Scenario: You just took a job as the new Safety Manger for a medium sized manufacturing company. You learn that you are responsible for maintaining the OSHA 300 log for the operation. Prior to your arrival, these logs were maintained by the Human Resources Director who was very excited to hand that responsibility off to you. She stopped by your office the very first week you were on the job with several large file folders and told you where the logs were being kept electronically on the company server. Her parting words were “good luck”. You went through the logs and discovered that for whatever reason, the HR director was keeping two separate 300 logs, one for your company employees and a second log for temporary workers. You took a look at 29 CFR Section 1904.31 that states employers who supervise temporary or leased employees at their facility are required to maintain the OSHA 300 Logs for those employees.
� Question: You wonder if keeping two separate logs is necessary and if it is acceptable to put them all on one log? Or, are you required to maintain two logs?
Answer: The log is to be kept for an establishment. Under Section 1904.46 Definitions, an establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. The controlling employer (using firm) may subdivide the OSHA 300 Log to provide separate listings of temporary workers, but must consider the separate listings to be one record for all recordkeeping purposes, including access by government representatives, employees, former employees and employee representatives as required by Section 1904.35 and 1904.40 in the Recordkeeping regulation.
OSHA’s view is that a given establishment should have one OSHA Log. Injuries and illnesses for all the covered employees at the establishment are then entered into that record to create a single OSHA 300A Summary form at the end of the year.
On February 1 of each year, employers with 10 or more employees must post the OSHA-required Form 300A, which summarizes an employer’s recordable injuries and illnesses for the prior year. The Form 300A posting period is February 1 to April 30. An employer subject to this requirement must post the OSHA 300A even if the employer had no recordable injuries/illnesses in the prior year.
All of the data required for the OSHA 300A is taken from the Form 300. Form 300 is not typically posted as it contains confidential medical information. Employees with no fixed work site or no access to posted sites, such as field sales reps, must be provided with a copy of the report.
Some industries are partially exempt from keeping the Form 300A. Click here for a list of partially exempt industries. Remember that regardless of your size or industry exemption, if an employer has a fatality or hospitalization of three or more employees from the same event, then you must contact OSHA within eight hours. Please note that some State Plans have even lower thresholds for reporting injuries, and it is advisable that you check with your state plan for their requirements.
OSHA provides information on its recordkeeping and posting requirements on its website. If you need assistance in OSHA recordkeeping, feel free to contact us at 502-240-6910 or info@advancedsafetyhealth.com.
OSHA cited Boomerang Tube LLC for six willful, nine serious, and one other-than-serious violation at the company’s facility in Liberty, TX where three employees were seriously injured within a period of five months. Proposed penalties total $468,000.
“This employer jeopardized the safety of its employees by failing to follow OSHA’s safety standards for energy control procedures and machine guarding,” said John Hermanson, OSHA’s regional administrator in Dallas. “It is very unfortunate that these workers were so seriously injured when the causes should have been prevented.”
OSHA’s Houston North Area Office began an investigation June 14 in response to a complaint from one of the injured employees that workers faced unsafe conditions while operating cranes and slitter, rolling and thread machines; performing service and maintenance work; and stacking and loading pipes in the yard and on trucks at the company’s work site on Farm to Market 3361. In April, an employee was injured from becoming caught in an operating machine and in May, a second employee was struck by a piece of steel and knocked into a 5-foot-10-inch concrete pit. In September, another employee was injured from becoming caught in machinery. All three had to be flown to a local hospital due to the severity of their injuries.
The willful violations were cited for failing to repair a damaged under-hung crane, which lifts and lowers materials; ensure the use of lockout/tagout procedures to control the energy sources of equipment; and provide the required machine guarding on the pipe manufacturing line. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing, or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.
The serious violations include failing to repair defective hook latches on operating cranes; ensure the facility was clear of trip and fall hazards, such as providing a cover for an open pit; and failing to ensure that loads did not exceed the rated capacity of industrial trucks. 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
.
The other-than-serious violation was for failing to maintain required records of injuries and illnesses. 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.
OSHA cited Legend Tube and Metal Sales Inc. in Cleveland for 21 safety (including three willful) and health violations for operating unsafe cranes that struck and injured two workers at the steel service center. The company faces proposed fines of $157,200.
“Legend Tube and Metal Sales has a responsibility to ensure that its workers are protected from hazards associated with crane operations and to comply with relevant OSHA standards,” said Howard Eberts, OSHA’s area director in Cleveland. “Employers must be aware of the hazards that exist at their facilities and take appropriate measures to protect workers’ health and safety.”
An investigation was initiated after OSHA received complaints that two workers had been struck by overhead cranes at the facility, one on May 9 and another on May 10. The three willful safety violations, with proposed penalties of $126,000, were cited for operating a 20-ton, cab-operated crane and a 5-ton, floor-operated crane with the hoist blocks and hooks stuck in position approximately 6 feet off the ground, causing a “struck-by” hazard for workers; failing to establish a preventive maintenance program for the company’s eight cranes; and failing to have a gong or other effective warning signal on a 20-ton, cab-operated crane.
A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.Eleven serious safety violations, with proposed fines of $29,400, were cited for failing to provide machine guarding on the horizontal band saw and radial arm saw, failing to develop an energy control program, using defective and worn slings throughout the facility, permitting various electrical violations to exist and using electrical equipment in need of repair. 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.
Seven other-than-serious health violations, with proposed fines of $1,800, were cited for failing to record workplace injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 log, including the incidents that occurred on May 9 and 10; failing to maintain fire extinguishers; exposing electrical equipment to water from a leaking roof; and failing to provide sufficient space around electrical equipment. 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 injury.
OSHA cites Marietta Industrial Enterprises in Marietta, Ohio for $186,000 after worker’s death at recycling facility.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Marietta Industrial Enterprises Inc., which operates Refuse Recycling in Marietta Ohio for 21 safety, including two willful, violations. OSHA opened an inspection after a worker was found dead inside the rotating drum assembly of a machine used to screen recyclables from other refuse on March 30.
“Marietta Industrial Enterprises showed an intentional disregard for employee safety by failing to provide lockout/tagout training to workers performing maintenance inside rotating drums, which could easily be restarted if their energy sources were not properly cut off,” said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA’s area director in Columbus. “No one should ever lose his or her life because safety procedures were not followed. It is the employer’s responsibility to train workers and ensure that the workplace is free from unnecessary hazards.”
Two willful violations involve failing to implement lockout/tagout procedures to prevent equipment from becoming unexpectedly energized and to train workers in lockout/tagout procedures. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement or plain indifference to employee safety and health.
Additionally, 14 serious violations involve failing to provide machine guarding, provide adequate guardrails, mark and illuminate emergency and exit signs, evaluate the workplace to determine if there were any confined spaces that would require permits, examine powered industrial trucks prior to each shift, ensure that employees used electrical protective equipment, provide electrically insulated tools, develop an exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens, offer hepatitis B vaccines and label biohazard containers. 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.
Finally, five other-than-serious violations involve using work areas for storage, as well as failing to record work-related injuries, maintain clean conditions, provide a written respiratory protection program and provide employees with information for voluntary respirator use. 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 injury.
As a result of the investigation, Marietta Industrial Enterprises has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Initiated in June 2010, SVEP is intended to focus on recalcitrant 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, employee exposure to hazards related to the potential releases of highly hazardous chemicals and all per-instance citation (egregious) enforcement actions. For more information on SVEP, visit http://www.osha.gov/dep/svep-directive.pdf*.
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.
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
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 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.
