Safe Workplace and Safety News
This is the safety news blog for the Safe Workplace web site. We cover workplace safety related news with a focus on how safety, or a lack of safety, impacts employers, employees and their families. We also cover topics such as safety training, safety tools, and legal issues related to safety. For regular safety news and information enter your email address in the box above the Subscribe button to the right (then click on the button).
Monday, March 15, 2010
AIHA Responds To OSHA
On March 4, the American Industrial Hygiene Association(AIHA) participated in the "OSHA Listens" public meeting. The all-day, live webcast addressed issues posed by the agency, and featured input from numerous stakeholders, including AIHA, the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and ordinary citizens who lost family members due to worksite accidents.
In February, AIHA held its own virtual town hall meeting to solicit comments and suggestions from individual members and AIHA Volunteer Groups and Local Sections. The results of the AIHA meeting and member input are detailed in the document "'OSHA Listens' Public Input on Key Issues Facing the Agency," which was submitted to OSHA on Feb. 10.
AIHA's comments include responses to nine questions put forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in anticipation of the forum. Input from AIHA members consists of ideas that both support OSHA’s health and safety program and highlight areas where the agency can improve its agenda. Noteworthy comments from AIHA include:
• Further outreach by OSHA outside of compliance that communicates significant heath
and safety issues in different industries.
• Greater involvement of NIOSH in OSHA’s strategic planning and research on emerging
hazards and issues.
• Address issues such as the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), nanotechnology, safepatient handling, and control banding.
• Promote better partnerships with professional associations, such as AIHA, that have
stake in the success of the agency’s agenda.
• Create a federal advisory committee composed of labor, industry, small business, and professional associations that looks at the rule-making process and offers suggestions on how it can be improved.
• Make the updating of Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) a top priority, and require
written health and safety programs contain a selection of the appropriate PELs for the specific industry.
The period in which written comments can be submitted ends March 30, and OSHA will make the transcripts of the meeting available after 30 days. The AIHA document "'OSHA Listens' Public Input on Key Issues Facing the Agency," can be found in the Government Affairs section of the AIHA website at www.aiha.org.
Related Past Posts:
Material Handling Safety Training
An Idea For Promoting Health and Safety
How To Stay Off OSHA's Radar
In February, AIHA held its own virtual town hall meeting to solicit comments and suggestions from individual members and AIHA Volunteer Groups and Local Sections. The results of the AIHA meeting and member input are detailed in the document "'OSHA Listens' Public Input on Key Issues Facing the Agency," which was submitted to OSHA on Feb. 10.
AIHA's comments include responses to nine questions put forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in anticipation of the forum. Input from AIHA members consists of ideas that both support OSHA’s health and safety program and highlight areas where the agency can improve its agenda. Noteworthy comments from AIHA include:
• Further outreach by OSHA outside of compliance that communicates significant heath
and safety issues in different industries.
• Greater involvement of NIOSH in OSHA’s strategic planning and research on emerging
hazards and issues.
• Address issues such as the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), nanotechnology, safepatient handling, and control banding.
• Promote better partnerships with professional associations, such as AIHA, that have
stake in the success of the agency’s agenda.
• Create a federal advisory committee composed of labor, industry, small business, and professional associations that looks at the rule-making process and offers suggestions on how it can be improved.
• Make the updating of Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) a top priority, and require
written health and safety programs contain a selection of the appropriate PELs for the specific industry.
The period in which written comments can be submitted ends March 30, and OSHA will make the transcripts of the meeting available after 30 days. The AIHA document "'OSHA Listens' Public Input on Key Issues Facing the Agency," can be found in the Government Affairs section of the AIHA website at www.aiha.org.
Related Past Posts:
Material Handling Safety Training
An Idea For Promoting Health and Safety
How To Stay Off OSHA's Radar
Labels: Industrial Health, OSHA, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
OSHA Notifies 15,000 Workplaces Nationwide With High Injury and Illness Rates
OSHA surveys employers to collect workplace injury and illness data it uses to identify employers whose injury and illness rates are considerably higher than the national average. OSHA has sent a letter to about 15,000 workplaces that have the highest numbers of injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work, restricted work activities or job transfers, known as the DART rate.
"Receipt of this letter means that workers in that particular establishment are being injured at a higher rate than in most other businesses of its kind in the country," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Employers whose businesses have injury and illness rates this high need to take immediate steps to protect their workers."
Employers receiving the letters also were provided copies of their injury and illness data, along with a list of the most frequently cited OSHA standards for their specific industry. The letter offered assistance in helping to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses by suggesting, among other things, the use of OSHA's free safety and health consultation services for small businesses provided through the states.
OSHA identified businesses with the nation's highest rates of workplace injuries and illnesses through employer-reported data from a 2009 survey of about 100,000 worksites. (This survey collected injury and illness data for calendar year 2008.) Workplaces receiving notifications had DART rates more than twice the national average among all U.S. workplaces.
OSHA's consultation program is available to assist in addressing safety and health in the workplace for employers with 250 or fewer workers. This program is administered by a state agency and operated separately from OSHA's enforcement program. The service is free and confidential, and there are no fines even if problems are found. Designed for small employers, the consultation program can help an employer identify hazards while finding effective and economical solutions for repairing them. In addition, the OSHA state consultant can assist in developing and implementing a safety and health management system for the workplace.
A list of the employers receiving the letter is available on OSHA's public Web site at http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/foia/hot_16.html. A list of OSHA's consultation services is available at http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html.
"Receipt of this letter means that workers in that particular establishment are being injured at a higher rate than in most other businesses of its kind in the country," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Employers whose businesses have injury and illness rates this high need to take immediate steps to protect their workers."
Employers receiving the letters also were provided copies of their injury and illness data, along with a list of the most frequently cited OSHA standards for their specific industry. The letter offered assistance in helping to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses by suggesting, among other things, the use of OSHA's free safety and health consultation services for small businesses provided through the states.
OSHA identified businesses with the nation's highest rates of workplace injuries and illnesses through employer-reported data from a 2009 survey of about 100,000 worksites. (This survey collected injury and illness data for calendar year 2008.) Workplaces receiving notifications had DART rates more than twice the national average among all U.S. workplaces.
OSHA's consultation program is available to assist in addressing safety and health in the workplace for employers with 250 or fewer workers. This program is administered by a state agency and operated separately from OSHA's enforcement program. The service is free and confidential, and there are no fines even if problems are found. Designed for small employers, the consultation program can help an employer identify hazards while finding effective and economical solutions for repairing them. In addition, the OSHA state consultant can assist in developing and implementing a safety and health management system for the workplace.
A list of the employers receiving the letter is available on OSHA's public Web site at http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/foia/hot_16.html. A list of OSHA's consultation services is available at http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety statistics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, February 04, 2010
US Business Opposes Work Safety Proposal
This report comes from the financial times in London (U.K.) It summarizes what might be developing into a major fight between business and OSHA concerning recording repetitive motion injury information. The article states:
"An arcane-sounding proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) related to repetitive-strain injuries is expected to revive a 10-year-old battle that began during the Clinton administration, pitting labour unions against business advocates such as the US Chamber of Commerce over how the government should define ergonomic injuries in the workplace."
"There are a lot of scientific questions on whether ergonomic injuries are caused by the workplace or outside the workplace, including lifestyle and genetics," says Marc Freedman at the US chamber. "Unlike every other hazard for which OSHA regulates, ergonomics is not limited to the workplace. That makes it extremely problematic."
Read the entire article here.
"An arcane-sounding proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) related to repetitive-strain injuries is expected to revive a 10-year-old battle that began during the Clinton administration, pitting labour unions against business advocates such as the US Chamber of Commerce over how the government should define ergonomic injuries in the workplace."
"There are a lot of scientific questions on whether ergonomic injuries are caused by the workplace or outside the workplace, including lifestyle and genetics," says Marc Freedman at the US chamber. "Unlike every other hazard for which OSHA regulates, ergonomics is not limited to the workplace. That makes it extremely problematic."
Read the entire article here.
Labels: OSHA, workplace injuries
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, February 01, 2010
OSHA Proposes Recordkeeping Change To Improve Illness Data
OSHA is proposing to revise its Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting (recordkeeping) regulation by restoring a column on the OSHA Form 300 to better identify work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The rule does not change existing requirements for when and under what circumstances employers must record musculoskeletal disorders on their injury and illness logs.
Many employers are currently required to keep a record of workplace injuries and illnesses, including work-related MSDs, on the OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The proposed rule would require employers to place a check mark in a column for all MSDs they have recorded.
The proposed requirements are identical to those contained in the OSHA recordkeeping regulation that was issued in 2001. Prior to 2001, OSHA's injury and illness logs contained a column for repetitive trauma disorders that included noise and MSDs. In 2001, OSHA separated noise and MSDs into two separate columns, but the MSD column was deleted in 2003 before the provision became effective. OSHA is now proposing to restore the MSD column to the OSHA Form 300 log.
"Restoring the MSD column will improve the ability of workers and employers to identify and prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders by providing simple and easily accessible information," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "It will also improve the accuracy and completeness of national work-related injury and illness data."
For more information, view OSHA's proposal at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=21314. This notice will be published in the Jan. 29 edition of the Federal Register.
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed rule electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the federal e-rulemaking portal; or by mailing three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210; or by fax at 202-693-1648 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages.
Comments must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking (Docket Number OSHA-2009-0044). The deadline for submitting comments is March 15. OSHA will hold a public meeting on the proposed rule March 9.
Many employers are currently required to keep a record of workplace injuries and illnesses, including work-related MSDs, on the OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The proposed rule would require employers to place a check mark in a column for all MSDs they have recorded.
The proposed requirements are identical to those contained in the OSHA recordkeeping regulation that was issued in 2001. Prior to 2001, OSHA's injury and illness logs contained a column for repetitive trauma disorders that included noise and MSDs. In 2001, OSHA separated noise and MSDs into two separate columns, but the MSD column was deleted in 2003 before the provision became effective. OSHA is now proposing to restore the MSD column to the OSHA Form 300 log.
"Restoring the MSD column will improve the ability of workers and employers to identify and prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders by providing simple and easily accessible information," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "It will also improve the accuracy and completeness of national work-related injury and illness data."
For more information, view OSHA's proposal at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=21314. This notice will be published in the Jan. 29 edition of the Federal Register.
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed rule electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the federal e-rulemaking portal; or by mailing three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210; or by fax at 202-693-1648 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages.
Comments must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking (Docket Number OSHA-2009-0044). The deadline for submitting comments is March 15. OSHA will hold a public meeting on the proposed rule March 9.
Labels: Industrial Health, OSHA
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Textile Groups Urge OSHA To Avoid Unnecessary Regulations
An article in Textile World magazine reports that the textile industry has responded to OSHA's advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on combustible dust by asking that OSHA not impose rules on industries for which they don't apply. The article states:
"While supporting OSHA's overall efforts to improve safety in the workplace, NCC (National Cotton Council) cautions OSHA to focus its efforts in this case to areas that have experienced problems with combustible dust and not attempt to regulate industries such as textiles that have 'no demonstrated history of combustible dust incidents.'"
You can read the complete article here.
"While supporting OSHA's overall efforts to improve safety in the workplace, NCC (National Cotton Council) cautions OSHA to focus its efforts in this case to areas that have experienced problems with combustible dust and not attempt to regulate industries such as textiles that have 'no demonstrated history of combustible dust incidents.'"
You can read the complete article here.
Labels: combustible dust, OSHA, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Marshals Seize Vehicle
U.S. marshals accompanied by special agents from the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General yesteraday seized a vehicle at the residence of Richard Kohler, president of Brocon Petroleum Inc., after Brocon Petroleum and Kohler failed to pay $7,500 in back wages to a former employee. The back wages were the result of a consent judgment filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to resolve a lawsuit filed by the Labor Department in March 2008.
The suit was filed after the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found the company had violated the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. An investigation by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program found the defendants had terminated the employee in retaliation because they suspected he had called OSHA and caused an inspection. The defendants fired the complainant following the inspection of the employer's worksite conducted by OSHA in response to an anonymous complaint about safety practices at the worksite.
Under the consent judgment, Brocon Petroleum had agreed to pay the former employee's back wages in addition to removing all reference to suspension or discharge from the employee's personnel file and posting a notice notifying current employees of their whistleblower rights. However, the company failed to comply with the monetary terms of the consent judgment.
"This action should send a clear message that there will be consequences for retaliating against employees who engage in activities protected by law," says Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "While OSHA is best known for ensuring the safety and health of employees, it is also a whistleblower protection agency."
The suit was filed after the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found the company had violated the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. An investigation by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program found the defendants had terminated the employee in retaliation because they suspected he had called OSHA and caused an inspection. The defendants fired the complainant following the inspection of the employer's worksite conducted by OSHA in response to an anonymous complaint about safety practices at the worksite.
Under the consent judgment, Brocon Petroleum had agreed to pay the former employee's back wages in addition to removing all reference to suspension or discharge from the employee's personnel file and posting a notice notifying current employees of their whistleblower rights. However, the company failed to comply with the monetary terms of the consent judgment.
"This action should send a clear message that there will be consequences for retaliating against employees who engage in activities protected by law," says Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "While OSHA is best known for ensuring the safety and health of employees, it is also a whistleblower protection agency."
Labels: OSHA, whistleblower
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, December 14, 2009
OSHA Proposes More Than $266,000 In Penalties Against Manufacturer
Crespac Inc. in Tucker, Ga., has been cited with 34 safety and health violations by OSHA. Proposed penalties total $266,400.
"OSHA began its comprehensive safety and health inspection after learning of two separate incidents resulting in amputations within a 30-day period," said Gei-Thae Breezley, director of OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office. "In both instances, management knew of deficiencies but acted with plain indifference by failing to correct the problems in a timely manner that could have prevented these amputations."
The agency is citing the company with three willful, four repeat, 19 serious and one other-than-serious safety violations, as well as five serious and two other-than-serious health violations. OSHA is proposing penalties of $249,200 for the safety violations and an additional $17,200 for the health violations.
The willful citations result from the company's failure to ensure that all machines had proper safety guards, functional emergency stop cords and usable safety interlock switches installed on machinery. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.
The company is being cited for repeat violations related to having slippery and wet floors, lack of safety guards on machines, machines being operated with broken parts and employees being exposed to electrical shocks.
Serious violations include fall hazards, slipping and tripping hazards, entrapment hazards, failure to provide proper fire training and equipment, failure to properly train forklift operators, electrical hazards, noise hazards, exposure to hazardous chemicals and an insufficient respirator program for employees. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists. OSHA issues repeat violations when it finds a substantially similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any of a company's other facilities in federal enforcement states.
Other-than-serious violations relate to the company's failure to conduct timely inspections of overhead cranes and related equipment and recordkeeping deficiencies in required OSHA incident logs.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The site was inspected by staff from OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office, 2183 Northlake Parkway, Building 7, Suite 110, Tucker, Ga.; telephone 770-493-6644.
"OSHA began its comprehensive safety and health inspection after learning of two separate incidents resulting in amputations within a 30-day period," said Gei-Thae Breezley, director of OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office. "In both instances, management knew of deficiencies but acted with plain indifference by failing to correct the problems in a timely manner that could have prevented these amputations."
The agency is citing the company with three willful, four repeat, 19 serious and one other-than-serious safety violations, as well as five serious and two other-than-serious health violations. OSHA is proposing penalties of $249,200 for the safety violations and an additional $17,200 for the health violations.
The willful citations result from the company's failure to ensure that all machines had proper safety guards, functional emergency stop cords and usable safety interlock switches installed on machinery. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.
The company is being cited for repeat violations related to having slippery and wet floors, lack of safety guards on machines, machines being operated with broken parts and employees being exposed to electrical shocks.
Serious violations include fall hazards, slipping and tripping hazards, entrapment hazards, failure to provide proper fire training and equipment, failure to properly train forklift operators, electrical hazards, noise hazards, exposure to hazardous chemicals and an insufficient respirator program for employees. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists. OSHA issues repeat violations when it finds a substantially similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any of a company's other facilities in federal enforcement states.
Other-than-serious violations relate to the company's failure to conduct timely inspections of overhead cranes and related equipment and recordkeeping deficiencies in required OSHA incident logs.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The site was inspected by staff from OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office, 2183 Northlake Parkway, Building 7, Suite 110, Tucker, Ga.; telephone 770-493-6644.
Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
OSHA Guidance Document On PPE For Safeguarding Emergency Medical Responders
OSHA has issued a guidance document, Best Practices for Protecting EMS Responders During Treatment and Transport of Victims of Hazardous Substance Releases, that addresses adequate training and personal protective equipment for emergency medical services responders who assist victims of hazardous substance release incidents.
This document, a companion to OSHA's Best Practices for Hospital-Based First Receivers, advises that employers provide, at a minimum, awareness level training to EMS responders. Workers receiving awareness-level training are not permitted to rescue or treat contaminated patients, but are responsible for notifying authorities if they suspect hazardous substances at a scene. Operations-level training teaches EMS responders skills for entering hazardous areas and caring for contaminated individuals.
"Healthcare workers, including EMS personnel, play a critical role in a community's emergency response program," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Emergency workers who protect the lives of victims at dangerous incidents should not risk becoming victims themselves because they lack proper training and protective clothing."
The guidance document helps employers to determine the type of training and PPE needed by anticipating the EMS responder's role in a worst-case scenario, identifying hazards associated with the responder's assigned duties, and developing an emergency response plan detailing safe accomplishment of those duties.
This document, a companion to OSHA's Best Practices for Hospital-Based First Receivers, advises that employers provide, at a minimum, awareness level training to EMS responders. Workers receiving awareness-level training are not permitted to rescue or treat contaminated patients, but are responsible for notifying authorities if they suspect hazardous substances at a scene. Operations-level training teaches EMS responders skills for entering hazardous areas and caring for contaminated individuals.
"Healthcare workers, including EMS personnel, play a critical role in a community's emergency response program," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Emergency workers who protect the lives of victims at dangerous incidents should not risk becoming victims themselves because they lack proper training and protective clothing."
The guidance document helps employers to determine the type of training and PPE needed by anticipating the EMS responder's role in a worst-case scenario, identifying hazards associated with the responder's assigned duties, and developing an emergency response plan detailing safe accomplishment of those duties.
Labels: Free Safety Guides, Industrial Health, OSHA
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, November 19, 2009
GAO Reports Workplace Injuries Are Underreported
Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data
Read more about this in the Las Vegas Sun
What The GAO Found:
The Department Of Labor verifies some of the workplace injury and illness data it collects from employers through OSHA’s audits of employers’ records, but these efforts may not be adequate. OSHA overlooks information from workers about injuries and illnesses because it does not routinely interview them as part of its records audits. OSHA annually audits the records of a representative sample of about 250 of the approximately 130,000 worksites in the high hazard industries it surveys to verify the accuracy of the data on injuries and illnesses recorded by employers. However, OSHA does not always require inspectors to interview workers about injuries and illnesses—the only source of data not provided by employers—which could assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the records.
In addition, some OSHA inspectors reported they rarely learn about injuries and illnesses from workers since the records audits are conducted about 2 years after incidents are recorded.
Moreover, many workers are no longer employed at the worksite and therefore cannot be interviewed.
OSHA also does not review the accuracy of injury and illness records for worksites in eight high hazard industries because it has not updated the industry codes used to identify these industries since 2002.
OSHA officials told GAO they have not updated the industry codes because it would require a regulatory change that is not currently an agency priority. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also collects data on work-related injuries and illnesses recorded by employers through its annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), but it does not verify the accuracy of the data. Although BLS is not required to verify the accuracy of the SOII data, it has recognized several limitations in the data, such as its limited scope, and has taken or is planning several actions to improve the quality and completeness of the SOII.
According to stakeholders interviewed and the occupational health practitioners GAO surveyed, many factors affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including disincentives that may discourage workers from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses to their employers and disincentives that may discourage employers from recording them.
For example, workers may not report a work-related injury or illness because they fear job loss or other disciplinary action, or fear jeopardizing rewards based on having low injury and illness rates. In addition, employers may not record injuries or illnesses because they are afraid of increasing their workers’ compensation costs or jeopardizing their chances of winning contract bids for new work.
Disincentives for reporting and recording injuries and illnesses can result in pressure on occupational health practitioners from employers or workers to provide insufficient medical treatment that avoids the need to record the injury or illness.
From its survey of U.S. health practitioners, GAO found that over a third of them had been subjected to such pressure.
In addition, stakeholders and the survey results indicated that other factors may affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including a lack of understanding of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements by individuals responsible for recording injuries and illnesses.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to:
1 -require inspectors to interview workers during records audits, and substitute other workers when those initially selected are unavailable.
2 - minimize the time between the date injuries and illnesses are recorded by employers and the date they are audited
3 - update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for records audits
4 - increase education and training to help employers better understand the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA agreed with these recommendations.
Read more about this in the Las Vegas Sun
What The GAO Found:
The Department Of Labor verifies some of the workplace injury and illness data it collects from employers through OSHA’s audits of employers’ records, but these efforts may not be adequate. OSHA overlooks information from workers about injuries and illnesses because it does not routinely interview them as part of its records audits. OSHA annually audits the records of a representative sample of about 250 of the approximately 130,000 worksites in the high hazard industries it surveys to verify the accuracy of the data on injuries and illnesses recorded by employers. However, OSHA does not always require inspectors to interview workers about injuries and illnesses—the only source of data not provided by employers—which could assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the records.
In addition, some OSHA inspectors reported they rarely learn about injuries and illnesses from workers since the records audits are conducted about 2 years after incidents are recorded.
Moreover, many workers are no longer employed at the worksite and therefore cannot be interviewed.
OSHA also does not review the accuracy of injury and illness records for worksites in eight high hazard industries because it has not updated the industry codes used to identify these industries since 2002.
OSHA officials told GAO they have not updated the industry codes because it would require a regulatory change that is not currently an agency priority. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also collects data on work-related injuries and illnesses recorded by employers through its annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), but it does not verify the accuracy of the data. Although BLS is not required to verify the accuracy of the SOII data, it has recognized several limitations in the data, such as its limited scope, and has taken or is planning several actions to improve the quality and completeness of the SOII.
According to stakeholders interviewed and the occupational health practitioners GAO surveyed, many factors affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including disincentives that may discourage workers from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses to their employers and disincentives that may discourage employers from recording them.
For example, workers may not report a work-related injury or illness because they fear job loss or other disciplinary action, or fear jeopardizing rewards based on having low injury and illness rates. In addition, employers may not record injuries or illnesses because they are afraid of increasing their workers’ compensation costs or jeopardizing their chances of winning contract bids for new work.
Disincentives for reporting and recording injuries and illnesses can result in pressure on occupational health practitioners from employers or workers to provide insufficient medical treatment that avoids the need to record the injury or illness.
From its survey of U.S. health practitioners, GAO found that over a third of them had been subjected to such pressure.
In addition, stakeholders and the survey results indicated that other factors may affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including a lack of understanding of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements by individuals responsible for recording injuries and illnesses.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to:
1 -require inspectors to interview workers during records audits, and substitute other workers when those initially selected are unavailable.
2 - minimize the time between the date injuries and illnesses are recorded by employers and the date they are audited
3 - update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for records audits
4 - increase education and training to help employers better understand the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA agreed with these recommendations.
Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Preliminary Top OSHA Violations For 2009
OSHA has revealed the preliminary top 10 most-frequent workplace safety violations for 2009 as part of a presentation at the NSC's annual Congress & Expo. The number of top 10 violations has increased almost 30 percent over the same time period in 2008.
"We appreciate our colleagues at OSHA presenting their new violation data to such a receptive audience," said National Safety Council President and CEO Janet Froetscher. "The sheer number of violations gives us new resolve in raising awareness about the importance of having sounds safety procedures."
The workplace violations are:
1. Scaffolding - 9,093 violations
Scaffold accidents most often result from the planking or support giving way, or from the employee slipping or being struck by a falling object.
2. Fall Protection - 6,771 violations
Any time a worker is at a height of four feet or more, the worker is at risk and needs to be protected. Fall protection must be provided at four feet in general industry, five feet in maritime and six feet in construction.
3. Hazard Communication - 6,378 violations
Chemical manufacturers and importers are required to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import, and prepare labels and safety data sheets to convey the hazard information to their downstream customers.
4. Respiratory Protection - 3,803 violations
Respirators protect workers against insufficient oxygen environments, harmful dusts, fogs, smokes, mists, gases, vapors and sprays. These hazards may cause cancer, lung impairment, other diseases or death.
5. Lockout-Tag out - 3,321 violations
"Lockout-Tag out" refers to specific practices and procedures to safeguard employees from the unexpected startup of machinery and equipment, or the release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance activities.
6. Electrical (Wiring) - 3,079 violations
Working with electricity can be dangerous. Engineers, electricians and other professionals work with electricity directly, including working on overhead lines, cable harnesses, and circuit assemblies. Others, such as office workers and sales people, work with electricity indirectly and may also be exposed to electrical hazards.
7. Ladders - 3,072 violations
Occupational fatalities caused by falls remain a serious public health problem. The US Department of Labor (DOL) lists falls as one of the leading causes of traumatic occupational death, accounting for eight percent of all occupational fatalities from trauma.
8. Powered Industrial Trucks - 2,993 violations
Each year, tens of thousands of injuries related to powered industrial trucks (PIT), or forklifts, occur in US workplaces. Many employees are injured when lift trucks are inadvertently driven off loading docks, lifts fall between docks and an unsecured trailer, they are struck by a lift truck, or when they fall while on elevated pallets and tines.
9. Electrical - 2,556 violations
Working with electricity can be dangerous. Engineers, electricians, and other professionals work with electricity directly, including working on overhead lines, cable harnesses, and circuit assemblies. Others, such as office workers and sales people, work with electricity indirectly and may also be exposed to electrical hazards.
10. Machine Guarding - 2,364 violations
Any machine part, function, or process that may cause injury must be safeguarded. When the operation of a machine or accidental contact injures the operator or others in the vicinity, the hazards must be eliminated or controlled.
The final report on the Top 10 for 2009 violations will be published in December.
"We appreciate our colleagues at OSHA presenting their new violation data to such a receptive audience," said National Safety Council President and CEO Janet Froetscher. "The sheer number of violations gives us new resolve in raising awareness about the importance of having sounds safety procedures."
The workplace violations are:
1. Scaffolding - 9,093 violations
Scaffold accidents most often result from the planking or support giving way, or from the employee slipping or being struck by a falling object.
2. Fall Protection - 6,771 violations
Any time a worker is at a height of four feet or more, the worker is at risk and needs to be protected. Fall protection must be provided at four feet in general industry, five feet in maritime and six feet in construction.
3. Hazard Communication - 6,378 violations
Chemical manufacturers and importers are required to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import, and prepare labels and safety data sheets to convey the hazard information to their downstream customers.
4. Respiratory Protection - 3,803 violations
Respirators protect workers against insufficient oxygen environments, harmful dusts, fogs, smokes, mists, gases, vapors and sprays. These hazards may cause cancer, lung impairment, other diseases or death.
5. Lockout-Tag out - 3,321 violations
"Lockout-Tag out" refers to specific practices and procedures to safeguard employees from the unexpected startup of machinery and equipment, or the release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance activities.
6. Electrical (Wiring) - 3,079 violations
Working with electricity can be dangerous. Engineers, electricians and other professionals work with electricity directly, including working on overhead lines, cable harnesses, and circuit assemblies. Others, such as office workers and sales people, work with electricity indirectly and may also be exposed to electrical hazards.
7. Ladders - 3,072 violations
Occupational fatalities caused by falls remain a serious public health problem. The US Department of Labor (DOL) lists falls as one of the leading causes of traumatic occupational death, accounting for eight percent of all occupational fatalities from trauma.
8. Powered Industrial Trucks - 2,993 violations
Each year, tens of thousands of injuries related to powered industrial trucks (PIT), or forklifts, occur in US workplaces. Many employees are injured when lift trucks are inadvertently driven off loading docks, lifts fall between docks and an unsecured trailer, they are struck by a lift truck, or when they fall while on elevated pallets and tines.
9. Electrical - 2,556 violations
Working with electricity can be dangerous. Engineers, electricians, and other professionals work with electricity directly, including working on overhead lines, cable harnesses, and circuit assemblies. Others, such as office workers and sales people, work with electricity indirectly and may also be exposed to electrical hazards.
10. Machine Guarding - 2,364 violations
Any machine part, function, or process that may cause injury must be safeguarded. When the operation of a machine or accidental contact injures the operator or others in the vicinity, the hazards must be eliminated or controlled.
The final report on the Top 10 for 2009 violations will be published in December.
Labels: OSHA, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Get Ready For A More Aggressive OSHA
An article on HealthCarePOV, an online blog of Advance News magazines, provides a overview of the "new" OSHA. The article opens with the statement:
The Obama administration's "new OSHA" has a simple message for U.S. industry. This message has been delivered loudly and clearly by both Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jordan Barab. Their message: "There is a new sheriff in town." And we all know what sheriffs do. They aggressively enforce the law. That is exactly what the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) intends to do.
Written by James A. Lastowka, a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, the article discusses the new OSHA's leadership team; the Top priorities for the new OSHA; and What companies must do to prepare for the new OSHA
You can read the entire article here: The New OSHA
The Obama administration's "new OSHA" has a simple message for U.S. industry. This message has been delivered loudly and clearly by both Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jordan Barab. Their message: "There is a new sheriff in town." And we all know what sheriffs do. They aggressively enforce the law. That is exactly what the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) intends to do.
Written by James A. Lastowka, a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, the article discusses the new OSHA's leadership team; the Top priorities for the new OSHA; and What companies must do to prepare for the new OSHA
You can read the entire article here: The New OSHA
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety management, safety politics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 7 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
New OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program
Recently, several academic studies have asserted varying degrees of under-recording of workplace injuries and illnesses on the OSHA Form 300. At the request of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and Labor, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) initiated a study on the accuracy of employer injury and illness records.
In an effort to identify and correct under-recorded and incorrectly recorded cases and to work cooperatively with the GAO, OSHA is initiating this NEP. This NEP also complements the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ efforts to investigate factors accounting for differences in the number of workplace injuries and illnesses estimated by the BLS and other data sources.
OSHA postulates the most likely places where under-recorded injuries and illnesses may exist would be low rate establishments operating in historically high rate industries. The NEP will pilot test OSHA’s ability to effectively target establishments to identify under-recording of occupational injuries and illnesses.
This NEP is one component of OSHA’s effort to address the issue of inaccurate recording of occupational injuries and illnesses. In addition to this NEP, OSHA will address the issue through comprehensive training of its compliance staff to identify and correct violations of the recordkeeping regulation. OSHA will also develop other enforcement and quality assurance programs to address the recordkeeping issue in establishments and industries outside the scope of this NEP (e.g., the construction industry, Partnerships, VPP and SHARP establishments).
You can read the OSHA notice on this NEP here.
In an effort to identify and correct under-recorded and incorrectly recorded cases and to work cooperatively with the GAO, OSHA is initiating this NEP. This NEP also complements the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ efforts to investigate factors accounting for differences in the number of workplace injuries and illnesses estimated by the BLS and other data sources.
OSHA postulates the most likely places where under-recorded injuries and illnesses may exist would be low rate establishments operating in historically high rate industries. The NEP will pilot test OSHA’s ability to effectively target establishments to identify under-recording of occupational injuries and illnesses.
This NEP is one component of OSHA’s effort to address the issue of inaccurate recording of occupational injuries and illnesses. In addition to this NEP, OSHA will address the issue through comprehensive training of its compliance staff to identify and correct violations of the recordkeeping regulation. OSHA will also develop other enforcement and quality assurance programs to address the recordkeeping issue in establishments and industries outside the scope of this NEP (e.g., the construction industry, Partnerships, VPP and SHARP establishments).
You can read the OSHA notice on this NEP here.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety statistics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, September 21, 2009
OSHA Document Describes Silica Control
Controlling Silica Exposures in Construction, a guidance document recently published by the OSHA addresses the control of worker exposure to dust containing crystalline silica, known to cause the lung disease silicosis.
The publication, intended to assist employers in providing a safe and healthful workplace, includes methods for controlling silica such as wet cutting during construction operations. Wet cutting controls silica dust generated when using hand-held saws, grinders and jackhammers. Wetting materials at the point of impact makes the dust particles heavier and more likely to stick to each other, reducing the chance of dust becoming airborne.
Vacuum dust collection systems also effectively control silica by drawing dust particles away from the worker's breathing zone and depositing them into a filtered dust collection chamber.
"Workers in the construction trades not only suffer serious injuries and illnesses resulting from unsafe equipment but also from inhaling harmful dusts," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Providing guidance for reducing potentially fatal hazards associated with occupational exposure to silica dust is one of this agency's priorities."
Employers should conduct periodic monitoring of silica exposure by testing air samples at the construction site to determine if the level of silica in the air exceeds the permissible exposure limit (PEL) outlined in the construction PEL standard. As one of OSHA's areas of emphasis, the agency has developed standards for silica to assure work practice controls are effective.
For more information, visit OSHA's Safety and Health Topics page on crystalline silica.
The publication, intended to assist employers in providing a safe and healthful workplace, includes methods for controlling silica such as wet cutting during construction operations. Wet cutting controls silica dust generated when using hand-held saws, grinders and jackhammers. Wetting materials at the point of impact makes the dust particles heavier and more likely to stick to each other, reducing the chance of dust becoming airborne.
Vacuum dust collection systems also effectively control silica by drawing dust particles away from the worker's breathing zone and depositing them into a filtered dust collection chamber.
"Workers in the construction trades not only suffer serious injuries and illnesses resulting from unsafe equipment but also from inhaling harmful dusts," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Providing guidance for reducing potentially fatal hazards associated with occupational exposure to silica dust is one of this agency's priorities."
Employers should conduct periodic monitoring of silica exposure by testing air samples at the construction site to determine if the level of silica in the air exceeds the permissible exposure limit (PEL) outlined in the construction PEL standard. As one of OSHA's areas of emphasis, the agency has developed standards for silica to assure work practice controls are effective.
For more information, visit OSHA's Safety and Health Topics page on crystalline silica.
Labels: Construction Safety, OSHA, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
OSHA Opens Record On Proposed Rule On Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
OSHA announced today that it is opening the record on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on electric power generation, transmission, and distribution and for electrical protective equipment. This limited opening seeks to obtain comments related to safe proximity between a worker and exposed electrical parts.
OSHA published a proposed rule to revise the general industry and construction standards for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution and for electrical protective equipment, such as insulating blankets, gloves and rubber sleeves. That proposal included revised minimum approach distances (MAD) to determine how close a worker or an object that the worker is holding can get to an electrical part. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers later made further corrections for calculating MAD and the current proposed rule includes those revisions.
"We want to incorporate the most accurate data for keeping workers at safe distances from dangerous electrical sources," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Extending this rulemaking process will provide us with the information we need to provide the best possible protection for working men and women."
A public hearing will be held Oct. 28 from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The agency will accept comments on the proposed rule until Oct. 15. Interested parties who intend to speak at the hearing must submit notices of intention to appear no later than Oct. 1. Submit comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S215-2006-0063, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Comments may also be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, the federal eRulemaking portal or faxed to the OSHA Docket Office at 202-693-1648.
OSHA published a proposed rule to revise the general industry and construction standards for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution and for electrical protective equipment, such as insulating blankets, gloves and rubber sleeves. That proposal included revised minimum approach distances (MAD) to determine how close a worker or an object that the worker is holding can get to an electrical part. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers later made further corrections for calculating MAD and the current proposed rule includes those revisions.
"We want to incorporate the most accurate data for keeping workers at safe distances from dangerous electrical sources," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Extending this rulemaking process will provide us with the information we need to provide the best possible protection for working men and women."
A public hearing will be held Oct. 28 from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The agency will accept comments on the proposed rule until Oct. 15. Interested parties who intend to speak at the hearing must submit notices of intention to appear no later than Oct. 1. Submit comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S215-2006-0063, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Comments may also be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, the federal eRulemaking portal or faxed to the OSHA Docket Office at 202-693-1648.
Labels: Arc Flash, Electrical Hazards, electrical safety, OSHA, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
OSHA Levies $275,000 Fine On Metal Improvement Co. in Lombard, Ill.
OSHA has cited Metal Improvement Co., doing business as E/M Coating Services in Lombard, with alleged serious and repeat citations of federal workplace safety and health standards. Proposed penalties total $275,000.
Based on a referral from another public agency alleging numerous fires and other safety issues, OSHA began a safety and health inspection at the Lombard site in March.
The safety inspection revealed 10 serious and six repeat violations with proposed penalties totaling $155,000. Some of the serious safety hazards include various electrical and equipment issues, lack of a spray booth sprinkler system and fire hazards in a spray booth. Some of the repeat violations addressed fall protection deficiencies, improper oxygen cylinder storage and other specific electrical hazards. The company had been cited for these violations in previous inspections.
The OSHA health inspection found 10 serious and three repeat violations with proposed penalties totaling $120,000. Some of the serious health hazards include a lack of personal protective equipment, confined entry space violations, a lack of emergency eyewash and shower facilities where required and problems with respirator equipment fit. Repeat violations pertain to the company's failure to evaluate if areas are permit-required confined spaces, training deficiencies and failure to provide an eyewash in an area where corrosive materials are used.
"OSHA has inspected this company on five occasions going back to 1997, resulting in numerous violations, including many we found again on this most recent inspection," said OSHA Area Director Kathy Webb, North Aurora, Ill. "It's time for this indifference to employee health and safety to stop."
The company, which provides decorative metal coating and blasting metal services, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with the OSHA area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Nationwide, the company employs more than 500 workers with 20 in the Lombard facility.
Based on a referral from another public agency alleging numerous fires and other safety issues, OSHA began a safety and health inspection at the Lombard site in March.
The safety inspection revealed 10 serious and six repeat violations with proposed penalties totaling $155,000. Some of the serious safety hazards include various electrical and equipment issues, lack of a spray booth sprinkler system and fire hazards in a spray booth. Some of the repeat violations addressed fall protection deficiencies, improper oxygen cylinder storage and other specific electrical hazards. The company had been cited for these violations in previous inspections.
The OSHA health inspection found 10 serious and three repeat violations with proposed penalties totaling $120,000. Some of the serious health hazards include a lack of personal protective equipment, confined entry space violations, a lack of emergency eyewash and shower facilities where required and problems with respirator equipment fit. Repeat violations pertain to the company's failure to evaluate if areas are permit-required confined spaces, training deficiencies and failure to provide an eyewash in an area where corrosive materials are used.
"OSHA has inspected this company on five occasions going back to 1997, resulting in numerous violations, including many we found again on this most recent inspection," said OSHA Area Director Kathy Webb, North Aurora, Ill. "It's time for this indifference to employee health and safety to stop."
The company, which provides decorative metal coating and blasting metal services, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with the OSHA area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Nationwide, the company employs more than 500 workers with 20 in the Lombard facility.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Connecticut Manufacturer Faces $225,500 in OSHA Fines
International Bridge & Iron Co., a manufacturer of structural steel bridge parts, faces a total of $225,500 in proposed fines from OSHA for new and recurring safety hazards at its Newington, Conn., manufacturing plant.
OSHA opened an inspection in February in response to a complaint and found several hazards similar to those cited in a 2007 OSHA inspection. These included unguarded stairs; lack of eye protection; incomplete and uncertified employee training to prevent the unintended startup of machinery during maintenance; cranes lacking bridge bumpers; unguarded moving machine parts; uninspected ropes and lifting hooks; slings not marked with their lifting capacity; unguarded grinders and pulleys; and ungrounded, uninspected or damaged electrical equipment or wiring.
These conditions resulted in the issuance of 17 repeat citations, carrying $150,000 in proposed fines. OSHA issues repeat citations when an employer has previously been cited for substantially similar hazards and those citations have become final.
"The sizable fines proposed here reflect both the breadth of hazards found in this workplace and this employer's failure to prevent the recurrence of hazardous conditions that can, if left unaddressed, lead to falls, lacerations, electrocution and crushing injuries," said C. William Freeman III, OSHA's area director in Hartford.
An additional $75,500 in fines have been proposed for 16 serious citations encompassing uninspected overhead cranes; uninspected lifting hooks; defective and unmarked lifting slings; unguarded live electrical parts; damaged electrode holders and insulation; incorrectly stored compressed gas cylinders; unmarked and unchecked fire extinguishers; and slipping hazards from an oil spill in a work area. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA or contest the items before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Hartford Area Office; telephone 860-240-3152.
OSHA opened an inspection in February in response to a complaint and found several hazards similar to those cited in a 2007 OSHA inspection. These included unguarded stairs; lack of eye protection; incomplete and uncertified employee training to prevent the unintended startup of machinery during maintenance; cranes lacking bridge bumpers; unguarded moving machine parts; uninspected ropes and lifting hooks; slings not marked with their lifting capacity; unguarded grinders and pulleys; and ungrounded, uninspected or damaged electrical equipment or wiring.
These conditions resulted in the issuance of 17 repeat citations, carrying $150,000 in proposed fines. OSHA issues repeat citations when an employer has previously been cited for substantially similar hazards and those citations have become final.
"The sizable fines proposed here reflect both the breadth of hazards found in this workplace and this employer's failure to prevent the recurrence of hazardous conditions that can, if left unaddressed, lead to falls, lacerations, electrocution and crushing injuries," said C. William Freeman III, OSHA's area director in Hartford.
An additional $75,500 in fines have been proposed for 16 serious citations encompassing uninspected overhead cranes; uninspected lifting hooks; defective and unmarked lifting slings; unguarded live electrical parts; damaged electrode holders and insulation; incorrectly stored compressed gas cylinders; unmarked and unchecked fire extinguishers; and slipping hazards from an oil spill in a work area. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA or contest the items before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Hartford Area Office; telephone 860-240-3152.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health Addresses Influenza Preparedness
Preparedness planning for the H1N1 flu is the focus of a special meeting of the OSHA's Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH). The meeting will be held Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009, in Washington, D.C.
Participants will discuss recommendations in a draft report provided by the FACOSH Emerging Issues Workgroup on federal agency pandemic influenza preparedness planning for the federal workforce. The workgroup will present findings from its analysis of lessons the agency learned from the Spring 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak.
The meeting will be from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in Room N-4437 B/C/D, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210.
The committee advises the Secretary of Labor on occupational safety and health issues related to the federal workforce, including advice on how to reduce the number of injuries and illnesses. FACOSH members also recommend methods for establishing and maintaining effective occupational safety and health programs in each federal agency.
For general information, contact Francis Yebesi, OSHA Office of Federal Agency Programs, at 202-693-2122 or e-mail ofap@dol.gov. Press inquiries should be directed to Jennifer Ashley, OSHA Office of Communications, at 202-693-1999. Individuals who need special accommodations should contact Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Communications, at 202-693-1999.
H1N1 influenza is a virus similar to regular seasonal influenza and is spread from person to person through coughing or sneezing from an infected person. Symptoms include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. The preparedness planning currently underway for the H1N1 influenza builds upon the preparedness planning the agency conducted after the 2005 avian influenza.
Participants will discuss recommendations in a draft report provided by the FACOSH Emerging Issues Workgroup on federal agency pandemic influenza preparedness planning for the federal workforce. The workgroup will present findings from its analysis of lessons the agency learned from the Spring 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak.
The meeting will be from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in Room N-4437 B/C/D, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210.
The committee advises the Secretary of Labor on occupational safety and health issues related to the federal workforce, including advice on how to reduce the number of injuries and illnesses. FACOSH members also recommend methods for establishing and maintaining effective occupational safety and health programs in each federal agency.
For general information, contact Francis Yebesi, OSHA Office of Federal Agency Programs, at 202-693-2122 or e-mail ofap@dol.gov. Press inquiries should be directed to Jennifer Ashley, OSHA Office of Communications, at 202-693-1999. Individuals who need special accommodations should contact Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Communications, at 202-693-1999.
H1N1 influenza is a virus similar to regular seasonal influenza and is spread from person to person through coughing or sneezing from an infected person. Symptoms include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. The preparedness planning currently underway for the H1N1 influenza builds upon the preparedness planning the agency conducted after the 2005 avian influenza.
Labels: Industrial Health, OSHA
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
OSHA Issues final Rule Updating Personal Protective Equipment Standards Based On National Consensus Standards
OSHA published today in the Federal Register a final rule revising the personal protective equipment (PPE) sections of its general industry, shipyard employment, longshoring and marine terminals standards concerning requirements for eye- and face-protective devices, and head and foot protection.
OSHA is updating the references in its regulations to reflect more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards that incorporate advances in technology. OSHA requires that PPE be safely designed and constructed for the tasks performed.
"Workers exposed to occupational hazards requiring head, foot, or eye and face protection will now be provided protection based on a standard that reflects state-of-the-art technology and materials," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "This final rule is another step in OSHA's efforts to update or remove references to outdated national consensus and industry standards."
Amendments to the PPE standards include a requirement that filter lenses and plates in eye-protective equipment meet a test for transmission of radiant energy such as light or infrared.
The final rule will become effective on Oct. 9. For technical inquiries, contact Ted Twardowski, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, at 202-693-2070.
OSHA is updating the references in its regulations to reflect more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards that incorporate advances in technology. OSHA requires that PPE be safely designed and constructed for the tasks performed.
"Workers exposed to occupational hazards requiring head, foot, or eye and face protection will now be provided protection based on a standard that reflects state-of-the-art technology and materials," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "This final rule is another step in OSHA's efforts to update or remove references to outdated national consensus and industry standards."
Amendments to the PPE standards include a requirement that filter lenses and plates in eye-protective equipment meet a test for transmission of radiant energy such as light or infrared.
The final rule will become effective on Oct. 9. For technical inquiries, contact Ted Twardowski, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, at 202-693-2070.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
OSHA Establishes "Watch List" To Strengthen Integrity of Outreach Training Program
OSHA, in an effort to crack down on fraudulent trainers, is continuing to strengthen the integrity of its 36-year-old Outreach Training Program by publishing an "Outreach Trainer Watch List" of those who have had their trainer authorizations either revoked or suspended.
OSHA recently conducted an undercover investigation as part of its heightened effort to address fraudulent activity by trainers authorized through the OSHA Outreach Training Program. The investigation of a 10-hour course conducted by Don Barker, environmental health and safety director for Thor Construction in Las Vegas, revealed several examples of failure to comply with program guidelines. Barker's infractions included submitting falsified information regarding the instructional time spent on the topics, failing to collect and retain required documentation and inappropriately advising students not to contact OSHA to report hazards.
OSHA revoked Barker's Outreach Training authorization after he declined to appeal the decision and his name has been added to the "Watch List" on OSHA's Web site. The "Watch List," available at http://www.osha.gov/dte/outreach/construction_generalindustry/watchlist.html, will be updated weekly. OSHA is monitoring training programs and has provided a hotline at 847-297-4810 for individuals to file complaints about fraud and abuse.
"Trainers who fail to provide appropriate safety training will pay a stiff price for their fraudulent behavior," said Jordan Barab, acting assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. "A tighter record control procedure has been instituted requiring trainers to sign their reports and certify the class was conducted in accordance with OSHA's guidelines. Trainers face civil and criminal penalties under federal law if reports or certifications are found to have been falsified."
Trainers are authorized by completing a one-week OSHA trainer course through an OSHA Training Institute Education Center. The trainers are then eligible to teach 10-hour programs that provide basic information to workers and employers about workplace hazards and OSHA, and 30-hour courses in construction, maritime and general industry safety and health hazards.
The voluntary Outreach Training Program has grown to a national network of more than 16,000 independent trainers eligible to teach workers and employers about workplace hazards and provide OSHA 10-hour course completion cards. The program's success has prompted some states and cities to legislate a requirement that workers complete training to earn an OSHA 10-hour card as a condition of employment.
OSHA recently conducted an undercover investigation as part of its heightened effort to address fraudulent activity by trainers authorized through the OSHA Outreach Training Program. The investigation of a 10-hour course conducted by Don Barker, environmental health and safety director for Thor Construction in Las Vegas, revealed several examples of failure to comply with program guidelines. Barker's infractions included submitting falsified information regarding the instructional time spent on the topics, failing to collect and retain required documentation and inappropriately advising students not to contact OSHA to report hazards.
OSHA revoked Barker's Outreach Training authorization after he declined to appeal the decision and his name has been added to the "Watch List" on OSHA's Web site. The "Watch List," available at http://www.osha.gov/dte/outreach/construction_generalindustry/watchlist.html, will be updated weekly. OSHA is monitoring training programs and has provided a hotline at 847-297-4810 for individuals to file complaints about fraud and abuse.
"Trainers who fail to provide appropriate safety training will pay a stiff price for their fraudulent behavior," said Jordan Barab, acting assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. "A tighter record control procedure has been instituted requiring trainers to sign their reports and certify the class was conducted in accordance with OSHA's guidelines. Trainers face civil and criminal penalties under federal law if reports or certifications are found to have been falsified."
Trainers are authorized by completing a one-week OSHA trainer course through an OSHA Training Institute Education Center. The trainers are then eligible to teach 10-hour programs that provide basic information to workers and employers about workplace hazards and OSHA, and 30-hour courses in construction, maritime and general industry safety and health hazards.
The voluntary Outreach Training Program has grown to a national network of more than 16,000 independent trainers eligible to teach workers and employers about workplace hazards and provide OSHA 10-hour course completion cards. The program's success has prompted some states and cities to legislate a requirement that workers complete training to earn an OSHA 10-hour card as a condition of employment.
Labels: OSHA, Safety Training
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Professor Nominated To Head OSHA
The Las Vegas Sun reported yesterday that George Washington University professor David Michaels will be nominated to be the head of OSHA. The article reports that:
"Michaels, an epidemiologist, has been a notable advocate for workers to be compensated for health risks from chemicals and has also exposed attempts from businesses to block health regulations by making scientific research appear less certain than it is."
"Last year, he published the book 'Doubt is their Product' about industries' use of misleading public relations campaigns to create scientific doubt and block governmental efforts to regulate health risks."
You can read the complete Las Vegas Sun article here.
"Michaels, an epidemiologist, has been a notable advocate for workers to be compensated for health risks from chemicals and has also exposed attempts from businesses to block health regulations by making scientific research appear less certain than it is."
"Last year, he published the book 'Doubt is their Product' about industries' use of misleading public relations campaigns to create scientific doubt and block governmental efforts to regulate health risks."
You can read the complete Las Vegas Sun article here.
Labels: Department Of Labor, OSHA, politics, safety politics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Employers Must Record At-Work 'Horseplay' Injuries
OSHA has issued an interpretation letter covering recording injuries resulting from horseplay in the workplace. It states that workplace injuries resulting from "horseplay" must be recorded in OSHA logs. Here is that letter:
Dear Mr. Winkelman:
Thank you for your December 2, 2008, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Recordkeeping regulation found at 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you requested guidance from OSHA on a case regarding "horseplay."
Scenario: In your letter, you describe an instance where two of your supervisors had completed their work for the day and had entered the change trailer to change clothes and proceed home. There was some bantering back and forth concerning how to beat the traffic at shift's end. The discussion escalated into a physical confrontation where one supervisor allegedly pulled a knife and struck the other in the right bicep, causing a laceration that required sutures to close.
Issue: You have asked OSHA to endorse your contention that, because the work environment did not contribute to the "horseplay gone badly," as you described the situation, the injury was not work-related and thus was non-recordable under OSHA regulations.
Response: Under 29 CFR Subpart C, "Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria," an injury must be recorded if it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). See 29 CFR §1904.4(a). An injury is presumed to be work-related if it results from an event occurring in the work environment, unless an enumerated exception to this geographic presumption applies. See 29 CFR §1904.5(a). The work environment includes any location where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. See 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(1). We assume that the supervisors were in the change trailer as a part of their work or as a condition of their employment. If our assumption is correct, the injury resulted from an event (the altercation between the two supervisors) occurring in the work environment and was thus work-related. When a work-related injury requires treatment beyond first aid, it is recordable unless it falls within one of the §1904.5(b)(2) exceptions to the geographic presumption.
Violence in the workplace does not generally qualify as an exception. OSHA's Frequently Asked Question 5-2 (found at http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/detailedfaq.html#1904.4) provides guidance on this issue:
Applying these principles to your situation, it is OSHA's position that the injury was work-related and required medical treatment beyond first aid. This is so whether the incident leading to the injury is characterized as horseplay or as workplace violence, neither of which is covered by any exception to the geographic presumption. Therefore, the injury is recordable.
Both the Note to Subpart A of the regulation (29 CFR §1904.0) and the Overview to OSHA Form 300 (http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.pdf) expressly state that recording a case does not indicate that an employer or employee was at fault or that an OSHA standard was violated. In addition, OSHA recognizes that injury and illness rates do not necessarily indicate an employer's lack of interest in safety and health. Recording a case indicates only three things: (1) that an injury or illness has occurred; (2) that the employer has determined that the case is work-related (using OSHA's definition of that term); and (3) that the case is non-minor, i.e., that it meets one or more of the OSHA injury and illness recording criteria. See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5933.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
Dear Mr. Winkelman:
Thank you for your December 2, 2008, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Recordkeeping regulation found at 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you requested guidance from OSHA on a case regarding "horseplay."
Scenario: In your letter, you describe an instance where two of your supervisors had completed their work for the day and had entered the change trailer to change clothes and proceed home. There was some bantering back and forth concerning how to beat the traffic at shift's end. The discussion escalated into a physical confrontation where one supervisor allegedly pulled a knife and struck the other in the right bicep, causing a laceration that required sutures to close.
Issue: You have asked OSHA to endorse your contention that, because the work environment did not contribute to the "horseplay gone badly," as you described the situation, the injury was not work-related and thus was non-recordable under OSHA regulations.
Response: Under 29 CFR Subpart C, "Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria," an injury must be recorded if it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). See 29 CFR §1904.4(a). An injury is presumed to be work-related if it results from an event occurring in the work environment, unless an enumerated exception to this geographic presumption applies. See 29 CFR §1904.5(a). The work environment includes any location where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. See 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(1). We assume that the supervisors were in the change trailer as a part of their work or as a condition of their employment. If our assumption is correct, the injury resulted from an event (the altercation between the two supervisors) occurring in the work environment and was thus work-related. When a work-related injury requires treatment beyond first aid, it is recordable unless it falls within one of the §1904.5(b)(2) exceptions to the geographic presumption.
Violence in the workplace does not generally qualify as an exception. OSHA's Frequently Asked Question 5-2 (found at http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/detailedfaq.html#1904.4) provides guidance on this issue:
Question 5-2: Are cases of workplace violence considered work-related under the new Recordkeeping rule?Furthermore, the geographic presumption (that is, an injury is work-related if it occurs in the work environment) covers cases in which an injury or illness results from activities that occur at work but that are not directly productive, such as horseplay. See the preamble to the final rule (66 Fed. Reg. 5916, 5929 (Jan. 19, 2001)).
The Recordkeeping rule contains no general exception, for purposes of determining work-relationship, for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. However, some cases involving violent acts might be included within one of the exceptions listed in section 1904.5(b)(2). For example, if an employee arrives at work early to use a company conference room for a civic club meeting and is injured by some violent act, the case would not be work-related under the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(v).
Applying these principles to your situation, it is OSHA's position that the injury was work-related and required medical treatment beyond first aid. This is so whether the incident leading to the injury is characterized as horseplay or as workplace violence, neither of which is covered by any exception to the geographic presumption. Therefore, the injury is recordable.
Both the Note to Subpart A of the regulation (29 CFR §1904.0) and the Overview to OSHA Form 300 (http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.pdf) expressly state that recording a case does not indicate that an employer or employee was at fault or that an OSHA standard was violated. In addition, OSHA recognizes that injury and illness rates do not necessarily indicate an employer's lack of interest in safety and health. Recording a case indicates only three things: (1) that an injury or illness has occurred; (2) that the employer has determined that the case is work-related (using OSHA's definition of that term); and (3) that the case is non-minor, i.e., that it meets one or more of the OSHA injury and illness recording criteria. See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5933.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
OSHA Explains Exposure Monitoring Requirements For Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene oxide exposure levels and monitoring requirements are addressed in OSHA's recently published Small Business Guide for Ethylene Oxide. The guidance document helps employers understand the ethylene oxide (EtO) standard and explains how to monitor the air quality in workplaces where EtO is processed, used or handled.
The document includes clarification of the various types of EtO exposure monitoring, lists and explains the exposure levels used by OSHA and provides an outline of what employers should do when monitoring shows EtO exposure levels exceed the allowable limits.
"Because ethylene oxide cannot be detected by sight or smell, workers can be exposed to dangerous levels and not realize it," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Understanding OSHA's EtO standard is vital to ensuring that employers know how to measure exposure levels so that workers are not exposed to potentially serious illnesses."
The odorless, colorless EtO gas is widely used in hospitals to sterilize surgical equipment. Among other common products, EtO also is found in antifreeze, detergents, adhesives and spices. Short-term exposure to EtO can cause difficulty breathing and nausea, among other symptoms. Long-term exposure can cause more severe conditions such as damage to the nervous system and cancer.
The document includes clarification of the various types of EtO exposure monitoring, lists and explains the exposure levels used by OSHA and provides an outline of what employers should do when monitoring shows EtO exposure levels exceed the allowable limits.
"Because ethylene oxide cannot be detected by sight or smell, workers can be exposed to dangerous levels and not realize it," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Understanding OSHA's EtO standard is vital to ensuring that employers know how to measure exposure levels so that workers are not exposed to potentially serious illnesses."
The odorless, colorless EtO gas is widely used in hospitals to sterilize surgical equipment. Among other common products, EtO also is found in antifreeze, detergents, adhesives and spices. Short-term exposure to EtO can cause difficulty breathing and nausea, among other symptoms. Long-term exposure can cause more severe conditions such as damage to the nervous system and cancer.
Labels: Industrial Health, OSHA, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, July 23, 2009
OSHA to Re-evaluate VPP
An article in yesterday's Industry Week reports that a new review by the GAO of 30 OSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) sites that had fatalities, found that there was no recorded action taken by the appropriate VPP staff.
The article states:
"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration concluded it did not adequately address findings in a 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found OSHA lacked sufficient internal controls to ensure that only qualified worksites participated in its safety recognition program."
"OSHA said it will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its VPP and Alliance programs to determine how the agency should best allocate its resources among cooperative programs, enforcement and the agency's other activities."
Read the complete article.
The article states:
"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration concluded it did not adequately address findings in a 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found OSHA lacked sufficient internal controls to ensure that only qualified worksites participated in its safety recognition program."
"OSHA said it will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its VPP and Alliance programs to determine how the agency should best allocate its resources among cooperative programs, enforcement and the agency's other activities."
Read the complete article.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
OSHA Plans July 31 Firing Of Professed Whistleblower
The Charlotte Observer reports that "Bob Whitmore, an OSHA official who has publicly criticized his agency for failing to get tough with companies that try to hide workplace injuries, has lost a key round in his fight to hold on to his job."
Mr. Whitmore has been outspoken about OSHA letting companies under report workplace injuries through careless record keeping. The result was that workplaces appeared to be safer than they really were.
Charlotte Observer "reporters spoke with Whitmore starting in spring 2006 while reporting on injuries inside poultry plants. The newspaper's investigation, published in February 2008, found that many injured employees weren't showing up on company injury logs. That made plants appear safer than they actually were."
Mr. Whitmore has been outspoken about OSHA letting companies under report workplace injuries through careless record keeping. The result was that workplaces appeared to be safer than they really were.
Charlotte Observer "reporters spoke with Whitmore starting in spring 2006 while reporting on injuries inside poultry plants. The newspaper's investigation, published in February 2008, found that many injured employees weren't showing up on company injury logs. That made plants appear safer than they actually were."
Labels: OSHA, osha information, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
OSHA Begins Evaluation of VPP
OSHA has announced that it will address problems identified in its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) in response to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality. The report recommends improved oversight and additional controls to ensure participating companies maintain effective workplace safety and health management systems.
OSHA also has announced that it will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its VPP and Alliance Program to determine how the agency should best allocate its resources among cooperative programs, enforcement and the agency's other activities.
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab said he agrees with recommendations made in the GAO report. GAO's analysis recommended that OSHA strengthen the program's oversight activity, documentation and other aspects of program operations and impact to ensure consistency and adherence to existing OSHA policies and procedures. VPP participation encompasses more than 2,200 worksites covering more than 800,000 workers.
"We will thoroughly review the VPP and Alliance Program to determine their effectiveness as well as review the programs' roles in helping the agency promote the safety and health of America's workers," said Barab.
He noted that OSHA had not adequately addressed the findings of the GAO's 2004 report, OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show Promising Results, But Should Be Fully Evaluated Before They Are Expanded. "The report noted that OSHA had not fully evaluated the effectiveness of its cooperative programs and was therefore 'limited in its ability to make a sound decision about how best to allocate its resources,'" said Barab. "Our evaluation of these programs in the context of OSHA's limited resources will help ensure that OSHA will be able to reprioritize these resources in the most effective manner."
To address the most recent GAO report's findings and recommendations about the VPP, OSHA will review and address problems including program management and oversight policies and procedures; documentation policy for actions taken in response to fatalities and serious injuries at VPP sites; and goals and performance measures for the VPP and internal OSHA controls that ensure consistent compliance with VPP policies by the agency's regional offices.
Related past posts:
VPP Tools
OSHA's Problem
Advantages of VPP
OSHA also has announced that it will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its VPP and Alliance Program to determine how the agency should best allocate its resources among cooperative programs, enforcement and the agency's other activities.
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab said he agrees with recommendations made in the GAO report. GAO's analysis recommended that OSHA strengthen the program's oversight activity, documentation and other aspects of program operations and impact to ensure consistency and adherence to existing OSHA policies and procedures. VPP participation encompasses more than 2,200 worksites covering more than 800,000 workers.
"We will thoroughly review the VPP and Alliance Program to determine their effectiveness as well as review the programs' roles in helping the agency promote the safety and health of America's workers," said Barab.
He noted that OSHA had not adequately addressed the findings of the GAO's 2004 report, OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show Promising Results, But Should Be Fully Evaluated Before They Are Expanded. "The report noted that OSHA had not fully evaluated the effectiveness of its cooperative programs and was therefore 'limited in its ability to make a sound decision about how best to allocate its resources,'" said Barab. "Our evaluation of these programs in the context of OSHA's limited resources will help ensure that OSHA will be able to reprioritize these resources in the most effective manner."
To address the most recent GAO report's findings and recommendations about the VPP, OSHA will review and address problems including program management and oversight policies and procedures; documentation policy for actions taken in response to fatalities and serious injuries at VPP sites; and goals and performance measures for the VPP and internal OSHA controls that ensure consistent compliance with VPP policies by the agency's regional offices.
Related past posts:
VPP Tools
OSHA's Problem
Advantages of VPP
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, June 12, 2009
OSHA Seeking Nominations For the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
OSHA has announced that nominations are being accepted for persons to serve on the 12-member National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
Nominations will be accepted for representatives in the following categories: public, management, labor, occupational safety and occupational health. Members will serve a two-year term.
If submitting nominations by mail, hand delivery or messenger service, send three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20210; telephone 202-693-2350.
Nominations may be sent electronically to http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or by facsimile at 202-693-1948. All nominations for NACOSH must include the agency name and docket number, OSHA-2009-0012. Nominations must be submitted no later than July 11, 2009.
Questions concerning the NACOSH nominations process can be addressed to Deborah Crawford at 202-693-1932 or crawford.deborah@dol.gov.
NACOSH was established under section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the Act.
Nominations will be accepted for representatives in the following categories: public, management, labor, occupational safety and occupational health. Members will serve a two-year term.
If submitting nominations by mail, hand delivery or messenger service, send three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20210; telephone 202-693-2350.
Nominations may be sent electronically to http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or by facsimile at 202-693-1948. All nominations for NACOSH must include the agency name and docket number, OSHA-2009-0012. Nominations must be submitted no later than July 11, 2009.
Questions concerning the NACOSH nominations process can be addressed to Deborah Crawford at 202-693-1932 or crawford.deborah@dol.gov.
NACOSH was established under section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the Act.
Labels: OSHA, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, June 01, 2009
OSHA Confirms VPP To Continue
The following is a press release from the Voluntary Protection Programs Participants’ Association, Inc. (VPPPA)
VPPPA has received confirmation from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Acting Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Jordan Barab, that OSHA is not suspending the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP).
VPPPA has received confirmation from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Acting Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Jordan Barab, that OSHA is not suspending the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP).
Recent media coverage of Acting Assistant Secretary Barab’s statement on April 30, 2009, before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Workforce Protections has caused some confusion for VPP sites and the safety and health community. He stated that, “We need to better utilize the resources that we already have. In order to direct more of OSHA’s existing resources into enforcement and to provide time to address concerns in an upcoming GAO Report on the efficacy of OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program, I have informed the field staff that we will suspend the previous administration’s practice of establishing goals for new Voluntary Protection Program sites and Alliances.”
In response to the resulting confusion, Acting Assistant Secretary Barab called VPPPA’s Executive Director R. Davis Layne and assured him that OSHA is not suspending VPP. Indicated changes represent a shift in focus toward enforcement but do not equate to an elimination of OSHA’s VPP. In the course of the conversation, Barab accepted an invitation to attend the association’s 25th Annual National VPPPA Conference in San Antonio, Texas, August 24-27, 2009, and address the anticipated 2,500 attendees.
VPPPA, Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization, is dedicated to promoting advances in worker safety and health excellence through cooperation among communities, workers, industries and governments. The nearly 2,000 VPPPA member sites primarily consist of worksites that have been approved, or are seeking approval, into VPP as administered by OSHA, state-plan OSHA and the Department of Energy.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, May 18, 2009
Labor Dept. To Withdraw Risk Assessment Proposal
The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports that the U.S. Department of Labor will withdraw the proposal for a risk assessment of new workplace safety standards. The article reports that the "risk assessment proposal will be withdrawn in June. Critics have said the proposed rule would add extra steps to an already slow regulatory process by making it harder to prove the level of risk workers face when exposed to toxins on the job."
The complete article is available here.
The complete article is available here.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, politics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, May 01, 2009
OSHA Program Suspended By OSHA Head Jordan Barab
A special worker health and safety program that targets employers that repeatedly put their workers in harms way is not working and needs to be refocused, witnesses told the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee today.
"After six years of operation, it’s clear that the Enhanced Enforcement Program original design is flawed, and that OSHA under the Bush administration did not implement the program as intended," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the subcommittee. "We need to know why the program is not working and what we can do to fix it. The EEP has failed hundreds of workers like Jesus Rojas, and that is just not acceptable."
The Enhanced Enforcement Program, created in 2003 by the Bush administration after an exposé into the poor safety and health record of the McWane Corporation, identifies high risk employers by their past behavior and targets them for additional scrutiny. However, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General found the Bush federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not properly carry out the initiative and it failed to effectively deter employers from putting workers’ lives at risk.
"It is essential that OSHA target its limited resources to inspect workplaces with the highest risk of hazardous conditions that have greater potential to cause injuries and fatalities," said Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audits at the U.S. Department of Labor. "While we cannot conclude that the enhanced enforcement would prevent subsequent fatalities, full and proper application of EEP procedures may have deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred."
The Inspector General report also referenced additional businesses that should have been included in the Enhanced Enforcement Program, but never were. The report cited the death of Raul Figueroa, a mechanic at Waste Management in Florida who was killed while repairing a truck. OSHA cited Waste Management for a serious violation that resulted in the death of Figueroa.
"For some time before his death, my stepfather complained about safety problems at the facility,” said Jesus Royas, Figueroa’s stepson. "Companies like Waste Management should not be allowed to cut corners and compromise safety."
Witnesses also said the current program is too limited in scope because it does not focus on corporate-wide investigations and does not focus on the most flagrant violations that occur before workers are killed.
"What is needed is a more systemic, holistic examination of the current OSHA enforcement regime," said Eric Frumin, director of health and safety at Change to Win. "Waste Management's OSHA violations increased by 28 percent over the period 2003 to 2007. If Waste Management had implemented a comprehensive safety program, and held its managers accountable, Raul Figueroa might well be alive today."
The current head of OSHA testified that the agency is working on improving the Enhanced Enforcement Program.
"The Enhanced Enforcement Program was designed…to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers," said Jordan Barab, acting head of OSHA. "OSHA is exploring ways to reinvigorate the EEP, and the OIG report provides a starting point for our efforts to do this in the most effective way."
"After six years of operation, it’s clear that the Enhanced Enforcement Program original design is flawed, and that OSHA under the Bush administration did not implement the program as intended," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the subcommittee. "We need to know why the program is not working and what we can do to fix it. The EEP has failed hundreds of workers like Jesus Rojas, and that is just not acceptable."
The Enhanced Enforcement Program, created in 2003 by the Bush administration after an exposé into the poor safety and health record of the McWane Corporation, identifies high risk employers by their past behavior and targets them for additional scrutiny. However, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General found the Bush federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not properly carry out the initiative and it failed to effectively deter employers from putting workers’ lives at risk.
"It is essential that OSHA target its limited resources to inspect workplaces with the highest risk of hazardous conditions that have greater potential to cause injuries and fatalities," said Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audits at the U.S. Department of Labor. "While we cannot conclude that the enhanced enforcement would prevent subsequent fatalities, full and proper application of EEP procedures may have deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred."
The Inspector General report also referenced additional businesses that should have been included in the Enhanced Enforcement Program, but never were. The report cited the death of Raul Figueroa, a mechanic at Waste Management in Florida who was killed while repairing a truck. OSHA cited Waste Management for a serious violation that resulted in the death of Figueroa.
"For some time before his death, my stepfather complained about safety problems at the facility,” said Jesus Royas, Figueroa’s stepson. "Companies like Waste Management should not be allowed to cut corners and compromise safety."
Witnesses also said the current program is too limited in scope because it does not focus on corporate-wide investigations and does not focus on the most flagrant violations that occur before workers are killed.
"What is needed is a more systemic, holistic examination of the current OSHA enforcement regime," said Eric Frumin, director of health and safety at Change to Win. "Waste Management's OSHA violations increased by 28 percent over the period 2003 to 2007. If Waste Management had implemented a comprehensive safety program, and held its managers accountable, Raul Figueroa might well be alive today."
The current head of OSHA testified that the agency is working on improving the Enhanced Enforcement Program.
"The Enhanced Enforcement Program was designed…to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers," said Jordan Barab, acting head of OSHA. "OSHA is exploring ways to reinvigorate the EEP, and the OIG report provides a starting point for our efforts to do this in the most effective way."
Labels: OSHA, osha information, OSHA Inspections, safety management, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, April 02, 2009
OSHA's New Guidance Document Focuses On Mandatory Respirator Selection Provisions Added To The Existing Respiratory Protection Standard
Assigned Protection Factors (APF), a new guidance document published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), provides employers with vital information for selecting respirators for employees exposed to contaminants in the air.
OSHA revised its existing Respiratory Protection standard in 2006 to add APFs and Maximum Use Concentration (MUC) provisions. APF means the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is able to provide to workers. The higher the APF number (5 to 10,000), the greater the level of protection provided to the user. APFs are used to select the appropriate class of respirators that will provide the necessary level of protection against airborne contaminants. Such exposures can come from particles or a gas or vapor.
MUC represents the limit at which the class of respirator is expected to provide protection. Whenever a hazard's exposure level exceeds MUC, employers should select a respirator with a higher APF. MUC means the maximum atmospheric concentration of a hazardous substance for which a worker can be expected to be protected when wearing a respirator.
"Proper respirator selection prevents exposure to hazardous contaminants and is an important component of an effective respiratory protection program," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Donald G. Shalhoub. "This guidance document serves as another useful resource for protecting the health and safety of workers at risk for respiratory illnesses."
APF and MUC are mandatory respirator selection requirements that can only be used after respirators are properly selected and are used in compliance with the entire standard. The Respiratory Protection standard requires fit testing, medical evaluations, specific training and proper respirator use. The standard applies to general industry, construction, longshoring, shipyard and marine terminal workplaces.
Related Past Posts:
OSHA Issues Final Rule On PPE
Is PPE Compliance A Challenge In Your Facility?
PPE Compliance, A Top Workplace Concern
OSHA revised its existing Respiratory Protection standard in 2006 to add APFs and Maximum Use Concentration (MUC) provisions. APF means the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is able to provide to workers. The higher the APF number (5 to 10,000), the greater the level of protection provided to the user. APFs are used to select the appropriate class of respirators that will provide the necessary level of protection against airborne contaminants. Such exposures can come from particles or a gas or vapor.
MUC represents the limit at which the class of respirator is expected to provide protection. Whenever a hazard's exposure level exceeds MUC, employers should select a respirator with a higher APF. MUC means the maximum atmospheric concentration of a hazardous substance for which a worker can be expected to be protected when wearing a respirator.
"Proper respirator selection prevents exposure to hazardous contaminants and is an important component of an effective respiratory protection program," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Donald G. Shalhoub. "This guidance document serves as another useful resource for protecting the health and safety of workers at risk for respiratory illnesses."
APF and MUC are mandatory respirator selection requirements that can only be used after respirators are properly selected and are used in compliance with the entire standard. The Respiratory Protection standard requires fit testing, medical evaluations, specific training and proper respirator use. The standard applies to general industry, construction, longshoring, shipyard and marine terminal workplaces.
Related Past Posts:
OSHA Issues Final Rule On PPE
Is PPE Compliance A Challenge In Your Facility?
PPE Compliance, A Top Workplace Concern
Labels: OSHA, osha information, PPE
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Worker Safety Jeopardized by OSHA Initiative
Reports this week in the Charleston (WV) Gazette and Charlotte (NC) Observer reveal that "The U.S. Labor Department did not properly enforce laws designed to crack down on employers with a history of workplace safety violations..."
A Labor Department audit has concluded that that in 97% of the cases sampled OSHA did not properly follow its own procedures when targeting workplaces with a history of job-related fatalities.
The Charleston Gazetted reports that "The study found that officials failed to gather needed data, conducted uneven inspections and enforcement, and sometimes failed to notice repeat fatalities because records misspelled the companies' names or failed to notice when two subsidiaries with the same owner were involved."
The Charlottre Observer noted that state OSHA programs were not doing any better: "The Carolinas weren't included because they run their own OSHA programs. But regulators in the Carolinas have also missed chances to take stiff action against repeat violators."
Read the complete articles:
The Charleston (WV) Gazette
The Charlotte (NC) Observer
A Labor Department audit has concluded that that in 97% of the cases sampled OSHA did not properly follow its own procedures when targeting workplaces with a history of job-related fatalities.
The Charleston Gazetted reports that "The study found that officials failed to gather needed data, conducted uneven inspections and enforcement, and sometimes failed to notice repeat fatalities because records misspelled the companies' names or failed to notice when two subsidiaries with the same owner were involved."
The Charlottre Observer noted that state OSHA programs were not doing any better: "The Carolinas weren't included because they run their own OSHA programs. But regulators in the Carolinas have also missed chances to take stiff action against repeat violators."
Read the complete articles:
The Charleston (WV) Gazette
The Charlotte (NC) Observer
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, March 23, 2009
Get Ready for More Aggressive OSHA
In a webinar held last Friday Edwin Foulke Jr. warned that we can expect OSHA to become more aggressive. An article in Occupational Health and Safety reports:
"OSHA is likely to be more aggressive in various ways, from filing more egregious cases in which an employer is cited on a per-instance basis to pushing harder for employers to pay for and provide PPE and training, filing more General Duty Clause cases, pressuring the 26 state plans to be more aggressive, and putting more emphasis on key areas such as combustible dust, amputations, and recordkeeping."
Faulke was joined by Howard A. Mavity in a 65 minute Fisher & Phillips LLP webinar. A second webinar will be held Thursday, March 26 - 12:00 p.m. EDT / 9:00 a.m. PDT.
This webinar will briefly review the essential elements of OSHA compliance and an effective workplace safety and health program, with an eye to preparing for increased civil and criminal enforcement, as well as the use of safety issues by unions and a growing group of whistleblowers. The webinar will also explain how, when used properly, safety compliance can be a "profit center" and not another administrative cost.
For information about this Thursday webinar contact Gail Rice at 404-231-1400 or grice@laborlawyers.com.
Related previous posts:
Increased Funding For OSHA
Can OSHA Be Fixed?
Obama Administration to Shift Regulatory Approach To Safety
"OSHA is likely to be more aggressive in various ways, from filing more egregious cases in which an employer is cited on a per-instance basis to pushing harder for employers to pay for and provide PPE and training, filing more General Duty Clause cases, pressuring the 26 state plans to be more aggressive, and putting more emphasis on key areas such as combustible dust, amputations, and recordkeeping."
Faulke was joined by Howard A. Mavity in a 65 minute Fisher & Phillips LLP webinar. A second webinar will be held Thursday, March 26 - 12:00 p.m. EDT / 9:00 a.m. PDT.
This webinar will briefly review the essential elements of OSHA compliance and an effective workplace safety and health program, with an eye to preparing for increased civil and criminal enforcement, as well as the use of safety issues by unions and a growing group of whistleblowers. The webinar will also explain how, when used properly, safety compliance can be a "profit center" and not another administrative cost.
For information about this Thursday webinar contact Gail Rice at 404-231-1400 or grice@laborlawyers.com.
Related previous posts:
Increased Funding For OSHA
Can OSHA Be Fixed?
Obama Administration to Shift Regulatory Approach To Safety
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections, safety management
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Minnesota Court of Appeals Reinstates Whistleblower Case
Workday Minnesota reported yesterday that "In a huge victory for two former Minnesota OSHA inspectors, the Minnesota Court of Appeals Tuesday overturned a District Court ruling that had dismissed one of the cases."
The cases are about two whistleblower lawsuits that claim "supervisors changed their signed reports, documents were removed from inspection files, and inspectors were pressured to not find violations against MNSTAR companies..."
You can read the full Workday Minnesota story here. The Workday Minnesota story also provides additional details concerning the Senate's Economic Development and Housing Finance Division Committee investigation and questions OSHA has been asked to answer.
You can read about these cases in a previous post: Minnesota DOLI Accused Of Altering OSHA Reports and Citations
The cases are about two whistleblower lawsuits that claim "supervisors changed their signed reports, documents were removed from inspection files, and inspectors were pressured to not find violations against MNSTAR companies..."
You can read the full Workday Minnesota story here. The Workday Minnesota story also provides additional details concerning the Senate's Economic Development and Housing Finance Division Committee investigation and questions OSHA has been asked to answer.
You can read about these cases in a previous post: Minnesota DOLI Accused Of Altering OSHA Reports and Citations
Labels: OSHA, whistleblower
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
ASSE Expresses Concerns About The New OSHA Cranes And Derricks Construction Rule
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) expressed a variety of concerns focused on the failure to reference widely accepted national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane safety in the proposed updated federal ‘Cranes and Derricks in Construction Rule’ in testimony by ASSE professional member Matt Burkart, a crane safety expert from Southampton, PA, who is a member of the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations Standards standard committee and chairman of the ASCE Construction Site Safety Committee at a public hearing held this week at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
The concerns reflect comments ASSE submitted in January to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Stohler for the record of the cranes and derricks rulemaking. In its comments, ASSE requested a hearing be held to discuss its concern that OSHA failed to reference the A10 or other national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane and derrick safety.
In ASSE’s January comments, ASSE President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHM, of Fairborn, OH, noted ASSE represents 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals who work with employers to protect workers and employers’ property from safety, health and environmental risks.
"Our members are experts in managing workplace safety and health issues in every industry, in every state and across the globe. They belong to sixteen ASSE practice specialties," Brown said. "In fact, ASSE’s Construction Practice Specialty is ASSE’s largest practice specialty. ASSE is also the Secretariat for various ANSI voluntary consensus standards related to safe practices in construction, including the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, the Z359 Fall Protection Code, and Z490.1-2001Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training. The safe operation cranes and derricks on construction sites is of the utmost importance to ASSE’s members."
In his testimony, Burkart brought attention to OSHA’s failure to fulfill its duty under law to consider voluntary consensus standards in rulemaking.
"We cannot help but come to that conclusion when the Proposed Rule fails to reference even once the ASC A10 standard Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. The ASC A10 Committee for Construction and Demolition Operations is one of the oldest ANSI committees, chartered in 1931 and enjoying 78 years of continuous leadership in developing construction safety standards," Burkart said. "The inability of OSHA to identify a key set of standards impacting crane safety is a significant failure by OSHA to perform meaningful background research and indicates the Agency failed to comply fully with Public Law 104-113."
Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1965, requires all federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."
"ASSE’s members have had extensive and successful experience in helping develop occupational safety and health standards through consensus building in the ANSI voluntary standards development process, including national standards impacting the safe operation of cranes and derricks," Burkart explained. "We already work successfully in managing crane safety through these voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, we need clarity and consistency between the existing voluntary standard and a final OSHA standard."
In his testimony, Burkhart also stated ASSE's support for OSHA's general approach to helping ensure that crane operators are qualified or certified to operate the equipment covered here. Burkart went on to say, however, "We urge OSHA to rewrite the proposed provisions to require that operator certifications be accredited by the same nationally recognized accrediting agencies that accredit organizations certifying the professional competence of safety and health professionals. Without this level of rigor, ASSE fears that unknown entities with little experience in professional certification will be able to establish certifications that do not adequately demonstrate professional crane operator competence and put at risk the advances in crane safety we all want."
Burkart also urged OSHA to look closely at the negotiated rulemaking process used to develop this proposed rule to see if lessons can be learned to help improve the negotiated rulemaking process as a tool for engaging the entire safety and health community in OSHA’s rulemaking.
"While no approach to standards setting can be without challenges, negotiated rulemaking best mirrors the success of the voluntary consensus process and holds promise for some of the more difficult occupational safety and health issues," Burkart said on behalf of ASSE.
Other areas of the proposed rule that concern ASSE include hoisting and rigging; confusing equipment definitions such as for fall protection, competent person and ground conditions; concern that OSHA did not reference the national voluntary consensus standard with regard to use of different derricks; selection of manufacturer or employer procedures for assembly/disassembly and general requirements; power line safety; inspections; wire rope inspections; general requirements for signals; overall fall protection; work area control; operator qualification and certification; training; hoisting personnel; multiple-crane/derrick lifts; design, construction and testing; and, overhead and gantry cranes.
The current OSHA safety standard for cranes and derricks was written in 1971. In July 2004, a 23-member industry and union OSHA advisory committee issued a recommendation that OSHA update its outdated standards on crane and derrick safety and proposed a revised standard, including specific rules on crane assembly.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
OSHA Launches National Initiative On Cranes And Derricks
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
The concerns reflect comments ASSE submitted in January to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Stohler for the record of the cranes and derricks rulemaking. In its comments, ASSE requested a hearing be held to discuss its concern that OSHA failed to reference the A10 or other national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane and derrick safety.
In ASSE’s January comments, ASSE President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHM, of Fairborn, OH, noted ASSE represents 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals who work with employers to protect workers and employers’ property from safety, health and environmental risks.
"Our members are experts in managing workplace safety and health issues in every industry, in every state and across the globe. They belong to sixteen ASSE practice specialties," Brown said. "In fact, ASSE’s Construction Practice Specialty is ASSE’s largest practice specialty. ASSE is also the Secretariat for various ANSI voluntary consensus standards related to safe practices in construction, including the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, the Z359 Fall Protection Code, and Z490.1-2001Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training. The safe operation cranes and derricks on construction sites is of the utmost importance to ASSE’s members."
In his testimony, Burkart brought attention to OSHA’s failure to fulfill its duty under law to consider voluntary consensus standards in rulemaking.
"We cannot help but come to that conclusion when the Proposed Rule fails to reference even once the ASC A10 standard Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. The ASC A10 Committee for Construction and Demolition Operations is one of the oldest ANSI committees, chartered in 1931 and enjoying 78 years of continuous leadership in developing construction safety standards," Burkart said. "The inability of OSHA to identify a key set of standards impacting crane safety is a significant failure by OSHA to perform meaningful background research and indicates the Agency failed to comply fully with Public Law 104-113."
Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1965, requires all federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."
"ASSE’s members have had extensive and successful experience in helping develop occupational safety and health standards through consensus building in the ANSI voluntary standards development process, including national standards impacting the safe operation of cranes and derricks," Burkart explained. "We already work successfully in managing crane safety through these voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, we need clarity and consistency between the existing voluntary standard and a final OSHA standard."
In his testimony, Burkhart also stated ASSE's support for OSHA's general approach to helping ensure that crane operators are qualified or certified to operate the equipment covered here. Burkart went on to say, however, "We urge OSHA to rewrite the proposed provisions to require that operator certifications be accredited by the same nationally recognized accrediting agencies that accredit organizations certifying the professional competence of safety and health professionals. Without this level of rigor, ASSE fears that unknown entities with little experience in professional certification will be able to establish certifications that do not adequately demonstrate professional crane operator competence and put at risk the advances in crane safety we all want."
Burkart also urged OSHA to look closely at the negotiated rulemaking process used to develop this proposed rule to see if lessons can be learned to help improve the negotiated rulemaking process as a tool for engaging the entire safety and health community in OSHA’s rulemaking.
"While no approach to standards setting can be without challenges, negotiated rulemaking best mirrors the success of the voluntary consensus process and holds promise for some of the more difficult occupational safety and health issues," Burkart said on behalf of ASSE.
Other areas of the proposed rule that concern ASSE include hoisting and rigging; confusing equipment definitions such as for fall protection, competent person and ground conditions; concern that OSHA did not reference the national voluntary consensus standard with regard to use of different derricks; selection of manufacturer or employer procedures for assembly/disassembly and general requirements; power line safety; inspections; wire rope inspections; general requirements for signals; overall fall protection; work area control; operator qualification and certification; training; hoisting personnel; multiple-crane/derrick lifts; design, construction and testing; and, overhead and gantry cranes.
The current OSHA safety standard for cranes and derricks was written in 1971. In July 2004, a 23-member industry and union OSHA advisory committee issued a recommendation that OSHA update its outdated standards on crane and derrick safety and proposed a revised standard, including specific rules on crane assembly.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
OSHA Launches National Initiative On Cranes And Derricks
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
Labels: ASSE, Construction Safety, OSHA, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, March 09, 2009
OSHA Above Ground
A new blog, written by an OSHA employee, started up on Janary15th. It provides some interesting insights, and level-headed commentary about what OSHA does and how things work inside OSHA. It is called OSHA Aboveground.
I particularly found the post from last Friday, title Clowns To The Left... to be interesting. It is about the OSHA rule making process.
Although it is just getting started, this blog looks like it is going to be very good reading.
I particularly found the post from last Friday, title Clowns To The Left... to be interesting. It is about the OSHA rule making process.
Although it is just getting started, this blog looks like it is going to be very good reading.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, Safety Blog
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Eighth Circuit Court Overrules Review Commission in OSHA Multi-Employer Case
An article in yesterday's online edition of EHS Today reports on a February 26th decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled on the validity of OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. The ruling stated that:
"The Department of Labor's regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to employers for violations when their own employees are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations; even if the regulation was ambiguous, the court would defer to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the regulation; as a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission abused its discretion in determining that the controlling employer citation policy conflicted with the regulation." (Read the court decision here.)
Summit Contractors Inc. was cited for a safety violation by a subcontractor based on the "controlling employer" aspect of OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. This court ruling supports the multi-employer citation policy as being valid.
You can read the complete EHS Today article here.
"The Department of Labor's regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to employers for violations when their own employees are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations; even if the regulation was ambiguous, the court would defer to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the regulation; as a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission abused its discretion in determining that the controlling employer citation policy conflicted with the regulation." (Read the court decision here.)
Summit Contractors Inc. was cited for a safety violation by a subcontractor based on the "controlling employer" aspect of OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. This court ruling supports the multi-employer citation policy as being valid.
You can read the complete EHS Today article here.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Citations, safety management
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama Budget Increases Workplace Safety Funding
Several sources are reporting on President Obama's proposes $27 million increase in the OSHA budget. You can read about it in a report from the McClatchy Washington Bureau.
The article states that "Obama's budget blueprint, released on Thursday, seeks to increase funding to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. More precise funding details for the job safety agency and other federal programs won't be released until April."
The article goes on to state:
"The extra money also would be used to increase enforcement of wage and hour rules, and enforce equal opportunity in federal contracting."
The article states that "Obama's budget blueprint, released on Thursday, seeks to increase funding to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. More precise funding details for the job safety agency and other federal programs won't be released until April."
The article goes on to state:
"The extra money also would be used to increase enforcement of wage and hour rules, and enforce equal opportunity in federal contracting."
"Though both houses of Congress will be able to write their own appropriations bills in coming months, lawmakers have shown signs that they will make OSHA a bigger priority. A 2009 appropriations bill now before Congress boosts spending and requires the agency to do a better job tracking injuries and illnesses."
Labels: OSHA, safety politics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
OSHA Orders Air Carrier To Pay $400,000 To Employee
OSHA orders Connecticut-based air carrier to pay more than $400,000 to employee terminated for raising safety concerns.
OSHA has ordered Southern Air Inc., a cargo airline headquartered in Norwalk, Conn., to pay more than $400,000 in lost wages, back pay, damages and legal fees to compensate a flight crew member who was terminated for raising safety concerns protected under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21).
The employee was terminated in April 2008 after twice complaining to management about inadequate rest breaks and being required to work hours in excess of those allowed under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules. The employee then filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA's Boston Regional Office.
OSHA's investigation found merit to the complaint, and the agency has issued a Notice of Secretary's Findings and Preliminary Order to Southern Air that directs the air carrier to pay the complainant $300,000 for loss of career wages, $135,240 in compensatory damages, $7,394.65 in attorney's fees and back pay of $1,485 per week, plus interest, from April 7, 2008, through the date of payment. The company is also ordered to post the FAA whistleblower poster and an OSHA notice to employees about their whistleblower rights.
"Employees have a strong and clear right to raise legitimate safety and health concerns about their working conditions without fear of termination or reprisal," said Marthe Kent, OSHA's New England regional administrator. "We will pursue the appropriate legal remedies whenever we find that workers have been denied this vital safeguard."
Both the complainant and the airline have 30 days from receipt of the findings to file an appeal with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges.
OSHA has ordered Southern Air Inc., a cargo airline headquartered in Norwalk, Conn., to pay more than $400,000 in lost wages, back pay, damages and legal fees to compensate a flight crew member who was terminated for raising safety concerns protected under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21).
The employee was terminated in April 2008 after twice complaining to management about inadequate rest breaks and being required to work hours in excess of those allowed under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules. The employee then filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA's Boston Regional Office.
OSHA's investigation found merit to the complaint, and the agency has issued a Notice of Secretary's Findings and Preliminary Order to Southern Air that directs the air carrier to pay the complainant $300,000 for loss of career wages, $135,240 in compensatory damages, $7,394.65 in attorney's fees and back pay of $1,485 per week, plus interest, from April 7, 2008, through the date of payment. The company is also ordered to post the FAA whistleblower poster and an OSHA notice to employees about their whistleblower rights.
"Employees have a strong and clear right to raise legitimate safety and health concerns about their working conditions without fear of termination or reprisal," said Marthe Kent, OSHA's New England regional administrator. "We will pursue the appropriate legal remedies whenever we find that workers have been denied this vital safeguard."
Both the complainant and the airline have 30 days from receipt of the findings to file an appeal with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Fines
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 3 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, February 09, 2009
Obama Administration to Shift Regulatory Approach To Safety
The Kiplinger Letter reports that:
"The Obama administration will move swiftly on establishing a new regulatory environment by making new regulations and reversing existing rules that affect business and commerce. Among the first acts of the new administration was putting a 180-day hold on all regulatory actions near completion, but not finalized, to allow the new regulatory staff time to review and halt or change them."
You can read the entire article here.
It is expected that under the new administration OSHA will put a heavier hand on enforcement, blunt warnings and penalties. In addition, rules that have not been strictly enforced in the past, will now be enforced, and changes to rules put through by the Bush administration are targeted for revision or removal.
"The Obama administration will move swiftly on establishing a new regulatory environment by making new regulations and reversing existing rules that affect business and commerce. Among the first acts of the new administration was putting a 180-day hold on all regulatory actions near completion, but not finalized, to allow the new regulatory staff time to review and halt or change them."
You can read the entire article here.
It is expected that under the new administration OSHA will put a heavier hand on enforcement, blunt warnings and penalties. In addition, rules that have not been strictly enforced in the past, will now be enforced, and changes to rules put through by the Bush administration are targeted for revision or removal.
Labels: OSHA, safety politics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Crackdown On Bogus OSHA Classes
A follow up article in the NY Daily News reports that "Mayor Bloomberg calls for federal crackdown on bogus OSHA classes." (Click on this link to read the article.)
The article provides more information on the extent of the lack of actual training in some OSHA classes, and the ability to purchase fake OSHA cards that certify the holder as having completed OSHA training. This article reports:
"In July, an undercover investigator working for the city School Construction Authority was able to buy six fake OSHA cards certifying the holder had completed a rigorous 30-hour OSHA course. A certified OSHA trainer has been suspended as the investigation continues."
The article provides more information on the extent of the lack of actual training in some OSHA classes, and the ability to purchase fake OSHA cards that certify the holder as having completed OSHA training. This article reports:
"In July, an undercover investigator working for the city School Construction Authority was able to buy six fake OSHA cards certifying the holder had completed a rigorous 30-hour OSHA course. A certified OSHA trainer has been suspended as the investigation continues."
"And in June, OSHA officials confirmed, the agency suspended another trainer in response to a News report that an immigrant worker who received no more than a two-hour safety lecture was able to obtain a certificate stating he had completed 30 hours of lessons on tower crane safety."
Last year the NY Daily News reported on the worker who had been found to have a fake OSHA card. (Click on the link to read that report.)
Our previous post on bogus OSHA safety classes.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, Safety Training
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, February 02, 2009
Corners Cut And Beers Downed At OSHA Classes
In yesterday's edition the New York Daily News reported what they found when they sent a reporter to attend an OSHA 10 safety class. This is a ten hour training class that teaches the basics of construction job safety. Here is what they found as reported in the first paragraphs of the N.Y. Daily News article:
"Safety is for sale in the dimly lit Aqueduct North bar in the far reaches of the Bronx. Last Sunday, a group of hardhats hunkered down for what was supposed to be 10 hours of crucial construction safety training. One of the 'hardhats' was an undercover Daily News reporter. What he found was that the $125 course took just over two hours, factoring in time spent waiting for the instructor to show and breaks to grab a beer."
Read the entire article at the N.Y. Daily News
"Safety is for sale in the dimly lit Aqueduct North bar in the far reaches of the Bronx. Last Sunday, a group of hardhats hunkered down for what was supposed to be 10 hours of crucial construction safety training. One of the 'hardhats' was an undercover Daily News reporter. What he found was that the $125 course took just over two hours, factoring in time spent waiting for the instructor to show and breaks to grab a beer."
Read the entire article at the N.Y. Daily News
Labels: Construction Safety, OSHA, Safety Training, VPP Safety Articles and Papers
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
American Society of Safety Engineers Discusses Future of OSHA With New Administration
In discussing occupational safety, health and the environment (SH&E) issues with the new administration’s transition team, American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) officials reviewed its key concerns and suggestions for the U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Leadership, standards, risk-based safety and health management approaches, global harmonization rulemaking, third party consultation, ergonomics, workplace transportation fatalities, strengthening support for state OSHA programs, cooperation with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and continued support for cooperative programs like the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and OSHA alliances with businesses which advance employer understanding of the positive impact of SH&E on an employer’s bottom line were discussed.
As for leadership, ASSE notes federal safety and health agencies should be led by safety, health and environmental professionals who have the leadership capabilities to build relationships across the spectrum of occupational safety and health (OSH) stakeholders. ASSE also noted the following:
- Standards -- An examination of how OSHA standards are pursued must be undertaken. OSHA should lead efforts to develop cooperative mechanisms to help counter the division that has limited OSHA’s ability to update standards and permissible exposure limits (PELs).
- Advance risk-based safety and health management approaches -- OSHA should encourage employers to take proactive responsibility for safety and health through risk-based regulatory approaches and compliance assistance resources. Europe, Japan, China and committed U.S. employers already use such approaches. OSHA is falling behind the world in not incorporating risk-based safety and health management approaches.
- OSHA can help U.S. companies save jobs. Rulemaking on global harmonization of US hazard communications (GHS) will help U.S. employers compete across the globe and should be completed. An engaged OSHA can help ensure OSH issues are addressed fully in US trade agreements.
- Continue to support cooperative programs like VPP and the OSHA alliances, which continue to advance employer understanding that safe workplaces save lives and positively impact an employer’s bottom line.
- Third party consultation -- ASSE supports extending OSHA effectiveness by establishing a program to allow third party safety audits of companies under strict requirements to ensure professionalism and maximize effect, thereby expanding OSHA’s reach beyond the limits of its current enforcement and cooperative programs.
- Ergonomics – If ergonomics emerges as a regulatory goal, ASSE will not be able to support a prescriptive approach. Our members’ knowledge and experience indicate that ergonomic problems are addressed through specific job and workplace fixes. Any approach to ergonomics must be risk-based, encourage cooperation, and avoid prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions that cannot work.
- Harmonization with voluntary consensus standards – OSHA should increase its participation level in the voluntary consensus standard community and comply fully with the Technology Transfer Act's mandate to consider consensus standards when engaged in rulemaking. Use of such standards, like ANSI/ASSE Z117 (confined space standard) and ANSI/ASSE Z490.1 (safety training), will help expedite rulemaking and keep pace with current safety practices.
- Transportation-related deaths continue to be the leading cause of workplace fatalities in the U.S. OSHA should examine its current efforts and engage employers, employees and other federal agencies to create a new emphasis on addressing this problem.
- Cooperation with NIOSH – OSHA’s relationship with NIOSH envisioned by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act should be increased so that NIOSH’s work, including key SH&E research, can support and contribute to OSHA’s standards and other activities.
- Improve support for state programs – OSHA’s ability to support and encourage state program effectiveness must be strengthened.
Leadership, standards, risk-based safety and health management approaches, global harmonization rulemaking, third party consultation, ergonomics, workplace transportation fatalities, strengthening support for state OSHA programs, cooperation with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and continued support for cooperative programs like the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and OSHA alliances with businesses which advance employer understanding of the positive impact of SH&E on an employer’s bottom line were discussed.
As for leadership, ASSE notes federal safety and health agencies should be led by safety, health and environmental professionals who have the leadership capabilities to build relationships across the spectrum of occupational safety and health (OSH) stakeholders. ASSE also noted the following:
- Standards -- An examination of how OSHA standards are pursued must be undertaken. OSHA should lead efforts to develop cooperative mechanisms to help counter the division that has limited OSHA’s ability to update standards and permissible exposure limits (PELs).
- Advance risk-based safety and health management approaches -- OSHA should encourage employers to take proactive responsibility for safety and health through risk-based regulatory approaches and compliance assistance resources. Europe, Japan, China and committed U.S. employers already use such approaches. OSHA is falling behind the world in not incorporating risk-based safety and health management approaches.
- OSHA can help U.S. companies save jobs. Rulemaking on global harmonization of US hazard communications (GHS) will help U.S. employers compete across the globe and should be completed. An engaged OSHA can help ensure OSH issues are addressed fully in US trade agreements.
- Continue to support cooperative programs like VPP and the OSHA alliances, which continue to advance employer understanding that safe workplaces save lives and positively impact an employer’s bottom line.
- Third party consultation -- ASSE supports extending OSHA effectiveness by establishing a program to allow third party safety audits of companies under strict requirements to ensure professionalism and maximize effect, thereby expanding OSHA’s reach beyond the limits of its current enforcement and cooperative programs.
- Ergonomics – If ergonomics emerges as a regulatory goal, ASSE will not be able to support a prescriptive approach. Our members’ knowledge and experience indicate that ergonomic problems are addressed through specific job and workplace fixes. Any approach to ergonomics must be risk-based, encourage cooperation, and avoid prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions that cannot work.
- Harmonization with voluntary consensus standards – OSHA should increase its participation level in the voluntary consensus standard community and comply fully with the Technology Transfer Act's mandate to consider consensus standards when engaged in rulemaking. Use of such standards, like ANSI/ASSE Z117 (confined space standard) and ANSI/ASSE Z490.1 (safety training), will help expedite rulemaking and keep pace with current safety practices.
- Transportation-related deaths continue to be the leading cause of workplace fatalities in the U.S. OSHA should examine its current efforts and engage employers, employees and other federal agencies to create a new emphasis on addressing this problem.
- Cooperation with NIOSH – OSHA’s relationship with NIOSH envisioned by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act should be increased so that NIOSH’s work, including key SH&E research, can support and contribute to OSHA’s standards and other activities.
- Improve support for state programs – OSHA’s ability to support and encourage state program effectiveness must be strengthened.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, January 12, 2009
OSHA Revises Its Voluntary Protection Programs
OSHA formalizes two new ways to participate in the VPP.
On Friday OSHA published the final changes to its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) in the Federal Register. Among other enhancements, the changes allow participation by companies with mobile workforces.
The VPP, the agency's recognition initiative for workplace safety and health excellence, will provide new options for construction contractors and other employers who may have employees at various locations. Other VPP changes for eligible organizations include a streamlined application process, outreach and mentoring, and onsite workplace evaluations.
"OSHA is proud to recognize the outstanding efforts of employers and employees who have achieved exemplary occupational safety and health," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "These program revisions will allow more companies to participate in the VPP, which has contributed to improved workplace safety. Since 2001, participation in the VPP has increased almost 200 percent. During that same period, there has been a 14 percent decrease in workplace fatalities. Establishing partnerships and encouraging continual process improvement are part of OSHA's balanced approach to workplace safety and health."
The VPP was established in 1982 to recognize employers and employees who focus on the prevention of injuries, illnesses and fatalities through the implementation of effective safety and health management systems. Currently, there are 2,161 federal and state plan VPP participants.
Changes to the VPP are effective May 9. For more information on the VPP and these latest revisions, contact the nearest OSHA area or regional office or the OSHA National Office, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, at 202-693-2213. The Federal Register notice can be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-165.htm.
On Friday OSHA published the final changes to its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) in the Federal Register. Among other enhancements, the changes allow participation by companies with mobile workforces.
The VPP, the agency's recognition initiative for workplace safety and health excellence, will provide new options for construction contractors and other employers who may have employees at various locations. Other VPP changes for eligible organizations include a streamlined application process, outreach and mentoring, and onsite workplace evaluations.
"OSHA is proud to recognize the outstanding efforts of employers and employees who have achieved exemplary occupational safety and health," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "These program revisions will allow more companies to participate in the VPP, which has contributed to improved workplace safety. Since 2001, participation in the VPP has increased almost 200 percent. During that same period, there has been a 14 percent decrease in workplace fatalities. Establishing partnerships and encouraging continual process improvement are part of OSHA's balanced approach to workplace safety and health."
The VPP was established in 1982 to recognize employers and employees who focus on the prevention of injuries, illnesses and fatalities through the implementation of effective safety and health management systems. Currently, there are 2,161 federal and state plan VPP participants.
Changes to the VPP are effective May 9. For more information on the VPP and these latest revisions, contact the nearest OSHA area or regional office or the OSHA National Office, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, at 202-693-2213. The Federal Register notice can be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-165.htm.
Labels: OSHA, VPP, VPP Implementation
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, January 09, 2009
Top Ten OSHA Violations In 2008
Graphic Products is offering a free copy of a guide to the Top Ten OSHA Violations In 2008.
This guide provides two top ten lists. The top ten OSHA violations based on the number of violations in fiscal year 2008, and the top ten violations based on the total amount of the assessed fines.
In addition to listing the violations, the guides provides a reference to the OSHA regulations that apply, as well as providing a brief description.
This guide provides two top ten lists. The top ten OSHA violations based on the number of violations in fiscal year 2008, and the top ten violations based on the total amount of the assessed fines.
In addition to listing the violations, the guides provides a reference to the OSHA regulations that apply, as well as providing a brief description.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, January 02, 2009
American Society of Safety Engineers Discusses Future of OSHA With New Administration
In discussing occupational safety, health and the environment (SH&E) issues with the new administration’s transition team, American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) officials reviewed their key concerns and suggestions for OSHA.
Leadership, standards, risk-based safety and health management approaches, global harmonization rulemaking, third party consultation, ergonomics, workplace transportation fatalities, strengthening support for state OSHA programs, cooperation with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and continued support for cooperative programs like the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and OSHA alliances with businesses which advance employer understanding of the positive impact of SH&E on an employer’s bottom line were discussed.
As for leadership, ASSE notes federal safety and health agencies should be led by safety, health and environmental professionals who have the leadership capabilities to build relationships across the spectrum of occupational safety and health (OSH) stakeholders. ASSE also noted the following:
• Standards -- An examination of how OSHA standards are pursued must be undertaken. OSHA should lead efforts to develop cooperative mechanisms to help counter the division that has limited OSHA’s ability to update standards and permissible exposure limits (PELs).
• Advance risk-based safety and health management approaches -- OSHA should encourage employers to take proactive responsibility for safety and health through risk-based regulatory approaches and compliance assistance resources. Europe, Japan, China and committed U.S. employers already use such approaches. OSHA is falling behind the world in not incorporating risk-based safety and health management approaches.
• OSHA can help U.S. companies save jobs. Rulemaking on global harmonization of US hazard communications (GHS) will help U.S. employers compete across the globe and should be completed. An engaged OSHA can help ensure OSH issues are addressed fully in US trade agreements.
• Continue to support cooperative programs like VPP and the OSHA alliances, which continue to advance employer understanding that safe workplaces save lives and positively impact an employer’s bottom line.
• Third party consultation -- ASSE supports extending OSHA effectiveness by establishing a program to allow third party safety audits of companies under strict requirements to ensure professionalism and maximize effect, thereby expanding OSHA’s reach beyond the limits of its current enforcement and cooperative programs.
• Ergonomics – If ergonomics emerges as a regulatory goal, ASSE will not be able to support a prescriptive approach. Our members’ knowledge and experience indicate that ergonomic problems are addressed through specific job and workplace fixes. Any approach to ergonomics must be risk-based, encourage cooperation, and avoid prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions that cannot work.
• Harmonization with voluntary consensus standards – OSHA should increase its participation level in the voluntary consensus standard community and comply fully with the Technology Transfer Act's mandate to consider consensus standards when engaged in rulemaking. Use of such standards, like ANSI/ASSE Z117 (confined space standard) and ANSI/ASSE Z490.1 (safety training), will help expedite rulemaking and keep pace with current safety practices.
• Transportation-related deaths continue to be the leading cause of workplace fatalities in the U.S. OSHA should examine its current efforts and engage employers, employees and other federal agencies to create a new emphasis on addressing this problem.
• Cooperation with NIOSH – OSHA’s relationship with NIOSH envisioned by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act should be increased so that NIOSH’s work, including key SH&E research, can support and contribute to OSHA’s standards and other activities.
• Improve support for state programs – OSHA’s ability to support and encourage state program effectiveness must be strengthened.
Leadership, standards, risk-based safety and health management approaches, global harmonization rulemaking, third party consultation, ergonomics, workplace transportation fatalities, strengthening support for state OSHA programs, cooperation with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and continued support for cooperative programs like the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and OSHA alliances with businesses which advance employer understanding of the positive impact of SH&E on an employer’s bottom line were discussed.
As for leadership, ASSE notes federal safety and health agencies should be led by safety, health and environmental professionals who have the leadership capabilities to build relationships across the spectrum of occupational safety and health (OSH) stakeholders. ASSE also noted the following:
• Standards -- An examination of how OSHA standards are pursued must be undertaken. OSHA should lead efforts to develop cooperative mechanisms to help counter the division that has limited OSHA’s ability to update standards and permissible exposure limits (PELs).
• Advance risk-based safety and health management approaches -- OSHA should encourage employers to take proactive responsibility for safety and health through risk-based regulatory approaches and compliance assistance resources. Europe, Japan, China and committed U.S. employers already use such approaches. OSHA is falling behind the world in not incorporating risk-based safety and health management approaches.
• OSHA can help U.S. companies save jobs. Rulemaking on global harmonization of US hazard communications (GHS) will help U.S. employers compete across the globe and should be completed. An engaged OSHA can help ensure OSH issues are addressed fully in US trade agreements.
• Continue to support cooperative programs like VPP and the OSHA alliances, which continue to advance employer understanding that safe workplaces save lives and positively impact an employer’s bottom line.
• Third party consultation -- ASSE supports extending OSHA effectiveness by establishing a program to allow third party safety audits of companies under strict requirements to ensure professionalism and maximize effect, thereby expanding OSHA’s reach beyond the limits of its current enforcement and cooperative programs.
• Ergonomics – If ergonomics emerges as a regulatory goal, ASSE will not be able to support a prescriptive approach. Our members’ knowledge and experience indicate that ergonomic problems are addressed through specific job and workplace fixes. Any approach to ergonomics must be risk-based, encourage cooperation, and avoid prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions that cannot work.
• Harmonization with voluntary consensus standards – OSHA should increase its participation level in the voluntary consensus standard community and comply fully with the Technology Transfer Act's mandate to consider consensus standards when engaged in rulemaking. Use of such standards, like ANSI/ASSE Z117 (confined space standard) and ANSI/ASSE Z490.1 (safety training), will help expedite rulemaking and keep pace with current safety practices.
• Transportation-related deaths continue to be the leading cause of workplace fatalities in the U.S. OSHA should examine its current efforts and engage employers, employees and other federal agencies to create a new emphasis on addressing this problem.
• Cooperation with NIOSH – OSHA’s relationship with NIOSH envisioned by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act should be increased so that NIOSH’s work, including key SH&E research, can support and contribute to OSHA’s standards and other activities.
• Improve support for state programs – OSHA’s ability to support and encourage state program effectiveness must be strengthened.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
OSHA Highlights A Successful Enforcement Year In 2008
OSHA continued to exceed enforcement goals during Fiscal Year 2008 according to data released last week. The agency's emphasis on identifying and eliminating serious safety and health hazards has resulted in an unprecedented 80 percent of all violations issued being in the most serious categories.
Nationwide, OSHA logged 87,687 violations of its standards and regulations for worker safety and health, with 67,052 of these violations cited as "serious." The proportion of those violations classified as endangering employees is at the highest level ever, and this administration has made more criminal referrals for wrongdoing under the Occupational Safety and Health Act than any previous one, including 12 in 2008 alone. Additionally, in 2008, OSHA conducted close to 39,000 worksite inspections, surpassing the agency's goal for the year by 2.4 percent. On average, 4,000 more workplace inspections were completed each year (38,515) between 2001-2008 as compared to the prior administration 1993-2000 (34,508).
"Workplace inspections and issuing citations are a critical part of OSHA's balanced approach to improving workplace safety, but the real test of success is saving lives and preventing injuries, " said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "According to preliminary numbers for 2007, the workplace fatality rate has declined 14 percent since 2001, and since 2002, the workplace injury and illness rate has dropped 21 percent - with both at all time lows. This year's inspection numbers show that the strategic approach used by OSHA - targeting highest hazard workplaces for aggressive enforcement while also using education, training, and cooperative programs to improve overall compliance - can help achieve significant reductions in workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities."
Innovative approaches such as the Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP), Site Specific Targeting and National Emphasis Programs (NEP) are methods OSHA uses to target the most hazardous workplaces and employers with high injury and illness rates. EEP's purpose is to pursue employers with a history of serious, willful and/or repeat violations with OSHA. During the program's first five years (FY 2004 to 2008), OSHA identified 2,471 inspections that qualified for the EEP. Site-Specific Targeting allows OSHA to focus its enforcement efforts on workplaces with the highest rated injuries and illnesses.
In FY 2008, 3,800 worksites were targeted for unannounced comprehensive safety inspections. The NEPs focus on major health and/or safety hazards of recognized national significance. They also guide OSHA field offices to plan programs and conduct inspections consistently across the nation. Areas of emphasis include combustible dust, lead, process safety management, diacetyl and trenching. During FY 2008, OSHA conducted 8,730 inspections related to an NEP.
Nationwide, OSHA logged 87,687 violations of its standards and regulations for worker safety and health, with 67,052 of these violations cited as "serious." The proportion of those violations classified as endangering employees is at the highest level ever, and this administration has made more criminal referrals for wrongdoing under the Occupational Safety and Health Act than any previous one, including 12 in 2008 alone. Additionally, in 2008, OSHA conducted close to 39,000 worksite inspections, surpassing the agency's goal for the year by 2.4 percent. On average, 4,000 more workplace inspections were completed each year (38,515) between 2001-2008 as compared to the prior administration 1993-2000 (34,508).
"Workplace inspections and issuing citations are a critical part of OSHA's balanced approach to improving workplace safety, but the real test of success is saving lives and preventing injuries, " said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "According to preliminary numbers for 2007, the workplace fatality rate has declined 14 percent since 2001, and since 2002, the workplace injury and illness rate has dropped 21 percent - with both at all time lows. This year's inspection numbers show that the strategic approach used by OSHA - targeting highest hazard workplaces for aggressive enforcement while also using education, training, and cooperative programs to improve overall compliance - can help achieve significant reductions in workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities."
Innovative approaches such as the Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP), Site Specific Targeting and National Emphasis Programs (NEP) are methods OSHA uses to target the most hazardous workplaces and employers with high injury and illness rates. EEP's purpose is to pursue employers with a history of serious, willful and/or repeat violations with OSHA. During the program's first five years (FY 2004 to 2008), OSHA identified 2,471 inspections that qualified for the EEP. Site-Specific Targeting allows OSHA to focus its enforcement efforts on workplaces with the highest rated injuries and illnesses.
In FY 2008, 3,800 worksites were targeted for unannounced comprehensive safety inspections. The NEPs focus on major health and/or safety hazards of recognized national significance. They also guide OSHA field offices to plan programs and conduct inspections consistently across the nation. Areas of emphasis include combustible dust, lead, process safety management, diacetyl and trenching. During FY 2008, OSHA conducted 8,730 inspections related to an NEP.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, December 15, 2008
Lynn Area Chamber of Commerce Reports OSHA Poster Scam
This morning's Daily Item reports from Lynn, Massachusetts that the Lynn Chamber of Commerce reported that "two men recently tried to scam the organization by insisting the government workplace safety posters they were selling for $30 each were mandatory for businesses.
JoAnn Power, the chamber's communications director, said the pair were selling state and federal labor law compliance posters from a company called Compliance4Less and warned that businesses failing to purchase the items could be fined up to $17,000 by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)."
This type of misleading sales of OSHA posters has been going on for a long time. The following is an OSHA press release from 2001:
WORKPLACE POSTERS ARE AVAILABLE FREE - DESPITE MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Advertisements suggesting that OSHA workplace posters must be purchased from private companies to avoid fines may be misleading employers. OSHA reminds employers that its official posters are available free for the asking.
The official OSHA poster was redesigned last year to make it easier to read and understand. The new poster, called "It's the Law!" is available in English and Spanish. Employers need not replace older posters with the new ones, if they prefer to use them. Employers are required to display one of the two posters in a prominent location.
The OSHA poster informs workers of their rights to a safe and healthful workplace, how to file a complaint, report an emergency, and seek OSHA advice, and advises them of their right to confidentiality. It also lists the toll free number for OSHA, 800-321-OSHA, as well as phone numbers for regional OSHA offices around the country.
For a copy of OSHA's poster, visit OSHA's website at http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster.html. For the Spanish version, see http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster2.html. Employers can order multiple copies online by visiting www.osha.gov, then Newsroom, then Publications. Complete the order form online, and fax your request to Publications at (202) 693-2498. You can also call (202) 698-1888 or write to: U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA, OSHA Publications, P.O. Box 37535 Washington, D.C. 20013-7535.
JoAnn Power, the chamber's communications director, said the pair were selling state and federal labor law compliance posters from a company called Compliance4Less and warned that businesses failing to purchase the items could be fined up to $17,000 by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)."
This type of misleading sales of OSHA posters has been going on for a long time. The following is an OSHA press release from 2001:
WORKPLACE POSTERS ARE AVAILABLE FREE - DESPITE MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Advertisements suggesting that OSHA workplace posters must be purchased from private companies to avoid fines may be misleading employers. OSHA reminds employers that its official posters are available free for the asking.
The official OSHA poster was redesigned last year to make it easier to read and understand. The new poster, called "It's the Law!" is available in English and Spanish. Employers need not replace older posters with the new ones, if they prefer to use them. Employers are required to display one of the two posters in a prominent location.
The OSHA poster informs workers of their rights to a safe and healthful workplace, how to file a complaint, report an emergency, and seek OSHA advice, and advises them of their right to confidentiality. It also lists the toll free number for OSHA, 800-321-OSHA, as well as phone numbers for regional OSHA offices around the country.
For a copy of OSHA's poster, visit OSHA's website at http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster.html. For the Spanish version, see http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster2.html. Employers can order multiple copies online by visiting www.osha.gov, then Newsroom, then Publications. Complete the order form online, and fax your request to Publications at (202) 693-2498. You can also call (202) 698-1888 or write to: U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA, OSHA Publications, P.O. Box 37535 Washington, D.C. 20013-7535.
Labels: OSHA, rtk labels, safety regulations, safety signs
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
