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

Five mistakes employers make when using data to develop risk control programs

Data analytics is a key driver in the development of business strategy and workers’ comp claims are a goldmine of information. Yet, when not used properly, the results can fall far short of expectations. Here are five common mistakes:

  1. Relying solely on the insurance company Some employers rely solely on the insurance company to analyze their claims and make recommendations to prevent injuries and control costs. In recent years, insurance companies have beefed up their analytics and embraced predictive analytics to manage claims. They use information from years of past claims to build models that will predict what may happen next in a particular claim. Indeed, such information benefits employers.Insurance companies also are a great resource for claims information in your industry. They can provide helpful guidance for how you stack up versus your peers.But it’s important to have realistic expectations and remember that the insurance company’s goal is to leverage data to improve their profits. This can lead to aggregate information or a cookie-cutter approach that falls short of your needs.
  2. Data such as injured-worker demographics, department, type and severity of injury, frequency, timelines and money set aside for reserves of claims, and if the claim ends up in litigation can all help employers guide future outcomes. Smart employers regularly review their loss run reports from the insurance company that includes this information, not only to ensure it is correct (errors mean increased premiums) but also to identify trends that lead to actionable insights. What are the main drivers of incidents in the organization and what can we do to change are the key questions to ask in analyzing data.
  3. Observing metrics at face value Each year, Risk & Insurance identifies “All Stars” who stand out from their peers by overcoming challenges through exceptional problem-solving, creativity, perseverance, and/or passion. One of the 2018 All-Stars was Kevin Farthing, environmental health and safety manager for Florida-based Sparton Electronics, a 600-employee company manufacturing sonobuoys for the navies of the world.The company faced a high number of musculoskeletal injuries and annual workers’ comp claim costs exceeding $500,000. Multiple modifications to the production processes and attempts to control ergonomic risk factors had not solved the problem.Digging through the data, he discovered that 40 percent of the musculoskeletal injuries were occurring during the first three years of employment. The company was hiring workers who were not capable of performing the physical demands of the job.
  4. He then took the logical next step and worked with a company to design specific post-offer, pre-employment tests to make sure candidates were up to the physical challenges. But he did not stop there.
  5. The failure rate on the test was high – 50%. Rather than lowering the demands of the tests, he identified which tests individuals were failing most and modified the actual work tasks. For example, they no longer require employees to manually move certain types of heavy loads. Coupled with other changes, a two-year investment of $174,000 has yielded an expected savings of more than $950,000.
  6. Not being objective or hanging on to old beliefs Commitment to the status quo or leadership thinking may limit taking action on data. Some rationalize that the incident rate is acceptable and changes will mean lower production. Or a belief that “injuries are part of the job” or simple complacency. Buy-in from management can take effort and tenacity.For many years, it was believed (and documented) that inexperience and inadequate onboarding put younger workers at increased risk and they were more likely to suffer a workplace injury. On the other hand, older workers would experience fewer injuries but would take longer to recover and have more costly claims. Recent research from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) dispels this conventional wisdom and finds that younger workers are getting injured less often than their older peers.The workforce is changing and processes are becoming more automated. While the number of workers under 55 has remained more or less stable, the number of workers who are 55 or older has doubled since 2000. Women make up more than half of labor force growth. Relying on old data or beliefs leads to ineffective and costly programs.
  7. Year-over-year analysis will show how claims are changing. This will tell you if initiatives are working or if a new direction is warranted.
  8. Failing to segment An important finding of the NCCI research was that key injury risks vary by age group. Younger workers are prone to injuries from contact with objects or equipment, while overexertion injuries are most vexing for employees in the middle of the age spectrum. Meanwhile, slips, trips and falls disproportionately affect those over 55.There’s clear value for employers to mine their own claim data correlating type of injury with age and gender of workers. When younger male workers are experiencing a higher incidence of injuries from contact with objects or equipment, a change to interactive and technology-based training, rather than a dry manual, could be an effective way to improve safety.It’s not just age subsets that can help employers to be tactical in the way they manage their safety budget. Comparing similar departments can identify why one department may be functioning at a higher level than the others and then apply the best practices to other departments.
  9. Not looking beyond the data Although there are many sophisticated data tools, programs cannot rely on data alone. There is a myriad of subjective factors that affect incident rates. Production pressure, management safety practices, limiting mind-sets, and fear of automation are just a few.These factors cannot be quantified with statistics. Instead, organizations need to have subjective methods to review these factors that represent the “heart” of their workers’ comp program.

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