Earlier this month the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register its plans to require improved worker protection from tripping, slipping and falling hazards on walking and working surfaces currently in subparts D and I of 29 CFR 1910. A public hearing on the revised changes will be held after the public comment period is over.

The NPRM describes revisions to the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards to help prevent an estimated annual 20 workplace fatalities and more than 3,500 injuries serious enough to cause people to miss work.  A leading cause of worker-related injury and death comes from employees slipping, tripping, or falling from work surfaces such as floors, platforms, portable and fixed ladders, stairs, and ramps. Employees may be exposed and unprotected from these hazards or may have a protection system in place but are using that system incorrectly.

According to OSHA the current walking-working surfaces regulations allow employers to provide outdated and dangerous fall protection equipment such as lanyards and body belts that can result in workers suffering greater injury from falls. Construction and maritime workers already receive safer, more effective fall protection devices such as self-retracting lanyards and ladder safety and rope descent systems, which these proposed revisions would also require for general industry workers.

The current walking-working surfaces standards also do not allow OSHA to fine employers who let workers climb certain ladders without fall protection. Under the revised standards, this restriction would be lifted in virtually all industries, allowing OSHA inspectors to fine employers who jeopardize their workers’ safety and lives by climbing these ladders without proper fall protection.

Here is a little background:

• Subpart D contains standards for walking-working surfaces and was adopted in April of 1971 in accordance with Section 6(a) of the OSH Act. The primary sources for subpart D were several pre-1971 editions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standards. There has been little change to the standard in subpart D since its initial adoption.
• Some early OSHA walking-working surfaces standards were developed with little consideration given to the consistency among the requirements applicable to general industry, shipyards, and construction. As a result, there are different requirements for similar, and sometimes identical, hazards in different industries.
• Existing subpart D is organized such that its sections are often redundant and difficult to use. Reducing redundancy makes subpart D clearer and easier to read, facilitating workers’ and employers’ understanding and application of the rule.
• In 1973, OSHA published a proposed revision of subpart D that was withdrawn in 1976 because, in the Agency’s view, it had become outdated and did not reflect then-current information. In 1990, OSHA published another proposed rule to reorganize, update, and clarify the subpart and add personal fall protection requirements to subpart I, which regulates personal protective equipment. In 2003, the rulemaking record was reopened and several issues were raised. Comments to the record indicated that the 1990 proposed rule was outdated and did not give adequate consideration to newer technology. In 2005, the decision was made to completely redraft the proposed rule. The 1990 proposal was not withdrawn, and therefore is still on record today as a proposed rule
• Subpart I contains standards for personal protective equipment, but it does not currently address personal fall protection systems.

Overview of Proposed Subparts D and I:

• OSHA estimates the proposed rule would prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year, and over 3,700 injuries per year that are serious enough to result in days away from work.
• Subpart D would be reorganized in a clear, logical manner, thereby facilitating compliance and enhancing employee protection.
• The proposed rule would eliminate duplication and extensive specification of requirements, while emphasizing performance-based criteria; for example, the proposal would incorporate the construction scaffolding standards, which would eliminate the need for most scaffold specifications in general industry.
• A new section would be added to subpart I that provides criteria for fall protection equipment. This new section would make the general industry standards consistent with existing construction and maritime standards regulating fall protection, as well as current industry practice, and give clear standards on fall protection PPE to employers.
• Compliance flexibility would be provided for the mitigation of fall hazards; for example, proposed subpart D would require fall protection, but would provide options for compliance such as travel restraint systems and designated areas for fall protection when appropriate. Subpart I would provide criteria on the proper use of personal fall protection systems when used by the employer.

Click here to view video comments by Dr. Michaels
 

Work Performed at Home Can Cause Headaches for Employers.

Scenario:  An employee works at home part of each work week, primarily performing data entry tasks.  One day the employee was carrying a large file folder of forms from his car into his house and was going to his home office to work. However, he stumbled on one of his child’s toys lying on the driveway and fell.  He sprained his right hand and was unable to perform any work either at home or the workplace office for seven work days. The employee feels that the incident is work-related, but the employer is not sure. 

Question:  Should the incident and days missed from work be considered work-related and recorded?

Answer:  1904.5(b)(7) of the OSHA Standard states:

How do I decide if a case is work-related when the employee is working at home? Injuries and illnesses that occur while an employee is working at home, including work in a home office, will be considered work-related if the injury or illness occurs while the employee is performing work for pay or compensation in the home, and the injury or illness is directly related to the performance of work rather than to the general home environment or setting. For example, if an employee drops a box of work documents and injures his or her foot, the case is considered work-related. If an employee’s fingernail is punctured by a needle from a sewing machine used to perform garment work at home, becomes infected and requires medical treatment, the injury is considered work-related. If an employee is injured because he or she trips on the family dog while rushing to answer a work phone call, the case is not considered work-related. If an employee working at home is electrocuted because of faulty home wiring, the injury is not considered work-related.

OSHA 10 and 30 Hour Training now requires a two hour “Intro to OSHA” with emphasis on workers’ rights.

“Introduction to OSHA,” a revised training component with a huge emphasis on workers’ rights, is now required content in every OSHA 10 and 30 hour Outreach Training Program class. This was developed because of the Secretary of Labor’s desire to “strengthen the voice of workers”.

During the 10 and 30 hour outreach training program classes, OSHA trainers will now be required to spend a significant amount of time on the topics of whistleblower rights and filing a complaint and will provide samples of the weekly fatality and catastrophe report, a material data safety sheet, and the OSHA Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.

This is the first time OSHA has developed a PowerPoint presentation for these widely used programs that trainers are required to use.  There are also twelve handouts that the trainer must utilize in the training. 

According to OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels:  “For too long workers have avoided making claims of unsafe work conditions out of fear of losing their jobs, we are confident that this new training will embolden workers to speak up when they find work practices that endanger their lives and the lives of their co-workers.”

Opponents to the change claim all this information is and was already a component of the 10 and 30 hour training. The level of coverage is now disproportionate to the level of the overall program and takes valuable time away from the true intent of the training, which has always been hazard recognition and avoidance.  Another major objection is that one item in the new introduction to OSHA is how to read a Material Safety Data Sheet.  Most trainers cover this in the Hazard Communication section of the training, already a required element. 

The OSHA Outreach Training Program is a voluntary program that seeks to teach workers about their rights and how to identify, reduce, avoid, and prevent job-related hazards. The program includes 10 and 30 hour courses in construction, general or maritime industry safety, and health hazard recognition and prevention; classes are taught through a network of OSHA-authorized trainers. Over the past three years, nearly two million students have received this training, and several states have made the program mandatory for some workers. 

AUGUSTA, Maine — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited the U.S. Postal Service for alleged willful and repeat violations of safety standards following an inspection at the Southern Maine Processing and Distribution Center in Scarborough, Maine. The Postal Service faces a total of $430,000 in fines, chiefly for exposing workers to electrical hazards.

“These citations and sizable fines reflect the Postal Service’s failure to equip its workers with the necessary knowledge and skills to safely work with live electrical parts,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “The Postal Service knew that proper and effective training was needed for the safety of its workers but did not provide it.”

OSHA’s inspection, which began Dec. 29, 2009, in response to a complaint from workers at the Scarborough facility, found employees working with or near live electrical equipment without adequate training or qualifications, personal protective equipment, safety-related work practices and warning signs.

These conditions exposed the workers to electric shock, arc flashes and arc blasts and resulted in OSHA issuing six willful citations, with $420,000 in proposed fines, to the Postal Service. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

In addition, OSHA found that access to electrical panels was blocked in several instances by materials being stored adjacent to them. This situation resulted in one repeat citation, with a $10,000 fine, since the Postal Service had been cited in November 2007 for the same type of hazard at a Toledo, Ohio, postal facility.

The Postal Service has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with the OSHA area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Augusta Area Office; telephone 207-626-9160. To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

EL PASO, Texas - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Schneider Electric, doing business as Square D, in El Paso for alleged workplace safety violations following the electrocution fatality of a worker at the company’s facility on Northwestern Drive.

“Employees deserve a safe workplace,” said Jack Rector, OSHA’s area director in El Paso. “If the company had followed OSHA’s standards to ensure that testing equipment was free of electrical hazards, this tragedy could have been avoided.”

OSHA’s El Paso Area Office began its inspection on Jan. 21 after a worker was electrocuted when he grabbed the test leads on a shop-made cart the company used to test equipment. The investigation found that Schneider Electric, which employs about 160 workers at its El Paso facility, exposed workers to various electrical hazards during the testing process of equipment the company manufactures.

OSHA has cited the company with nine serious violations including failing to ensure personal protective equipment was tested and maintained; to ensure that workers who were testing the equipment wore proper electrical rated gloves, footwear and/or fire resistant clothing; to provide written procedures for equipment testing; to ensure that qualified employees were allowed to work on energized electrical parts or equipment, and to ensure that all electrical openings in boxes were properly covered and closed. A serious violation is one in which there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Proposed penalties total $42,300.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director in El Paso, or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Employers and workers with questions about workplace safety and health standards can call the El Paso Area Office at 915-534-6251 or OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742 to report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

CHANNELVIEW, Texas - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Sneed Shipbuilding Inc. for alleged serious, repeat and other-than-serious violations for exposing employees to electrical and other safety hazards at the company’s facility on Market Street in Channelview. Proposed penalties total $59,300.

“Welders were using damaged welding leads, and the company failed to repair damaged electrical junction boxes,” said David Doucet, director of OSHA’s Houston North Area Office. “Electrical hazards like these can cause electrocution.”

OSHA’s Houston North Area Office began its investigation on April 27, finding structural deficiencies on one of the crawler cranes Sneed Shipbuilding maintained and operated, as well as electrical hazards throughout the shipyard. OSHA has issued 19 serious citations, including failing to provide employees with fall protection, guards on grinders, covers over open manholes in decks, and fire extinguishers in areas where flammable paint and solvents are used. A serious violation is one that could cause death or serious physical harm to employees when the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.

A repeat violation has been issued for failing to provide employees operating crawler cranes with load rating charts. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last three years.

Two other-than-serious citations have been issued for failing to properly complete the required Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses form, and to maintain a written respiratory protection program for employees exposed to inhalation hazards. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

The company has 15 working days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s Houston North area director, or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Employers and employees with questions regarding workplace safety and health standards can call OSHA’s Houston North Area Office at 281-591-2438 or the agency’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742 to report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

BUFFALO, N.Y. - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited the Ford Motor Co. Buffalo Stamping Plant in Hamburg, N.Y., with an alleged willful violation of safety standards for not repairing or removing unsafe overhead cranes from service. The citation follows an OSHA inspection opened in January 2010 in response to a complaint from workers at the plant.

OSHA standards require that employers inspect cranes to identify unsafe conditions and remove the cranes from operation until the hazards are corrected. OSHA’s inspection found five instances where overhead cranes used to lift and set dies or lift coils of steel were allowed to remain in service after defects were identified during inspections conducted in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The defects included worn brake drums, loose or sheared coupling bolts, and worn or damaged gears.

“Management’s ongoing knowledge of and failure to correct these repeatedly recognized defects exposed workers to potential crushing injuries had one or more of these cranes failed,” said Arthur Dube, OSHA’s area director for western New York. “It should not take an OSHA inspection and enforcement action to prompt an employer to complete necessary repairs that should have been made months, even years, ago.”

The willful citation carries a proposed fine of $70,000. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for worker safety and health.

“One means of preventing hazards such as these is to establish an effective comprehensive workplace safety and health program, in which workers and employers work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazardous conditions,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

Ford has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Buffalo Area Office; telephone 716-551-3053. To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

BUFFALO, N.Y. - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed a total of $357,300 in fines against UCB Manufacturing Inc., for alleged willful and serious violations of workplace health and safety standards at its Rochester, N.Y., pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. The citations chiefly concern the company’s failure to address hazards for workers whose duties involve exposure to methylene chloride, a potential carcinogen.

OSHA’s inspection found that some plant employees were exposed to excess levels of methylene chloride, and the company did not have effective controls and work practices to reduce those exposure levels. In addition, the company did not supply the workers with appropriate respirators, and failed to provide all required monitoring, medical surveillance and information about methylene chloride. These conditions resulted in the issuance of six willful citations, with $351,000 in proposed fines. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for worker safety and health.

“These sizable fines reflect the gravity of these hazards and the employer’s knowledge of and failure to correct them,” said Arthur Dube, OSHA’s area director for western New York. “Employees exposed to methylene chloride are at increased risk of developing cancer, adverse effects on the heart, central nervous system and liver, and skin or eye irritation. Effective safeguards are vital to the health and well-being of the workers.”

OSHA also found that the plant failed to determine each employee’s exposure to methylene chloride, develop and inspect hazardous energy control procedures for all equipment, and inform employees of the existence, location and availability of exposure and monitoring records. As a result, OSHA has issued three serious citations with $6,300 in fines. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.

“One means of preventing hazards such as these is for employers to establish an effective comprehensive workplace safety and health program in which their workers take an active role in evaluating, identifying and eliminating hazards,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

Detailed information on methylene chloride is available at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/methylenechloride/index.html. The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Buffalo Area Office; telephone 716-551-3053. To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

We recently came across the following letter of interpretation and thought some of you might find it interesting. You can find the original posting here.

February 16, 2010 

Mr. D. Scott Hayes, M.S.
Hayes Environmental Services, Inc.
3242 Executive Parkway, Suite 208
Toledo, OH 43606 

Dear Mr. Hayes: 

Thank you for your recent letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the recordkeeping regulation contained in 29 CFR Part 1904 – Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. In an effort to provide you with prompt and accurate responses, we developed and continue to refine a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), in addition to maintaining a log of Letters of Interpretation (LOI) on the OSHA Recordkeeping website. 

You ask for a specific interpretation of OSHA’s regulation at Section 1904.5, “Determining Work Relatedness.” 

Scenario: A client’s employee working for a construction company is paid to work from 7:00 am to 12:00 pm and 12:30 pm to 5:30 pm as bound by the National Maintenance Agreement that applies to craft employees working at this work site. At 12:20 pm (while off the clock), the employee exits a restroom and falls awkwardly, causing a deep laceration which requires sutures to close. 

Question: Does this case fall within the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) for injuries and illnesses that are solely the result of employees doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of their assigned work hours. 

Response: Under 29 CFR Subpart C, “Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria,” an injury must be recorded if it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). See 29 CFR §1904.4(a). An injury is presumed to be work-related if it results from an event occurring in the work environment, unless an enumerated exception to this geographic presumption applies. See 29 CFR §1904.5(a). The work environment includes any location where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. See 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(1). The geographic presumption (that is, an injury is work-related if it occurs in the work environment) covers cases in which an injury or illness results from activities that occur at work but that are not directly productive. See the preamble to the final rule (66 Fed. Reg. 5916, 5929 (Jan. 19, 2001)). 

Under Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v), an injury or illness is not work-related if it is solely the result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of the employee’s assigned working hours. In order for this exception to apply, the case must meet both of the stated conditions [i.e., the injury or illness must (1) be solely the result of the employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment), and (2) occur outside of the employee’s assigned working hours]. For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, “assigned working hours” means “those hours the employee is actually expected to work, including overtime.” See, OSHA’s Frequently Asked Question 5-4 at http://www.osha.gov. This means that, in order for the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) to apply, the injury or illness must occur outside the time the employee is normally expected to be present in the work environment. 

Historically, OSHA has not considered the employee’s pay status at the time of the incident or the fact that he or she punches in and out with a time clock (or signing in and out) to be relevant when determining whether a case is work-related. See, OSHA’s Frequently Asked Questions 5-11, and OSHA’s March 10, 2005 letter of interpretation to Dr. Milagros C. Flores, Instead, the focus has been on whether the event or exposure took place when the employee was present in the work environment as a condition of employment. 

In your scenario, the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) would not apply because the injury occurred during the employee’s normal work schedule (lunch break). The exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) only applies if an injury or illness occurs when the employee is conducting personal tasks while present in the work environment at a time either (1) before the start of the normal work schedule, or (2) after the normal work schedule has ended. In other words, the exception does not apply to injuries and illnesses that occur during breaks (either formal or informal) in the employee’s normal work schedule. Therefore, the case you describe in your letter is work-related and must be recorded because it meets the general recording criteria in Section 1904.7 (the injury required sutures). 

You can also see our Letters of Interpretation dated January 15, 2004 to Ms. Leann M. Johnson-Koch; May 12, 2006 to Ms. Donna Cale, andFebruary 9, 2009 to Mr. Joe Winkelman (horseplay case). 

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. 

Sincerely, 



Keith Goddard, Director
Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis

BURWELL, Neb. - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Loup Valley Alfalfa Inc. of Burwell for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, following a December 2009 inspection of the grain handling facility. The agency has proposed $293,000 in penalties against the company.

“This employer had no business conducting work inside the grain bins without taking protective measures to ensure that its employees were working in a safe environment,” said Charles Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo. 

OSHA’s inspection found seven alleged willful, 16 alleged serious and three alleged other-than-serious violations. The willful violations stem from the company’s failure to provide fall protection on open-sided platforms; operation of mechanical equipment, known as augers, while employees worked within the grain bin; failure to test the atmosphere prior to grain bin entry; instructing employees to walk down the grain; lack of a retrieval system for grain bin entries; lack of an attendant during bin entry operations, and fugitive grain dust that exceeded one-eighth inch depth. OSHA issues a willful violation when an employer exhibits plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. 

The serious violations include deficient guardrail systems; unapproved powered industrial truck modifications; a lack of inspections on mechanical and safety control equipment; energized electric wiring left exposed, in disrepair, and/or inappropriately used; a lack of/or deficient machine guarding; and a failure to label hazardous chemical containers. OSHA issues a serious citation when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which an employer knew or should have known. 

Loup Valley Alfalfa has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director in Omaha, Neb., or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. 

To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742. 

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov