Tag Archives: OSHA Revisions

OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) Now Effective

June 28, 2010 By in Jack Benton, LinkedIn, OSHA Inspection, OSHA News, OSHA Revisions, Workplace Safety Tags: , , 2 Comments

OSHA’s Severe Violators Enforcement Program (SVEP) directive went into effect June 18th. The program targets employers who willfully and repeatedly endangering workers by exposing them to serious hazards in the workplace. The program establishes procedures and enforcement actions.

Enforcement actions for severe violator cases can include:

  • Mandatory follow-up inspections
  • Increased company/corporate awareness of OSHA enforcement
  • Corporate-wide agreements, where appropriate
  • Enhanced settlement provisions
  • Federal court enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act

Furthermore, the directive provides for nationwide referral procedures, which includes OSHA’s State Plan States. This directive replaces OSHA’s Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP).

Visit the Severe Violator Enforcement Program directive for more details.

OSHA Seeks Input on New Record-keeping Rules at Stakeholder Meeting In Chicago on June 3, 2010

May 24, 2010 By in LinkedIn, News, OSHA News, OSHA Record Retention, OSHA Revisions Tags: , , 2 Comments

29 CFR Part 1904

OSHA will hold two stakeholder meetings on its record-keeping rules. With a meeting set for May 25 in Washington D.C. and another on June 3 in Chicago, the agency plans to gather information from stakeholders to help modify its current injury and illness record-keeping regulation and develop a modernized record-keeping system.

“These informal stakeholder meetings and written comments from stakeholders will help give OSHA direction to develop innovative ideas that will allow employers, workers and researchers to participate in improving occupational safety and health through the use of occupational injury and illness data,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels.

To register to participate in the meetings, visit https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/osha/register-datacollection.htm or send a request to: Eastern Research Group Inc., 110 Hartwell Ave., Lexington, MA 02421; Attention OSHA Data Collection Process Stakeholder Meeting Registration.

For further information, see the Federal Register notice at http://s.dol.gov/37.

In addition, OSHA is requesting information and comments on occupational exposure to infectious agents in healthcare settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, school clinics and correctional facilities, and settings such as laboratories that handle potentially infectious biological materials, medical examiner offices and mortuaries. The comments are due by Aug. 5, 2010.

OSHA is interested in strategies currently being deployed in healthcare and related work settings to mitigate the risk of work-acquired infectious diseases. As such, OSHA would like to collect information and data on the facilities and the tasks potentially exposing workers to this risk; successful employee infection control programs; control methodologies being utilized (including engineering, work practice, and administrative controls and personal protective equipment); medical surveillance programs; and training.

OSHA will use the information received in response to this request to determine what action, if any, the agency may take to further limit the spread of occupationally-acquired infectious diseases in these types of settings.

More information on the request for information and how to submit comments is available in today’s Federal Register notice at http://s.dol.gov/38.

Requirement for protecting workers from hexavalent chromium exposure now a final rule.

May 22, 2010 By in Hazardous Materials, Hexavalent Chromium, Jack Benton, LinkedIn, News, OSHA News, OSHA Revisions, Safety Management, Training, Workplace Safety Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

OSHA is confirming the effective date of June 15, 2010 for the direct final rule requiring employers to notify their workers of all hexavalent chromium exposures. The rule revises a provision in OSHA’s Hexavalent Chromium standard that required workers be notified only when they experienced exposures exceeding the permissible exposure limit. Workers exposed to this toxic chemical are at greater risk for lung cancer and damage to the nose, throat and respiratory tract.

Occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium can occur among workers handling pigments, spray paints and coatings containing chromates, operating chrome plating baths, and welding or cutting metals containing chromium, such as stainless steel. Workers breathing hexavalent chromium compounds in high concentrations over extended periods of time may risk developing lung cancer, irritation or damage to the eyes and skin.

OSHA requested public comments on the revised requirement in a March 17, 2010, Direct Final Rule and accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This was done in response to a Third Circuit Court’s decision that the agency failed to explain why it departed from the proposed rule that would require notifying workers of all hexavalent chromium exposures. The Agency received no significant adverse comments, therefore it is proceeding with the Direct Final Rule and withdrawing the accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Visit OSHA’s Safety and Health Topics page on Hexavalent Chromium for more information on protecting workers from exposure to this chemical.

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 Announces Severe Violator Enforcement Program In Effect In 45 Days!

April 23, 2010 By in Jack Benton, LinkedIn, News, OSHA Inspection, OSHA News, OSHA Revisions, OSHA Violations, Workplace Safety Tags: , ,

OSHA announced a Severe Violator Enforcement Program today that will be in effect in 45 days and also said it is administratively raising the dollar value of its penalties, suggesting it would raise them higher still if it could.

“The current maximum penalty for a serious violation, one capable of causing death or serious physical harm, is only $7,000 and the maximum penalty for a willful violation is $70,000. The average penalty for a serious violation will increase from about $1,000 to an average $3,000 to $4,000,” OSHA’s news release stated. “Monetary penalties for violations of the OSH Act have been increased only once in 40 years despite inflation. The Protecting America’s Workers Act would raise these penalties, for the first time since 1990, to $12,000 and $250,000, respectively. Future penalty increases would also be tied to inflation. In the meantime, OSHA will focus on outreach in preparation of implementing this new penalty policy.”

SVEP replaces OSHA’s Enhanced Enforcement Program. SVEP targets high-emphasis hazards, which are defined as high gravity serious violations of specific fall standards — 23 such standards are listed in general industry, construction, shipyards, marine terminal, and longshoring — or standards covered in National Emphasis Programs focused on amputations, combustible dusts, crystalline silica, lead, excavation/trenching, shipbreaking, and process safety management.

The SVEP inspection procedures contained in OSHA’s instruction to compliance personnel says a follow-up inspection must be conducted after the citations become final orders in these cases to determine whether the violations were abated or the employer is committing similar violations. “When there are reasonable grounds to believe that compliance problems identified in the initial inspection may be indicative of a broader pattern of non-compliance, OSHA will inspect related sites of the same employer,” the instruction states. There will be a SVEP Nationwide inspection list in such cases, with all sites inspected if there are 10 or fewer and sites chosen randomly if there are more.

OSHA’s Proposed MSD Reporting Rule Garners Mixed Views

March 31, 2010 By in LinkedIn, MSDS, News, OSHA News, OSHA Revisions, Training, Workplace Safety Tags: , , , 1 Comment

In late January, OSHA proposed to revise its Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting (Recordkeeping) regulation to restore a column to the OSHA 300 Log that employers would use to record work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The 2001 Recordkeeping final regulation included an MSD column, but the requirement was deleted before the regulation became effective. This proposed rule would require employers to place a check mark in the MSD column, instead of the column they currently mark, if a case is an MSD that meets the Recordkeeping regulation’s general recording requirements.

The agency invited comments from stakeholders, and it is getting them.

Many agree with the American Industrial Hygiene Association, which on March 29 sent OSHA a letter supporting the agency’s efforts to restore the MSD column on future OSHA 300 logs. In the letter, AIHA said it believes there is a need for it.

“Although the OSHA 300 log has not included a column for recording musculoskeletal injuries since 2001, many companies and organizations are tracking MSDs because ‘what is not measured is not managed,’” AIHA said in its letter. “Work-related MSDs result in tremendous cost both financially and in the context of human pain and loss of functionality. Insurance companies routinely classify strains/sprains, over-exertion and cumulative trauma in their Loss Control/Risk Management reports in order to address these costs.

“One difficulty in relying totally upon insurance company reports for tracking of these disorders is the lack of consistency of this data. There are differences from state to state in how workers’ compensation bureaus define and compensate for MSDs. There are also vast differences in how insurance companies compile, analyze and provide this data to the companies they insure.

“Reinstating the MSD column on the OSHA 300 log would make it easier to track this type of injury, especially for companies who have computerized logs (as many do). Inclusion of the MSD column on the OSHA 300 log also relieves companies and organizations from the burden of establishing their own system to track MSDs. Obtaining accurate measurement of real world statistics on matters that impact the health and economics of the country is a proper role of government, specifically OSHA.”

Other commenters are expressing concern over the proposed requirement and questioning whether having the column restored will actually increase worker safety. In a March 30 letter to OSHA, the National Association of Chemical Distributors noted that it might be difficult for employers to fully comply with the rule and specifically mentioned concerns with an increase in costs of software, employee screening, and staff resources.

NACD President Chris Jahn said, “OSHA’s MSD proposal would cost money and resources in an economy where many businesses continue to struggle.”

In its letter to OSHA, NACD said it understood that the OSHA 300 log provides an effective way for employers to clearly track work-related injuries and illnesses, but noted that having a “requirement to track MSD injuries and illnesses is not nearly as clear because it is extremely difficult to determine whether an MSD is work or non-work related. Accurately reporting chronic and acute MSDs is not adequately addressed in this proposed rule and could lead to confusion and lack of compliance.”

NACD’s comment also expresses the concern that OSHA’s proposed rule could be used beyond its stated uses of data collection. “NACD is concerned that the proposed rule, which will result in a negative economic impact for the chemical distribution industry, is a prelude towards a more expansive and burdensome ergonomics framework. We request that OSHA clarify in its final rule the potential uses, if any, for an MSD column outside of its stated purpose of accurate data collection for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

To read NACD’s comments to OSHA, go to www.nacd.com/docs/advocacy/2010/pdf/NACDOSHAMSDComments033010.pdf.

AIHA’s comments to OSHA, can be viewed at www.aiha.org under Government Affairs.

City judge hears arguments on evidence in Kleen Energy plant explosion

March 24, 2010 By in LinkedIn, News, OSHA FINES, OSHA Investigation, OSHA News, Personal Safety, Workplace Fatality, Workplace Injuries, Workplace Safety Tags: , , , ,

MIDDLETOWN, CT — Superior Court Judge Robert L. Holzberg asked attorneys to work out an agreement over access to evidence in the Kleen Energy Systems power plant explosion at a hearing Monday and to come back to court next week.

Attorneys Robert Reardon and M. H. Reese Norris, representing three workers present at the plant on the day of the blast and the wife of a worker who was killed, are seeking to have their own experts look over evidence in advance of potentially filing a civil suit against companies responsible for the plant’s construction.

The Feb. 7 blast killed six workers and injured at least 26.

New Jersey-based gas explosion expert Dehong Kong, Massachusetts-based fire ignition and origin expert Thomas Klem and famed forensic scientist Henry Lee were on the plant site Friday for four hours and took more than 200 pictures as part of their investigation for Reardon and Norris. Their visit was supervised by a U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration lawyer and an OSHA investigator, Reardon said.

Jeffrey Blueweiss, a lawyer for plant general contractor O&G Industries, said Monday he did not object to allowing access to evidence and would give the same courtesy to other victims’ attorneys. But he said an agreement between O&G, plant owner Kleen Energy Systems, OSHA and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board may mean that those federal agencies, which were not named in the petition for a bill of discovery, would have say in the matter.

State’s Attorney Timothy J. Liston, citing law enforcement investigative privilege, objected to allowing Norris and Reardon’s experts access to the at least 75 pieces of evidence that police have collected, including a diagram that shows where the evidence was taken from and where injured and killed workers were found.

“The evidence has to remain secured,” Liston said. “We can’t trot it out any time anyone expresses an interest.”

Middletown Acting City Attorney Timothy Lynch added that allowing access to the diagram and inventory “could be prejudicial to law enforcement action.”

In court Monday, Blueweiss said he would make copies of surveillance tapes from the site for Reardon and Norris, and Holzberg requested that Reardon and Norris at least provide evidence of consent from OSHA and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board to any access given.

O&G and Kleen Energy Systems also agreed to hold up demolition on the site at least until next week. The plant owners have taken out permits to demolish three buildings comprising the plant and to rebuild three others, including the power block building, from the city Building Department, state prosecutor Maureen Platt said.

Blueweiss said he hoped the permits could be acted on speedily, although he also said that chemical safety board investigators have suspended their on-site investigation for three weeks so that hazards can be cleared and are hoping to later return for another three days of investigation.

“We very much need to do the work referenced in the permits in order to put people back to work,” he said.

Hannah Vahl can be reached by e-mail at hvahl@middletownpress.com.