers and 121 employees attended the sessions. Evaluate Your Office Work Station (3 sessions) A total of 18 employers and 43 employees attended the sessions Evaluate Your Industrial Work Station (3 sessions) A total of 19 employers and 27 employees attended the sessions

American Association of Occupational Health Nurses 2005 Exposition – Ergonomics in Long-Term Care (1 session) Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association – (5 sessions) – Office Ergonomics
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 38 December 2005

State Office of Administrative Hearings – (1 sessions) – Office Ergonomics

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 39 December 2005

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 supervisor, the new consultant receives an 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 the supervisor and 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 #245, 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 programs, requirements, and obligations to those 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 quarterly 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 covers all required information, including the employer's obligation to correct all identified serious hazards in a timely manner. The relationship between MNOSHA Enforcement and WSC is included in the checklist items. 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, their performance and program issues, flow down, across, and up the organization in periodic staff meetings, memos, E-mails and OMT meeting minutes. Consultant activity is monitored via weekly planned activity entries on the WSC calendar, activity logs updated monthly, NCR reports regarding consultation activities in FFY2004, and NCR error reports ensuring correction of form entry problems. On a weekly basis, each consultant is given a copy of a report indicating previous consultation activity with yet uncorrected hazards. This process ensures that employers are contacted regarding the timeliness of their corrective actions. The director, to ensure that the correct federal or state standards have been referenced for the identified hazards reviews all 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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 40 December 2005

supervisor.

On a quarterly basis, a monitoring meeting is held with the Federal Area Director to discuss progress made towards the state's strategic plan goals, quality control issues, and opportunities for corrective action when warranted. The MARC, CAM, SAM and SIR are the basis of the quarterly discussion. The MNOSHA Management Team meets on a weekly basis to discuss the day-to-day issues, concerns, and opportunities of the MNOSHA program. Marketing of WSC services is accomplished: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) During outreach training sessions conducted at nine locations throughout the state on a quarterly basis, MNOSHA Web site, Press releases, WSC Speakers Bureau, In Alliance with our outreach training partners throughout the state, Booths during trade and business association conferences

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

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 41 December 2005

Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2005 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) and the OSHA Performance Measurement Report (Minnesota). A comparison of MNOSHA activity measures for FFY03, FFY04 and FFY05 is provided in the tables beginning on the following page. Significant improvement was seen in these mandated activities in FFY05: -Complaint inspections were conducted within an average of 2.6 days, significantly lower than the goal of 9 days; -Complaint investigations were conducted within an average of 1.1 days, significantly lower than the goal of 2 days. -MNOSHA safety programmed inspections results in 71.3% with serious/willful/repeat citations versus the national average of 57.4%. -MNOSHA health programmed inspections results in 60.6% with serious/willful/repeat citations versus the national average of 50.5%.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 42 December 2005

COMPARISON OF FFY03, FFY04, and FFY05 ACTIVITY MEASURES
MNOSHA Compliance
STATE ACTIVITY MANDATED MEASURES (SAMMs)
Performance Measure Average number of days to initiate complaint inspections FFY03 4.58 FFY04 5.00 FFY05 2.63 Goal/ National Data 9 Comments The average number of days to initiate a complaint inspection decreased significantly in FFY05 and remains well below the established goal. The average number of days to initiate a complaint investigation continued to decrease in FFY05 and is 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 05. MNOSHA has concentrated efforts through its workflow analysis to address verification of abatement which resulted in improvement in this area. The verification of Public Sector violations continued to improve in FFY05 but remains below the goal. The average number of calendar days from opening conference to citation issue for safety cases remained steady and well below the national average. The average number of calendar days from opening conference to citation issuance for health cases deceased significantly in FFY05 and is well below the national average. The percent of programmed safety inspections with serious/willful/repeat violations increased in FFY05 and 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 has increased steadily but remains below the national average. In addition to the limited numbers of large employers, the number of AWAIR and written RTK citations issued impacts this. The number of public sector inspections increased in FFY05.
Page 43 December 2005

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

3.76

2.09

1.09

2

100

100

100

100

95.71

97.96

100

100

2 65.36

2 58.70

0 71.34

0 100

% 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)

59.18

77.42

83.33

100

24.82

24.87

23.65

45.3

56.81

54.84

35.67

58.6

63.45

66.88

71.29

57.4

47.50

60.81

60.61

50.5

2.13

2.13

2.19

2.1

.49

.47

.49

1.3

657.64

722.18

830.19

1,287.80

% of total inspections in public sector

5.23

3.9

5.63

4.9

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

STATE ACTIVITY MANDATED MEASURES (SAMMs)
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 FFY03 153.30 FFY04 135.41 FFY05 163.96 Goal/ National Data 206.7 Comments The average lapse time from receipt of contest to first level decision increased in FFY 05 but remains below the national average. The percent of 11(c) investigations completed within 90 days improved in FFY05. The percent of merit cases increased in FFY05. The percent of meritorious cases settled decreased in FFY 05.

7.35 16.18 54.55

18.18 14.55 100

26.09 15.94 54.55

100 20.9 84.4

Data Source: State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) – November 6, 2005.

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 Enforcement (Private Sector) % Programmed Inspections with Violations – Health Enforcement (Private Sector) % Serious Violations – Safety Enforcement (Private Sector) % Serious Violations – Health Enforcement (Private Sector) Abatement Periods for Violations Safety % > 30 days Enforcement (Private Sector) Abatement Periods for Violations Health % > 60 days Enforcement (Private Sector) Average Penalty – Safety Other-than-Serious FFY03 90.3 FFY04 91.1 FFY05 89.8 Goal/National Data 58.4 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 FFY05 and remains above the national average. The percent of programmed health inspections with violations in the private sector decreased in FFY05 but remains above the national average. The percent of serious violations in safety cases declined slightly in FFY05. The percent of serious violations in health cases decreased slightly in FFY05. 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 days decreased in FFY05 and is below the national average. The average other-than-serious penalty for safety cases increased in FFY05 but remains well below the national average. In addition to the limited numbers of large employers, the number of AWAIR and written RTK citations issued impacts this.
Page 44 December 2005

64.2

58.1

60.2

40.4

68.5

70.8

73.7

64.8

56.1

66.1

56.6

53.1

80.4 72.7

80.4 75.5

79.7 72.5

75.8 61.2

4.9

4.3

4.9

19.3

5

10.4

8.9

11.3

195.30

210.60

265.70

1011.10

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

INTERIM STATE INDICATOR REPORT (SIR)
Performance Measure Enforcement (Private Sector) Average Penalty – Health Other-than-Serious FFY03 249.8 FFY04 241.7 FFY05 281.10 Goal/National Data 876.30 Comments The average other-than-serious penalty for health cases remains well below the national average. In addition to the limited numbers of large employers, the number of AWAIR and written RTK citations issued impacts this. Calculation error. Memo to Region 5 Area Director regarding data discrepancy was sent. No response or action received. The number of health inspections per hundred hours increased in FFY05. 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 decreased in FFY05 but remains above the national average. The percent of programmed safety inspections increased in FFY05. The number of programmed health inspections in the public sector increased significantly in FFY05. 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 FFY05. 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 FFY05.

Enforcement (Private Sector) Inspections per 100 Hours – Safety Enforcement (Private Sector) Inspections per 100 hours – Health Enforcement (Private Sector) % Violations vacated

4.1

3.7

3.5

4.8

1.7 0

2.5 .1

2.8 .1

1.8 4.7

Enforcement (Private Sector) % Violations Reclassified

0

0

0

4.4

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

79.8

78.9

77.5

60.6

94.7

81.7

91.9

N/A

0

13.6

31.8

N/A

69.9

78.4

72.6

N/A

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

45.5

88.5

78.6

N/A

12.7

10.6

15.8

23.1

9.9

11.5

12.5

14.1

46.9

53

54.3

52.3

Data Source: Interim State Indicator Report (SIR) – September 2005.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 45 December 2005

MNOSHA Performance Measurement Report
MEASURES/ INDICATORS Performance Measure 1 Silica Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 2 Lead Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 4 Food & Related Products (20XX) Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 5 Lumber & Wood Products (24XX) Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 6 Furniture & Fixtures (25XX) Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 7 Paper & Related Products (26XX) Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 8 Rubber & Misc. Plastics (30XX) Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 9 Industrial Machine / Equip (35XX) Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 21 Construction Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat Performance Measure 27 Public Sector Number of Inspections Percent of Total Inspections Number of serious/willful/repeat FFY04 FFY05 COMMENTS

36 1.4% 32

87 3.4% 117

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

34 1.3% 90

37 1.4% 68

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

134 5.1% 280

83 3.2% 205

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan. MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

56 2.1% 120

75 2.9% 189

28 1.1% 68

45 1.7% 102

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

33 1.3% 70

28 1.1% 55

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

77 2.9% 196

75 2.9% 177

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

105 4.0% 319

63 2.4% 186

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

1421 54.0% 1521

1170 45.2% 1123

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

44 1.7% 54

62 2.4% 57

MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 46 December 2005

MNOSHA Performance Measurement Report
MEASURES/ INDICATORS FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 COMMENTS Overall, the additional field indicators remained consistent in FFY 05. 81% 0 2220 354 723 8% 17 10 20 23 34 14 15 30 40 35% 29% 31% 43% 32% 2574 402 1004 669 82% 0 2210 420 811.36 7% 16.7 9 22 26 33 13 16 62 28 32% 28% 27% 45% 30% 2630 341 939 253 81% 2 2155 417 952.76 6% 18.7 10 20 14 27 14 13 21 29 32% 28% 26% 49% 30% 2572 425 1142 263 WSC Division WSC Division The median health lapse time decreased significantly.

ADDITIONAL FIELD INDICATORS
% serious/willful/repeat violations Number of significant cases Number of programmed inspections Number of unprogrammed inspections Average penalty for serious/willful/repeat violations % of inspections with “other than serious” violations Contested cases rate Hour per safety construction inspection Hours per safety non-construction inspection Hours per health construction inspection Hours per health non-construction inspection Median citation lapse time for safety construction inspections Median citation lapse time for safety nonconstruction inspections Median citation lapse time for: Health non-construction inspections Median citation lapse time for: Health construction inspections % of inspections in compliance: Construction % of inspections in compliance: non-construction % of inspections in compliance: Programmed % of inspections in compliance: Unprogrammed % of inspections in compliance: Total Total number of inspections conducted Total number of complaint investigations Total number of consultation activities Total number of technical assistance activities

Data source: OSHA Performance Measurement Report: Measures and Indicators Related to Performance Goals – Minnesota Data September 2005 FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 47 December 2005

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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 48 December 2005

APPENDIX B

MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Statistics FFY 2005
FFY 2003 Number of Cases Closed after Investigation 63 FFY 2004 55 FFY 2005 69

withdrawn dismissed settled other merit settled Lapse time from assigned date to disposition date (cumulative) Number of Cases Opened Number of Cases Referred Number of Cases Screened and Closed Number of Outreach Cases Number of Cases Pending

4 51 0 5 3 85.6

4 43 4 1 3 93.1 days

9 50 2 5 3 70 days

64 4 35 44 47

47 11 33 31 38

48 39 29 31 17

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 49 December 2005

APPENDIX C

MNOSHA Compliance Quarterly Outreach Statistics FFY 2005
Total Attendance Q1 Q2 Q3 Total Outreach Strategic Presentations
(Manufacturing and Construction)

Q4 318

YTD 3267

Number of Presentations Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 19 29 15 11

YTD 74

Average Attendance Q1 Q2 Q3 50 46 45

Q4 28

YTD 42

951

1325

673

305 95 0 63

562 93 0 12

289 30 0 95

147 0 50 20

1303 218 50 190

4 2

13 4 0

2 1 0 3

3 0 1 1

22 7 1 6

76 48 0 63

43 23 0 12

145 30 0 32

54 0 50 20

59 31 0 32

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

1

1

39 153 335 N/A N/A

72 150 508 N/A N/A

0 246 13 N/A N/A

10 101 0 N/A N/A

121 650 856 470 N/A N/A

4 7 5 N/A 1

7 5 6 N/A 3

0 8 1 N/A 2

1 6 0

12 26 12 5

10 22 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A

10 30 85

0 31 13 N/A N/A

10 17 0 N/A N/A

10 25 71 94 N/A

Leading Organizations Other Construction Breakfasts Booth at Safety and Health Conference Shaded groups not included in the totals as that would cause them to be double counted

0

6

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 50 December 2005

Appendix D
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

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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 51 December 2005

• • • • •

relationship with Labor Standards and Apprenticeship and MNOSHA has developed a relationship with schools. This approach would build off the present system. 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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 52 December 2005

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

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

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)
FFY2005 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 53 December 2005

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

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)
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

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

Page 54 December 2005

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

HARD SKILLS

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
FFY2005 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

C/0 B/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
Page 55 December 2005

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

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Professional Development, OTI Defensive Driving, MSC 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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

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

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

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

B/3 C/3

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

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

B/3 C/3

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

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

C/0 C/0

B/0 B/0 B/0

B/0 B/0 B/0

C/0 C/0

Page 56 December 2005

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Confined Spaces, OSHA 2260 Spray Finishing, OSHA 3100 Inspection Process/Procedures (Appendix D-2) 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)
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

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

B/0 B/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 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

Page 57 December 2005

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

Case File Preparation, INT Discrimination Case File Preparation, INT/0TI

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0

C/0 C/0

C/0

B/0

C/0

TECHNICAL SKILLS
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)
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 58 December 2005

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

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

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

OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR

CONST. INVESTIGATOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G. I. INVESTIGATORS

SAFETY PRINCIPALS

ELECTRONICS TECH

TRAINING OFFICERS

DISCRIMINATION

I.H. PRINCIPALS

CORE REQUIREMENT

AV Equipment Operation (on-the-job training) CD Creation/Duplication (Appendix D-2) Phone Operation (Appendix D-2) IMIS Report Skills
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

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 59 December 2005

APPENDIX F

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 60 December 2005

APPENDIX F

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 61 December 2005

Appendix F 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. 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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 62 December 2005

a.

Files are monitored for responses from Complainant and Respondent. i. No response from Complainant.

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. 9. 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.

10. Assemble the physical file with tabs to facilitate finding material during interviews – see “Index Numeric” and “Index Alphabetic” templates for organization.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 63 December 2005

11. Set up telephone log from templates and note every conversation. 12. Look for possible solutions or settlements and discuss with both parties. 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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 64 December 2005

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 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.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 65 December 2005

Appendix G

Summary of Start/Stop/Continue Communication Input 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 a 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 Office Supervisor 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.
Page 66 December 2005

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

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 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.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 67 December 2005

• • • • • •

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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 68 December 2005

Appendix G
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

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

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 69 December 2005

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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 70 December 2005

= 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 5 2 6 7 M

1

an ag er

an ag er

an ag er

ll M gr s

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

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 71 December 2005

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. Fall hazards—Aerial lifts 2. Fall hazards—Forklifts 3. Equipment—Protection from Hazards 4. Equipment—Maintenance 5. Equipment—Seatbelts 6. PVC—Compressed Air Transmission 7. 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.) 2. 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. 3. 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.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 72 December 2005

4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 73 December 2005

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.
Page 74 December 2005

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

• •

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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 75 December 2005

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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 76 December 2005

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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 77 December 2005

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:
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 78 December 2005

• • • •

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).

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 79 December 2005

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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 80 December 2005

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 spray-on truck bed liners and on measures to take for reducing exposures to MDI.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 81 December 2005

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.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 82 December 2005

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 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
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 83 December 2005

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. 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

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 84 December 2005

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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 85 December 2005

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. 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.

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA)

Page 86 December 2005

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 staterun 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 33percent premium credit to employers with no wage-loss claims during the last three years, no adjustment if there has been one wage-loss 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. 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.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 87 December 2005

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 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.
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Page 88 December 2005