OSHA Launches Temporary Worker Initiative

OSHA recently launched an initiative that focuses on protecting temporary employees from recognized workplace hazards.  Under this initiative, OSHA is directing all OSHA compliance officers to assess whether employers who use temporary workers are complying with their responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  For purposes of this initiative, temporary workers are defined as all employees supplied to a host employer and paid by a staffing agency. 

As part of their inspections, OSHA compliance officers will determine whether any employees are temporary workers and whether any of the identified temporary employees are exposed to a violative condition.  They also will assess, by records review and interviews, whether temporary workers received appropriate training in a language and vocabulary they can understand.  OSHA compliance officers will pay particular attention to whether temporary workers are trained in how to protect themselves from serious hazards, such as wearing appropriate protective equipment when working with hazardous chemicals and the lockout/tagout procedures and protections. 

OSHA compliance officers also will be required to document the name of the temporary workers’ staffing agency, the agency’s location, the supervisory structure of both the host employer and staffing agency, and the extent to which the temporary workers are being supervised on a day-to-day basis by either the host employer or the staffing agency.


 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

The Heat is On: What Employers Can Do to Protect Employees from Heat-Related Illness

As a cold winter finally comes to an end, many of us look forward to summertime warmth. But while sun and heat may make for a fun day at the beach, they  can spell  danger for workers who are exposed to soaring temperatures and a rising heat index. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), thousands of workers in the United States get sick from excessive heat exposure while working outdoors each year and more than 30 workers died in 2012 from heat-related illnesses.

Although OSHA  has no heat illness prevention standard, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”), known as the General Duty Clause, requires employers to provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm.  That includes protecting them from heat stroke and other serious heat-related illness.   Of the “State-plan” states running their own  safety programs under agreements with OSHA,   only California and Washington currently have  heat-related illness prevention standards.  However, other State-plan states also have general duty clauses in their statutes which may be invoked to address these issues.

Continue Reading...
Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Clarifies that Workers May Authorize a Union or Community Organization to Act as Their Representative

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) released a new interpretation letter on April 5, 2013, clarifying that non-union employees may select a non-employee who is “affiliated with a union” or with a “community organization” to act as their walk-around representative during OSHA inspections of their employer’s worksite.  In reaching this conclusion, OSHA concluded that language in Section 8(e), 29 U.S.C. § 657(e), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) authorizes participation in the walk-around portion of an OSHA inspection by a person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative so long as the individual has been authorized by the employees to serve as their representative.  

However, OSHA recognized that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1903.8, the OSHA compliance officer may exercise his or her discretion in who can participate in workplace inspections in order to manage the inspection effectively.  While OSHA recognized that its regulations acknowledge that most employee representatives will be employees of the employer, it concluded that there may be times when the presence of an employee representative who is not employed by the employer will be allowed to participate in a workplace inspection.  Specifically, the regulations allow an OSHA compliance officer, for “good cause,” to be accompanied by a third-party who is not an employee, such as “an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer” when, in the judgment of the OSHA compliance officer, such a representative is “reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection.”  29 C.F.R. § 1903.8(c).  In OSHA’s view, representatives are “reasonably necessary” when they will make a positive contribution to a thorough and effective inspection.  OSHA noted that a non-employee representative may make a positive contribution to an inspection if, for example, he or she has experience and skill in evaluating similar working condition, or when he or she is fluent in the language of non-English speaking workers and would facilitate useful interactions between the compliance officer and the workers.

Citing confusion, OSHA withdrew an earlier 2003 interpretation letter that rejected the right of a non-employee who files an OSHA complaint to participate in the resulting OSHA inspection.  OSHA noted that the 2003 interpretation letter was distinguishable because it did not address the right of workers to designate a representative of their choice.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's Region III Targeting Noise in the Workplace

OSHA’s Region III is targeting noise exposure in the workplace, as part of a Regional Emphasis Program.  Federal OSHA states located in Region III include Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania.  According to OSHA, noise “induced hearing loss is one of the most common occupational diseases and the second most self-reported occupational illness or injury.”

Under the Emphasis Program, OSHA will be conducting inspections in the following industries, selected for inclusion based upon agency data showing frequent citations in these industries for OSHA’s occupational noise standard:

3089/Plastics Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
3281/Cut Stone and Stone Products
2448/Wood Pallets and Skids
2421/Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
3441/Fabricated Structural Metal
5093/Scrap and Waste Materials
3499/Fabricated Metal Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
2499/Wood Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
3599/Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified
3599/Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified
3544/Special Dies and Tools, Die Sets, Jigs and Fixtures and Industrial Molds
2051/Bread and Other Bakery Products, Except Cooking and Crackers
2525/Mattresses, Foundations, and Convertible Beds
3462/Iron and Steel Forgings
5051/Metals Service Centers and Offices
3271/Concrete Block and Brick
3442/Metal Doors, Sash, Frames, Molding and Trim Manufacturing
3443/Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops)
3312/Steel Works, Blast Furnaces (Including Coke Ovens) and Rolling Mills
2099/Food Preparations, Not Elsewhere Classified

The inspections will comprehensively analyze noise exposures in the workplace and the measures employers are taking to address the hazard.  Compliance officers are directed to sample for noise and evaluate engineering and administrative controls used at the worksite.  Employers’ hearing conservation programs will also be reviewed.

Employers in Region III should take time now to review their facilities for compliance with OSHA’s noise standard, along with their hearing conservation programs, and be prepared for these Emphasis Program inspections.
 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's Plan for 2013 includes at Least 1,260 Workplace Inspections

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration plans to inspect at least 1,260 establishments under its site-specific targeting (“SST”) program for 2013. Details are here.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Issues Regulatory Agenda

OSHA recently issued its long-awaited regulatory agenda.  The agenda is designed to provide stakeholders with notice of what major regulatory initiatives the agency is planning and the projected timetables for those initiatives.

OSHA’s agenda is the first issued in several months by the agency and provides a glimpse into the regulatory priorities – in President Obama’s second term.  The signature initiative of OSHA over the last four years has been its Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) rule.  That rule has been under development for several years, but has yet to be released in any form or fashion to the public.  The recently published regulatory agenda states that OSHA will initiate the SBREFA process in January of 2013 for the rule, with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to follow in December, 2013.  Another major rulemaking – OSHA’s effort to propose a comprehensive standard regulating silica – is slated to be published in May, 2013.

Three other significant regulatory actions under development are listed as follows:

  • Combustible Dust – Initiate SBREFA in October, 2013.
  • Electric Power Transmission and Distribution – Issue final rule in March, 2013.
  • Update Recordkeeping Rule regarding Reporting of Amputations/In-patient Hospitalizations – Issue final rule in May, 2013.

All stakeholders should continue to monitor progress on these and other OSHA initiatives as we continue to see a very active OSHA in the coming months and years.
 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Former Chairman of NSPB, Employment Attorney Appointed Head of OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program

Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Dr. David Michaels has appointed Beth Slavet as the new director of the agency’s Whistleblower Protection Program. Ms. Slavet is an employment attorney who has specialized in representing unions, Foreign Service employees and other government workers, with a focus on whistleblower protection. Her appointment is one of several developments in the last two years signaling a growing investment by the Department of Labor, and, as a general matter, the Obama Administration, in whistleblower mechanisms and resources as a means of combating corporate fraud and abuse and other alleged violations of law.  Read the full article here.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Workplace Safety and Health Reporter: Summer Edition

OSHA Publishes Criteria for Removal from the Severe Violator Enforcement Program

In a memorandum to Regional Administrators, OSHA's Director of Enforcement Programs (DEP) has set forth the criteria for employers to be removed from the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP).  The memorandum stems from a review of the SVEP undertaken by DEP in fiscal year 2011.

Under the memorandum, an employer may be removed from the SVEP after a period of three years from the date of final disposition of the SVEP inspection citation items.  In addition, employers must have "abated all SVEP-related hazards affirmed as violations, paid all final penalties, abided by and completed all settlement provisions, and not received any additional serious citations related to the hazards identified in the SVEP inspection at the initial establishment or at any related establishments."

Final approval of removal from the SVEP is at the discretion of the Regional Administrator or his/her designee (except when national corporate-wide settlements are involved).  The memorandum also calls for an additional follow-up inspection before removal finally occurs.

Since the SVEP was issued, employers have questioned the agency on whether and how an employer in the SVEP can be removed from the program.  This memorandum provides further guidance to employers, but still leaves discretion to the Regional Administrators or Area Directors.

All employers should take note of this new memorandum.  

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Seeks to Establish New Whistleblower Committee

OSHA has announced a plan to establish a Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee to advise and make recommendations to OSHA Assistant Secretary Michaels on ways to improve OSHA's administration of its whistleblower protection enforcement program.  Click here for a link to a full article on the new Committee.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

D.C. Circuit Vacates Recordkeeping Citations as Outside Statute of Limitations

Vacating citations issued by OSHA for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s recordkeeping requirements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the citations were untimely and barred by the Act’s six-month statute of limitations.  Click here for a full discussion of the decision. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA to Target Nursing Homes and Residential Care Facilities with Programmed Inspections

OSHA has announced a National Emphasis Program (NEP) to encourage compliance with safety and health standards at nursing and residential care facilities through programmed inspections.  The NEP, which directs OSHA compliance officers to focus inspections on ergonomic stressors associated with lifting patients; slips, trips, and falls; bloodborne pathogens; exposure to tuberculosis; and workplace violence, took effect on April 5, 2012 and is scheduled to remain in place for three years.  The attached Special Report summarizes the key aspects of the NEP and provides guidance to help ensure compliance with the OSHA standards identified as target areas. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Special Report: An Overview of Legal Considerations When Bringing Health Care "In-House"

Many businesses across the country have implemented on-site occupational health clinics to address occupational injuries and illnesses, as well as address common employee health needs.  While on-site occupational health clinics can provide many benefits for employers and their employees, they also can present significant compliance challenges for companies in the areas of employee benefits, privacy, leave management, and, of course, workplace safety and health.

Attached is a SPECIAL REPORT prepared by Jackson Lewis that discusses the key issues employers should consider when bringing health care "in-house."  Employers who run their own occupational health clinics, or who are considering instituting such clinics, are strongly encouraged to review this SPECIAL REPORT.        

Like Tweet LinkedIn ">Email

OSHA Addresses Sweep Auger Policy in Grain Handling Industry

In a February 16, 2012 letter to Congresswoman Kristi Noem, OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels has provided additional guidance to employers in the grain handling industry regarding the use of sweep augers to remove grain from bins.  Sweep augers are common tools used in grain bins to push grain remaining at the bottom of a bin into a discharge sump opening.  Typically, sweep augers are electrically powered and rotate in a circular direction around the bottom of the bin at an extremely slow speed.  The letter from Assistant Secretary Michaels responds to an inquiry from Congresswoman Noem asking for clarification of earlier Agency pronouncements prohibiting employees from ever entering a grain bin while a bin sweep auger is operating. 

In the February 16 letter, OSHA does not back off of its earlier position.  However, the Agency does state that "if an employer can demonstrate that a worker in a grain storage structure is not exposed to hazards presented by the equipment, the standard does not require the equipment to be deenergized before a worker enters the bin."  This statement may signal that the Agency is moving from a position of a categorical prohibition on employee entry while sweep augers are operating to one which could allow entry so long as certain steps are taken to avoid exposure to any hazard.  How such a policy would work in practice and what steps would be permissible is an open question that OSHA does not address in its response to Congresswoman Noem. 

The importance of this issue to the grain handling industry cannot be overstated.   Sweep augers are ubiquitous in the industry.  All grain handling employers should take note of this recent OSHA letter and make any required changes to their operations.         

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's Whistleblower Program to Report Directly to Assistant Secretary

On March 1, 2012, OSHA announced a change to its organizational structure related to its Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP).  The WPP will now report directly to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA, currently Dr. David Michaels, instead of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement Programs.

The WPP is in charge of investigating workplace retaliation complaints made by employees under a variety of statutes, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  The reorganization is just the latest in a series of steps taken by the Department of Labor to strengthen the WPP.  The move is described by the Department as representing a "significantly elevated priority status" for whistleblower enforcement.

For more information regarding the reorganization, click here.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Employers Must Post the OSHA 300A by February 1

Employers covered by OSHA's recordkeeping rule must prepare and post the OSHA Form 300A, “Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses,” by February 1 and keep the form posted until April 30.  The form must be posted at each establishment covered, in a conspicuous place where notices to employees are customarily posted.

After the form is completed, but before posting, a company executive must certify that “he or she has examined the OSHA 300 Log and that he or she reasonably believes, based on his or her knowledge of the process by which the information was recorded, that the annual summary is correct and complete.”

Under OSHA’s rule, a company executive can be one of the following:  (1) an owner of the company (only if the company is a sole proprietorship or partnership); (2) an officer of the corporation; (3) the highest ranking company official working at the establishment; or (4) the immediate supervisor of the highest ranking company official working at the establishment.

OSHA can cite an employer who fails to post the OSHA Form 300A as required.  Employers should take steps now to ensure they are fully compliant. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Workplace Safety and Health Reporter Winter 2012

OSHA Continues Practice of Issuing "Industry/Hazard Alerts"

Over the last several months, OSHA has continued – and expanded – its practice of publicizing “Industry/Hazard Alerts” on its web site. These Alerts are designed to notify employers in certain industries of hazards that are of particular concern to the Agency. In part, OSHA is using this technique to ensure industry recognition and knowledge of hazards, which OSHA may attempt to utilize in the context of enforcement proceedings. Employers in the industries targeted must take note of these Alerts and ensure that they are fully compliant with OSHA standards.

The following Industry/Hazard Alerts are listed on OSHA’s web site:

 

Like Tweet LinkedIn ">Email

OSHA to Ramp Up Inspections of Nursing Homes

As expected, OSHA recently announced it will be stepping up enforcement in the long term care industry.  Click here for a blog post from Jackson Lewis's Healthcare Workplace blog regarding OSHA's upcoming emphasis program for nursing homes.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Exercise Regime Constitutes Medical Treatment for OSHA Recordability

Following its recent interpretation that "therapeutic exercise" constitutes medical treatment for OSHA recordability purposes, OSHA has now stated that an exercise regime recommended by a Certified Athletic Trainer for an employee who exhibits any signs or symptoms of a work-related injury involves medical treatment and is a recordable case.  OSHA made this interpretation in a letter recently posted on its website.

In the same letter, OSHA also provided guidance on whether specific types of exercise constitutes medical treatment.  OSHA states that if a Certified Athletic Trainer "utilizes stretching" to relieve symptoms of a work-related injury or illness, the "stretching" constitutes medical treatment.  OSHA also states that a written home exercise program provided by a Certified Athletic Trainer for signs or symptoms of a work-related injury or illness constitutes medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes.

OSHA's interpretation is particularly important for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), as MSDs are often managed, in part, through exercise regimes.  OSHA does note in the letter that exercise given as a purely precautionary measure (i.e., before the onsite of signs or symptoms) would not qualify for recordability.  However, if an employee experiences any signs or symptoms of a work-related injury or illness -- even very early signs or symptoms -- exercise given to manage those signs or symptoms would constitute medical treatment for recordability purposes.

Employers should take note of this new interpretation and adjust their recordkeeping practices accordingly.     

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA and the Construction Industry

Click here for an interesting article from Construction Executive magazine on the OSHA landscape as it relates to the construction industry.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Issues Three New Enforcement Directives

During a particularly busy September, OSHA issued three new enforcement directives that employers should review:

Enforcement Procedures for Investigating or Inspecting Workplace Violence Incidents.  On September 8, 2011, OSHA issued its first ever directive instructing compliance officers on how to conduct inspections that occur as a result of workplace violence incidents.  The directive "clarifies and expands" OSHA policies in the area of workplace violence.  While OSHA has no specific standard addressing workplace violence, the Agency has stated that workplace violence is a recognized hazard and that it will utilize the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to cite employers who do not take reasonable and appropriate steps to protect employees against workplace violence hazards.

Site-Specific Targeting 2011.  On September 9, 2011, OSHA issued its Site-Specific Targeting program (SST) for the coming year.  The SST is OSHA's "main programmed inspection plan for non-construction workplaces that have 20 or more employees."  Establishments are placed on OSHA's SST inspection list based upon information submitted to the Agency through its 2010 Data Initiative.  

Whistleblower Investigations Manual.  On September 20, 2011, OSHA published its revised Whistleblower Investigations Manual, superseding the 2003 version.  The Manual provides step-by-step instructions to OSHA investigators on how to conduct investigations under the numerous whistleblower statutes that OSHA enforces.  The revised Manual is part of a larger effort announced recently by OSHA to revamp its whistleblower protection program.

OSHA enforcement directives provide useful information regarding the conduct of inspections and, in some cases, underlying compliance obligations.  Employers are encouraged to take note of these new directives and make any needed adjustments to their safety and health policies as a result of their review.

       

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Sports and OSHA Standards, They Go Together, Really

by Nikki Wilson Crary

As sports fans begin their annual football watching, rivalry matches, and tailgating, most forget that sporting teams are often “employers” or associated with an “employer.” Like other employers, Colleges and Universities, School Districts, and Professional Sports Teams must comply with Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) standards.

These employer obligations recently were spotlighted in a fatal accident of a student/employee filming a football practice using a scissor lift at the University of Notre Dame. The University was cited for violations of Indiana OSHA (IOSHA) safety and health standards. As part of its settlement with IOSHA, the University agreed to pay a $42,000 fine in June and has launched a website publicizing the hazards of aerial lifts.

In response to the accident at Notre Dame, on July 6, 2011, OSHA issued a hazard alert about the dangers of using scissor lifts to film events and functions. OSHA notes several hazards associated with scissor lifts, including using the lifts in inclement weather, electrocution when working near power lines, and positioning lifts on soft or uneven ground.

While OSHA may not come to mind as a governing body associated with the regulation of sports, as shown above, many OSHA standards are directly relevant to sporting organizations and their employees’ safety. In fact, sports organizations may be in violation of OSHA standards with regard to the equipment used in filming practice, maintenance of fields, and the operation of machinery ancillary to the sporting activities themselves.

As the fall sports season begins, all employers, including those associated with sports, must remember that OSHA standards are applicable to their organizations and they should stay cognizant of the rules that apply to their activities on and off the field. Make this season safe and accident free.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Establishes Test for Applying Attorney-Client Privilege to Third-Party Reports

In a case of first impression, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has established a three-part test for employers claiming third-party safety and health audits protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Applying underlying legal principles of privilege to the technical area of safety and health assessments, the Commission has set forth steps that all employers need to consider taking before conducting any safety and health audits of their operations. The case, Secretary of Labor v. Delek Refining, Ltd., OSHRC No. 09-0844, was decided on July 11, 2011.

Process Safety Management Audit Report

In Delek, the company had contracted with a third party, the Process Safety and Reliability Group, Inc. (PSRG), to conduct an audit of its process safety management (PSM) program and, in the company’s view, to assist counsel to the company in assessing technical issues associated with compliance with the PSM standard. After an investigation by OSHA into an explosion and fire at a Delek facility, OSHA issued citations against the company and litigation ensued. During discovery, the Secretary of Labor issued a subpoena to PSRG requesting a copy of the audit report. Delek moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that the report was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Delek’s motion to quash, and the company sought review of the denial with the Commission.

Three-Part Test

The Commission articulated three prerequisites that must be met for the privilege to attach to third-party reports:

  1. The company must have provided information to the third party, rather than the third party providing its own information. “Thus, the privilege will not apply where the attorney consults the third party to obtain information the client did not have . . . or employs the third party to gather data through studies and observations of the physical conditions at a client’s site, rather than through client confidences."
  2. The company must have sought legal advice as opposed to some other kind of advice.
  3. In order to provide legal advice, the attorneys needed the services of the third party to translate technical or complex information.

The Commission did not rule on whether the report at issue in Delek met this test, it instead remanded that question to the ALJ “to review the report in camera and reconsider, in accordance with the principles discussed …, the extent to which the attorney-client privilege may be applicable.”

The test articulated leaves many open questions for employers, particularly regarding what constitutes “legal advice” in the course of a safety and health audit. In addition, because the case dealt only with attorney-client privilege, the Commission did not address whether any other privileges could have applied to the report, such as the work product doctrine that protects from disclosure documents that “are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Notwithstanding this, Delek provides a framework for employers to consider when deciding whether, and how, to perform safety and health audits of their facilities. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Nevada OSHA Beefs Up Enforcement Efforts

By Jeffrey D. Winchester

Jackson Lewis Las Vegas Office  

Facing charges of ineffectiveness and an overall failure to protect Nevada workers, Nevada OSHA, has come under fire recently from both the media and the federal government. In response, Nevada OSHA has effected changes to its investigative practices that could spell trouble for unwary and unprepared employers.

As reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal earlier this summer, Nevada OSHA recently instructed its team of more than 40 investigators to find serious, willful, or repeat violations in at least half of their safety inspections. New OSHA Rule Ruffles Feathers, Las Vegas Review Journal, July 2, 2011.  Until now, the average rate for such citations ran at around 22 percent.  This means that investigators will be on the lookout for as many serious, repeat, and willful violations as they can, even if it means citing a violation as “serious” that in the past might have drawn a lesser classification.

New rules also allow Nevada OSHA to look back five years (as opposed to two years under the previous rules) to determine if a safety violation is a “repeat” of something for which the employer was cited before. This follows a similar change in federal OSHA enforcement policy.

Nevada employers in certain targeted industries also should be aware of federal OSHA’s National Emphasis Programs (“NEPs”), one of which focuses on compliance with OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements. State agencies can adopt and enforce these programs in state OSHA plan states, such as Nevada.

A business targeted for a document review will not know it is on the list until a compliance officer appears at the door. The compliance officer will conduct a safety inspection of the facility, and then will present a laundry list of records for review. Records subject to review in an NEP inspection typically include employee attendance sheets, workers compensation reports, disciplinary records, incident reports, safety committee meeting minutes, accident investigation records, and FMLA records, among others. If the employer has a third-party medical and/or workers compensation provider, the investigator likely will seek to obtain records from them as well. As part of the NEP investigation, the compliance officer will also identify management and non-management employees for interviews.  Not all industries are covered by this NEP.

Those who have undergone recordkeeping inspections under the NEP report that inspectors often will be in and out of a facility for hours and days at a time and for weeks on end, depending on the size of the business and the ready availability of records.  As with safety inspections, recordkeeping inspections can, and often do, wind up with the agency issuing citations and proposed penalties.

Now is the time for employers to review their safety policies and procedures, and to make sure that all required safety devices, personal protective equipment, other measures, and records are in place.  Of key importance:  review citations received within the past five years and conduct a safety assessment targeting the cited items to help identify and eliminate possible repeat violations.  Make your workplace safety-compliant before OSHA arrives.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA to Revise Whistleblower Investigations Manual

In response to external and internal reviews of the operation and effectiveness of OSHA's Whistleblower Protecton Program, OSHA has announced significant changes in how the Agency runs the program.  OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 21 different statutes, including Section 11(c) of the OSH Act and other workplace and environmental safety and health laws.

The significant changes announced by OSHA include:

  • Reorganizing the Agency so that the Whistleblower Protection Program reports directly to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA;
  • Adding 25 new investigators; and
  • Revising the Whistleblower Investigations Manual to "provide further guidance on the enforcement program to help ensure consistency and quality of investigations."

Employers should continue to monitor OSHA's actions in this area carefully and, in particular, review the updated Investigations Manual once it is released.  

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

"Therapeutic Exercise" Considered Medical Treatment for OSHA Recordkeeping Purposes

In a newly released letter of interpretation, OSHA has concluded that "therapeutic exercise" recommended by a health care professional in response to minor work-related "pain" constitutes medical treatment under OSHA's recordkeeping rule.

OSHA was asked whether exercises recommended for a short period of time by an on-site health care professional when an employee is experiencing minor pain would qualify as medical treatment and be recordable, assuming the pain was work-related.  OSHA's response was a definitive "yes."  "Therapeutic exercise" is not included on the list of first aid treatments.  Furthermore, the duration of the exercises makes no difference in an employer's recordability determination:

The fact that physical therapy treatment, including exercise, is normally provided over an extended period of time and is administered by licensed personnel with advanced training was taken into account during the rulemaking process to determine the composition of the first aid list.  However, in implementation of the final requirements, the number of treatments rendered is not a factor in distinguishing between medical treatment and first aid.

OSHA also stated that this situation would not qualify for the exception from recordability for "minor musculoskeletal discomfort" (where the employer assigns a work restriction for the purpose of preventing a more serious condition from developing).  OSHA emphasized that this exception is "very narrow in scope" and that once any type of medical treatment is offered -- including therapeutic exercise -- the case is recordable.  "Work-related minor musculoskeletal discomfort treated with therapeutic exercise constitutes a recordable case."

Employers should take note of this new letter and ensure that their recordkeeping practices are aligned with OSHA's interpretation.

   

 

Like Tweet LinkedIn ">Email

OSHA Provides Residential Construction Employers an Additional Three Months to Comply with New Enforcement Directive

OSHA has announced that it will give employers in residential construction an additional three months to come into compliance with its new fall protection directive.  OSHA published the new directive on December 16, 2010 and originally gave employers until June 16, 2011 to ensure their fall protection practices were compliant.  The three month extension, according to OSHA Assistant Secretary Michaels, will give employers "the additional time and flexibility they need to alter their work practices in accordance with the requirements of the new directive."

The crux of the new directive is OSHA's revised position regarding the use of alternative fall protection measures when conventional fall protection in residential construction is deemed to be infeasible or would create a greater hazard.  Until the new directive was issued, employers in residential construction could utilize certain specified alternative procedures instead of conventional fall protection, without a prior showing of infeasibility or greater hazard and without developing a written, site-specific fall protection plan.  The latter requirements are generally mandated by OSHA's construction fall protection standard at 29 CFR 1926.501(b).

The new directive, however, changes this previous enforcement position, requiring residential construction employers to demonstrate that conventional fall protection on a particular job is infeasible or presents a greater hazard before utilizing alternative fall protection measures.  Furthermore, residential construction employers must develop a written, site-specific fall protection plan when utilizing these alternative methods.  According to the directive, "[a] written plan developed for repetitive use for a particular style/model home will be considered site-specific with respect to a particular site only if it fully addresses all issues related to fall protection at that site."

Notwithstanding the three month extension, residential construction employers should be actively examining their fall protection strategies and methods to ensure they are compliant with the new directive.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Enforcement Directive on Fall Protection in Residential Construction to Take Effect

An OSHA compliance directive requiring contractors performing residential construction comply with the residential fall protection standard will take effect as scheduled on June 16, 2011. The Standard (29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13), Duty to Have Fall Protection) generally requires that guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems be used on residential jobsites that are more than six feet off the ground.

Adopted in 1994, the Standard requires guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems in residential construction. It contained the following exception, “When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets [certain] requirements….”  The employer bears the “burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with [the Standard] for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.”

In June 1999, OSHA issued Directive STD 03-00-001, instructing OSHA officials not to commence enforcement of the Standard against an employer if the employer used slide guards or other fall-protection systems that were included in the 1999 Directive.  In 2010, however, the Secretary issued Directive STD 03-11-002, rescinding the 1999 Directive and authorizing enforcement of the Standard as written.

In National Roofing Contractors Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 11-1340 (7th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011), rejecting a challenge seeking to enjoin implementation of the 2010 Directive, the federal appeals court in Chicago ruled the 2010 Directive was an exercise of the DOL’s prosecutorial discretion, rather than an “occupational safety and health standard.”  Therefore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, the 2010 Directive is not subject to judicial review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 655(f). Thus, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ petition for review and stay of enforcement of the Standard.

Employers take note.  For those that choose one or more “alternate fall protection measures,”  ensure such measures meet or exceed the OSHA's fall protection standard and reflect that in your fall protection programs. Furthermore, be prepared to explain to compliance officers how you came to the decision to implement the alternative measures.

A special thanks to Mei Fung So, who assisted in the preparation of this post.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Top Ten OSHA Developments Affecting Employers

We thought you would be interested in the following article highlighting the Top Ten OSHA Developments Affecting Employers published this month on the Association of Corporate Counsel website.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Review Commission Holds Employers Accountable for Recordkeeping Inaccuracies During Five Year Retention Period

In a much anticipated decision, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) has ruled that OSHA can enforce its requirement for employers to record work-related injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 Log even when the employer's duty to record the injuries and illnesses occurred more than six months before the issuance of the citation.  The employer in the case had argued that the six month statute of limitations in the Occupational Safety and Health Act for OSHA to enforce violations of the Act prohibited OSHA from enforcing recordkeeping violations that occurred beyond that six month period.  The Commission disagreed, however, and by doing so has reiterated for employers the need to continually review their recordkeeping logs to ensure the entries are accurate.

Under OSHA's recordkeeping rule, employers are required to enter a recordable injury on the OSHA 300 Log within seven days of the occurrence of the injury.  Employers must also retain their logs for five years and under OSHA's rule, there is an obligation for employers to go back and update entries should the circumstances surrounding them change.  In an earlier decision, Johnson Controls, Inc., the Review Commission had ruled that OSHA could cite employers for inaccurate entries until the entries were corrected or until the end of the five year retention period, whichever is longer.  The employer in the case at issue argued that Johnson Controls should be overturned for several reasons, including the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), which had held that an employee's discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was time-barred.  The Review Commission rejected the employer's arguments, however, and held that under OSHA's recordkeeping rule, an inaccurate entry on the OSHA 300 Log constitutes a continuing violation of the rule throughout the entire five year retention period. 

For employers, the decision reiterates the need to integrate into their recordkeeping procedures a mechanism to ensure they go back and continually evaluate the accuracy of entries -- during the entire retention period.  It is not enough to record an injury within seven days and then "forget" about it.  OSHA expects employers to be diligent in updating recordkeeping entries for accuracy and may cite employers who are not.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's PPE Compliance Directive -- A Deeper Dive

OSHA’s new Enforcement Guidance for Personal Protective Equipment in General Industry (CPL 02-01-050) has been “on the street” for a few weeks and employers are still working through its details. While employers need to go through the directive carefully on their own and incorporate the aspects of the directive that are applicable to their facilities, after a closer review of the document, it is worth emphasizing a few pieces of information that may go unnoticed:

  • OSHA states in the directive that body protection is required for employees who face potential bodily injury in the workplace of “any kind” that cannot be eliminated through other control measures. Examples given are radiation, temperature extremes, hot splashes from molten metals, and other hot liquids. According to OSHA, an employer can provide laboratory coats, coveralls, vests, jackets, aprons, surgical gowns, or full body suits to protect against these and other similar hazards, depending on their exact nature.
  • Metatarsal guards are required when there is a potential for injury to the metatarsal portion of the foot from impact or compression hazards. “Examples include handling heavy pipes or similar activities where loads could drop on or roll over an employee’s foot.”
  • Employees who work in actual or potentially explosive and hazards locations “must wear” conductive shoes to reduce the risk of static electricity buildup on the body. However, employees exposed to electrical hazards must never wear conductive shoes.
  • For employers who have instituted a reimbursement policy for PPE (i.e., an employee initially purchases the PPE and is then reimbursed by the employer), the employer should reimburse the employee within one billing cycle or one pay period.

With enforcement guidance out, employers should expect CSHOs to focus more on PPE and PPE payment in the course of inspections. Employers should review their PPE policies, hazard assessments, training, and payment practices to ensure they are fully compliant.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Issues New Enforcement Directive for Personal Protective Equipment

OSHA has established new procedures for enforcing its personal protective equipment (PPE) standards in general industry.  The compliance directive "provides general guidance for the enforcement of standards applicable to personal protective equipment (PPE) in general industry, including guidance on payment for PPE."  The new procedures became effective on February 10, 2011.

The directive provides useful information to employers to help them understand how OSHA's employer payment for PPE final rule should be implemented.  That rule requires that employers pay for most PPE, but carves out certain exceptions where employer payment is not required.  Since the rule came into effect, many employers have struggled to understand exactly how these exceptions can be applied to their worksites.  OSHA's directive may help employers in this area.

The directive gives examples of PPE that employers must provide to their employees, provides examples of exempted PPE, and lists a series of FAQs to assist employers with compliance.  It also provides citation scenarios "of potential workplace conditions that would lead to a citation."

All employers that are required to provide PPE to employees should review the directive carefully to ensure compliance. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Withdraws Proposed Noise Interpretation

Citing "concerns raised" and the need for "more public outreach," OSHA is withdrawing its  proposed interpretation on occupational noise.  The proposal would have altered existing Agency enforcement policy for determining when an employer could utilize PPE to protect employees from noise exposures, as opposed to relying on engineering and administrative controls.  Existing policy provides that employers will be cited for not implementing certain engineering or administrative controls when hearing protectors are ineffective or the cost of such controls are actually less than the cost of implementing a full hearing conservation program.  OSHA was proposing to eliminate this framework and consider engineering and administrative controls to be feasible so long as they would "not threaten the employer's ability to remain in business or if the threat to viability results from the employer's having failed to keep up with industry safety and health standards."

Many stakeholders expressed concerns over the proposal and the potential costs.  OSHA originally set a 60-day comment period for the proposal, but then extended that in response to numerous requests for more time to submit comments.  Now, OSHA appears to be backing away from the proposal altogether.

Instead, the Agency says that it will find other ways to reduce the number of hearing loss cases by:

  • Conducting a thorough review of comments received from the public in response to the proposed interpretation.
  • Holding a stakeholder meeting to discuss ways to prevent occupational hearing loss.
  • Consulting on approaches with NIOSH and the National Academy of Engineering.
  • Initiating a "robust" outreach and compliance assistance effort to provide guidance on "inexpensive, effective engineering controls" to reduce noise exposures.  

Even though OSHA has withdrawn the proposal, all stakeholders are encouraged to engage the Agency on noise exposures and control measures.  OSHA is still asking for input on this issue and employers should take the Agency up on its offer.  As opportunities arise for additional input, we will keep stakeholders apprised.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Employers: Time to Prepare And Post Your OSHA 300A

It's that time of year again!  Employers covered by OSHA's recordkeeping rule must prepare and post the OSHA Form 300A "Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" by February 1 and keep the form posted until April 30.  The form must be posted at each establishment covered, in a conspicuous place where notices to employees are customarily posted.

After the form is completed, but before posting, a company executive must also certify that "he or she has examined the OSHA 300 Log and that he or she reasonably believes, based on his or her knoweldge of the process by which the information was recorded, that the annual summary is correct and complete."

Under OSHA's rule, a company executive can be one of the following:

  • an owner of the company (only if the company is a sole proprietorship or partnership);
  • an officer of the corporation;
  • the highest ranking company official working at the establishment; or
  • the immediate supervisor of the highest ranking company official working at the establishment.

This obligation is important and employers can be cited for failure to post.  Employers should take steps now to make sure they are fully compliant. 

    

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

What To Do When OSHA Comes Knocking?

With the recent increase in OSHA enforcement activity, many employers are being forced to answer the question:  "If an OSHA compliance officer visits my workplace, is my company prepared?"  Hopefully, for most employers the answer is a resounding "yes."  However, for employers who are not so sure about their ability to handle an OSHA inspection, the start of the new year provides an excellent opportunity to refocus on safety and health.  This powerpoint can help employers in this process, by summarizing key steps to take to prepare for and handle an OSHA inspection.     

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Enforcement in 2009: More Serious Violations Issued

In a recently issued 2009 Enforcement Summary, OSHA claims that violations issued against employers in fiscal year 2009 were up 2.8% since fiscal year 2005.  Furthermore, the total number of serious and repeat violations were up 10.9% and 17.5%, respectively, over the same five year period.  According to the Agency, "OSHA is committed to refocusing OSHA's priorities through developing and enforcing standards to protect workers and moving toward tougher citations and penalties to provide a powerful incentive to respect their workers, integrate protection into business operations, and make prevention a priority."

While OSHA enforcement is generally up when compared to fiscal year 2005, a closer review of the enforcement statistics shows a more complicated picture.  When the 2009 numbers are compared to fiscal year 2007, for example, total violations were higher in fiscal year 2007 than in fiscal year 2009.  Furthermore, willful violations are down significantly (46.3%) since 2005.  Criminal referrals are also down from fiscal year 2006.

So what does all this mean for employers?  While there is some deviation in the overall numbers, there is little doubt that enforcement remains a top priority of OSHA -- along with an increase in regulatory activity.  It is incumbent upon employers to thus proactively adress workplace hazards and adopt safety and health management systems to assist in the process.       

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

The OSHA Top Ten . . . Most Frequently Cited Standards

OSHA recently announced its Top 10 Frequently Cited Standards for fiscal year 2010.  According to the Agency, "OSHA publishes this list to alert employers about these commonly cited standards so they can take steps to find and fix recognized hazards addressed in these and other standards before OSHA shows up."  The Top Ten are:

  • 1926.451 - Scaffolds
  • 1926.501 - Fall Protection
  • 1910.1200 - Hazard Communication
  • 1910.134 - Respiratory Protection
  • 1926.1053 - Ladders
  • 1910.147 - Lockout/Tagout
  • 1910.305 - Electrical, Wiring Methods
  • 1910.178 - Powered Industrial Trucks
  • 1910.303 - Electrical, General Requirements
  • 1910.212 - Machine Guarding

Employers are encouraged to take note of this list.  These standards relate to commonly found hazards and also point to those hazards that compliance officers focus on in the course of regular inspections.  While each worksite is different, employers should make sure that their safety programs related to these hazards (and standards) are reviewed and fully compliant. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Issues Proposed Interpretation of Feasible Controls in Noise Standards

OSHA has issued a proposed interpretation of the terms "feasible administrative or engineering controls" as they are used in OSHA's general industry and construction occupational noise standards.  Under these standards, employers must first implement feasible administrative or engineering controls before utilizing personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce employee exposures.  According to OSHA, the proposed interpretation will "clarify that feasible as used in the standard has its ordinary meaning of capable of being done."  This proposed interpretation will have a major impact on all general industry and construction employers, who are encouraged to submit comments to the Agency on the proposed interpretation.  Comments are due by December 20, 2010.

The proposed interpretation would alter existing Agency enforcement policy for determining when an employer may utilize PPE to protect employees from noise exposures, as opposed to relying on engineering and administrative controls.  Existing policy provides that employers will be cited for not implementing certain engineering or administrative controls when hearing protectors are ineffective or the cost of such controls are actually less than the cost of implementing a full hearing conservation program.  OSHA is proposing to eliminate this framework and consider engineering and administrative controls to be feasible so long as they will "not threaten the employer's ability to remain in business or if the threat to viability results from the employer's having failed to keep up with industry safety and health standards."

Aside from the importance of the issue to many stakeholders, by issuing the proposed interpretation in the Federal Register, OSHA is further elevating its status.  It is incumbent upon all stakeholders to comment on this proposed interpretation so that OSHA has the best information available to it when determining how to approach this important issue.   

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Don't Forget OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program!

It has been several months since OSHA unveiled its Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP), which focuses OSHA's enforcement resources on employers "who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by committing willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations."  This is the time for employers to ramp up their safety and health efforts to ensure that they do not become a "severe violator" in OSHA's view.  Here is a powerpoint presentation that recaps OSHA's SVEP and provides some key advice to avoid being in the program.  It also provides a breakdown of OSHA's initiative to increase civil penalties administratively.  With a particularly active OSHA enforcement program, employers must continually focus on their safety and health programs to ensure they are fully compliant with OSHA standards.       

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA: No Holds Barred

In what is certainly one of the most active periods in OSHA's history, the Agency is using every tool at its disposal to ensure that employers are in compliance with OSHA's standards and rules.  OSHA is pushing forward with new rules, enforcement initiatives, interpretive letters, media initiatives, and so forth, at an unprecedented pace.

A review of OSHA's website demonstrates the variety of means the Agency is utilizing to handle safety and health issues.  New rules such as OSHA's Cranes and Derricks in Construction rule are highlighted, as are the several new enforcement measures implemented by the Agency:  the Severe Violators Enforcement Program; the Administrative Penalty Bulletin; and the OSHA Training Standards Policy.  In a somewhat new approach, the website also highlights "Industry Alerts," which are alerts of safety and health issues focused on specific industries.  And these initiatives do not even include the various news releases and multi-media presentations available on the website, or the 36 letters of interpretation that have been issued so far this year.

Employers must match this activity level and be especially vigilant to ensure that they know the latest positions of the Agency on safety and health issues relevant to their worksites. 

  

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA: Employees Do Not Need To Be Tied Off Over Water

In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA has confirmed its policy that employees working in an aerial lift over water may unhook their lanyard from the boom or basket of the lift.  The letter was in response to an employee inquiry regarding a company policy of allowing employees to unhook their lanyards when performing operations over water.  The employee asked whether this practice was allowable under OSHA's construction standards (29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(v)).

In response to the questioner, OSHA reiterates that while no such allowance was provided in the actual text of the standard, OSHA's existing cranes and derricks in construction rule -- along with the new cranes and derricks in construction proposal -- permits the practice.  As a result, OSHA concludes that it would be a de minimis violation of 29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(v) for employees to unhook their lanyards when performing work over water.  This, of course, makes sense as there is the possibility of a greater hazard to employees in the event of an aerial lift collapse over water if they are tied to the boom or basket.

Employers are encouraged to take note of this interpretation when developing their fall protection programs.   

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

ADA at Loggerheads with OSHA Policy?

Check out this interesting blog post from Frank Alvarez, head of Jackson Lewis's Disability, Leave, and Health Management practice group:  Time to Revisit ADA Medical Inquiry Rules at "Loggerheads" with OSHA Policy.  The post describes the EEOC's narrow interpretation of the ADA rule that employee medical inquiries be "job-related and consistent with business necessity" and questions whether such a narrow interpretation is counter to the underlying policies of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.     

 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program Effective June 18

OSHA has just announced that its Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) is effective June 18th.  The SVEP “concentrates resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations.” Under the program, an inspection of an employer meeting the criteria of an SVEP case may result in enhanced follow-up inspections of the worksite at issue, nationwide inspections of the same employer of related worksites, increased “company awareness” of OSHA’s enforcement actions against the company, and enhanced settlement provisions including possible corporate-wide agreements.  In addition, OSHA intends to prominently publicize -- in press releases and on its website -- those employers that are part of the program. 

The following types of cases are considered SVEP cases under the program:

  • A fatality/catastrophe inspection in which OSHA finds one or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices based on a serious violation related to a death of an employee or three or more hospitalizations.
  • An inspection in which OSHA finds two or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices (or any combination of these violations/notices), based on high gravity serious violations related to a “high-emphasis hazard.” A high-emphasis hazard is defined as a high gravity serious violation of specific standards related to fall hazards, amputation hazards, combustible dust hazards, silica hazards, lead hazards, excavation/trenching hazards, shipbreaking hazards, and petroleum refinery hazards.
  • An inspection in which OSHA finds three or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices (or any combination of these violations/notices), based on high gravity serious violations related to highly hazardous chemicals, as defined in OSHA’s process safety management standard.
  • All egregious enforcement actions.

OSHA continues its emphasis on enforcement and the SVEP is another tool that employers should expect OSHA to use aggressively.  Employers should take some time now to review their safety and health management systems to ensure that they are fully compliant with OSHA rules and proactively addressing safety and health issues in the workplace.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA to Speak on Safety Incentive Programs

On Wednesday, May 12, at 3:00 pm ET, OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels will lead a special free webcast related to the issue of safety incentive programs.  Titled "A Conversation with Assistant Secretary for OSHA Dr. David Michaels:  What to do About Safety Incentives," the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) event will discuss "the difference between appropriate and inappropriate safety incentives in the workplace."  Click here to learn more about the webcast.

The issue of safety incentive programs and their effect on the reporting of injuries and illnesses has been widely discussed within safety and health circles over the last year, as a result of the focus on these programs within OSHA's Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP).  Sample employee questionnaires included in the recently renewed NEP ask the following questions about incentive programs:

  • In your workplace, are there prizes, rewards or bonuses to supervisors or managers that are linked to the number of injuries or illnesses recorded on the OSHA log?
  • In your workplace, are there demerits, punishment or disciplinary policies for reporting injuries or illnesses?
  • In your workplace, is there post-injury drug testing for all or most work-related injuries and illnesses?   

OSHA follows these with questions asking employees whether these types of programs encourage, discourage, or have no effect on the reporting of injuries and illnesses.

Safety incentive programs are ubiquitous and it is important for OSHA to provide guidance to employers about the programs that it views as having a negative effect on the reporting of injuries and illnesses.  This webcast is an excellent first start in that process and all employers are encouraged to listen in.  

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Updates and Extends its Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program

OSHA has updated its Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP).  The NEP, initated originally in September, 2009, was designed to investigate whether, and to what extent, injuries and illnesses are being underreported by employers.  The original NEP, as well as the revision, targets employers with low rate establishments operating in historically high rate industries.  Click here for a Special Report on the Recordkeeping NEP.

The updated NEP makes three significant changes:

  • The expiration date has been extended until February 2012.
     
  • If OSHA begins an inspection of an establishment and determines that the establishment falls outside the targeted industries identified in the NEP, compliance officers are now instructed to proceed with the inspection.  In the original NEP, compliance officers were instructed to stop the inspection if they identified that an establishment was not in fact in one of the targeted NAICS codes.
     
  • Employee interview questionaires have been expanded to gather additional information on, among other things, recordkeeping policies and programs that may discourage the reports of injuries and illnesses.

OSHA's update and extension of the NEP further shows how seriously the agency is taking allegations of underreporting of injuries and illnesses by employers.  Assistant Secretary Michaels was recently quoted as saying that "We're gong to be looking at the books, and they had better be accurate."  Employers must continue to be vigilant in ensuring that their recordkeeping programs and practices are fully compliant with OSHA's rules.

 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Unveils Severe Violator Enforcement Program and Increase in Penalties

In moves designed to enhance the effectiveness of its enforcement activities, OSHA has unveiled a new “Severe Violator Enforcement Program” and a memorandum to Regional Administrators that has the effect of increasing penalties for employers receiving citations. These enhancements are further evidence of OSHA’s emphasis on enforcement and all employers must take note.

Severe Violator Enforcement Program

OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) “concentrates resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations.” Under the program, an inspection of an employer meeting the criteria of an SVEP case may result in enhanced follow-up inspections of the worksite at issue, nationwide inspections of the same employer of related worksites, increased “company awareness” of OSHA’s enforcement actions against the company, and enhanced settlement provisions including possible corporate-wide agreements.

The following types of cases are considered SVEP cases under the program:

  • A fatality/catastrophe inspection in which OSHA finds one or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices based on a serious violation related to a death of an employee or three or more hospitalizations.
  • An inspection in which OSHA finds two or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices (or any combination of these violations/notices), based on high gravity serious violations related to a “high-emphasis hazard.” A high-emphasis hazard is defined as a high gravity serious violation of specific standards related to fall hazards, amputation hazards, combustible dust hazards, silica hazards, lead hazards, excavation/trenching hazards, shipbreaking hazards, and petroleum refinery hazards.
  • An inspection in which OSHA finds three or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices (or any combination of these violations/notices), based on high gravity serious violations related to highly hazardous chemicals, as defined in OSHA’s process safety management standard.
  • All egregious enforcement actions.

Administrative Enhancements to OSHA’s Penalty Policies

OSHA has also issued a memorandum to Regional Administrators that administratively enhances OSHA’s penalties. OSHA finds in the memorandum that currently “the Agency’s penalties are too low to have an adequate deterrent effect.” In effect, the memorandum revises OSHA’s penalty classification system, as currently outlined in its Field Operations Manual (FOM). Of particular note, OSHA is:

  • Expanding the time frame for considering an employer’s history of violations (when setting penalties) from three to five years.
  • Increasing penalties by 10 percent for employers that have been cited for any high gravity serious, willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations within the previous five years. 
  • Increasing the minimum proposed penalty for a serious violation to $500.
  • Calculating final penalties serially, unlike current practice where all of the penalty reductions are added and then the total percentage is multiplied by the gravity-based penalty to arrive at the proposed penalty.  (OSHA’s example in the memorandum results in an increase of approximately 50%.)

These changes to OSHA’s enforcement policies are significant.  Now more than ever, employers must take steps to evaluate their safety and health programs and proactively deal with safety and health issues at the workplace.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Clarifies Enforcement Position for FR Clothing in the Oil and Gas Industry

In a recently issued memorandum to Regional Administrators and State Plan Designees, OSHA has clarified its policy for citing the general industry personal protective equipment (PPE) standard, 29 CFR 1910.132(a), for failure to provide and use flame resistant clothing (FRC) in oil and gas well drilling, servicing, and production-related operations.  In the March 19 memorandum, OSHA provides guidance to its compliance officers (CSHOs) on when employers must provide and ensure the use of FRC and, thus, when citations under 29 CFR 1910.132(a) may be issued.

The memorandum sets the following specific citation guidance:

  • In drilling operations, FRC is usually not needed during initial rig up and normal drilling operations prior to reaching active hydrocarbon zones, unless other activities warrant their use.  Once active gas or hydrocarbon zones are reached, appropriate FRC must be worn by exposed employees working on the well site prior to drilling into identified gas or hydrocarbon zones.  FRC should also be worn when there is a history of fluid or gas kicks from underground producing zones.  And, once FRC is provided per these circumstances, employees should wear the FRC until the final casing is cemented and the well is effectively closed.
     
  • In well servicing operations, CSHOs are tasked with determining whether FRC is provided and worn during well servicing or workover operations, such as pulling wet string tubing, snubbing tubing, swabbing operations, etc.
     
  • In production-related operations, OSHA also concludes that the potential for flash fire exists, and advises CSHOs to specifically examine certain operations for citation, such as equipment openings, gauging, transfer of hydrocarbons, and maintenance operations on production equipment.

If citations are warranted, CSHOs are provided the following sample language to use:  "The employer failed to provide and ensure the use of flame-retardant treated clothing (FRC) necessary to protect employees from burns due to potential flash fires."

OSHA's recent memorandum is important for employers in oil and gas well drilling, servicing, and production-related operations and they should thoroughly review it to ensure that their current practices are fully compliant with OSHA's expectations. 

  

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Implements National Emphasis Program for Hexavalent Chromium

OSHA has embarked on a new National Emphasis Program (NEP) targeting hexavalent chromium in the workplace, along with other toxic substances found in conjunction with hexavalent chromium.  OSHA's intent with the NEP is to "target workplaces with occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium" and certain other toxic substances (e.g., antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, iron oxide) to encourage compliance with applicable standards.  In 2006, OSHA issued updated standards regulating exposures to hexavalent chromium compounds in general industry, construction, and maritime.  The NEP was effective February 23, 2010.

Under the NEP, inspections will focus on industries where hexavalent chromium overexposures are known to occur, including:  electroplating; aircraft manufacturing; ship building and repair; inorganic dye and pigment manufacturing; iron and steel mills; ferrous foundries; chrome colors and other inorganic pigments.  Establishments with fewer than 10 workers will be included in the NEP.

OSHA's Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis will prepare for each Area Office a master inspection list for the office to use in planning inspections.  Area Offices are given flexibility to schedule inspections within a specified inspection cycle, in order to make efficient use of resources.  The inspections will be conducted by an Industrial Hygiene Compliance Officer, trained in the hazards of hexavalent chromium.

At the opening conference, the compliance officer will verify that hexavalent chromium or other identified toxic substances are present in the workplace and if they are, the compliance officer will proceed with the inspection.  The compliance officer is instructed to consider and evaluate worker exposures and compliance in activities including, but not limited to:  regular operations; setup and preparation for regular operations; making adjustments during operations; cleaning of the process area; scheduled and unscheduled maintenance; implementation of engineering controls; use of PPE; medical surveillance programs; and worker training and education.  If there are any safety hazards noted, these may be referred for a safety inspection.

This NEP is another in a series of enforcement initiaitives that OSHA is undertaking.  Employers with operations with hexavalent chromium or the other toxic substances included in the NEP must review the NEP and prepare for an inspection.                

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Lists Workplaces with High Injuries and Illnesses

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has released a list of about 15,000 workplaces with the highest numbers of injuries and illnesses in the nation for their industries, based on OSHA’s most recent survey. The agency stated that it has sent a letter to these workplaces, along with copies of their injury and illness data, and a list of the most frequently cited OSHA standards for their specific industry.

Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, said in the March 9, 2010 announcement, “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.” He added, “Employers whose businesses have injury and illness rates this high need to take immediate steps to protect their employees.”

Mei Fung So prepared this post.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA: Employers May Require Employees to Take Flu Vaccines

Employers may order employees to take seasonal and H1N1 vaccines, the nation’s principal workplace safety and health agency has stated.  OSHA offered this opinion in a letter of interpretation, published recently on the agency’s website.

The letter is addressed to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), who relayed to OSHA a letter from a constituent asking whether her employer could mandate that she accept a flu shot. According to the constituent, her employer had “threatened the employees with mandatory time off” if they did not accept the flu shots.

OSHA responded, first, by reiterating its guidance that healthcare employers should offer both the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines to employees and that employees should be informed of the vaccines’ benefits. It added, however, that employers may require employees to take the vaccines, even though OSHA has no published standard containing this requirement. OSHA also provided a cautionary note: an employee who refuses to be vaccinated because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death may be protected from job retaliation under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees who exercise their safety and health rights.

The issue of whether employers can require employees to take flu vaccines has been controversial for both employers and employees. OSHA appears to be stepping directly into this controversy. Even though media attention over the H1N1 virus has subsided for the moment, the issue of mandatory vaccines for employees is one that likely will recur during the next flu outbreak.

While employers should be aware of OSHA’s interpretation, they also must be mindful of other laws and regulations that may be applicable to issues affecting mandatory vaccinations. Collective bargaining agreements also may be relevant. Employers should consider all of this information before adopting any vaccination policies.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

All State Plan States Have Indicated Intent to Adopt OSHA's Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program

As of January 27, 2010, OSHA’s State Plan webpage is reporting that all State Plan States have indicated an intent to adopt OSHA’s Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP). (OSHA will continually update the webpage as it gathers additional information from the State Plan States regarding adoption.)  OSHA launched the NEP, effective September 30, to ascertain whether, and to what extent, employers are under-recording injuries and illnesses at the worksite. State Plan State adoption further broadens the potential scope of this significant enforcement initiative.

Of the 26 State Plan States adopting, 14 States have indicated an intent to adopt an identical NEP, according to OSHA's website. These States are: Arizona, California (adopted on 11/30/2009), Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Tennessee (adopted on 11/1/2009), Utah, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Vermont.

The following States have indicated that they will adopt a different recordkeeping NEP: Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Puerto Rico (adopted on 1/4/2010), South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming.

Jackson Lewis has prepared a special report on the federal NEP and recorded (with SmartPros Ltd.) two recordkeeping seminars to assist employers in preparing for the NEP and ensuring their recordkeeping practices are fully compliant with OSHA’s rules.  The first is Course 2215, OSHA’s Record-Keeping NEP:  What It Is and What You Need to Do to Prepare, which explains OSHA’s Recordkeeping NEP in detail.  The second is Course 2210, The OSHA Record-Keeping "Great Eight," which goes through eight key principles for OSHA recordkeeping compliance.

OSHA is determined to ascertain whether, and to what extent, injuries and illnesses are under-recorded.   Employers must be prepared.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA: A Review of 2009

In 2009, OSHA emerged from the regulatory and enforcement shell that had shrouded it during the eight years of the Bush Administration. Once confirmed, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced that a “new Sheriff” was in town, who would refocus the Department of Labor – including OSHA – on tough enforcement and aggressive rulemaking. In both areas, OSHA delivered on Secretary Solis’s promise.

            OSHA Increases Enforcement

Many critics of OSHA during the Bush Administration focused on the seeming “emphasis” on cooperative programs and compliance assistance, at the expense of strong enforcement. In response, the Department of Labor announced in 2009 the hiring of hundreds of additional compliance officers (CSHOs) to refocus the Agency on what many believe is its core mission – enforcing occupational safety and health standards. It also initiated or revamped several new National Emphasis Programs (NEPs) to further focus CSHOs on certain safety and health issues and hazards:

Chemical Facilities National Emphasis Program. OSHA initiated a new NEP to focus enforcement resources on process safety management (PSM) hazards in chemical facilities across the country. The NEP, effective July 27, 2009, is billed as a “new approach for inspecting PSM covered facilities” and “allows for a greater number of inspections by better allocation of OSHA’s resources.”  In its instructions to compliance officers regarding the scope of inspections, OSHA emphasizes implementation of the PSM standard over documentation. Paper programs are not enough and OSHA will make sure that employers are fully implementing their PSM programs.

Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program. In the fall of 2009, OSHA launched its long-awaited Recordkeeping NEP. The NEP subjects employers in certain industries to comprehensive injury and illness records reviews. The purpose of the NEP is to ascertain whether, and to what extent, employers are under-recording injuries and illnesses at the worksite. OSHA cites several recent studies in the NEP asserting under-recording by employers on OSHA 300 logs. The NEP is designed to “identify and correct under-recorded and incorrectly recorded cases.” Employers subjected to an NEP inspection will face what are likely to be the most comprehensive inspections in the history of the Agency, with detailed records reviews, interviews of numerous employees, and an analysis of employer safety incentive programs and the effect of these programs on the reporting of injuries and illnesses.

Facilities that Manufacture Food Flavorings Containing Diacetyl National Emphasis Program. After focusing for years on the hazards of occupational exposure to diacetyl in microwave popcorn production, OSHA finally shifted its focus with respect to diacetyl to employers who manufacture food flavorings containing diacetyl. OSHA cites a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study finding seven cases of bronchiolitis obliterans – a lung disease associated with exposure to diacetyl – in employees working in facilities where flavorings are manufactured. As part of the NEP, OSHA identifies eighty three facilities for inspection and provides detailed guidance for compliance officers to determine the extent to which these facilities are in overall compliance with their obligations.

Perhaps the most eagerly anticipated – and discussed – enforcement initiative was not an NEP at all, but was related to OSHA enforcement procedures for high to very high occupational exposure to the 2009 H1N1 virus. H1N1 captivated the world this past year, and OSHA spent significant resources addressing the occupational safety and health side of the issue. In the spring and summer of 2009, OSHA responded to the H1N1 outbreak by reissuing and repackaging guidance documents on pandemic influenza that had been previously developed. In November, however, OSHA went further and announced inspection procedures for certain high-hazard H1N1 workplaces, including hospitals, emergency medical centers, doctors’ and dental offices and clinics.

A More Active Regulatory Agenda

In 2009, OSHA also set a course for more activity in the rulemaking arena. As with enforcement, many stakeholders were critical of the Bush Administration’s perceived lack of investment in OSHA’s regulatory agenda. The two most significant regulatory accomplishments during the Bush Administration were the final Hexavalent Chromium rule and the final Employer Payment for PPE rule. Many stakeholders, however, argued that even these accomplishments were essentially forced on the Agency by the federal courts. Whether this is true or not, the first year of the Obama Administration saw the announcement of several new regulatory initiatives and what is even more stunning is that these initiatives were announced without a permanent political head of the Agency.

In 2009, OSHA announced new rulemakings for combustible dust hazards and airborne infectious diseases. OSHA also announced that it would revisit in a new rulemaking the definition of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) and how WMSDs should be recorded on OSHA 300 logs. This year OSHA also published its proposed rule to update its hazard communication standard. The hazard communication proposal is one of the most significant OSHA rulemakings in over a decade. OSHA is proposing to revise its hazard communication standard to align it with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). If finalized, the rule would affect over 5 million business establishments across the country and potentially over 120 million employees. Over 40 million employees would need to be trained on hazard communication under the proposal. OSHA estimates the annualized compliance costs will be almost $100 million for employers. Annualized benefits are estimated to be approximately $850 million.

Finally, in 2009 OSHA made significant progress on its Cranes and Derricks in Construction proposed rule. OSHA’s proposal was over five years in the making. It was developed by the Agency through negotiated rulemaking, whereby representatives of employers and organized labor work together with OSHA to develop a draft rule. Consensus was reached by the negotiated rulemaking committee in 2004. OSHA held public hearings on the proposed rule in 2009 and Agency staff have been busy reviewing comments received with the goal of issuing a final rule in 2010.

All of this in just over 11 months. And yet, this is likely just the beginning for OSHA as 2010 is expected to bring greater enforcement and regulation. 

(More to come on what to expect in 2010 in the next blog post.)

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Attention on Under-recording of Injuries and Illnesses Grows with Release of GAO Report

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released an analysis of OSHA's efforts to ensure that work-related injuries and illnesses are properly recorded by employers.  Members of Congress had requested that the GAO determine (1) whether DOL verifies that employers are accurately recording workers' injuries and illnesses and, if so, the adequacy of these efforts, and (2) what factors may affect the accuracy of employers' injury and illness records.  The GAO study is another piece of the "under-recording puzzle" that is the focus of great attention by OSHA.

The GAO concludes that there are several deficiencies in OSHA's recordkeeping audit verification program in terms of the ability of the audits to determine if employers are accurately recording injuries and illnesses that occur at the worksite:

  • OSHA does not always require inspectors to interview workers about injuries and illnesses.
  • Many workers are no longer employed at the worksite and therefore cannot be interviewed. 
  • OSHA does not review the accuracy of injury and illness records for worksites in eight high hazard industries because it has not updated the codes used to identify the industries in its recordkeeping rule.

The GAO also identifies disincentives to workers reporting injuries and illnesses, including fear of job loss or other disciplinary action and fear of jeopardizing rewards based on having low injury and illness rates.  The GAO also surveys U.S. health practitioners and concludes that over a third of them have been subjected to pressure from employers or workers to provide insufficient medical treatment to avoid the need to record injuries or illnesses.

In response to its findings, the GAO makes four recommendations to OSHA:

  • Require inspectors to interview workers during records audits and substitute other workers when those initially selected are unavailable.
  • Minimize the time between the date injuries and illnesses are recorded by employers and the date they are audited.
  • Update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for records audits.
  • Increase education and training to help employers better understand the recordkeeping requirements.

OSHA agreed with all the recommendations.  It stated that it would require inspectors to interview employees during records audits and develop policies to conduct audits in a timely fashion.  It also stated that it would pursue rulemaking to update the industry coverage of the recordkeeping rule from SIC codes to NAICS codes.  Finally, it committed to supplement its current outreach efforts on recordkeeping compliance.

Of course, OSHA has also implemented its Recordkeeping NEP, which will focus OSHA enforcement resources on investigating the extent to which employers are under-recording injuries and illnesses.

Employers must take steps now to ensure that they have been, and are, accurately recording injuries and illnesses that occur at work.   

  

 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Recordkeeping Best Practices

OSHA's Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP) has been in effect for over a month and employers should be taking steps now to review their records and prepare for an NEP inspection.

Click here for an article that can assist in the preparation process.  "Are You Prepared for OSHA's Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program?," which just appeared in Workforce Management, describes the NEP and some recordkeeping best practices.  Implementation of these best practices can help ensure that employers are fully compliant with their OSHA recordkeeping obligations.   

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA to Issue Compliance Directive to Enforce CDC Recommendations for H1N1 in Healthcare Institutions

Marking the federal government’s first move from a “recommendation” to a “requirement” posture in dealing with H1N1, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced that it will issue a compliance directive to enforce the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Interim Guidance on Infection Control Measures for 2009 H1N1 Influenza in Healthcare Settings, Including Protection of Healthcare Personnel.

The OSHA Directive will prescribe uniform procedures governing OSHA inspections of healthcare institutions for occupational exposure to H1N1 flu.  Covered healthcare settings include acute care hospitals, nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, physicians’ offices, urgent care centers, outpatient clinics, and home healthcare agencies.  OSHA will conduct inspections based upon employee complaints.

While it is unclear how much of the CDC Guidance will be incorporated into OSHA’s Directive and what level of compliance will be required, healthcare employers should make reasonable efforts to ensure their policies, procedures, forms, and postings conform with the CDC’s recommendations, including:

  • Hierarchy of Controls:  The CDC recommends that healthcare facilities use a “hierarchy of controls” to prevent H1N1 exposure and transmission including, in descending order of preference:  (1) elimination of potential exposures, such as minimizing outpatient visits for patients with mild influenza-like symptoms, and denying access to visitors with suspected or confirmed influenza; (2) engineering controls, including partitions for triage areas and other public spaces; (3) administrative controls, including providing vaccinations for employees, ensuring that ill employees stay home, and enforcing respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette; and (4) personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves and respirators.
     
  • N95 Respirators/Facemasks:  The CDC recommends use of respiratory protection “at least as protective as a fit-tested disposable N95 respirator for healthcare personnel who are in close contact with patients with suspected or confirmed 2009 H1N1 influenza.”  Close contact is defined as working within six feet of an infected patient.  Acknowledging that some facilities face a supply shortage of this equipment, the CDC advises that “special care … be taken to ensure that respirators are available for situations where respiratory protection is most important, such as performance of aerosol-generating procedures on patients with suspected or confirmed 2009 H1N1 influenza or provision of care to patients with other infections for which respiratory protection is strongly indicated (e.g., tuberculosis).”  This may require prioritizing resources.  The CDC recommends that facemasks be chosen over no protection.

For its part, OSHA suggests that if employers make a good faith effort to obtain N95 respirators, but are unable to do so for supply reasons, they will not be cited, so long as they are taking other appropriate protective measures.  What level of compliance OSHA will require with respect to these other recommended protective measures — such as screening for respiratory illnesses — is not clear at this time.

Beyond efforts to implement policies and procedures that comply with the CDC Guidance, healthcare employers must consider how the recommendations interact with their legal obligations under federal and state disability, leave, privacy and other laws.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, has published technical guidance detailing employers’ obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to H1N1.

Mei Fung So prepared this blog post.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA to Issue Compliance Directive for H1N1 in Healthcare

Acting Assistant Secretary of OSHA Jordan Barab issued a statement today announcing a soon-to-be-issued compliance directive to guide agency inspections for H1N1 in healthcare facilities.  Click here to view the statement.

We will keep you posted in this space as the compliance directive is developed.  

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program

OSHA has launched its long-awaited Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP).  Effective September 30, the NEP will subject employers in certain industries to comprehensive injury and illness records reviews.  Employers in the targeted industries should take time now to review their recordkeeping logs and practices to prepare for an NEP inspection.

Here is a special report on the NEP, including a description of its scope, the conduct of inspections, and the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders under the program. 

 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Has No Authority to Ban the Use of Hazardous Substances?

OSHA has declared that it lacks the congressional authority to ban the use of hazardous substances. OSHA made this statement in a letter of interpretation, published on the agency’s website, responding to a question specifically related to OSHA’s ability to ban hexavalent chromium in the workplace. OSHA agrees that “product substitution” is the best solution to eliminating the hazards from hexavalent chromium. However, the agency rejects the notion that it can ban its use or the use of any hazardous substance. According to OSHA, the authority to ban the use of hazardous materials has been delegated to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

OSHA’s authority to mandate employers’ adherence to safe practices is provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). While the OSH Act does not specifically allow OSHA to ban the use of hazardous substances, the agency has always taken a broad view of its regulatory authority. Thus, if banning the use of a hazardous substance were “reasonably necessary and appropriate” to provide a safe work environment, it could be argued that OSHA would have the authority to institute the workplace ban. However, the agency seems to have foreclosed that argument with its latest statement.

OSHA’s position is not simply of theoretical interest. It could be very important in upcoming OSHA regulatory actions. For example, the agency is preparing a proposal to regulate silica exposure comprehensively in the workplace. Many stakeholders have called for OSHA to ban the use of silica in abrasive blasting operations. This latest declaration from the agency would appear to take this possible regulatory approach off the table. It also could be important in OSHA’s diacetyl rulemaking, where product substitution is a significant issue.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Starts Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program

OSHA has released its much anticipated recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP).  It became effective September 30.  Click here to see the NEP.

We will be reviewing the document carefully and pass along to you the key aspects of the program.   

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Enforcement Update

In a speech recently before the Small Business Administration’s safety and health forum in Washington, DC, Richard E. Fairfax, OSHA’s Director of Enforcement and Construction Programs, provided an update on the agency’s key enforcement initiatives. Of particular note, Mr. Fairfax stated:

  • OSHA will be issuing another update to its Field Operations Manual (FOM) in November 2009. The FOM guides OSHA’s compliance officers in the conduct of their inspections.

     
  • OSHA’s Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP) is being revised to focus on fatalities, serious hazards and hazards identified in OSHA’s National Emphasis Programs, and to mandate follow-up inspections.

     
  • The following NEPs are now in the works: food flavorings; primary metals; hexavalent chromium; and recordkeeping.

OSHA also has issued two important new enforcement documents. The Site Specific Targeting Program (SST) for 2009, “is OSHA’s main programmed inspection plan for non-construction workplaces that have 40 or more employees.” To compile the SST, OSHA surveyed 80,000 large employers in historically high-rate industries, requiring them to report their injury and illness rates. Employers in manufacturing who reported a particularly high “Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) Rate” (over 8.0) or “Days Away from Work Injury and Illness (DAFWII) Case Rate” (over 6.0) should expect an SST inspection within the next year. Non-manufacturing employers who reported a DART Rate over 15.0 or DAFWII Rate over 13.0 also should expect an inspection under the SST. Nursing and personal care facilities are treated separately under the SST and will be subject to an inspection if they reported a DART Rate over 17.0 or a DAFWII Rate over 14.0.

OSHA also reissued its petroleum refinery NEP. This continues OSHA’s focus on enforcing its process safety management (PSM) standard in refineries. Employers in NAICS code 324110 should review their PSM programs in anticipation of an OSHA inspection of their facilities.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Targeting Chemical Facilities in New National Emphasis Program

OSHA has announced a new National Emphasis Program (NEP) to focus enforcement resources on process safety management (PSM) hazards in chemical facilities across the country. Chemical facilities with PSM-covered processes should review their programs now to ensure full compliance with OSHA standards.

The NEP, effective July 27, 2009, is billed as a “new approach for inspecting PSM covered facilities” and “allows for a greater number of inspections by better allocation of OSHA’s resources.” Chemical facilities in the Northeast (OSHA’s Region 1), the Plains States (OSHA’s Region VII), and the Northwest and Alaska (OSHA’s Region X) will be subject to programmed inspections under the NEP. The NEP will apply to unprogrammed inspections for PSM-covered processes OSHA-wide.

In its instructions to compliance officers regarding the scope of inspections, OSHA emphasizes implementation of the PSM standard over documentation:

Based on past inspection history at refineries and large chemical plants, OSHA has found that employers may have an extensive written process safety management program, but insufficient program implementation. Therefore, CSHOs should verify the implementation of PSM elements to ensure that the employer’s actual program is consistent with their written program.

Compliance officers also are instructed at the start of inspections to request numerous documents from employers, some of which are not required to be kept under the standard (e.g., a list of all PSM-covered process/units in the complex, a summary description of the facility’s PSM program, safe upper and lower operating limits for certain covered units). According to OSHA, however, they represent “documents typically compiled by employers with PSM-covered processes at their facilities.” Furthermore, OSHA will examine under the NEP all contractors – including construction contractors – working on or adjacent to PSM-covered units being inspected.

This is just the first of several key NEPs OSHA will be releasing. OSHA’s Recordkeeping NEP should be released within days, and other NEPs on Food Flavorings, Oil and Gas Well Drilling, Primary Metals, and Hexavalent Chromium are in the works.

We will continue to keep you apprised of all of OSHA’s enforcement initiatives.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Targets Federal Agencies and their Contractors with New Enforcement Program

OSHA has announced it is targeting for inspections federal agency workplaces staffed by federal employees or by contractors whose work is supervised on a day-to-day basis by federal agency personnel. The agency initiative will focus enforcement resources on those worksites experiencing a high number of lost time injury cases. Employers who work as contractors to federal agencies should review the targeting program and prepare for a possible inspection – particularly if they have employees performing hazardous work.

The new inspection targeting program – “FEDTARG 09” effective June 16, 2009 – directs inspections at federal agency establishments that experienced large numbers of lost time injuries in fiscal year 2009, as reported by the federal Office of Workers Compensation Programs. OSHA regional offices are directed to develop a primary inspection list that will include 100% of the establishments within the region reporting 100 or more lost time cases, 50% of the establishments reporting 50-99 lost time cases, and 10% of the establishments reporting 20-49 lost time cases. All sites on the primary inspection list must be inspected.

Contractors who are supervised by federal workers should take note of this and prepare. Inspections conducted under FEDTARG 09 will be comprehensive safety inspections. The inspections also will cover ergonomics, with compliance officers instructed to consult with the region’s ergonomics coordinator on musculoskeletal disorder issues.

Should the OSHA compliance officer see contractors performing work that is not being supervised by a federal agency worker, the officer may open up another inspection relating to the contractor specifically, if the compliance officer observes any hazards. In short, contractors performing work on federal agency worksites are fair game under FEDTARG 09.

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor Jordan Barab, in announcing the program, stated, “OSHA’s mission of protecting worker safety doesn't begin and end with private industry.” That is true. In this instance, however, it does not begin and end with federal employees either. FEDTARG 09 targets both federal agencies and private employers, and both need to be prepared.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Launching Construction Safety Initiative in Texas

Citing the high number of construction fatalities in Texas, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced recently that OSHA will start a new enforcement initiative targeting the construction industry in that state. Secretary Solis made the announcement in San Antonio at the annual conference of the American Society of Safety Engineers. Construction employers in Texas should take note of this new initiative and ensure that they continue to be fully compliant with OSHA standards.

While there are few details of the new enforcement initiative available, Secretary Solis stated that:

  • Beginning in July, OSHA will increase the number of inspectors in Texas; and
  • Inspectors will be authorized to launch an immediate investigation of a construction worksite, whenever they observe “unsafe scaffolds, fall risks, trenches or other hazards.”

Secretary Solis stated that in 2008, there were 67 construction fatalities in Texas and in 2009 there already have been 33 fatalities reported. According to the Secretary, more workers die in Texas than in any other state.

This initiative is just one part of OSHA’s expanded enforcement efforts under the new Labor Secretary. OSHA will be hiring over 100 new inspectors and issuing five new National Emphasis Programs.  In San Antonio, Secretary Solis reiterated her commitment to more enforcement: “As I have said since my first day on the job – the U.S. Department of Labor is back in the enforcement business.”

We will, of course, keep you informed as more details of this and other enforcement initiatives become available.

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA's Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program - Are You Prepared?

When OSHA launches its recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP) later this year, employers cannot accuse the agency of inadequate warning. Since early March, OSHA officials have signaled the impending NEP. Employers should take time now to review their OSHA recordkeeping logs and practices to prepare for an NEP inspection.

Just last week, OSHA reminded us how seriously it is taking recordkeeping and the perceived underreporting of occupational injuries and illnesses. The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) reported on remarks by Acting Assistant Secretary of OSHA, Jordan Barab, at the annual American Society of Safety Engineers convention in San Antonio: 

Barab said OSHA’s pending recordkeeping National Emphasis Program will scrutinize companies in high-risk industries that post strikingly low accident and injury rates. OSHA inspectors will look not only at a company’s records but also its safety policies, he said. In particular, agency inspectors will look for companies that discourage their employees from reporting workplace accidents, Barab said. 

The recordkeeping NEP will involve more than just a standard records review. Employer programs that “discourage” employees from reporting workplace accidents will be targeted by OSHA. Unfortunately, OSHA has not provided additional information on the types of programs it is concerned about. However, OSHA had a provision in the Clinton Administration’s ergonomics standard, which was revoked by Congress and President Bush in 2001, which sought to address a similar concern. OSHA required in that rule that employers not develop policies that discourage the reporting of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). In the preamble to the final rule, OSHA suggested that the following could run afoul of this provision: 

  • Disciplining employees for reporting injuries, without considering the cause of those injuries;
  • Establishing incentive programs that offer rewards to employees or groups of employees based on a low number of reported injuries;
  • Implementing programs where manager or supervisor performance reviews or bonuses are tied to the number of reported injuries and illnesses; and
  • Instituting drug testing programs, when applied to all workers who report MSDs.

Employers should prepare for an OSHA recordkeeping inspection by taking some time to: 

  • Review their 300 logs and 301 incident reports for accuracy;
  • Ensure their 300 logs reflect information from the 301 incident reports; and
  • Compare all their OSHA recordkeeping forms with any workers’ compensation reports and claims.

As important, employers should look at their safety incentive programs and injury and illness reporting procedures for any evidence that these protocols are discouraging employee reports.

 

Roger Kaplan, a Partner in Jackson Lewis's Long Island office, contributed to this Post. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA Mandates Recordkeeping for Team Building Event

In a new letter of interpretation, OSHA has confirmed that injuries to employees sustained at off-site team-building events are recordable on OSHA logs, so long as the injuries also meet other general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). Employers are encouraged to review their recordkeeping practices to ensure that they are complying with this interpretation of OSHA’s recordkeeping rule.

OSHA was asked whether an injury incurred while an employee was go-cart racing at an off-site team-building activity was “work-related” under OSHA’s rule. In the scenario presented to OSHA, employees were not required to participate in the go-cart racing or other team building events. However, they were required to attend an off-site meeting and luncheon. In OSHA’s view, the employee was at the go-cart facility as a condition of employment and thus was “in the work environment.” Any injury or illness that arises is therefore presumed to be work-related in the view of the Agency.

Employers often hold team-building events at locations outside the workplace. If injuries occur during these events, employers must record them on their OSHA logs, assuming the injuries meet other recordability criteria.

With OSHA developing a National Emphasis Program on recordkeeping, now is the time for employers to review their recordkeeping procedures and logs to ensure they are fully compliant.
 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

OSHA National Emphasis Programs Under Development

Signaling its renewed focus on enforcement, OSHA has announced it is developing six new National Emphasis Programs (NEPs). NEPs focus OSHA’s resources on industries, hazards, and occupational injuries and illnesses that need additional targeted enforcement, in the Agency’s view.

OSHA’s Director of Enforcement Programs revealed the following industry-specific NEPs are in development:

 

  • Chemical plants – process safety management;
  • Primary metals;
  • Flavorings and diacetyl; and
  • Oil and gas well drilling.

Employers in these industries should expect additional inspections and take steps now to ensure their safety and health practices are fully compliant with OSHA requirements.

 

Even more employers, however, can anticipate increased scrutiny on account of OSHA’s recordkeeping initiative. As a result of questions raised by Congress and labor organizations that injuries and illnesses are underreported, OSHA announced it is developing a recordkeeping NEP. All employers who are required to keep OSHA injury and illness logs should review them now for accuracy, completeness, and appropriate certification.

 

Finally, OSHA is developing an NEP dealing with occupational asthma, a growing area of concern for OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

 

In a recent speech, newly confirmed Secretary of Labor Solis committed OSHA to increased enforcement. These NEPs will drive much of that enforcement in coming months. 

Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Employers Must Record Injuries Resulting from "Horseplay" at Work

In a recent letter of interpretation addressing a common issue at worksites around the country, OSHA confirmed that injuries to employees sustained at the worksite as a result of “horseplay” are recordable on OSHA Logs, so long as the injuries also meet other general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid).

The interpretation stems from an incident described as “horseplay gone badly.” At the end of a work day, two supervisors got into a physical confrontation while changing to go home. One supervisor pulled a knife and stuck the other in the arm, resulting in several sutures.

OSHA stated that the injury was recordable. First, because the injury resulted from an event occurring in the work environment, it was presumed to be work-related and none of the exceptions to this “geographic presumption” applied. The exceptions include, among other things, injuries such as those resulting from an employee eating, drinking, or preparing food for personal consumption, those involving signs or symptoms that surface at work but result solely from a non-work-related event, and those caused by a motor vehicle accident occurring on a company parking lot while the employee is commuting to or from work. Second, because the injury required medical treatment beyond first aid, OSHA concluded that it satisfied the other recordability criteria related to severity.

OSHA dismissed as essentially irrelevant the issue of whether the injury resulted from activities that were “not directly productive” to the employer’s work. OSHA also reiterated that there is no general exception under the recordkeeping rule for violence that occurs at the worksite.

Situations such as this are all too common in the workplace. Aside from taking steps to address violence in the workplace generally, employers must ensure that when an incident occurs and injury results, it is properly recorded under OSHA’s rules, if warranted.
 

Like Tweet LinkedIn ">Email