Swimming pools require frequent application of disinfectants and other pool chemicals, and exposure to these chemicals can cause illness and injury.

During 2002-2008, an estimated 28,071 cases of illness or injury associated with pool disinfectants and other pool chemicals occurred nationally (an average of 4,010 cases per year). Most cases occurred at private residences.  In the six states (California, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas) participating in the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) Program, 40% of cases were work-related, 9% of which involved loss of 1 or more days from work¹.  The most frequently identified causes of illness or injury were mixing incompatible chemicals, spills and splashes of pool chemicals, lack of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) use, lack of proper training and supervision, and dust clouds or fumes generated by opening a pool chemical container.

In order to prevent these injuries and illnesses, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) makes the following training recommendations:

1. Train all staff in pool chemical safety basics.
2. Provide additional training to staff working with pool chemicals.
3. Include at least the following topics in pool operator training/certification to decrease the likelihood of pool chemical–associated injuries in aquatic–facility staff and patrons:Impact of each pool chemical on the water’s chemistry and the monitoring systems  - If the test kit’s limit is exceeded, how to measure higher chlorine levels (for example, using dilution or higher range test strips).

• Layout of a safe chemical storage area and pump room.
• Calculation of pool volume.
• Calculation of appropriate amount of pool chemicals needed.
• Safe chemical storage and handling practices. For example: 1) protect individual pool
  chemicals from mixing together or with other substances and 2) use PPE while handling chemicals.
• Check out Federal and Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Michigan OSHA resources.
• Basics of preventive and safe maintenance of equipment.
  For example: 1) close pool to swimmers if recirculation system not running and 2) use PPE when working on equipment that contains or circulates pool chemicals.
• First aid for pool chemical exposures.
• Develop an emergency response plan which includes:
  1. Spill-cleanup procedure.
  2. Chemical accident and exposure response.
  3.  Clear chain of command and alternates with contact information.
  4. Evacuation plan.
  5. Communication plan for alerting patrons, staff, and emergency responders.
• Train the staff on the procedures in the emergency response plan.                                     1. . Keep a copy of the emergency response plan near the chemical storage area, pump room, and pool area; and ensure that another copy is also available at a remote location in case of an evacuation.
  2. Ensure up-to-date MSDSs are easily accessible to first responders in case of evacuation.
  3. Have a phone with updated emergency numbers in case of an evacuation.
  4. Practice emergency response with first responders.

In order to ensure that your staff receives proper training and maintains competency, it is recommended that they obtain the Certified Pool/Spa Operator® (CPO®) certification offered by the National Swimming Pool Foundation² certified instructors.  The CPO® certification course is designed to provide the basic knowledge, techniques, and skills of pool and spa operations, including safe storage and use of chemicals. 

Should you require additional information or assistance with employee training on the safe use of pool chemicals, please contact Gary Smith, CRM, at (517) 338-3367 or Gary.Smith@cmi-yorkrsg.com.

References:

1. CDC. Acute Illness and Injury from Swimming Pool Disinfectants and Other Chemicals — United States, 2002—2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 60(39):1343-7.
2. National Swimming Pool Foundation at www.nspf.org

Court Ruling A Victory For Real Estate Industry

In a huge victory for the real estate industry, an April ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act in the Cherryland Mall case. Cherryland Mall is one of two court cases in Michigan which essentially provided for personal liability within nonrecourse loans in the event of foreclosure, and resulted in the legislative effort in favor of the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act. This law, enacted last year, corrected problems with the interpretation of nonrecourse loan carveouts by prohibiting a post-closing solvency covenant from being used as a nonrecourse carveout or as a basis for any claim against a borrower, guarantor, or other surety on a nonrecourse loan, and, by specifying that a noncompliant provision in loan documents would be invalid. Key to the legislation is that it applied to the enforcement and interpretation of all nonrecourse loan documents in existence at the time or entered into in the future. The Michigan Supreme Court recently remanded the case back to the Michigan Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision that insolvency triggered full recourse liability given the passage of the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act. The plaintiff then challenged the constitutionality of the legislature applying the law retroactively. AAM joined the Building Owners & Managers Association (BOMA) in the filing of an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the act.

HUD ISSUES NOTICE ON SERVICE ANIMALS & ASSISTANCE ANIMALSThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently issued a notice providing clarification on the differences between “service animals” and “assistance animals” as both relate to compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act. Both laws contain provisions which address the use of assistance or service animals by people with disabilities. The notice provides guidance that the Department of Justice’s revised definition of “service animal” under ADA (which is “… dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.”) does not apply to housing providers responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act. Under the Fair Housing Act there is an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities who, because of their disability, require trained service dogs or other types of “assistance animals” to perform tasks, provide emotional support, or alleviate the effects of their disabilities. Visit www.hud.gov to read the full notice.

Do employees or contractors you hire perform work at elevations using ladders, scaffolds, or lifts? Do they clean gutters, trim trees, perform minor roofing repairs, change lighting, paint at heights, etc.? If so, then the preventive measures taken can greatly reduce their chance of a fatal injury.

Background
Before discussing methods of preventing “falls from elevations,” let’s put the issue into context with a focus on the revised 2011 workplace fatality data from The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which report that 4,609 workers were killed on the job.

Fatal falls, slips, or trips took the lives of 666 workers in 2011, or about 14 percent of all fatal work injuries. Falls to “lower level” accounted for 541 of those fatalities.

The height of the fall was reported in 451 of the 541 fatal falls from elevation. Of those 451 fatal cases, 115 occurred after a fall of 10 feet or less, 118 occurred from a fall of over 30 feet, 38 occurred after a fall from a collapsing structure or equipment and 60 occurred from a fall through a surface or existing opening (e.g., skylights, hatches, etc.).

In the state of Michigan during a five-year period from 2006 to 2010, falls accounted for 22 percent of the more than 181 workplace fatalities investigated by MIOSHA. In construction, the number is even higher at 29 percent of fatalities investigated.

Additionally, within the last three years, MIOSHA and OSHA have reported that fall protection and scaffolding violations are the top two cited. Ladder violations range from #5 to #9 within the ranking of most cited violations. Both agencies continue to dedicate a greater degree of enforcement and training focus in these areas.

Real-Life Examples
A 43-year-old carpenter was working on a ladder that barely reached the roof edge. The base of the ladder slipped away in the ice and snow, causing the employee to fall 8 feet.

A 33-year-old laborer was working near the edge of a roof. When he pulled on an electrical cord to power a screw gun, he lost his balance and fell off the roof 28 feet to the ground below.

A 46-year-old landscaping employee stringing decorative lights climbed a tree to about 30 feet above the ground. The employee fell from the tree and died 18 days later from multiple injuries.

Preventing Falls
The following preventive practices, while not exhaustive, provide the fundamental basis for an effective program:

• Understand if the work being performed is considered construction or service, and which safety standards apply. See below the list of safety standards that will likely apply.
• Conduct a job hazard analysis (JHA) to determine the safest way to do the job and select the right tools and equipment.
• Conduct safety training.
• Use guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or appropriate restraints when exposed to a fall hazard.
• Place guardrails around skylights and place solid covers on roof openings.
• Cover or guard floor holes or openings immediately.
• Survey existing structures to ensure surfaces are safe to walk on.
• Ensure ladders are appropriate and long enough to do the job. Secure ladders at the top whenever possible. Do not stand on the top two steps.
• Inspect equipment before use and do not use when damaged or defective.
• Follow safety rules and instructions.
• Look out for co-workers and tell them when you see something unsafe.
• Select qualified contractors and vendors that ensure their employees work safely.

MIOSHA Standards That Apply to Fall Prevention can be found at:
www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards

Construction
Part 6, Personal Protective Equipment
Part 12, Scaffolds & Scaffold Platforms
Part 21, Guarding of Walking & Working Surfaces
Part 26, Steel Erection
Part 32, Aerial Work Platforms
Part 45, Fall Protection

General Industry
Part 2, Floor & Wall Openings, Stairways & Skylights
Part 5, Scaffolding
Part 33, Personal Protective Equipment
Part 53, Tree Trimming & Removal
Part 58, Vehicle Mounted Elevating Platforms

Should you require assistance with preventing falls, e.g., determining applicability, completing JHAs, conducting employee training, etc., please contact Gary Smith, CRM, at (517) 338-3367 or Gary.Smith@cmi-yorkrsg.com.

Apartment Inspection Reform Legislation Introduced
AAM’s legislation to help reform the multifamily rental property inspection provisions of the Housing Law of Michigan has been introduced in the Michigan Senate. Senate Bill 313, sponsored by Senator David Robertson (R-26th District) at the request of AAM, addresses numerous problems apartment owners are currently encountering with local inspection programs. The legislation has the following four primary components:

Limits on Inspection Fees
– The statute’s current language requiring inspection fees “not exceed the actual, reasonable cost of providing the inspection” is too nebulous. Wide disparities are seen in the fees charged by communities, with some municipalities clearly viewing apartment inspection programs as a revenue opportunity. AAM proposes to limit the fee that may be charged by a local government to no more than $40 per unit or no more than $75 per building. The first reinspection would be included in the charge.

Reform Inspection Timeframes
– Municipalities covered by this act are currently required to inspect multifamily rental properties at least once every four years, with the option of enacting an ordinance to increase the timeframe to no longer than 6 years. AAM proposes to amend these provisions to increase the timeframe between inspections to 6-10 years. By extending the time required between inspection cycles, the local government is given more flexibility to spread out the program costs while still being able to issue inspections at any time based upon complaint. Furthermore, this will help to limit the intrusion on residents.

Limits on Registration Fees
– Some local governments are requiring significant registration fees on a per unit or per building basis in conjunction with their inspection cycle (usually every 2-3 years). These fees bear no relation to the expense the local government incurs – which is virtually nothing – to keep the registration on file, nor do the way fees are structured (per unit/per building) relate to the information collected (general property information). AAM is proposing to limit what the local enforcing agency may charge to no more than $100 per owner, and allow that charge to cover the property as long as there is no ownership change.

Application of Law to Townships
– The scope of the act relating to multifamily rental housing currently does not include most townships. The proposed legislation updates this to include townships so they are governed in the same way as cities and villages.

AAM thanks Sen. Robertson for his leadership in sponsoring this bill.

Enforcement of New DOE Furnace Standard Delayed
Enforcement of a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) standard which mandates the use of 90 percent annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region (including Michigan) has been delayed indefinitely. The rule was scheduled to take effect May 1, 2013, but due to a proposed lawsuit settlement DOE issued the delay notice. In 2011 the American Public Gas Association filed a lawsuit challenging the process DOE followed for the rule, and earlier this year a settlement agreement was submitted to the court, where approval is pending

Constitutionality of Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act Under Attack

AAM has joined the Building Owners & Managers Association (BOMA) in the filing of an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of Michigan’s Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act. This law, enacted last year, corrected problems with the interpretation of nonrecourse loan carveouts by prohibiting a post-closing solvency covenant from being used as a nonrecourse carveout or as a basis for any claim against a borrower, guarantor, or other surety on a nonrecourse loan, and, by specifying that a noncompliant provision in loan documents would be invalid. The legislation applied to the enforcement and interpretation of all nonrecourse loan documents in existence at the time or entered into in the future. The legislation was needed in response to two court cases in Michigan which essentially provided for personal liability within nonrecourse loans in the event of foreclosure. The Michigan Supreme Court recently remanded one of those cases back to the Michigan Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision that insolvency triggered full recourse liability given the passage of the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act. The plaintiff has challenged the constitutionality of the legislature applying the law retroactively. AAM will keep you updated on this important issue.

Carried Interest Tax Increase Back In Play

In his push for more tax revenue to reduce the deficit, President Obama recently put the carried interest tax squarely in the crosshairs. In a recent interview with CBS, Obama stated that the United States could reduce the deficit with a combination of spending cuts and by closing tax loopholes. The President specifically cited “carried interest” as an example of a loophole. For the last several years, the President, as well as many Congressional Democrats, have characterized the current treatment of carried interest as an unfair loophole, and proposed that it be taxed as ordinary income. Originally, the rationale used by advocates for the change was that it was a means to tax Wall Street hedge funds, but as we know it would also affect real estate partnerships. AAM will continue to work with NAHB and other real estate groups to oppose an increased tax on carried interest.

Are Your Company Trucks In Compliance? 

If you operate a truck in your business, there is a good chance all or some of the state and federal trucking regulations apply to you.  Recently enacted legislation in Michigan – Public Act 231 of 2012 – has amended the Michigan Motor Carrier Safety Act to exempt certain vehicles, but also provide that these vehicles remain subject to federal regulation. On April 23, HBA and AAM will host a free seminar covering this issue, including requirements for USDOT numbers, proper licensing, and much more. You can register for the program at www.builders.org.