Have you ever had an employee complain of pain or discomfort due to work they are performing, and then you suggest they utilize stretching or a simple exercise to relieve their symptoms?  Have you ever considered this as “medical treatment” for OSHA recordkeeping purposes?  Well, OSHA does.

In a recent letter of interpretation, OSHA clarified that they view giving an employee a stretching or exercise regime once they present with pain or discomfort to be an OSHA recordable.  In the letter dated May 20, 2011, OSHA states that providing an employee with an exercise program constitutes medical treatment and therefore would be an OSHA recordable.

This is an interesting clarification.  Case in point, if you send an employee to a doctor for a strain or sprain issue, and the doctor only recommends the employee use a series of hot and cold therapy for a period of time each night before going to bed, OSHA deems this as “first aid” as described in 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(D).  However, based on this clarification if that same physician, rather than prescribing hot/cold therapy instead sends the employee home with directions on doing a series of stretches each night before going to bed, that would be deemed an OSHA recordable.  Or, if the doctor ordered daily massages for a period of time, this too is considered “first aid” by OSHA.

OSHA justifies this stance by stating in the letter that it considers therapeutic exercise as a form of physical therapy and intentionally did not include it on the list of first aid treatments in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii). Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(M) of the recordkeeping standard states that physical therapy or chiropractic treatment are considered medical treatment for OSHA recordkeeping purposes and are not considered first aid. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(iii) goes on to state that the treatments included in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) is a comprehensive list of first aid treatments. Any treatment not included on this list is not considered first aid for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.

It is interesting that in the Federal Register referenced by OSHA, it appears those involved at the time were considering something far more strenuous and intense than a simple daily stretch and flex type routine.

See the entire letter below.

May 20, 2011

Mr. Paul Bragenzer
1415 Rothbury Dr.
Grand Rapids, MI 49505

Dear Mr. Bragenzer:

Thank you for your February 2011 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 the public 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 web site.

Your letter asks OSHA to clarify whether an exercise regime directed by a Certified Athletic Trainer (ATC) would constitute “first aid” or “medical treatment” for OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping purposes. In general, if the ATC recommends exercise to an employee who exhibits any signs or symptoms of a work related injury, the case involves medical treatment and is a recordable case.

OSHA discussed the issue of therapeutic exercise in the preamble to the final rule revising OSHA’s injury and illness recordkeeping regulation. See, 66 FR 5992, January 19, 2001. OSHA stated that it considers therapeutic exercise as a form of physical therapy and intentionally did not include it on the list of first aid treatments in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii). Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(M) states that physical therapy or chiropractic treatment are considered medical treatment for OSHA recordkeeping purposes and are not considered first aid. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(iii) goes on to state that the treatments included in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) is a comprehensive list of first aid treatments. Any treatment not included on this list is not considered first aid for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.

Please be aware that if a treatment is administered as a purely precautionary measure to an employee who does not exhibit any signs or symptoms of an injury or illness, the case is not recordable. For a case to be recordable, an injury or illness must exist. For example, if, as part of an employee wellness program, an ATC recommends exercise to employees that do not exhibit signs or symptoms of an abnormal condition, there is no case to record. Furthermore, if an employee has an injury or illness that is not work-related, (e.g., the employee is experiencing muscle pain from home improvement work) the administration of exercise does not make the case recordable either.

Your letter also requested specific guidance on several questions concerning the administration of exercise. For purposes of this response, we presume that all of the questions relate to the administration of exercise as a treatment for work-related injuries.

1.    Would the providing of an employee with a written home exercise program (including sets/reps and resistance) constitute first aid or medical treatment?

This constitutes medical treatment.

2.    If the ATC utilizes stretching to relieve their symptoms, does this service constitute medical treatment or first aid?

This constitutes medical treatment.

3.    Is the number of times seen for care significant in determining recordability?

No. The number of times seen for care is not a factor when determining OSHA recordablity. The focus is on the type of treatment rather than the number of times such treatment is administered.

4.    Is the duration or intensity of the care significant in determining recordability?

No. The duration or intensity of the care does not determine recordablity. Again, the focus is on the type of treatment.

5.    Are the numbers of follow-ups significant in the recordability of the care?

No. The number of follow-up visits to receive care does not determine the outcome for an OSHA recordable.

6.    Is there a general guideline that an ATC can use to know if they are crossing the line from first aid to medical treatment?

In general, first aid can be distinguished from medical treatment per Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) and 1904.7(b)(5)(iii). As noted above, Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) states that the list of first aid treatments included in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(iii) is comprehensive. Any treatments not included on the list would not be considered “first aid” for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in responses to new information. To keep appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov.

Sincerely,

Keith Goddard, Director
Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis

Scenario:  You are the safety manager for a large manufacturing plant.  Your company maintains a medical department at your plant where it is staffed with full time nurses.  You manage this operation.  You just hired a new nurse who seems very knowledgeable and quite the go-getter.  A few days into her employment she asks you where for the Sharps injury log for the plant.  You tell her that as far as you know, there isn’t one.  She gets very concerned, pulls out the OSHA standards book, and flips to the bloodborne pathogen section.  She shows you 1910.1030(h)(5), which clearly states the employer must maintain a sharps injury log.  You get into a discussion with her that you feel the OSHA 300 log could serve that purpose, but she is adamant that a separate log is necessary.

Question: Who is right?

Answer:   “1910.1030(h)(5) Sharps injury log” clearly states that the employer shall establish and maintain a sharps injury log for the recording of percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. The information in the sharps injury log shall be recorded and maintained in such manner as to protect the confidentiality of the injured employee. The sharps injury log shall contain, at a minimum:

• The type and brand of device involved in the incident,
• The department or work area where the exposure incident occurred, and
• An explanation of how the incident occurred.

The requirement to establish and maintain a sharps injury log shall apply to any employer who is required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses under 29 CFR 1904.

The sharps injury log shall be maintained for the period required by 29 CFR 1904.6.

However if you check the “Detailed Frequently Asked Questions for OSHA’s Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Rule” at http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/detailedfaq.html  and look at question Question 8-2. Can I use the OSHA 300 Log to meet the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard’s requirement for a sharps injury log? The answer is “yes” you may use the 300 Log to meet the requirements of the sharps injury log provided you enter the type and brand of the device causing the sharps injury on the Log.  You must maintain your records in a way that segregates sharps injuries from other types of work-related injuries and illnesses, or allows sharps injuries to be easily separated.

Early last month an announcement was made that the OSHA Training Institute Education Centers  will begin charging OSHA Outreach instructors $5 per each OSHA 10 and 30 Hour card they generate.  The letters to all the Outreach Instructors stated that beginning October 1, 2011 the OTI Education Centers, as a group, will begin charging the fee for each student course completion card issued.

From a historical perspective, OSHA began the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Center Program in 1992.  Since that time, the OSHA Outreach Training Program has grown exponentially, from 51,000 students trained in 1992 to 781,000 students trained in 2010.  While  the training numbers increased, OSHA did not have the resources needed to process the increasing number of student cards.

In 2003 OSHA began to require the Education Centers to process requests for student course completion cards.  Even though this alleviated the burden for OSHA, it proved to have a significant impact on the administrative workload for the Centers.  On average, the 25 OTIEC’s process 1,000 requests for student course completion cards each week.  In the past two years, Ed Centers have processed over 1.3 million student course completion cards.  When the number of trained workers increases, so does the administrative responsibility for the OTI Education Centers.

The standard letter went on to say that in addition to the work it takes to receive, review, process, and distribute each card request in a timely manner, OTIEC’s are also responsible for maintaining recordkeeping, reporting, and filing systems required to service trainers and to provide the controls which OSHA deems necessary.  The OTI Education Centers have developed electronic reporting systems to enable easier reporting for trainers and have maintained websites to inform trainers of any changes to the Program and to provide necessary assistance in their training efforts.  Recently, OSHA has stipulated that all Education Centers increase their program monitoring activity, including in-person training observations, to improve instructional quality and limit fraud.  This additional oversight required by OSHA has further added to the OTI Education Centers’ cost of administering the Program.

According to the letter, it has always been OSHA’s position that because the Education Centers receive no funding from OSHA, the Centers have the authority to charge fees to cover the costs involved in issuing student course completion cards.  Some Education Centers are now offering to complete the cards for the Outreach instructors as part of this fee.  Others are not.   OSHA has remained silent on the matter and as of yet not posted this information on their Outreach trainer web page.

New OSHA Recordkeeping Advisor to the Rescue

One of your employees became faint and slumped to the floor, but quickly revived.  Her co-workers said she appeared to have blacked out for a few seconds.  She rested for a short time in the break room and then returned to her job.  She worked through the day without any problem and doesn’t seem to have any ongoing issues.  The company where you work is very small with only fifteen employees.

You are not sure if this incident should be recorded on your OSHA 300 log.  You have no one to ask for a quick reply and wonder where to turn for feedback.  OSHA to the rescue!

A new interactive web tool called the OSHA Recordkeeping Advisor is now available on the OSHA website for immediate assistance. According to your responses to questions, the Advisor will guide you to a decision about whether to record injuries or illnesses.  All information is confidential and is not stored or shared with any OSHA personnel or the agency in general.

“The Recordkeeping Advisor was developed to better help employers understand and comply with their responsibilities to report and record work-related injuries and illnesses,” according to Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA.

Created especially for small businesses, the Advisor is not meant as a substitute for the OSHA Recordkeeping Rules 29 CFR 1904 or the OSHA Recordkeeping Handbook.  If  you are unable to receive a definite answer from the Advisor, you should turn to these sources or a safety professional for your answers.

According to the website, the Recordkeeping Advisor will help you to decide the following:

• Whether an injury or illness (or related event) is work-related
• Whether an event or exposure at home or on travel is work-related
• Whether an exception applies to the injury or illness
• Whether a work-related injury or illness needs to be recorded
• Which provisions of the regulations apply when recording a work-related case

OSHA cites Northeastern Wisconsin Wood Products for 18 safety and health violations; fines total nearly $379,000

Company has history of noncompliance with worker protection standards

POUND, Wis. – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Northeastern Wisconsin Wood Products in Pound for a total of 18 alleged health and safety, including 13 willful, violations. The company is facing $378,620 in proposed penalties following a January inspection.

“Northeastern Wisconsin Wood Products has a history of failing to comply with OSHA standards. The company has yet to abate many violations cited in a previous inspection,” said Michael Connors, OSHA’s regional administrator in Chicago. “When employers knowingly ignore safety and health requirements, they are unduly placing their workers at risk for illnesses and injuries, and that is unacceptable.”

Northeastern Wisconsin Wood Products was first inspected by OSHA in 2006 and issued eight citations. A follow-up inspection in 2007 found that most of the originally cited hazards remained unabated. Following the May 2010 issuance of a secretary of labor petition for summary enforcement, the company was given 30 days to work with a Wisconsin state consultation service to abate the violations. The consultation service is alleged to have ended the abatement process due to a lack of cooperation by the company. Many of the originally cited violations once again were cited during the January 2011 inspection.

Five willful health violations involve failing to implement a hearing conservation program for employees whose noise exposure exceeded 85 decibels; perform and certify a hazard assessment of the workplace; develop and implement a hazard communication program to include training for employees; maintain copies of material data sheets; and provide appropriate eye protection for workers. Additionally, the company allowed unsanitary conditions to pose serious fire and explosion hazards by letting sawdust accumulate in a pile of approximately 4 feet by the outer wall and several inches on horizontal surfaces such as pipes, wall supports and ledges.

Eight willful safety violations involve a lack of machine guarding on belts, pulleys, gears and band saw blades; a lack of guardrails; unguarded open-sided floors and platforms presenting a fall hazard greater than 4 feet; not using electrical equipment correctly; and not effectively closing openings in boxes and cabinets. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. Proposed penalties for the 13 willful citations total $360,800.

The company also was cited for one repeat safety violation, with a proposed penalty of $7,920, for failing to provide potable water for drinking. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.

Three serious safety violations, with proposed penalties of $9,900, include failing to periodically inspect energy control procedures, use group lockout devices and train employees in electrical safety. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

One other-than-serious violation, with no monetary penalty, was cited for failing to provide an illuminated exit sign. 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.

US Labor Department’s OSHA cites 3 Brooklyn, NY, tortilla manufacturers for safety and health hazards following worker fatality

OSHA has cited three Brooklyn tortilla manufacturers for a total of 34 alleged violations of workplace safety and health standards following inspections conducted in the wake of the January death of a worker at Tortilleria Chinantla Inc., located at 975 Grand St.

Juan Batten, a 22-year-old Guatemalan immigrant, died when he became caught in the auger of a mixing machine. OSHA’s inspection found that the mixer was not guarded to prevent employees from coming into contact with its points of operation.

“Proper and effective machine guarding would have eliminated this hazard and prevented this young worker’s death,” said Kay Gee, OSHA’s area director for Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. “This was a clearly recognizable hazard that should have been addressed.”

In addition to other machine guarding hazards identified during the inspection, Tortilleria Chinantla lacked a hazardous energy control – or “lockout/tagout – program to prevent the unintended startup of machinery, a chemical hazard communication program and the required training for operators of powered industrial trucks. The company also failed to record the worker’s death on its illness and injury log. As a result, Tortilleria Chinantla was cited for one willful, six serious and one other-than-serious violation, carrying a total of $62,400 in proposed fines.

A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Separately, and in response to reports of possible hazards, OSHA also inspected two other tortilla manufacturers: Buena Vista Tortillas Corp., located at 219 Johnson Ave., and La Tortilleria Mexicana Los Tres Hermanos Corp., located at 271 Star St. Buena Vista Tortillas was cited for 13 serious and one other-than-serious violation with $39,000 in proposed fines for machine guarding, electrical, lockout/tagout, fire extinguisher, exit route, hazard communication and fall hazards. La Tortilleria Mexicana Los Tres Hermanos was cited for 12 serious violations with $33,600 in proposed fines for machine guarding, electrical, exit route, powered industrial truck and formaldehyde hazards.

“What is particularly disturbing is that we found a number of similar hazards at all three facilities,” said Gee. “While no fatalities have occurred at the other locations, I call upon these and other similar employers to review their workplaces to identify and eliminate hazards.”

“Safeguarding workers against occupational injuries and illnesses depends in great part on ensuring that workers know and understand the hazards and safeguards associated with their jobs. That is especially important in workplaces where English may not be the employees’ primary language,” said Diana Cortez, OSHA’s regional diverse workforce coordinator. “Employers must provide information and training in a way their workers will understand. OSHA has numerous resources available for Spanish-speaking workers and employers. I encourage both groups to seek out this vital information online or in person.”

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Pallflex Co. in Connecticut for 29 alleged violations of workplace safety and health standards at its Putnam manufacturing plant. The filter manufacturer faces a total of $121,650 in proposed fines following a comprehensive OSHA inspection opened in January.

“The sizable penalties proposed here reflect the breadth and severity of the conditions found during this inspection,” said Paul Mangiafico, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “Left uncorrected, they expose employees to injury, illness or death from falls, lacerations, being caught in moving machinery, electrocution, fire, hearing loss, or being overcome by an oxygen-deficient or toxic atmosphere while working in a confined space. Effective steps must be taken to correct these conditions and prevent their recurrence.”

OSHA’s inspection identified a variety of hazards that can occur in a manufacturing environment, resulting in citations for 24 serious violations carrying $120,650 in proposed fines. They include fall hazards from unguarded tank platforms; improper storage and dispensing of flammable liquids; inadequate personal protective equipment; lack of a confined space program and procedures to safeguard workers who enter storage tanks; no annual fire extinguisher training; unguarded operating machine parts; several electrical-related hazards; lack of a hearing conservation program; and failure to perform initial formaldehyde exposure monitoring.

Additionally, five other-than-serious violations with $1,000 were cited, including improperly maintained OSHA illness and injury logs.

OSHA Takes Aim at Preventing Heat Related Illnesses

Water, Rest, Shade – OSHA’s Motto for Heat Illness Prevention

Sunburn, heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and sunstroke are all heat disorder symptoms that can be avoided by taking proper precautions. This summer OSHA is partnering with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and employers, state and local entities, trade unions, healthcare professionals, and others to spread the word about preventing these heat related illnesses and even deaths.

OSHA has developed training materials and posters for workers with poor reading skills, and many are in Spanish. Outdoor workers are the most vulnerable to heat illnesses and these resources plus proper training will go a long way in keeping your workforce healthy.

OSHA’s primary advice to employees working in hot outdoor conditions:

• Drink water often
• Rest in the shade
• Report heat symptoms early
• Know what to do in an emergency

OSHA and NOAA have developed materials to aid employers, and in fact anyone, who will work outside in the high temperatures that many areas of the US are already experiencing. See OSHA’s new Heat Illness Campaign web page and NOAA’s Heat Watch Web page for more information and to download valuable articles, fact sheets, and posters.

OSHA seeks comments on proposed updates, revisions to the occupational injury and illness tracking and reporting requirements

WASHINGTON – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has announced in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking an update and revision of two aspects of the agency’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements for work-related injuries and illnesses.

“These proposed recordkeeping updates will better enable OSHA, employers and workers to identify hazards in high-risk worksites,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “The proposed reporting revisions will enable OSHA to more effectively and efficiently target occupational safety and health hazards, preventing additional injuries and fatalities.”

The new proposed reporting requirements revised OSHA’s current regulation that requires an employer to report to OSHA, within eight hours, all work-related fatalities and in-patient hospitalizations of three or more employees. Under the revised proposal, employers would be required to report to OSHA any work-related fatalities and all in-patient hospitalizations within eight hours, and work-related amputations within 24 hours. Reporting amputations is not required under the current regulation.

OSHA is also proposing to update Appendix A of the recordkeeping rule (Part 1904 Subpart B) that lists industries partially exempt from the requirements to maintain work-related injury or illness logs. These industries received partial exemption because of their relatively low injury and illness rates. The current list of industries is based on the Standard Industrial Classification system. The North American Industry Classification System was introduced in 1997 to replace the SIC system for classifying establishments by industry. When OSHA issued the recordkeeping rule in 2001, the agency used the old SIC code system because injury and illness data were not yet available based on the NAICS. OSHA is also updating Appendix A in response to a 2009 Government Accountability Office report recommending that the agency update the coverage of the relevant recordkeeping requirements from the old SIC system to the newer NAICS.

OSHA is requesting public comments on the proposed revisions, and has included in the proposed rule’s preamble specific questions about issues and potential alternatives. Comments must be submitted by Sept. 20, 2011. See the Federal Register notice for details on how to submit comments. General and technical inquiries should be directed to Jens Svenson, OSHA Office of Statistical Analysis, at 202-693-2400.

To educate employers and employees on the proposed changes, OSHA updated its Recordkeeping Web page to include answers to frequently asked questions regarding the proposed rule. A link to the proposed rule itself also is available on the page.

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.

OSHA proposes more than $1.9 million in fines against Alabama lumber mill for egregious and other safety violations

A lumber mill in Phenix Alabama is no stranger to Federal OSHA.  The latest visit has caused OSHA to propose penalties of $1,939,000 to the company and its principal, John M. Dudley, for egregious and other safety violations, including exposing employees to amputation and fall hazards.

Prior to these citations, Phenix Lumber Company had been cited 77 times by OSHA for serious safety and health violations since 2007.

“Phenix Lumber continues to put workers at risk by choosing not to implement safety measures that would prevent serious injuries to their employees,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Employers have a responsibility to keep their workers safe and healthy. One worker injured on the job is one too many.”

OSHA began an inspection on Dec. 15, 2010, in response to a complaint that employees working in the planer mill were exposed to amputation hazards while maintaining, cleaning and clearing jams on pieces of machinery that did not have their energy sources locked out to prevent their unexpected start up. Two months later, OSHA received a second complaint that an employee had suffered a partial finger amputation while clearing a piece of machinery that had not been locked out. At the opening of an inspection following the second complaint, the compliance officer learned of another employee who had just suffered a severe hand injury while working on unguarded machinery. Phenix Lumber had been cited numerous times during the past four years for allowing employees to work on unguarded machinery while it was operating.

“This situation reflects a systemic problem with the way this company approaches safety and demonstrates an egregious disregard for workers’ safety and health,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels.

OSHA has issued Phenix Lumber 13 citations for 24 willful violations, including failure to properly shut down and lock out 13 pieces of machinery before employees were required to perform tasks such as clearing jams and cleaning. These failures exposed employees to amputation hazards, as well as to the possibility of being caught between or struck by pieces of the machinery and falling lumber. The employer also failed to train 11 employees who performed this work on the hazards and how to shut down and lock out the machinery so that they could perform their tasks safely. OSHA proposed the maximum $70,000 penalty for each violation, totaling $1,680,000.

Citations for three additional willful violations allege that a worker was exposed to fall hazards while working from the top of a machine, locks were not issued to employees as required by the lockout standard, and the company failed to follow established lockout/tagout procedures. These citations carry additional penalties of $70,000 each, for a total of $210,000.

A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. OSHA may propose separate penalties for distinct willful violations of the same OSHA standard where one or more of the seven criteria are met as identified in the OSHA directive “Handling of Cases to be Proposed for Violation-By-Violation” (compliance directive 02-00-080). The criteria include that the employer’s conduct taken as a whole amounts to clear bad faith in the performance of duties under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

One citation for a repeat violation with a $35,000 fine was issued for failing to place machine guards on seven chains and sprockets. A violation is “repeated” if the employer previously was cited for a substantially similar condition, and the citation is a final, affirmed order of the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This time is the third within three years that Phenix Lumber has been cited for failing to guard this type of equipment.

Citations for two serious violations, each with a maximum proposed penalty of $7,000, were issued for failing to guard a pinch point at a hydraulic pusher plate, which exposed employees to amputation hazards and caused one of the injuries; and to ensure that employees performing lockout/tagout tasks applied and removed their own locks. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Copies of the citations are available at http://www.osha.gov/dep/citations/MDLGPhenixLumber315135954.pdf* and http://www.osha.gov/dep/citations/MDLGPhenixLumber315111930.pdf*.

OSHA

has proposed that the employer be included in the agency’s Severe Violators Enforcement Program. Initiated in 2010, the program is intended to focus on employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations in one or more of the following circumstances: a fatality or catastrophe; industry operations or processes that expose workers to severe occupational hazards; exposure to hazards related to the potential releases of highly hazardous chemicals; and all instance-by-instance enforcement actions under compliance directive 02-00-080. Inclusion in the program subjects employers to mandatory follow-up inspections; increased company/corporate awareness of OSHA enforcement; and, where appropriate, corporate-wide agreements, enhanced settlement provisions and federal court enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/dep/svep-directive.pdf*.