OSHA

OSHA to Toughen Federal Oversight of State Programs

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Safety

osha-logoFederal OSHA will strengthen its oversight of states that run their own job safety programs to ensure they adequately protect workers, the agency’s leader told a congressional panel recently.

That announcement came during a hearing that focused on shortcomings at the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which has come under sharp criticism after 25 construction deaths in Las Vegas.

Jordan Barab, federal OSHA’s acting chief, said his agency will review state programs and could end up running one that is lacking.

“We are not trying to change the nature of our relationship between federal and state OSHA, but we need to speak with one voice and assure American workers they will receive adequate protection regardless of the state in which they work,” Barab said.

A federal review of Nevada’s workplace safety program found, among other things, that inspectors failed to issue citations for willful and repeat violations.

Federal OSHA oversees workplace safety in about half the states. The remaining half run their own programs, with oversight from federal OSHA.

In Nevada, the state-run OSHA program weakened penalties against a casino company after two workers died and one was seriously injured, despite that company’s history of similar problems.

“Essentially, nothing happens for the death of a worker,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. “There’s something very wrong with that.”

From Source:  The Charlotte Observer

Top 10 OSHA Safety Violations for 2009

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Safety / Violations
"Where Are My Keys?"

"Where Are My Keys?"

The top violations are up almost 30% from 2008 and include the following:

1. Scaffolding – 9,093 violations
Scaffold accidents most often result from the planking or support giving way,
or from the employee slipping or being struck by a falling object.

2. Fall Protection – 6,771 violations
Any time a worker is at a height of four feet or more, the worker is at risk
and needs to be protected. Fall protection must be provided at four feet in
general industry, five feet in maritime and six feet in construction.

3. Hazard Communication – 6,378 violations
Chemical manufacturers and importers are required to evaluate the hazards of
the chemicals they produce or import, and prepare labels and safety data
sheets to convey the hazard information to their downstream customers.

4. Respiratory Protection – 3,803 violations
Respirators protect workers against insufficient oxygen environments, harmful
dusts, fogs, smokes, mists, gases, vapors and sprays. These hazards may cause
cancer, lung impairment, other diseases or death.

5. Lockout-Tag out – 3,321 violations
“Lockout-Tag out” refers to specific practices and procedures to safeguard
employees from the unexpected startup of machinery and equipment, or the
release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance activities.

(more…)

Fall Protection Guidelines

 in Safety & Health  tagged Fall Protection / OSHA / Safety

guardrail_systems
A synopsis of OSHA’s Fall Protection Standards (OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.501 through 503).

Fall protection is generally thought of as:

  1. Guardrail systems
  2. Safety net systems
  3. Personal fall arrest systems
  4. Positioning device systems, and/or
  5. Warning line systems

The standard:

  • Covers most construction workers except persons inspecting, assessing, or investigating the workplace conditions prior to the start of work or after the completion of work.
  • Identifies areas or activities where fall protection is needed.
  • Sets a uniform threshold height of six (6) feet
  • Allows employers to select fall protection measures that are best suited for the work being performed.

Guardrail requirements:

  • Top edge height of top rails must be 42 inches (+/- 3 inches) above working/walking level & support 200 lb. force (use at least 2″x4″ lumber for wood top rails).
  • Mid rails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or equivalent emmbers shall be installed mid-way between the top rail and working/walking level & support 150 lb. force (use at least 1″x6″ lumber for wood mid rails).
  • Toe boards shall be 3.5 inches high & support 50 lb. force.
  • Posts shall be no more than 8 feet apart (use 2″x4″ lumber for wood posts).

gaurdrail_requirements
Fall Arrest Systems: Harness, Lanyard, Connectors & Anchors

  • Shall be inspected prior to each use.
  • Attachment point to body shall be in the center of the wearer’s back.
  • Limit fall to six (6) feet and prevent contact with lower levels.
  • Limit maximum deceleration distance to 3.5 feet.
  • D-rings & snaphooks must have minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds.
  • Lanyards & lifelines must have minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds.
  • Self retracting lifelines & lanyards that limit fall distance to 2 feet or less must have minimum tensile strength of 3,000 pounds applied to the device with lifeline fully extended. Greater than 2 feet the minimum tensile strength must be 5,000 pounds.
  • Anchorages must be capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds.
  • Body belts & other positioning device systems are not a part of the personal fall arrest system.

(more…)

OSHA NEP: Under Recorded Injuries and Illnesses

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Recordkeeping / Safety

osha-logo
Effective September 30, 2009, OSHA has begun a new National Emphasis Program (NEP) for inspecting the accuracy
of the Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements for low rate establishments in selected industries.

OSHA postulates the most likely places where under-recorded injuries and illnesses may exist
would be low rate establishments operating in historically high rate industries. The NEP will
pilot test OSHA’s ability to effectively target establishments to identify under-recording of
occupational injuries and illnesses.

This NEP is one component of OSHA’s effort to address the issue of inaccurate recording of
occupational injuries and illnesses. In addition to this NEP, OSHA will address the issue through
comprehensive training of its compliance staff to identify and correct violations of the
recordkeeping regulation. OSHA will also develop other enforcement and quality assurance
programs to address the recordkeeping issue in establishments and industries outside the scope of
this NEP (e.g., the construction industry, Partnerships, VPP and SHARP establishments).

Industries included have a DART (days away, restrictions and transfers – based on the 200,000 hour benchmark) rate of 5.7 to 8.1 and include:

  • Animal slaughtering
  • Scheduled passenger air transportation
  • Steel foundries (except investment)
  • Other nonferrous foundries (except die-casting)
  • Concrete pipe manufacturing
  • Soft drink manufacturing
  • Couriers
  • Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing
  • Rolling mill machinery and equipment manufacturing
  • Iron foundries

    • (more…)

High Visibility Apparel When Working Near Vehicular Traffic

 in Safety & Health  tagged Interpretation / OSHA / Safety / Work Zone

safety_vest_high_visibility

From OSHA’s Interpretations:

Question: Construction employees working on highway/road construction work zones often risk being struck by traffic. Do the OSHA standards require high-visibility apparel for these construction workers?

Answer: Road and construction traffic poses an obvious and well-recognized hazard to highway/road construction work zone employees. OSHA standards require such employees to wear high visibility garments in two specific circumstances: when they work as flaggers 1 and when they are exposed to public vehicular traffic in the vicinity of excavations2. However, other construction workers in highway/road construction work zones are also exposed to the danger of being struck by the vehicles operating near them. for such workers, section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. §654(a)(1), also known as the General Duty Clause, requires similar protection3.

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) recent issuance of a final rule (Worker Visibility, 23 CFR Part 634)4 demonstrates the need for all workers who are exposed either to public traffic or to construction vehicles and equipment to wear high-visibility apparel5. Section 634.3 of the Worker Visibility Rule states:

All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel.

The purpose of this requirement, as stated in section 634.1, is “to decrease the likelihood of worker fatalities or injuries caused by motor vehicles and construction vehicles and equipment….” In the preamble to the Worker Visibility rule (Volume 71 of the Federal Register, page 67792), the FHWA stated:

High visibility is one of the most prominent needs for workers who must perfonn tasks near moving vehicles or equipment. The need to be seen by those who drive or operate vehicles or equipment is recognized as a critical issue for worker safety. The sooner a worker in or near the path of travel is seen, the more time the operator has to avoid an accident. The FHWA recognized this fact and included language in the 2000 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to address this issue.

The FHWA’s rationale underlying the rule well illustrates that the industry recognizes that construction workers in highway/road construction work zones need protection against the hazard posed by moving traffic. The FHWA’s recent mandatory standard for workers on federal-aid highways shows that struck-by hazards in highway/road construction work zones are well recognized by the construction industry. Furthermore, the standard indicates that a feasible means of addressing that hazard is the wearing of high-visibility apparel. Accordingly, high-visibility apparel is required under the General Duty Clause to protect employees exposed to the danger of being struck by public and construction traffic while working in highway/road construction work zones. Typically, workers in a highway/road work zone are exposed to that hazard most of the time.

Richard E. Fairfax, Acting Director
Directorate of Construction

(footnotes after the break) (more…)

Combustible Dust: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

 in Safety & Health  tagged Combustible Dust / OSHA / Safety
combustible_dust

Washburn Mill

“OSHA is requesting comments, including data and other information, on issues related to the hazards of combustible dust in the workplace. For the purposes of this notice, the term “combustible dust” includes all combustible particulate solids of any size, shape, or chemical composition that could present a fire or deflagration hazard when suspended in air or other oxidizing medium. OSHA plans to use the information received in response to this notice in developing a proposed standard for combustible dust.”

OSHA is seeking comments until January 19, 2010.

The notice provides some comments on historical combustible dust explosions in grain handling facilities, textile mills, electrical generating facilities, etc. and the rates at which OSHA has noted the occurrences.

Findings from OSHA’s studies from 1980-2008 indicate the following:

  • Many industry and safety professionals lack awareness of combustible dust hazards.
  • The widely recognized standards of good engineering practice in the NFPA’s voluntary consensus standards were not being followed in many facilities.
  • State and local fire codes were ineffective as a viable mechanism to reduce dust explosion risks in general industry nationwide.
  • OSHA’s focus has been on enforcement activities in response to combustible dust incidents.
  • The only comprehensive OSHA standard that specifically addresses combustible dust hazards (the 1987 Grain handling facilities standard) has effectively reduced the risk and consequences of grain-dust explosions, and incorporates many of the same principles that can be found in the NFPA standards.

During the National Emphasis Program, the three most frequently referenced consensus standards were as follows, in descending order of frequency:

  • NFPA 654, Standard for Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids
  • NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities
  • NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities

OSHA has preliminarily concluded that national consensus standards alone, even when adopted by State or local governments, are insufficient to adequately protect workers from these hazards.

To Read More, Go HERE: 

  ForkliftPITPPT.ppt (4.0 MiB, 2,139 hits)

OSHA Requests Comments on Change in HAZCOM Standard

 in Safety & Health  tagged HAZCOM / OSHA / Safety

osha-logoOSHA is proposing to modify its existing Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations’ (UN) Globally  Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed modifications will improve the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and associated protective measures. The Agency anticipates this improved information will enhance the effectiveness of the HCS in ensuring that employees are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, and in reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries.

The proposed modifications to the standard include revised criteria for classification of chemical hazards; revised labeling provisions
that include requirements for use of standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements; a
specified format for safety data sheets; and related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard, requirements for employee
training on labels and safety data sheets. OSHA is also proposing to modify provisions of a number of other standards, including standards for flammable and combustible liquids, process safety management, and most substance-specific health standards, to ensure consistency with the modified HCS requirements.

For more information on sending comments pertaining to the changes, visit HERE

OSHA Funding Sees 10 Percent Increase in 2010

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Safety

osha-logo
Within the Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will receive an additional $50 million dollars ($577 million total) for the 2010 budget, a 10 percent increase over last years funding of $522 million.

Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis stated the need for even more money to erase years of static funding. 

Over the past several years, MSHA has received large budget increases, which have allowed the agency to step up its enforcement significantly. OSHA’s budget has remained flat over the last few years.

Upcoming rulings are as follows:
osha-rulings

Swine Flu – A Pandemic in our Midst?

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Safety / Swine Flu / WHO

phase41

Per information provided today by the WHO:

The Emergency Committee, established in compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), held its second meeting on 27 April 2009. The Committee considered available data on confirmed outbreaks of A/H1N1 swine influenza in the United States of America, Mexico, and Canada. The Committee also considered reports of possible spread to additional countries. On the advice of the Committee, the WHO Director-General has raised the level of influenza pandemic alert from the current phase 3 to phase 4.

OSHA provides this information on their website regarding pandemic flu outbreaks

swine-fluA pandemic is a global disease outbreak. An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus emerges for which there is little or no immunity in the human population; begins to cause serious illness; and then spreads easily person-to-person worldwide. A worldwide influenza pandemic could have a major effect on the global economy, including travel, trade, tourism, food, consumption and eventually, investment and financial markets. Planning for pandemic influenza by business and industry is essential to minimize a pandemic’s impact.

It is difficult to predict when the next influenza pandemic will occur or how severe it will be. Wherever and whenever a pandemic starts, everyone around the world is at risk. Countries might, through measures such as border closures and travel restrictions, delay arrival of the virus, but cannot stop it.

During a pandemic, transmission can be anticipated in the workplace, not only from patient to workers in health care settings, but also among co-workers in general work settings. A pandemic would cause high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss. Everyday life would be disrupted because so many people in so many places become seriously ill at the same time. Impacts could range from school and business closings to the interruption of basic services such as public transportation and food delivery.

Education and outreach are critical to preparing for a pandemic. Understanding what a pandemic is, what needs to be done at all levels to prepare for pandemic influenza, and what could happen during a pandemic helps us make informed decisions both as individuals and as a nation. Should a pandemic occur the public must be able to depend on its government to provide scientifically sound public health information quickly, openly and dependably. For additional information on pandemic influenza, see One-stop access to U.S.government avian and pandemic flu information.

A Pandemic Flu FAQ can be found HERE

A Word from the Acting Assistant Secretary

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Politics / Safety
jordanborab

Jordan Barab

Greetings.

I’ve now been on the job for two busy weeks as Acting Assistant Secretary and my greeting to everyone is overdue. I can first tell you that I’m thrilled to be back at OSHA and ready to work with you to raise the profile of worker safety and health in this country.

Earlier this week I met with Secretary of Labor Solis, and I’m very happy to report that she gets it. She understands working people, she understands and strongly supports the mission of this agency and wants to put her energy into ensuring that this agency succeeds in its mission. The first message I conveyed to her is that OSHA is full of some of the finest, most energetic, most dedicated people in the federal government and that I was proud to help her lead this agency.

Now, it’s no secret to any of you that this agency has come under some heavy criticism and scrutiny over the past few years. From my perspective, that criticism was focused not on what you do every day for working people, but on the lack of strong leadership promoting worker protection, strong regulatory activity, and aggressive enforcement.

I had more than one friend who warned me not to take this job because they felt that OSHA is a terminally sick agency. Nothing can be done to help it. The law is weak, resources lacking, the bureaucracy stifling, the regulatory system glacial, and the staff demoralized.

But I reject those arguments. Clearly there are some changes that need to be made in workplace safety in this country that are beyond OSHA’s control. But I have complete faith in OSHA’s mission, the staff of this agency and that OSHA can fulfill that mission – to protect American workers and assure safe workplaces.

(more…)

OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs Continue Rapid Growth

 in Safety & Health  tagged OSHA / Safety / VPP

vpp“The Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) promote effective worksite-based safety and health. In the VPP, management, labor, and OSHA establish cooperative relationships at workplaces that have implemented a comprehensive safety and health management system. Approval into VPP is OSHA’s official recognition of the outstanding efforts of employers and employees who have achieved exemplary occupational safety and health.”

Requirements to participate include:

  • An effective, ongoing safety and health program
  • Cooperation
  • Good performance

VPP participants develop and implement systems to effectively identify, evaluate, prevent, and control occupational hazards to prevent employee injuries and illnesses. As a result, the average VPP worksite has a lost workday incidence rate at least 50 percent below the average of its industry. In return, OSHA removes participants from programmed inspection lists and does not issue citations for standards violations that are promptly corrected.

Growth has been dramatic since it’s creation in 1982, just look at these statistics:

vpp1 vpp1b
vpp2 vpp2b

PEL Adjustments for Extended Work Shifts – Noise

 in Safety & Health  tagged Calculations / Exposure Limit / Interpretation / Noise / OSHA / Safety

osha-interpretationsThe purpose of this memorandum is to resolve issues concerning adjustments of the PEL during extended work shifts. This applies for exposures to the noise levels of Table G-16 of 29 CFR 1910.95 or substances found in Subpart Z. Current OSHA policy requires only the action level to be reduced for exposures to noise during extended work shifts; the PEL is not required to be adjusted. The only standards which require PEL adjustments are the lead standards in construction and general industry. These standards have a specific provision which requires work shift adjustments. Existing policy for Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust also has a requirement to adjust extended work shifts when employees are required to wear respirators for a portion of the work shift to reduce their level of exposure, as set forth in the Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 251, pp. 85736-85739. The contribution that the extended work hours adds to employee exposure must be included in calculating the required time respirators must be worn during the shift.

As stated in a previous memorandum dated November 8, 1996:

Compliance officers can choose one of two approaches for employees who work extended work shifts beyond 8 hours. The choice taken will depend on the nature of the hazardous chemical.

  1. The first approach is to sample what the compliance officer believes to be the worst continuous 8-hour work period of the entire extended work shift.
  2. The second approach is to collect multiple samples over the entire work shift. Sampling is done such that multiple personal samples are collected during the first 8-hour work period and additional samples are collected for the extended work shift. Unless a compliance officer is dealing with lead, the PEL in this approach is calculated based upon the worst 8 hours of exposure during the entire work shift.

We hope you find this clarification helpful. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190.

A link to the memo can be found HERE