OSHA watch

Proposed revisions to Beryllium Standards for Construction and Shipyards finalized

The June 27, 2017 proposal to revise the construction and shipyards standards was finalized on September 30. A news release notes the rule:

  • Does not implement the proposal to revoke all of the standards’ ancillary provisions, but
  • Extends the compliance dates for the ancillary provisions to September 30, 2020 to account for the new proposal to revise or remove specific provisions; and
  • Maintains enforcement of the permissible exposure limit

Final rule issued for new respirator fit testing protocols

final rule which becomes effective September 26, 2019 adds two fit testing protocols to the agency’s respiratory protection standard (1910.134) was published in the Federal Register on September 26.

The additions are:

  • The modified ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter quantitative fit testing protocol for full-facepiece and half-mask elastomeric respirators
  • The modified ambient aerosol CNC quantitative fit testing protocol for filtering facepiece respirators

These new methods are in addition to the standard’s four existing protocols and are variations of OSHA’s original ambient aerosol CNC protocol, but have fewer test exercises, shorter exercise duration, and a more streamlined sampling sequence.

New secretary of labor

Eugene Scalia is the new secretary of labor, after the Senate confirmed him Sept. 26 in a 53-44 vote. Scalia, a corporate lawyer and the son of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, replaces acting Secretary of Labor Patrick Pizzella who has been in charge of the department since R. Alexander Acosta resigned on July 19.

New weighting system for inspections

Under the current enforcement weighting system, certain inspections are weighted based on the time taken to complete the inspection or, in some cases, the impact of the inspection on workplace safety and health. The Weighting System (OWS) for fiscal year (FY) 2020 adds enforcement initiatives such as the Site-Specific Targeting to the weighting system and other factors, including agency priorities and the impact of inspections. It will incorporate the three major work elements performed by the field: enforcement activity, essential enforcement support functions (e.g., severe injury reporting and complaint resolution), and compliance assistance efforts.

For more information.

Tribal business not subject to OSH Act

In Secretary of Labor v. Red Lake Nation Fisheries Inc., an administrative judge dismissed citations levied against a fishery after two of its workers drowned, finding that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota, had previously held that the U.S. Secretary of Labor does not have the authority to enter tribal lands to inspect a workplace. Red Lake Nation Fisheries Inc., based in Redby, Minnesota, is owned and operated by federally recognized Indian tribe the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.

New alert: working safely near overhead powerlines

The latest alert offers solutions for working safely near overhead power lines.

Oil and gas training tool

The updated Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing eTool includes solutions to common well site incidents, hot work, and hydrogen sulfide hazards.

Joint guidance on GHS pictogram requirements

In concert with Health Canada, joint guidance on pictogram requirements for three hazard communication categories has been released. The categories are Hazards Not Otherwise Classified, Physical Hazards Not Otherwise Classified, and Health Hazards Not Otherwise Classified.

Cal OSHA overhauls reporting requirements for serious injuries

Changes to the definition of “serious injury or illness” bring California injury reporting requirements more in line with the federal hospitalization and amputation rule. The new rule:

  • Eliminates the old 24-hour minimum time for a stay at the hospital for an inpatient hospitalization to become reportable;
  • Specifies an inpatient hospitalization must be required for something “other than medical observation or diagnostic testing”
  • Replaces “loss of a member” with the term “amputation”
  • Includes loss of an eye as a specific type of reportable injury
  • Deletes the exclusion for serious injuries or deaths caused by a violation of the Penal Code
  • Narrows the exclusion for injuries caused by auto accidents on a public street; accidents that occur in a construction zone are now reportable

Recent fines and awards

Florida

  • Twins Twins LLC, a tortilla company, was cited for exposing employees to amputations at the company’s facility in Labelle. The company faces $81,682 in penalties. Conducted under the National Emphasis Program on Amputations and Regional Emphasis Program for Powered Industrial Trucks, the inspection found several violations related to lockout tagout, machine guarding, and failure to report a partial finger amputation within 24 hours of the employee’s hospitalization. The company was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.
  • Hough Roofing Inc., based in Palm Bay, was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards after a worker suffered a fatal injury from a fall while performing roofing activities at a work site in Melbourne. The roofing contractor faces $26,142 in penalties
  • UPS Inc. was cited for failing to protect employees working in excessive heat after an employee suffered heat-related injuries near the Riviera Beach facility. The company faces $13,260 in penalties, the maximum penalty allowed by law for a serious violation.

Georgia

  • Hyundai Transys Georgia Powertrain Inc., operating as Powertech America Inc., was cited for exposing employees to struck-by and fall hazards after a fatality at the company’s West Point facility. The automobile transmission manufacturer faces $68,194 in penalties.

Illinois

  • Polo Masonry Builders Inc., based in Park Ridge, was cited for exposing employees to fall and scaffolding hazards while working on a commercial building project in Chicago and faces penalties of $252,136. The company, which has been cited for fall protection violations 13 times since 2010, was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

Michigan

  • A settlement was reached with Kamphuis Pipeline Company, based in Grand Rapids, to resolve trenching hazard-related citations. The company agreed to cease business operations and pay penalties of $509,071 for willful and serious violations. Company owner and founder Daniel J. Kamphuis agreed to surrender his North Dakota contractor license and both he and the company also agreed not to have any ownership or managerial interest in any construction business conducting trenching and excavation activities within the United States in the future.

New York

  • Rex Harper, doing business as REH Property Maintenance, was cited for improper asbestos removal and disposal at Superior Steel Door & Trim Co. Inc. in Jamestown. Harper faces $168,772 in proposed penalties.

North Carolina

  • Oldcastle APG South Inc., based in Greensboro, and operating as Coastal, was cited for exposing employees to amputation, struck-by and silica hazards at the company’s facility in Riviera Beach, Florida. Oldcastle APG South Inc. faces $132,037 in penalties.

Wisconsin

  • Koller Industries operating as Aurora Castings Services was cited for continually exposing employees to machine hazards at the facility in Niagara. The company is contesting the citations that total $ 206,291 in penalties.
  • Wood Sewer & Excavation Inc. was cited for willfully exposing employees to excavation hazards at a construction site in Fox Point. The company faces $65,921 in penalties.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA’s Top 10 violations: three action steps for employers

For the ninth consecutive year, Fall Protection – General Requirements is the most frequently cited standard, OSHA announced at the 2019 National Safety Council Congress & Expo. The rest of the preliminary list of the Top 10 violations for fiscal year 2019 also remained largely unchanged from FY 2018, with one minor change. Lockout/Tagout, which ranked fifth in FY 2018, advanced to No. 4, trading places with Respiratory Protection.The data, which covers violations cited from October 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, is preliminary, and therefore, the numbers may change. However, the ranking is likely to remain consistent when the final numbers are released later this year.

Here are the top 10 violations:

  1. Fall Protection (construction) – General Requirements (1926.501) – 6,010 violationsCommon violations included failure to provide fall protection near unprotected sides or edges and on both low-slope and steep roofs. Roofing, framing, masonry and new single-family housing construction contractors were among the most frequently cited. Although the fall protection standard was updated in 2016, some experts suggest it will take several years for employers to get the necessary facility updates into their budgetary cycle.
  2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200) – 3,671 violationsConsidered low-hanging fruit for inspectors, hazard communication has been #2 for several years. Lack of a written program, inadequate training, and failure to properly develop or maintain safety data sheets (SDSs) are common citations. Auto repair facilities and painting contractors were among the industries that received many hazard communication citations.
  3. Scaffolding (construction) – General Requirements (1926.451) – 2, 813 violationsMasonry, siding, and framing contractors are the most commonly cited employers for this violation. Lack of proper decking, failure to provide guardrails where required, and failure to ensure that scaffolds are adequately supported on a solid foundation are common violations.
  4. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147) – 2, 606 violationsEmployers cited under this standard failed to establish an energy control procedure, did not train employees in proper lockout/tagout procedures, failed to conduct periodic evaluations of procedures, and failed to use lockout/tagout devices or equipment. Plastics manufacturers, machine shops, and sawmills were frequently cited.
  5. Respiratory protection (29 CFR 1910.134) – 2,450 violationsCitations related to failure to fit test, establish a program, and medically evaluate employees who wore respirators were common violations issued. Auto body refinishing, painting contractors, masonry contractors, and wall covering contractors received many citations.
  6. Ladders (construction) (1926.1053) – 2,345 violationsLadders continued to be a common violation in the roofing, siding, framing and painting trades. Frequent violations include, ladders with structural defects, failure to have siderails extend three feet beyond a landing surface, using ladders for unintended purposes, using the top rung of a step ladder, and ladders with structural defects.
  7. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178) – 2,093 violationsForklift violations dominated this standard, including deficient or damaged forklifts that were not removed from service, failure to safely operate a forklift, operators who had not been trained or certified to operate a forklift, and failure to recertify forklift drivers and evaluate every three years. Violations were widespread across many industries, but particularly prominent in warehousing and storage facilities and fabricated and structural metal manufacturing.
  8. Fall Protection (construction) – Training Requirements (1926.503) – 1,773 violationsViolations of this standard include failing to provide training to each person required to receive it, failure to certify training in writing, inadequacies in training leading to the failure of retention by the trainee, and failing to retrain in instances where the trainee failed to retain the training content.
  9. Machine Guarding (1910.212) – 1,743 violationsWhile cited in many industries, machine shops and fabricated metal manufacturing saw many citations for failing to ensure that guards are securely attached to machinery, improper guarding of fan blades, and failure to properly anchor fixed machinery.
  10. Personal protective and lifesaving equipment (construction) – eye and face protection (29 CFR 1926.102) – 1,411Appearing on the list for the first time in FY 2018, this standard includes failing to provide eye and face protection where employees are exposed to hazards from flying objects, failing to provide protection from caustic hazards, gases, and vapors, and failing to provide eye protection with side protection. Violations were concentrated in the housing industry, with roofers, house framers and other contractors cited often.

Three action steps for employers

With little variation from year-to-year, this list is a reminder to employers that the same violations are putting employees at risk and costing employers thousands of dollars in citations. Here are three steps to take:

  1. Drill down to your industryEmployers can drill down even further and look at the most frequently cited Federal or State OSHA standards by industry for a specified 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. If your facility is inspected, there’s a very good chance it will include these issues.
  2. Be strategicA common approach is to conduct walk throughs, which can be helpful to identify new or previously missed hazards and failures in hazard controls. However, this is reactionary, not strategic. OSHA states, “an effective occupational safety and health program will include the following four main elements: management commitment and employee involvement, worksite analysis, hazard prevention and control, and safety and health training.” Having a risk management approach is the best possible defense.
  3. Continually reinforce training and commitment to safetyLearning does not start and stop with training. Safe practices have to be practiced and applied to be lasting. While most workers know not to stand on the top rung of a step ladder, it happens because they are in a hurry, careless, or not paying attention. Signage, toolbox talks, digital reminders all help; but most important is effective leadership and employee engagement. When managers enforce the safety rules and stand behind them 100%, workers understand it’s important to their health and well-being and are empowered to take ownership of their own and other’s safety.Further, employee complaints triggered 41% of the unprogrammed inspections and over 23% of all inspections. Employees who feel safe at work and believe the employer cares about their safety, are less likely to file a complaint.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Comments sought on possible revision to silica standard

request for information was published August 15 in the Federal Register for input on potential revisions to Table 1 of the respirable crystalline silica standard for construction. Table 1 includes the task or equipment, engineering / work practice control methods, and required respiratory protection / minimum assigned protection factors for all shifts. The deadline to comment is Oct. 15.

New webpage on leading indicators

A new webpage is aimed at helping employers use leading indicators to improve their health and safety programs.

Employers reminded to submit Form 300A data

media release reminds employers who have not already done so to submit their 2018 Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (Form300A). The deadline was March 2.

Access FREE electronic OSHA 300 Recordkeeping Software that creates the OSHA required data transmission file for online reporting here.

New way to track OIG recommendations

The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General has launched a Recommendation Dashboard website showing the status of its 235 recommendations for 12 agencies, including OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Recent fines and awards

California

  • Garden Films Productions LLC, based in Culver City, was cited for failing to protect employees from hazards while filming a movie in Norcross, Georgia and faces penalties of $9,472.

Florida

  • L N Framing Inc. was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at a Jacksonville worksite and faces $58,343 in penalties.
  • Point Blank Enterprises Inc., operating as The Protective Group in Miami Lakes, was cited for exposing employees to amputation and other safety hazards and faces $92,820 in penalties.
  • Brad McDonald Roofing & Construction Inc. was cited for exposing employees to fall and other safety hazards at two construction sites in Lutz and Palmetto. The residential and commercial roofing work company faces $274,215 in penalties.

Georgia

  • Atlanta Kitchen LLC was cited for exposing employees to amputation, silica, and other safety and health hazards at its Decatur manufacturing facility. The countertop manufacturer faces $132,604 in penalties.

New York

  • Arbre Group Holding, doing business as Holli-Pac Inc., was cited for willful and serious violations of workplace safety and health standards at its Holley facility. The company, which packages frozen fruits and vegetables for retailers, faces a total of $200,791 in penalties.

Indiana

  • Five Star Roofing Systems Inc., based in Hartford City, was cited for repeatedly exposing employees to fall hazards while performing roofing work at a commercial building site in Lake Barrington, Illinois. The company faces $220,249 in penalties.

Missouri

  • H. Berra Construction Co., based in St. Louis, was cited for exposing employees to excavation and trenching hazards at a residential construction site in Saint Charles, and faces penalties of $143,206.
  • Missouri Cooperage Company LLC, a subsidiary of Independent Stave Company, was cited for exposing employees to amputation, noise, and other safety and health hazards at the spirits and wine barrel-making facility in Lebanon, and faces $413,370 in penalties.

Pennsylvania

  • A federal judge in the U.S. District Court has awarded $1,047,399 in lost wages and punitive damages to two former employees of a Montgomeryville-based manufacturer, Lloyd Industries, after a jury found the company and its owner fired them in retaliation for their participation in a federal safety investigation.
  • New Finish Construction, LLC, based in Fairchance, must pay $25,000 in fines for safety violations that led lead to the death of a worker. An ALJ of OSHRC affirmed two citations relating to working near energized sources, but vacated three citations and their accompanying penalties.

Tennessee

  • The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was ordered to reinstate a former employee who was placed on paid administrative leave, and then later terminated in retaliation for raising nuclear safety concerns and pay $123,460 in back wages and interest, and $33,835 in compensatory damages, as well as attorney fees.

Wisconsin

  • Choice Products USA LLC was cited for continually exposing employees to machine safety hazards at the cookie dough manufacturing facility in Eau Claire. The company faces $782,526 in penalties, and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

FY 2018 Enforcement summary released

OSHA conducted 32,023 total inspections in FY 2018, a number that has remained relatively stable over the past three fiscal years. For more information see the related article, Insights from OSHA’s recently released enforcement summary.

Comments on updating Lockout/Tagout standard due August 18

Comments on a possible update of the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard are due by Aug. 18. Emphasis is being placed on how employers have been using control circuit devices and how modernizing the standard might improve worker safety without additional burdens for employers. It wants to hear from employers about how their operations would be affected if OSHA staff interprets the “alternative measures that provide effective protection” requirement of the minor servicing exception to include use of the same reliable control circuits. For additional details and information on how to file comments.

New training programs available to help protect construction workers from fall hazards

Two Susan Harwood Training Grant Program recipients have developed free training programs to help protect construction workers from fall hazards. The University of Tennessee training program offers three modules on OSHA’s role in workplace safety, health and safety standards affecting construction workers, and preventing common types of falls at construction sites. The University of Florida training program uses software to present 360-degree panoramas of construction scenarios to test trainees’ skills at identifying fall hazards. The training software is available in English and Spanish.

Whistleblower website updated

The streamlined design highlights important information for employers and employees on more than 20 statutes enforced by the agency. The new whistleblower homepage utilizes video to showcase the covered industries, which include the railroad, airline, and securities industries.

Whistleblower action: Truck driver reinstated after refusing to drive in winter storm

A box truck driver was reinstated and will receive almost $200,000, including $100,000 in punitive damages, from Kentucky-based Freight Rite, Inc. that fired him after he refused to drive in bad weather. Inspectors determined the termination is a violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). For more information.

Reminder: Hurricane preparedness and response

The Hurricane Preparedness and Response webpage provides information on creating evacuation plans and supply kits and reducing hazards for hurricane response and recovery work.

Cal/OSHA emergency wildfire smoke regulation takes effect

The emergency wildfire smoke regulation took effect July 29 after being approved by the state’s Office of Administrative Law.

Effective through January 28, 2020 with two possible 90-day extensions, the regulation applies to workplaces where the current Air Quality Index (AQI) for airborne particulate matter (PM 2.5) is 151 or greater, and where employers should reasonably anticipate that employees could be exposed to wildfire smoke.

Recent fines and awards

California

  • After a worker’s hand was crushed while cleaning a rotating auger, food processing company, SFFI Company, Inc., faces six citations and $79,245 in penalties related to lockout/tagout and training.
  • Resource Environmental, Inc., faces $49,500 in penalties after an unstable, unsupported wall collapsed during a building demolition, resulting in fatal injuries to a worker.
  • Gladiator Rooter & Plumbing was working in a crawl space replacing underground sewer pipes for airline caterer Gate Gourmet, Inc. at the San Francisco International Airport when two plumbers were poisoned by carbon monoxide, one requiring hospitalization. Gladiator Rooter & Plumbing was fined $50,850 for eight violations and Gate Gourmet faces $18,000 in proposed penalties for one violation.
  • In Secretary of Labor v. Bergelectric Corp., an OSHRC judge vacated three citations levied against the electric company, based in Carlsbad, after finding that the company did have an adequate fall protection program in place.

Florida

  • Jimmie Crowder Excavating and Land Clearing Inc. faces $81,833 in penalties for exposing employees to amputation and other safety hazards at the company’s facility in Tallahassee. An employee suffered an arm amputation after it was caught in a conveyor belt that started unexpectedly as an employee removed material.
  • The Jacksonville Zoological Society Inc. was cited for exposing employees to workplace safety hazards at the Jacksonville zoo after a zookeeper was injured by a rhinoceros. The animal park faces $14,661 in proposed penalties.
  • Tampa-based Edwin Taylor Corp., failed to provide fall protection on several occasions, one resulting in the death of a worker who fell 22 feet while building homes must pay a $101,399 fine, an administrative law judge with the OSHRC ruled.

Georgia

  • Transdev Services Inc. was cited for exposing employees at a Norcross worksite to safety and health hazards. The company faces $188,714 in penalties for obstructing access to emergency eyewash and shower stations, failing to label hazardous chemicals, provide training on hazardous chemicals and incipient stage firefighting and fire extinguisher use, and train and evaluate forklift operators properly. The company had been cited previously for similar violations.
  • Woodgrain Millwork Co., operating as Woodgrain Distribution Inc, was cited for exposing employees to chemical and struck-by hazards at the company’s distribution facility in Lawrenceville. The company faces $125,466 in penalties.
  • Norcross-based Fama Construction must pay nearly $200,000 in penalties because it was the controlling employer on a worksite and found to have repeat violations according to an OSHRC ruling.

Illinois

  • Inspected after an employee was electrocuted, Hudapack Metal Treating of Illinois Inc, based in Glendale Heights, was cited for 21 serious health and safety violations related to electrical safety and PPE. The company faces penalties of $181,662.

Missouri

  • R.V. Wagner Inc, based in Affton, was cited for exposing employees to trench engulfment hazards as they installed concrete storm water pipes in St. Louis. The company received two willful violations for failing to use a trench box or other trench protection techniques in an excavation greater than five feet in depth and to provide a safe means to exit the excavation and faces proposed penalties of $212,158.

New York

  • Northridge Construction Corp. was cited for willful and serious violations of workplace safety standards at the company’s headquarters in East Patchogue. The company faces $224,620 in penalties following the death of an employee when a structure collapsed during installation of roof panels on a shed. The penalties are being contested.
  • U.S. Nonwoven Corp., a home and personal care fabric product manufacturer, was cited for repeat and serious safety violations after an employee suffered a fractured hand at the plant in Hauppauge. The company faces $287,212 in penalties.

North Carolina

  • Burlington-based Conservators Center Inc. received three serious citations totaling $3,000, after an intern was killed by a lion during a routine cleaning,

Pennsylvania

  • In Francis Palo Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia declined to review the OSHRC decision finding that substantial evidence supported an administrative law judge’s ruling that due diligence by the company would have prevented the collapse that injured two workers.

Wisconsin

  • Following a fatality, Pukall Lumber Company Inc, a lumber mill in Arbor Vitae, was cited for exposing employees to multiple safety hazards. The company faces penalties of $348,467 for 15 violations, including two willful citations for failing to implement energy control procedures, and ensure the conveyer had adequate guarding to prevent employees from coming in contact with the moving parts.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

12 mistakes employers make when an OSHA inspector knocks unexpectedly

Even well-prepared employers can panic when an OSHA inspector arrives unexpectedly at the door. Why are they here and are we really prepared?

While the chances of an inspection are small (there are about 8,000,000 workplaces and OSHA and its State Plans average about 73,000 annually), advance notice is rare. In fact, Compliance Safety & Health Officers (CSHO) are prohibited by law from providing employers with advanced notice of pending inspections, with limited exceptions (see p. 3-3 of field operations manual).

Employers who are ill-prepared for an inspection and make bad decisions during an inspection face unwelcome and costly fines. Even well-prepared employers find it difficult to escape an inspection without a citation – there is a 75% chance that at least one violation will be found.

Here are 12 mistakes commonly made by employers:

  1. Refuse to let OSHA enter the worksite. While most inspections are surprises, many experts and former inspectors advise against requiring a warrant. This is likely to bring enhanced scrutiny and create an adversarial tone. A cooperative attitude is important; however, this is a good time to negotiate the limit and scope of the inspection.
  2. Fail to consider the personality of the employee designated to meet with and accompany the inspector. While it’s critical the employee be knowledgeable and intimately familiar with the operations and safety policies of the business, personality and attitude play a major role. Someone who is defensive, arrogant, or a know-it-all is likely to irritate the CSHO. The inspector’s report includes a place to note lack of cooperation. And don’t designate someone who loves to talk and tell how wonderful the company is. It’s going to fall on deaf ears and they probably will volunteer too much information. Best to designate someone who is polite, professional, can stay focused, and who is confident and willing to ask questions.
  3. Don’t have a backup for the designated employee. Inspectors will wait a “reasonable” amount of time – usually a half hour to an hour. While that might be a good opportunity to correct some small hazards and tidy up housekeeping, delaying the inspection will be noted on the form and it’s unlikely anything you do in that time is going to make a significant difference.
  4. Fail to limit the scope of the inspection. This is perhaps most important. Employers have a right to know the purpose of the inspection and to have a “reasonable inspection” at a “reasonable time.” Employers should insist on an opening conference when the CSHO explains the reason for the inspection and the employer can negotiate the scope. It’s also an opportunity to ask questions and to try to establish ground rules about how the inspection will proceed, including interviews, collection of documents, and the physical access to the facility.

    Some inspections, such as those under the Site-Specific Targeting Enforcement Program, can be wall-to-wall but most unprogrammed inspections can be limited. If the inspection was prompted by an employee complaint, the employer has a right to see the complaint and limit the inspection to related areas. If the CSHO is there to investigate an incident, take the most direct route to the site of the incident. Minimize exposure to the rest of the facility. Everything inspectors see is fair game for citations, such a missing handrails, poor housekeeping, improper signage, fire extinguishers, etc. If an officer tries to do a wall-to-wall inspection when there is a specific reason for the inspection, the employer should push back.

  5. Don’t know the criteria for emphasis program or compliance directive inspections. If there is a programmed inspection under an emphasis program or compliance directive, an employer can refuse, if they know they don’t fit the criteria.
  6. Don’t replicate the photos, videos, and notes the inspector makes. It’s important to escort the CSHO at all times and to mirror the actions of the inspector during the walkthrough. Take the same photos, videos, notes, measurements, sampling etc. so you have a clear record of what they captured. OSHA has a six-month statute of limitations to issue citations.
  7. Admit to violations. There may be violations pointed out during a walk through. For example, if an inspector points out an unguarded machine, say you will address it, but don’t admit the violation or try to go into a lengthy explanation of why it is not guarded.
  8. Don’t insist that document requests be in writing. At the opening conference, it’s best to agree that document requests, except OSHA Recordkeeping forms, be made in writing (it can be handwritten) so that there is no confusion over what documents are being requested and so that the employer is not cited for failure to produce a document it did not believe was requested. It is important to remember that the employer has no duty to produce certain documents (e.g., post-accident investigations, insurance audits, consultant reports, employee personnel information) if a regulation does not require such production. Any documents produced can be utilized to issue citations. If you don’t have the document, say so. Don’t rush to produce a new document.

    While not a comprehensive list, long-time OSHA employee and Area Director John Newquist recently published the “Scary 13” – documents employers can’t produce during an inspection – in The National Safety Council’s June Safety Health magazine.

  9. Don’t protect their trade secrets and business confidential information from disclosure to third parties. This is an employer’s right, but it is critical to keep a record and identify the documents as confidential.
  10. Don’t sit in on management interviews. A supervisor’s comments are imputed to the employer and, for this reason, employers have the right to and should be present and participate in interviews of management, regardless of whether the manager wants the representative there. That right does not exist with non-management employees, but it’s important for employees to know their rights about interviews and that they will not suffer adverse employment actions. While it’s important to be careful not to coerce, intimidate, or influence, employers can prepare employees for interviews. Also, the employer can request that “on floor” interviews be limited to five-minutes on production and processes. Employers should attempt to schedule more extensive interviews about training, background, etc. that should take place in a conference room with a table and chairs, but no white boards or documents present.
  11. Consider only the cost of the penalty. Employers have the critical right to contest OSHA’s citations, but some employers want to move on quickly, and consider only the monetary amount when deciding whether to contest, particularly when the cost is low. A recent webinar, Prepare for and Manage an OSHA Inspection by the Conn Maciel Carey law group, notes that there are several goals an employer should consider before accepting a citation, as well as strategies to reduce the impact. Accepting a citation can open the door to future, more costly repeat violations ($132,598), impact civil wrongful death or personal injury actions, affect bidding, harm customer and employee relationships, increase possibilities of being placed in the Severe Violators Enforcement Program, and affect insurance costs and coverage.
  12. Don’t immediately correct hazards, when possible. The closing conference usually takes place one to six weeks after the inspection. This is a good time to demonstrate cooperation by showing that hazards identified during the inspection have been corrected or abated.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Insights from OSHA’s recently released enforcement summary

While many anticipated a relaxing of OSHA’s enforcement actions under the Trump administration, the recently released enforcement summary tells a different story. There were 32,023 federal inspections in FY 2018, a number that has remained relatively stable over the past three fiscal years. The continued aggressive inspection strategies under the Trump administration has confounded many. There’s been a record number of $100,000+ citations, higher penalties, continuing increase in willful and repeat citations, as well as worker safety criminal prosecutions; yet, the number of inspectors has declined raising concerns of safety advocates. Also, the figures are for federal inspections. OSHA only covers about 50% of employers-state plans handle enforcement in the private sector in 22 states. State plans must be as effective as federal OSHA, but some states, such as California, have adopted stricter standards.

The enforcement summary provides valuable insight into what triggers an inspection. Over 56% of the inspections were unprogrammed inspections. These include employee complaints, injuries/fatalities, follow up inspections, and referrals. In FY 2018 (Oct. 1, 2017 – Sept. 30, 2018), OSHA conducted 941 fatality/catastrophe investigations, the highest number of such investigations in more than a decade and a 12.4% increase from 2017.

Employee complaints triggered 41% (7,489) of the unprogrammed inspections and over 23% of all inspections. Under the OSHA Act, every employee has the right to complain to OSHA and request an inspection, if they feel there is a violation of a health and safety standard. OSHA does not have the resources to conduct an inspection for every complaint, but evaluates each complaint to determine how it can be handled best – an off-site investigation or an on-site inspection. For an on-site inspection, at least one of eight criteria must be met.

Referrals prompted 6,463, about 36% of unprogrammed inspections and 20% of all inspections. Theses encompass all subtypes of referrals such as those received from compliance safety and health officers, safety and health agencies, other city/county/state/federal governments, media, and employer-reported.

A programmed inspection occurs when the inspection is scheduled because of OSHA selection criteria, such as emphasis programs or compliance directives. They tend to focus on the industries and operations where known hazards exist (e.g., combustible dusts, chemical processing, ship-breaking, falls in construction are some examples), including those that fall under an OSHA emphasis program, and accounted for 44% of the inspections.

In October, the agency launched a Site-Specific Targeting program using data from 2016 Form 300A to target non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees. While workplaces with high DART rates and those that did not submit the required data are OSHA’s primary enforcement focus, there is also a random sample of low injury rate establishments on the inspection list for quality control purposes. What’s important to know is that these inspections are comprehensive – they are wall-to-wall.

Employer takeaway: While the data provides clues as to the situations that will trigger an inspection, all employers should recognize an inspection can be random and be prepared. If there’s been a fatality or catastrophic injury at a worksite, a legitimate employee complaint, a referral, or a previous inspection with citation, an inspection is likely.

In addition, those industries subject to local (LEP) or national emphasis programs (NEP) and worksites with high DART rates are more vulnerable. It’s important to know the criteria for LEP’s and NEP’s. If OSHA shows up for an inspection at a workplace under one of these programs when the company doesn’t fit the criteria, the employer has a right to refuse the inspection.

Employers should be cognizant of the high number of inspections prompted by employee complaints. Managers who are dismissive of safety concerns or hostile toward those who raise them expose the company to costly consequences. Those who foster a strong safety culture and encourage feedback are less likely to receive complaints or be cited by OSHA.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Controversial ruling on Process Safety Management Standard being appealed

A controversial ruling by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) that extended the Process Safety Management Standard beyond hazardous chemicals has been appealed by Oklahoma-based Wynnewood Refining Co. LLC and its successors, the refinery at the center of the ruling. The OSHRC affirmed citations under the standard, even though the explosion occurred at one of the refinery’s boilers, an onsite utility operation workplace that safety and legal experts say is typically not included in process safety management.

The case was appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Free online course on preventing workplace violence

The Muskie School at the University of Southern Maine launched a free online programto train retail workers and employers on preventing and responding to violence in the workplace. The course offers tips on how to respond to violence or the threat of violence by reading body language and using de-escalation techniques, and how to establish a workplace violence prevention program. Participants may register and complete the training at their own pace.


New resources

Alerts:

Webpages:

Flyer:


Solar panels do not qualify as roofing work

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco denied a petition to review an Occupational Safety and Review Commission’s final order affirming a citation for violating fall protection standards. Bergelectric was hired to install solar panels on the roof of a hanger in San Diego and argued that the installation was on a low-sloped roof, which has laxer standards than work on unprotected sides and edges. The court determined that the installation of solar panels did not qualify as performing “roofing work” and so Bergelectric violated the fall standard because they failed to use personal fall arrest systems, safety nets or guardrails.


Enforcement notes

California

  • USF Reddaway Inc, a trucking company received four citations and $68,438 in penalties after a worker was fatally struck by a tractor at a truck terminal. Inspectors found that the company failed to ensure operators were competent to operate terminal tractors and did not implement traffic controls.
  • Anaheim-based Nexus Energy Systems Inc., a solar panel installer, faces fines totaling $193,905 for multiple serious workplace safety hazards, including failure to provide fall protection for its employees. One worker fell and suffered a broken wrist and jaw.
  • Hanwha L&C USA, LLC received eight citations and $52,705 in penalties after a forklift crushed a worker’s foot. Citations related to training and evaluating workers.

Florida

  • GA&L Construction Corp. Inc. and The Rinaldi Group of Florida LLC were cited for failing to protect employees from fall hazards after a fatal fall at a construction worksite in Miami. The two companies face $87,327 in penalties.
  • Duda Farm Fresh Foods Inc., based in Belle Glade was cited for exposing employees to workplace safety hazards after a worker required medical treatment due to an anhydrous ammonia leak in the farm’s packaging house. The company faces $95,472 in penalties. The inspection is covered under the National Emphasis Program on Process Safety Management Covered Chemical Facilities.
  • National discount retailer Dollar Tree Store Inc.was cited for exposing employees to safety hazards at its store on Southern Boulevard in West Palm Beach. The company faces $104,192 in penalties for exposing employees to struck-by, trip, and fall hazards due to unstable merchandise stacked in excess of 7-feet high in the path of an emergency exit.

Georgia

  • Evoqua Water Technologies LLC, based in Thomasville, was cited for failing to protect employees working in excessive heat. An employee suffered heat exhaustion and was hospitalized after working in direct sunlight and wearing required protective clothing during welding and fabrication work at a Key West, Florida worksite. The company faces $21,311 in penalties, including the maximum penalty allowed by law for the heat-related violation.
  • An appeals court denied a review of citations issued to Century Communities Inc. for a fatal electrocution at a residential construction site. Although none of its employees were exposed to the hazard, Century was cited under the multi-employer worksite policy.

Illinois

  • Residential homebuilder Florentino Rodriguez of DB Custom Carpentry LLC was cited for exposing employees to falls at a residential site in Wheaton. The contractor faces penalties totaling $196,905 for one serious and two willful safety violations.

Nebraska

  • Discount retailer Family Dollar Store was cited for safety violations at an Omaha store, including failure to secure compressed gas cylinders, follow manufacturer’s instructions when using electrical apparatus, ensure emergency exit doors remain unlocked, cover overhead lights, and allowing equipment to block an exit route. Proposed penalties are $302,147.

Pennsylvania

  • Energy Transportation LLC and MW Logistics Services LLC were cited for serious safety violations after a fatal fire at a natural gas processing plant in Houston. Energy Transportation LLC, the company contracted to clean lines and vessels at the plant faces penalties totaling $51,148. MW Logistics Services LLC, the host employer, faces $47,360 in penalties. Both were cited for violations of the PSM standard.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

“At-will employee” no defense for firing an employee after reporting a safety hazard

The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied an employer’s motion to vacate a jury’s award of punitive damages to a former employee of an iron-casting company who claimed he was terminated for reporting alleged safety and health hazards. When no corrective action was taken after he repeatedly complained about a roof leak that leaked directly into an electrical box and created a slipping hazard, he filed an anonymous complaint with OSHA.

The agency conducted an unannounced inspection and a few days later he was fired. He then filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA that found Hamburg, Pennsylvania-based Fairmount Foundry fired him in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In Acosta v. Fairmount Foundry Inc., a jury awarded $40,000 for lost wages, pain and suffering and punitive damages to the former employee, Zachary Zettlemoyer.

The company argued the jury had not been instructed on at-will employment and another trial was warranted. But the court denied it. “Even if we gave an at-will employment instruction explaining Mr. Zettlemoyer could be terminated for any reason or for no reason at all, Fairmount Foundry could not have terminated him for engaging in protected activity,” the judge stated. “Fairmount Foundry does not explain how an instruction on at-will employment prejudiced it and, given our charge on the elements of a retaliation claim and pretext, we see no prejudice.”

Moreover, in response to a motion by the Department of Labor, the court awarded prejudgment interest on the $25,000 back pay award and ordered Fairmount Foundry to reinstate Mr. Zettlemoyer. It also permanently enjoined Fairmount Foundry from violating Section 11(c) and ordered Fairmount Foundry (to) expunge from Mr. Zettlemoyer’s personnel record any adverse reference to discharge on October 8, 2015; post a court-approved anti-retaliation notice in a common area for a period of sixty days; and provide a neutral reference regarding Mr. Zettlemoyer’s employment, if requested by subsequent employers.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Things you should know

CDC: Half of workplaces offer health/wellness programs

Almost half of all U.S. worksites offered some type of health promotion or wellness program in 2017, according to a new study, Workplace Health in America 2017. This was the first government survey of workplace health promotion programs in 13 years.

Nationally, almost 30 percent of worksites offered some type of program to address physical activity, fitness, or sedentary behavior. Some 19 percent of worksites offered a program to help employees stop using tobacco products, and about 17 percent of worksites offered a program to address obesity or weight management.

FMCSA delays publication of proposed rule to amend trucker hours-of-service regs

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has delayed until further notice the publication of a proposed rule intended to add flexibility to hours-of-service regulations for commercial truck drivers. The proposed rule remains under the Office of Management and Budget review.

NLRB gives employers greater discretion to limit union activity on their premises

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a decision in UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside that reverses a longstanding precedent and holds that employers no longer have to allow nonemployee union representatives access to public areas of their property unless (1) the union has no other means of communicating with employees or (2) the employer discriminates against the union by allowing access to similar groups.

Study: Energy drinks take toll on heart health

Popular caffeine-packed beverages could affect heart rhythm, according to a new study. Research findings of a recent study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association (AHA) confirm the short-term risk consumers take when consuming energy drinks. Drinking 32 oz. of an energy drink in a 60-minute timeframe directly affected the heart rhythm of the study’s participants, a result bolstered by previous research.


State News

California

  • The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is planning to reorganize its Rules of Practice and Procedure, and is seeking comments from system users about other changes that it should consider. Comments can be sent to WCABRules@dir.ca.gov.

Georgia

  • A new law, the Georgia Long-Term Care Background Check Program will take effect Oct. 1, requiring nursing home and other long-term care workers to submit to extensive background checks.

Illinois

  • Illinois became the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana.

Massachusetts

  • More changes to three key deadlines for the Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML) law.
    • September 30, 2019 – Employers and covered business entities are required to post a notice and provide written notice to their current workforce.
    • October 1, 2019 – Payroll withholdings begin for the October 1 to December 31 quarter.
    • December 20, 2019 – Deadline to file for a private plan exemption for first quarter contributions.
    • January 31, 2020 – First quarterly contribution payment due through MassTaxConnect.

Michigan

  • The governor issued an executive order creating a separate workers’ compensation appeals commission. The action separates the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Commission from the Workers’ Disability Compensation Appeals Commission.

Minnesota

  • Enacted detailed new recordkeeping requirements for employers, effective July 1, 2019, and wage theft protections for employees, effective August 1, 2019. For more information.
  • Department of Labor and Industry is urging all employers to examine their safety programs, after a spike in reported amputations this year.

Missouri

  • Department of Labor is offering confidential safety and health consultations aimed at helping employers build safer workplaces. Businesses must have no more than 250 employees at any one site, and fewer than 500 total employees, to qualify.

New York

  • The Workers’ Compensation Board formally adopted its drug formulary and prescribing rules for injured workers, set to go into effect Jan. 5, 2020.

Tennessee

  • Rejecting the strict “ABC” test adopted by its appellate court, that state has enacted a new law (H.B. 539) adopting a 20-factor test to determine employee-versus-independent contractor status. The new law becomes effective January 1, 2020.
  • An NCCI study found that prescription drug utilization decreased across all categories, regardless of whether they required prior authorization. After the Official Disability Guidelines Workers’ Compensation Drug Formulary was adopted, the utilization of N-drugs, which require prior authorization, dropped by 23.2%.

Virginia

  • On July 1, 2019, a new amendment to Virginia Code Section 8.01-413.1 will take effect, requiring all employers to provide copies of employment records to employees upon written request.


For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit 
www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Regulatory agenda

The 2019 Regulatory Agenda had no surprises in its short-term regulatory docket but in the long-term schedule there was a surprise announcement about rulemaking activity for “Drug Testing Program and Safety Incentives Rule.” The proposed rule would solidify in a new standard the current position that the electronic record-keeping rule does not prohibit employers from establishing workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing. Other items on the long-term list, which means action is not expected in the next 12 months, include: musculoskeletal disorders injury and illness recording and reporting requirements, infectious diseases, process safety management and prevention of major chemical accidents, and shipyard fall protection and personal protective equipment in construction.

Additional regulatory actions under consideration:

RULE ANTICIPATED AGENCY ACTION
Beryllium rule for general industry Final rule December 2019
Communication Tower Safety Complete SBREFA May 2019
Emergency Response Initiate SBREFA May 2019
Lockout/Tagout Request for Information May 2019
Tree Care Initiate SBREFA June 2019
Update to the Hazard Communication Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking September 2020
Prevention of Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance Initiate SBREFA October 2019

For the full federal Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan

Mugno withdraws from consideration

Re-nominated for Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA on January 16, Scott Mugno has withdrawn his name from consideration, extending the longest period without a permanent administrator.

Final rule expected to save $6.1 million as part of the Standards Improvement Project

The rule revises 14 provisions in the recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards that may be confusing, outdated, or unnecessary. Reducing annual lung X-ray requirements, eliminating the collection of employee Social Security numbers and removing feral cats from the list of “rodents” in shipyard sanitation standards are among the 14 revisions.

Noteworthy the controversial proposal to revise the scope provision of the LOTO standard to remove the term “unexpected energization” as a prerequisite for the requirements of the LOTO standard was not included in the final rule.

More information.

Comments for possible update of lockout/tagout solicited

Comments on a possible update to the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard must be submitted before August 18. Emphasis is being placed on how employers have been using control circuit devices and new risks of increased worker contact with robots.

Noteworthy, the RFI does not mention the controversial “unexpected energization” but that does not mean it’s dead. The regulated community voiced opposition in the SIP IV process.

More information.

Webpage provides information on protecting workers from CMV exposure

A common virus, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), affects thousands of workers in childcare centers and healthcare facilities. These workers are at the greatest risk of exposure because the virus is often spread through saliva and other body fluids of young children. A new webpage on CMV, explains how to minimize health risks associated with workers’ exposure to this virus.

New oil and gas exploration safety video

video developed by a Training Institute Education Center features ways to prevent injuries and fatalities in the oil and gas industry. The video focuses on falls, transportation, struck-by/caught-in/caught between, hydrogen sulfide gas, and heat illness.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Morgan Hill, California-based Pacific States Industries Inc., doing business as Redwood Empire Sawmill, settled a civil lawsuit regarding workplace safety laws following the death of a mill worker. The company agreed to pay civil penalties, restitution, and costs totaling $375,000.
  • Mercer-Fraser Co of Eureka received four citations and $63,560 in penalties after a worker driving a truck collided with a front-end loader and suffered a serious head injury. Inspectors determined that the company failed to require seat belt use, develop and implement safe practices for workers operating haul trucks, and ensure that trucks were operated at safe speeds.
  • Carlton Forge Works received three citations related to crane operations and $51,185 in penalties when a worker suffered injuries after becoming pinned between a saw table and a workpiece.

Florida

  • After an employee suffered serious injuries from a fall at the Avery Square residential construction site in Naples, four residential construction contractors received 12 citations and fines totaling $220,114 for exposing employees to safety hazards. Southern Living Contractors Inc., Paramount Drywall Inc., operating as Paramount Stucco LLC, and Crown Roofing were cited for failure to provide fall protection and other violations and Sunny Grove Landscaping and Nursery Inc. was cited for exposing employees to struck-by hazards from falling debris.
  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, Ohio-based Hiebert Bros. Construction LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards after the worker was injured from a 26-foot fall at a construction worksite in Gainesville. The company faces penalties of $56,828.
  • Walt Disney Company has been fined $13,260 for failing to report two workers’ injuries in a timely manner.
  • Two citations alleging serious violations of the fall protection standard were confirmed against All-Pro Construction Services Inc., which had a pleaded the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. The fine was reduced 10% to $8,149.
  • An online retailer of pet supplies, Chewy, Inc., faces the maximum penalty of $14,323 for exposing employees to struck-by and crushing hazards. An employee suffered fatal injuries while operating a stand-up industrial truck at the company’s Ocala plant.
  • Remodeling contractor, Stettinius Construction Inc of Winter Haven, faces $26,142 in proposed penalties after a worker suffered a fatal fall at a worksite in Naples.

Georgia

  • Kumho Tire Georgia Inc., Sae Joong Mold Inc., and J-Brothers Inc. received 22 citations and collectively face $523,895 in proposed penalties after a follow-up inspection found safety and health hazards at the tire manufacturing facility in Macon. $507,299 of the proposed penalties were issued to Kumho Tire Georgia Inc., which failed to submit abatement documents and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

Missouri

  • DDG Construction Services Inc., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, faces $98,693 in penalties for exposing workers to fall hazards at a commercial site in Springfield. The company has been cited for more than 15 fall violations since 2014.
  • Belfor Property Restoration and subcontractor Custom Crushing & Company, both based in Kansas City, were cited for failing to comply with asbestos removal standards while performing rehabilitation work at Kansas State University’s Hale Library in Manhattan. Custom Crushing & Company faces $193,596 in proposed penalties, and Belfor Property Restoration faces proposed penalties totaling $39,780.

New York

  • In Secretary of Labor v. All Wall Builders LLC, a judge held that East Syracuse-based All Wall Builders LLC had committed a serious safety violation of the fall protection standards. After the company agreed to participate in a voluntary state site inspection program and followed up with recommendations on further training, the judge reduced the proposed penalty by $1,622, bringing the total penalty to $5,622.

Nebraska

  • After two employees were seriously injured in a trench collapse at a construction site in Lincoln, T.H. Construction Co. was cited with one willful violation of trench safety standards and faces $106,078 in penalties.
  • A steel erection company, Daubert Construction, based in Fremont, was cited for failing to protect employees from fall hazards and faces $19,890 in penalties.

Pennsylvania

  • A general duty citation against Johnstown-based Berkebile Auto Service Inc. after a tow truck driver was fatally injured was upheld by an administrative law judge of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The company was assessed a $3,803 penalty.
  • Champion Modular Inc. was cited for exposing employees to safety and health hazards at its Strattanville facility. The company faces $687,650 in penalties. The inspection was initiated after an employee suffered an amputation. Violations related to machine guarding, fall protection, and training workers on hazard communication and hearing conservation.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com