“OSHA’s Wall Of Shame – With Limited Staff, Agency Targets “Severe Violators”

osha-jacket-850x476

Source: FairWarning.org – By Paul Feldman and Stuart Silverstein

Soon after beginning their cleanup of a fume-filled tanker car at an Omaha, Nebraska rail maintenance yard, Adrian LaPour and Dallas Foulk were dead.

An explosion that April 2015 afternoon trapped LaPour in a flash fire inside the car and hurled Foulk out the top to his death.

Six months later their employer, Nebraska Railcar Cleaning Services, was hammered by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration with seven citations for “egregious, willful” workplace violations, along with 26 other charges. The agency proposed fines of nearly $1 million. To top it off, OSHA announced that it was tossing the company into its Severe Violator Enforcement Program, or SVEP.

Six years into the severe violator program – arguably the broadest workplace safety initiative launched during the Obama administration – more than 500 businesses are on its list of bad actors. They include corporate giants such as DuPont and International Paper, each with tens of thousands of employees, as well as more than 300 construction firms, many with fewer than a dozen workers.

Just last week an auto parts maker in Alabama, Ajiin USA, was labeled a severe violator and hit with proposed fines of $2.5 million related to the June death of a 20-year old worker. Regina Allen Elsea, who was two weeks away from getting married, was crushed when a robotic machine she was doing maintenance on abruptly restarted. Ajiin, which supplies automakers Kia and Hyundai, said in a statement it will continue to cooperate with OSHA and that “safety has always been our guiding principle.”

Along with subjecting employers to a form of public shaming, the severe violator program helps OSHA work out settlements intended to force companies to clean up their job safety practices. The program, which replaced a George W. Bush administration initiative that an inspector general’s audit derided as ineffectual, also can result in extra inspections, sometimes at multiple sites, and force companies to hire new safety personnel. The effort, though, faces an uncertain future under the Trump administration.

The severe violator list represents an attempt to deal with an overwhelming regulatory challenge. With OSHA and its state counterparts relying on fewer than 1,850 inspectors to monitor about 8 million workplaces, it would take federal officials 145 years to inspect each job site once, union researchers estimate. The aim of the list is to let OSHA’s limited staff zero in on some of the worst offenders.

David Michaels, the assistant secretary of labor in charge of OSHA, said in an interview with FairWarning that “even if we doubled our inspectors, we would still be able to only get to a small portion of employers. And so we need tools like SVEP, which extend our capabilities and encourage more employers to do the right thing even without inspections.”

But the targeted nature of the program creates a Catch-22. The death of a worker is clearly the worst thing that can happen at a job site. Yet with about 4,800 workplace fatalities a year nationally, putting every company with a death on the severe violator list would overwhelm OSHA and defeat the goal of tougher enforcement for a subset of the worst offenders. For that reason, the death of a worker will put a company on the list only if the circumstances are particularly flagrant or reflect a pattern of reckless conduct. In 2015 only one out of every roughly 200 employers with an on-the-job fatality landed on the list.

At the same time, it’s not certain that the program has effectively deterred recalcitrant employers, as OSHA lacks any comprehensive assessment of its performance. For evidence of the impact, OSHA officials point to settlements they have reached with companies on the list. “There hasn’t been a really good objective evaluation,” said MIT Professor Thomas A. Kochan, co-director of MIT’s Institute for Work and Employment Research.

One critic, John Newquist, (a LinkedIn connection of mine) and former OSHA official in Chicago, said his sense is that among employers, “There’s no fear of OSHA at all.”

Michaels, who will leave the agency by the January 20, 2017, presidential inauguration, expressed hope that the Trump administration won’t dismantle the severe violator effort or other enforcement initiatives. He said tough enforcement protects responsible employers because it “levels the playing field” between them and competitors who skimp on safety. Still, the anti-regulation views of Trump cabinet picks including Andrew Puzder, the president-elect’s choice for labor secretary, are raising expectations of cutbacks in workplace enforcement.

Nebraska Railcar –- currently the target, several sources say, of a Justice Department criminal investigation of last year’s explosion –- highlights how long it can take a wayward company to be put into the severe violator program. Jacob Mack, who worked for the company in 2013, says he told OSHA about brutal conditions long before the deadly blast. “Not a day goes by I don’t remember the hell there,” Mack said.

The company wasn’t listed until after the explosion even though it, as well as other businesses controlled by Nebraska Railcar’s majority owner, Steven Braithwaite, had repeatedly been cited by OSHA dating back to 2005. That includes a 2013 citation involving a fire risk from oil storage tanks. Nebraska Railcar stayed off the list, though, partly because its prior violations didn’t involve hazards the agency deemed high-priority, such as falls, amputations, cave-ins and exposure to toxic chemicals.

(Nebraska Railcar is contesting its current OSHA citations, as are other companies cited in this story that haven’t reached a settlement with the agency. Nebraska Railcar and most of the other companies have not responded to requests for comment.)

Case Farms, a leading poultry processor with plants in Ohio and North Carolina, finally landed on the list in 2015 after being cited for more than 350 violations over a 25-year period, according to OSHA. The case, which processes nearly 3 million chickens a week for fast food chains and supermarkets, last year was fined $861,500 for 55 violations, including amputation and fall hazards, at its Winesburg, Ohio, plant.

Sometimes disaster has struck even after companies were put in the program. One such case, in October, spurred a public outcry in Boston. Two laborers working for Atlantic Drain Service died after being trapped in a trench that was inundated by water, dirt, and debris after a pipe burst. Atlantic Drain had been on the severe violator list since 2012.

The October deaths “were entirely preventable,” The Boston Globe wrote in an editorial, “had city and state officials taken minimal steps to investigate the construction company before issuing permits.”

Whatever the shortcomings of the severe violator program, labor advocates say, the wide range of companies it snares -– and the number and gravity of their violations -– underscore its importance and the need to protect workers from callous bosses. OSHA’s other options are limited. The agency lacks the authority to shut down dangerous workplaces and its fines generally remain modest despite an increase that took effect in August.

“OSHA is one-eighth the size of the EPA, it has the lowest penalties of almost any government agency – but even though it is small, it is critical that enforcement is maintained,” said Deborah Berkowitz, the OSHA chief of staff from 2009 to 2013. The severe violator list, she conceded, is “not an end-all tool,” but an important tool.

An example OSHA officials point to is Ashley Furniture, the nation’s largest retailer of home furnishings. It was listed last year after being cited for 38 violations, 12 of them willful, and assessed $1.76 million in fines. Inspections showed more than 1,000 work-related injuries in less than four years at its plant in Arcadia, Wisconsin.

Over 100 of the injuries took place on similar woodworking machines, including a July 2014 incident in which a worker lost three fingers. In June, the privately held firm settled the case, agreeing to pay penalties of $1.75 million and to adopt safety measures in Arcadia and at three other plants in Wisconsin and Mississippi.

Some corporate defense lawyers say being labeled a “severe violator” is such a black eye that it strongly motivates companies to avoid trouble with OSHA. However, they criticize the program for lacking due process, because companies are labeled severe violators even as they appeal citations.

“You are dumped into SVEP essentially the day that the citations are issued and a citation is nothing more than an allegation,” said Eric J. Conn, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who specializes in OSHA defense cases. “Having the federal agency that is responsible for safety and health branding that employer as a bad actor … absolutely has significant consequences to the employer’s business.”

In the meantime, corporate lawyers say, competitors or critics can take advantage of the situation. If residents near a listed site “don’t like your company, to begin with, this is more ammunition they can use to go to a zoning board to block permits for expansion,” said Adele Abrams, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney.

On-the-job deaths can keep companies in the program for years. DuPont was listed after four workers at its La Porte, Texas, chemical plant died of asphyxiation in 2014. The disaster occurred after a supply line released more than 20,000 pounds of deadly methyl mercaptan gas. The company, which manufactures pesticides at the Texas plant, was assessed $273,000 for eight OSHA violations. DuPont said it couldn’t comment because it is appealing its case.

AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. has been on the list since 2011, when a worker at its lanes in Addison, Texas, was fatally pulled into an automatic pin-setting machine while trying to clear a jam. OSHA had previously cited AMF in 2007 and 2008 for failing to provide proper machine guarding on pinsetters. The case was settled, with AMF agreeing to pay more than $90,000 in penalties.

Oil services giant Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. was listed following the death of welder Dustin Payne, a 28-year-old former Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was killed in a 2014 explosion when vapors ignited inside a tank he was welding in North Dakota.

Houston-based Nabors, which boasts of operating the world’s largest land-based drilling rig fleet, was assessed $97,200 in fines and charged with a willful violation for not having thoroughly cleaned the tank of oil residue before sending Payne in.

“Dustin Payne and his fiancée should be discussing marriage and their future together. Instead, she is left stricken and trying to move forward without him,” Eric Brooks, OSHA’s area director in Bismarck, N.D., said in a news release.

International Paper Co. was added to the list last year after a 57-year-old mechanic was killed in a fire while replacing filter bags in machinery at its Ticonderoga, N.Y., plant. The bags contained combustible dust that ignited.

In assessing $211,000 in fines, OSHA said the company had failed to supply fire-resistant clothing or adequate training. The firm had previously been cited for failing to conduct annual inspections of ignitable equipment at company sites in Chicago and Newark, Ohio.

Although big companies draw the most widespread attention, the employers most commonly labeled severe violators are small construction firms with high emphasis hazards related to falls or excavation cave-ins. Yet small construction firms often elude the follow-up inspections that are supposed to be a key feature of the program.

A FairWarning analysis of the current list of 523 severe violators found that 167 had not been re-inspected, and almost all were construction firms. In many cases, the firms had shut down their worksites or went out of business before inspectors could return.

Eric Frumin, safety and health director of the union coalition Change to Win, said given the way the industry operates, OSHA can be “powerless to find and vigorously confront the worst actors.”

A trench collapse last year in New York that put a construction firm on the list also led to criminal charges. The cave-in collapse in lower Manhattan buried Carlos Moncayo, 22, under tons of dirt. His employer, Sky Materials Corp. of Maspeth, was fined $140,000 and listed for willfully failing to provide cave-in protection

Last month, Sky’s site foreman was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Moncayo, one of at least 18 New York City construction workers who died on the job in 2015. The project’s general contractor, Harco Construction LLC, was convicted of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in June.

Deadly incidents also have brought rail tank car cleaning companies into the program. At Nebraska Railcar, the disaster came soon after the workers returned from a lunch break and started digging out thick residue from an oil tanker. The lone survivor among the three employees working on the tanker, Joe Coschka, 36, said he was just outside the car, lowering buckets of the blacktop like material into a 55-gallon drum.

Coschka said the odor from inside the tanker was powerful, and that an air monitor was beeping. Even so, he said he assumed a supervisor who should have known better than him whether the air was a hazard, should have informed workers to evacuate the tank car immediately.

Soon Coschka heard a loud hiss, and then sparks started shooting out of the tanker. The next thing he remembers is dangling from the side of the car, still attached to his safety harness, with a fire raging inside. “And I knew Adrian was in there, and Dallas was looking pretty bad on the ground. I just knew I had to get out of there,” said Coschka. He managed to scramble to safety despite suffering back and shoulder injuries.

Coschka remains haunted by the disaster. Although he sometimes blames himself for not questioning the foreman who sent the workers into the tanker car, most of his anger is aimed at Braithwaite, the main owner of the business. He said he wishes the tougher OSHA actions had come sooner. Referring to the years of citations against Braithwaite’s companies, Coshka added: “It’s just sad because this guy dropped the ball so many times and he just keeps getting away with it.” Coschka had started at Nebraska Railcar only a month earlier.

Source: FairWarning.org – By Paul Feldman and Stuart Silverstein

Advertisements

“OSHA Enforcement Case Database By State” #OSHA #Violations #Data

osha-database-of-fines-2016

Enforcement Cases with Initial Penalties Above $40,000

(Includes citations issued starting January 1, 2015. Cases are updated weekly. There is a posting delay to ensure the parties have been notified.)

Click on link to view States Map and Violations by State : https://www.osha.gov/topcases/bystate.html

NOTE: OSHA is currently migrating its legacy system. Cases prior to 2011 (Federal OSHA) and 2013 (OSHA State Plans) may be affected by this migration. Cases indicated without the .015 extension reflect the data as of 08/05/2016. The next updates for those cases will be reflected October, 2016. Should you need case status updates for those cases before October 2016, please contact your originating OSHA Office.

“OSHA – DOL News Release” – “Worker Falls 22 Feet to Death, 4 Months After OSHA Cites Employer for Failing to Protect Workers on the Same Job Site”

Worker falls 22 feet to death  4 months after OSHA cites employer for failing to protect workers on the same job site

Louisville employer faces $320K in fines for serial disregard of fall protection

ADDISON, Ill. ‒ Four months after federal safety investigators cited his employer for failing to provide workers with fall protection at a United Parcel Service facility in Addison, a 42-year-old employee of Material Handling Systems/MHS Technical Services, fell 22 feet to his death at the same site.

On July 29, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the employer for three egregious willful violations for exposing workers to falls over 6 feet, after its investigation of the Feb. 9, 2016, fatality. OSHA also cited three repeated and three serious safety violations.

“A man is dead because this employer decided to break the law over and over again. Before this tragedy, OSHA cited this contractor twice for exposing workers to fall hazards, including at the same site just four months earlier,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor of Occupational Safety and Health. “OSHA is asking companies contracting with Material Handling Systems to take strong steps to ensure that this employer protects its employees, and terminate its contracts if this employer continues to violate OSHA regulations. Material Handling Systems employer must demonstrate it can work safely and stop injuring its employees.”

OSHA also found Material Handling Systems/MHS Technical:

–       Exposed other workers to falls of up to 22 feet as they hoisted conveyor equipment while working on raised surfaces with unprotected sides. Failed to determine whether walking and working surfaces could structurally support employees.

–       Allowed workers to use a combustible polyethylene tarp as a welding curtain, which created a serious fire hazard.

OSHA cited Material Handling Systems most recently for fall protection violations in October 2015 at the same jobsite. In 2014, OSHA cited the company for similar violations after an employee suffered serious injuries in a fall in Keasby, New Jersey. The employer also received fall protection citations in 2009 in Oregon and 2012 in Florida. The company’s workers’ compensation carrier is Old Republic Insurance Company of Greensburg, Pennsylvania.

Material Handling Systems/MHS Technical Services removes and installs high-speed conveyor systems. In this case, the company was working under a multi-million contract with United Parcel Service to dismantle existing conveyor systems and install new, high-speed conveyors at UPS’s Addison facility.

Based in Louisville, Kentucky, Material Handling Systems/MHS Technical Services faces total proposed penalties of $320,400. View current citations here.

Preventable falls account for nearly 40 percent of all deaths in the construction industry. Federal safety and health officials are determined to reduce the number of preventable, fall-related deaths in the construction industry. OSHA offers a Stop Falls online resource with detailed information in English and Spanish on fall protection standards. The page provides fact sheets, posters, and videos that illustrate various fall hazards and appropriate preventive measures. OSHA standards require that an effective form of fall protection be in use when workers perform construction activities 6 feet or more above the next lower level.

OSHA’s ongoing Fall Prevention Campaign was developed in partnership with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and NIOSH’s National Occupational Research Agenda program. Begun in 2012, the campaign provides employers with lifesaving information and educational materials on how to prevent falls, provide the right equipment for workers and train employees to use fall protection equipment properly.

Material Handling Systems/MHS Technical Services has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report amputations, eye loss, workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency’s North Aurora office at 630-896-8700.

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 ensure 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.

# # #

Media Contacts:

Scott Allen, 312-353-6976, allen.scott@dol.gov
Rhonda Burke, 312-353-6976, burke.rhonda@dol.gov

Release Number: 16-1572-CHI

Fall Protection Training – Miller Fall Protection

“Substantial OSHA Penalty Increases Are Coming”

OSHA inspection-1

 

OSHA penalties are going up. EPA’s penalties are going up, too. However, while EPA penalties have been going up modestly every four years to take inflation into account, OSHA penalties have not increased in 25 years. Maximum OSHA penalties may jump as much as about 78 percent next year. For a provision quietly tucked away in budget legislation, this packs quite a punch.

The Legislative Change

On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.[1] Section 701 of that legislation is the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Adjustment Act). The 2015 Adjustment Act amends the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990[2] to remove the OSHA exemption to the requirement that civil monetary penalties be periodically increased to account for inflation. The amendment also changed the frequency of the inflation increases from “once every 4 years”[3] to “every year.”

In addition, the new law entitles OSHA to a single “catch up” penalty increase to account for the lack of periodic penalty increases, which “shall take effect no later than August 1, 2016.” OSHA is authorized to calculate this initial increase based on the percentage difference between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in October 2015 and the CPI in October of the calendar year that the civil penalty was last adjusted under any different law.[4] In this instance, because OSHA penalties have not been adjusted since 1990, the catch-up penalty increase will be based on the October 1990 CPI as compared to the October 2015 CPI.

Past Efforts to Raise Maximum OSHA Penalties

Under section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), OSHA penalties for “willful” or “repeat” violations have a maximum civil penalty of $70,000 but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation.[6] Penalties for “serious” violations have a maximum of $7,000 per violation. Those figures have remained static since 1990 despite repeated efforts to increase them.

For example, in 2009, a Senate bill and a House bill,[7] both entitled the Protecting America’s Workers Act, would have amended section 17 of the OSH Act with one-time maximum civil penalty increases. The $70,000 “willful” violation maximum would have been increased to $120,000 but not less than $8,000 (up from $5,000). The penalties for “serious” violations would have increased from a maximum of $7,000 to a maximum of $12,000, and penalties for “serious” violations that result in employee fatalities would have been increased to a maximum of $50,000 but not less than $20,000 for employers with more than 25 employees. The proposed legislation did not pass either House of Congress.[8] This year, updated versions of the Protecting America’s Workers Act were introduced which would make the same adjustments in penalties.[9]

After more than 25 years and extensive legislative effort, OSHA penalties are poised for a significant initial increase, due to a provision added to an appropriations bill without hearings or debate.

– See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/substantial-osha-penalty-increases-are-coming#sthash.7gS1L0zq.dpuf

“A Look At OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

OSHA has finite resources, and it would take decades for the agency to visit every employer in the country to ensure workers are being protected.

OSHA officials often have said that most employers are doing their best to keep workers safe. Yet employers who actively ignore safety regulations and put employees in danger are out there, and OSHA is charged with holding such “bad actors” accountable.

In an effort to better target its resources at non-compliant employers, OSHA chooses to focus on the most severe violators. To guide this focus, OSHA implemented the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

Launched on June 18, 2010, SVEP is intended to target the worst of the worst violators. Employers in the program are placed on a public list identifying them as a severe violator, and they are subject to follow-up inspections.

Although OSHA said in a January 2013 self-review that the program was off to a “strong start,” some stakeholders have claimed that SVEP unfairly enrolls employers, or leaves out other employers who egregiously violate OSHA rules.

(Safety+Health contacted OSHA numerous times requesting a response to concerns raised by stakeholders and questions from S+H. At press time, the agency had been unable to arrange a response.)

Program overview

Employers must meet at least one of the following criteria to be placed into the Severe Violator Enforcement Program:

  • Any inspection in which an employer is cited with a willful, repeat or failure-to-abate for a serious violation related to an employee’s death or the hospitalizations of three or more employees
  • Two or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abates based on “high-gravity” serious violations related to a variety of high-emphasis hazards, such as falls, amputations or trenching
  • Three or more willful, repeat, failure-to-abates based on high-gravity serious violations related to the potential release of a hazardous chemical, as defined in the Process Safety Management Standard
  • All egregious – or per-instance citation – actions

Read the SVEP directive.

Background

OSHA launched the Enhanced Enforcement Program under the President George W. Bush administration. Many stakeholders – as well as the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General – criticized EEP for not fully being able to identify and address severe violators. Among the criticisms: too many employers were enrolled in the program and OSHA lacked follow-up inspections.

SVEP was intended to change that. The program has more stringent requirements than EEP, and OSHA has been able to conduct most of its follow-up inspections under SVEP, according to the agency’s 2013 white paper on the program.

“The program has succeeded in guiding OSHA enforcement toward recalcitrant employers by targeting high-emphasis hazards, facilitating inspections across multiple worksites of employers found to be recalcitrant, and by providing regional and State Plan offices with a nationwide referral procedure,” the agency said.

“The program has succeeded in guiding OSHA enforcement toward recalcitrant employers by targeting high-emphasis hazards, facilitating inspections across multiple worksites of employers found to be recalcitrant, and by providing regional and State Plan offices with a nationwide referral procedure,” the agency said.

‘Unproven allegations’?

OSHA’s most recent SVEP case log – published Oct. 1 – lists 434 employers in the program. The log provides employers’ names and addresses, as well as dates of when the case was opened and citations were issued. Also included for each employer is an SVEP log number, running chronologically for every new employer.

However, 152 of the log numbers are missing. This suggests that as many as 152 employers – or nearly one-quarter of the total number of SVEP employers – entered into the program but did not remain. Because no employer has formally been removed from the program, according to various reports, these 152 employers could have gone through a process known as “lining out.”

Employers are formally removed from the program only when they meet certain criteria of good behavior. (See “SVEP removal”) Lining out occurs when the SVEP-qualifying citations originally issued to an employer are later withdrawn through settlements or overturned through a court ruling. OSHA does not consider lining out the same as being formally removed from the program, and, as the agency describes in its white paper, lining out indicates the employer never should have qualified for SVEP in the first place.

“The issue is employers are qualified into the SVEP at the time citations are issued. The citations are nothing more than allegations, unproven allegations,” said Eric Conn, a founding partner of the Washington-based law firm Conn Maciel Carey.

For Conn, this is an inherent problem with SVEP: Because the SVEP list is public and OSHA issues press releases announcing some employers being entered into the program, employers may be labeled as severe violators before they have had an opportunity to contest or settle the citations.

Midsouth Steel has experienced this. In November 2011, OSHA issued a press release announcing three willful citations for fall hazards against the Atlanta-based roofing contractor. The press release also said Midsouth Steel was placed into SVEP.

In early 2012, the company brought George Henry on board as its safety director and tasked him with ensuring total compliance with OSHA regulations. As part of a settlement agreement with OSHA, the original citations were reduced and Midsouth Steel no longer qualified to be in SVEP. As a result, the company lined out.

Although the ramifications of the original violations and being temporarily placed into SVEP are minimal for Midsouth Steel today, Henry is concerned about OSHA announcing such allegations. As of press time, the press release detailing the original violations against Midsouth Steel and its placement in SVEP was still on OSHA’s website.

“When you’re on that list, it opens you and the general contractor’s project up to more scrutiny than normal,” Henry said. “Anytime you indict somebody and then declare them guilty, and then change the outcome of that and do not make that public, that’s not a good thing.”

Conn alleges that enrolling employers into SVEP before their case is fully adjudicated violates the law and the employer’s right to due process, as guaranteed under the Constitution. The process to contest OSHA citations – which is an employer’s right – may take years.

Further complicating matters is the three-year time period employers must remain in SVEP if they do not line out. The time period does not begin until the case is officially disposed, so if an employer chooses to fight the SVEP-qualifying citations and loses, it must spend three years in SVEP plus the amount of time it took for the case to go through the judicial process.

According to OSHA’s white paper, 44 percent of SVEP cases were contested. The national contest rate – which includes other-than-serious violations – was 8 percent in 2010 and 2011.

Too narrow?

According to Celeste Monforton, the percentage of contested SVEP cases is not unexpected. The stakes are high for employers that qualify for the program, giving them more incentive to contest the violations, said Monforton, who is a professional lecturer at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.

Unlike Conn, however, Monforton believes the program should be broadened. The number of employers enrolled in SVEP is relatively small considering the number of employers in the country, and the criteria for entering the program are almost overly stringent, she said.

For example, an employer needs three willful or repeat violations of the Process Safety Management Standard to qualify for SVEP – a criterion Monforton claims is too narrow given recent industrial disasters.

“One violation could have a catastrophic result,” she said.

Likewise, she has concerns about how employers can line out of the program. When violations are reduced, either through settlement or the courts, the employer might leave SVEP with no public record being kept.

Comparing it to a bank robber convicted of robbing several banks but acquitted of robbing one, Monforton said the idea behind SVEP is defeated when an employer is able to be removed from the program after one violation out of several is reclassified.

Regarding OSHA announcing in press releases that certain employers have been designated as severe violators, Monforton said the agency has some latitude.

“The agency has the authority to set up criteria on how it wants to use its resources,” she said. “There are always going to be employers who object to any label. But OSHA is just doing its job.”

Improvements and SVEP’s future

Both Conn and Monforton say OSHA could improve how it does its job by making some changes to ensure SVEP targets truly severe violators.

Conn suggested that OSHA place an employer in SVEP only after a final order is given. This would prevent employers being placed into the program and then lining out.

“Just wait until you’ve actually proven that employer is a bad actor,” he said. Additionally, he recommends that OSHA “start the clock” on the three-year time period to exit the program whenever the employer enters SVEP, not simply when the case is adjudicated.

Conn objected to OSHA keeping an employer in SVEP based on any serious – not necessarily a willful or repeat – violation found in subsequent inspections, noting that it takes a willful or repeat violation to qualify into the program. This makes the threshold for keeping employers in the program too low, he said.

Both Conn and Monforton recommend that OSHA re-examine the high-hazard activities that can place employers into the program. Conn advocated removing grain handling, as OSHA’s recent, active targeting in the industry has led to improved outcomes, including fewer deaths. However, Monforton stressed the need to add hazards, specifically asbestos. Noting that OSHA has an asbestos standard on the books, and the fiber has been a known hazard for decades, she said any violation of those rules should place employers in SVEP.

Monforton said more transparency for the program would be beneficial, including OSHA’s own assessment of the program and regular updates on the number of follow-ups conducted and removals.

But no matter what changes may be made to the program, or if it is replaced during another presidential administration, OSHA will always need a mechanism to focus its enforcement on bad actors.

“OSHA is a small-budget agency, and they’re stretched pretty thin,” Conn said. “Some sort of program that is thoughtfully conceived and consistent with the constitution and the laws of the land is a good idea.”

SVEP removal

Employers placed into the Severe Violator Enforcement Program do not remain there forever. In August 2012, OSHA issued a memorandum providing guidance to inspectors on how to remove employers from the program. First, employers must remain in SVEP for three years after the final disposition of their case. This could include a settlement agreement or court of appeals decision upholding some of the original citations.

To be removed from the program, employers must:

  • Abate all SVEP-related hazards
  • Pay all final penalties
  • Abide by and complete settlement provisions
  • Avoid receiving any additional serious citations related to the hazards that put them into SVEP

Read the guidance memo.

Source: Safety & Health Magazine of the National Safety Council

 

 

“Surprise OSHA Inspection???”……”What to Expect”

Print

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Continues to Push Key Enforcement Initiatives

At a recent American Bar Association meeting, Jordan Barab, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA and Tom Galassi, Director of Enforcement Programs, all stressed the agency’s continued focus on key enforcement initiatives, such as temporary workers, workplace violence and heat stress.  In addition, they emphasized the increased use of corporate-wide settlement agreements and enterprise-wide relief and the continued use of the severe violator enhancement program (SVEP). According to OSHA, some of these initiatives are creative enforcement tools, and it was made clear that OSHA continues to see enforcement, as opposed to compliance assistance, as its primary objective.

This push on enforcement in the last several years is illustrated by recent statistics, such as the increase in the average penalty.  The numbers continue to reflect OSHA’s enforcement efforts. As indicated in the charts below, the average penalty per serious violation doubled in fiscal year 2011, with a slight drop in the average penalty for fiscal year 2013.  It appears that the average penalty per serious violation for fiscal year 2014 has increased, and is at the highest it has been compared to the previous four years.  Given that the fiscal year does not end until September 31, 2014, it remains to be seen if this average will increase or stay the same.

Interestingly, it seems that the sequestration had little impact on the total number of violations issued in 2013 compared to 2012. Both fiscal years averaged roughly 78,000 total violations issued.  However, this time last year, the number of total violations issued for fiscal year 2013 was roughly 26,000.  In comparison, to date for fiscal year 2014 the total number is roughly 20,000.  This drop in total violations is likely due to the government shutdown in October, which impacted the beginning of fiscal year 2014.

TOTAL VIOLATIONS ISSUED FY 2010-2014 (Click on photos for larger view)

Graph 1

AVERAGE CURRENT PENALTY PER SERIOUS VIOLATION

Graph 2

Also worthy of noting is that the percentage of inspections resulting from a complaint for fiscal year 2014 has already exceeded those for fiscal year 2013.  In short, complaint inspections are on the rise.  For the entire 2013 fiscal year 24% of inspections were the result of complaints.  For only a portion of the fiscal year 2014, that percentage is up to 28%.  This could average out the next few months; however, it appears that more inspections are resulting from employee complaints.

And while OSHA’s list of Top 10 Most Cited Standards typically changes very little year to year, for fiscal year 2014, the list included scaffolding and ladders.  Removed from the list was bloodborne pathogens and personal protective equipment.

FY 2014

Top 10 Most Cited OSHA Standards

  1. Fall Protection
  2. Hazard Communication
  3. Scaffolding
  4. Respiratory Protection
  5. Powered Industrial Trucks
  6. Electrical, Wiring Methods
  7. Lockout/Tagout
  8. Ladders
  9. Machine Guarding
  10. Electrical, General RequirementsSource: National Law Review®

Deaths In Oil Drilling, And No Oversight In Texas

Oil Drilling Texas 2014

Photo By James Nielsen / Associated Press
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration keeps a list of “the worst of the worst” employers in the nation, and drilling companies with multiple fatalities should be on it, safety experts say.

SAN ANTONIO — The oil boom has brought Texas much prosperity, but also the stain of avoidable tragedies.

The numbers are staggering.

As the Houston Chronicle‘s Lise Olsen recently reported, 65 oil and gas workers in Texas died in 2012, a peak year for tragedy in the industry. Also in 2012, 79 workers lost limbs, 82 were crushed, 92 suffered burns and 675 broke bones in work-related accidents.

After reading that sad tally, we were left wondering how many of these accidents could have been avoided if the industry took worker safety seriously and if the federal government instilled worker-safety rules for onsite drilling.

These are people, not batteries that can just be swapped out. They have families and loved ones, and they labor in incredibly dangerous and challenging settings. Even under the safest conditions, this work will always be dangerous. But we are nowhere near the safest conditions.

As Olsen reported, for 22 years now the federal government has ignored the need for safety standards and procedures for onshore drilling. It’s instead allowed industry to use outdated technologies and practices.

This is particularly striking when compared to offshore drilling, which is closely monitored and demonstrably safer. Yes, the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 people in 2010. But in 2012, nearly six times that number were killed in smaller onshore accidents.

“We see things in land drilling that were eliminated years ago offshore,” R. Dean Wingo, who recently retired from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, told Olsen.

Without rules and resources, OSHA is really a toothless agency. Out of 18,000 work-related injuries over the last six years in Texas, OSHA investigated about 150. These were accidents in which workers died or at least three workers were hospitalized.

But if smaller incidents had been investigated, larger accidents may have been avoided. There were many cases where OSHA investigators discovered safety hazards after a worker had died.

The agency is also hampered by a lack of investigators, who, in turn, lack expertise. There are 95 OSHA inspectors for all Texas worksites. Most do not have any expertise in the oil and gas industry.

There is also little coordination between OSHA and the Texas Railroad Commission, which monitors oil field fires and blowouts and can shut down operations when it uncovers serious problems.

An agency spokeswoman told us the Railroad Commission is always willing to coordinate with OSHA, but she couldn’t provide any information about how often that actually happens.

Clearly, the federal government needs to craft and implement safety rules for onshore drilling that mirror the ones used in offshore drilling.

The Railroad Commission and OSHA could also instill strict protocols about when the two agencies notify one another about safety concerns. After all, one agency has the power to shut down dangerous rigs and wells, and the other responds to and monitors safety concerns.

Finally, this is a time of austerity, but there is a need for additional OSHA inspectors in Texas, and likely other states dealing with oil and gas drilling, who specifically understand the industry.

There are some Texans who fear the federal government will interfere with the oil and gas boom through onerous regulations. These concerns are mostly expressed about environmental rules and regulations.

We hope, though, that all Texans would be supportive of safer working conditions for the people making this boom happen.

Source: MySanAntonio.com

OSHA’s Fall Prevention Campaign – “Are Your Employees Trained?”

Falls From Floor – Floor

Falls From Bridges

Leading Edge Falls

Re-Roofing Falls

Scaffolding Falls

FALLS ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN CONSTRUCTION. In 2010, there were 264 fall fatalities (255 falls to lower level) out of 774 total fatalities in construction. These deaths are preventable.

Falls can be prevented and lives can be saved through three simple steps:

This website is part of OSHA‘s nationwide outreach campaign to raise awareness among workers and employers about the hazards of falls from ladders, scaffolds and roofs. The educational resources page gives workers and employers information about falls and how to prevent them. There are also training tools for employers to use and posters to display at their worksites. Many of the new resources target vulnerable workers with limited English proficiency.

We invite you to join in this effort by helping to reach workers and employers in your community with the resources you find on this site. OSHA will continue to add information and tools to this page throughout the year.

OSHA has partnered with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) – Construction Sector on this nationwide outreach campaign to raise awareness among workers and employers about common fall hazards in construction, and how falls from ladders, scaffolds and roofs can be prevented and lives can be saved. Here’s how:

PLAN ahead to get the job done safely
When working from heights, such as ladders, scaffolds, and roofs, employers must plan projects to ensure that the job is done safely. Begin by deciding how the job will be done, what tasks will be involved, and what safety equipment may be needed to complete each task.

When estimating the cost of a job, employers should include safety equipment, and plan to have all the necessary equipment and tools available at the construction site. For example, in a roofing job, think about all of the different fall hazards, such as holes or skylights and leading edges, then plan and select fall protection suitable to that work, such as personal fall arrest systems (PFAS).

PROVIDE the right equipment
Workers who are six feet or more above lower levels are at risk for serious injury or death if they should fall. To protect these workers, employers must provide fall protection and the right equipment for the job, including the right kinds of ladders, scaffolds, and safety gear.

Different ladders and scaffolds are appropriate for different jobs. Always provide workers with the kind they need to get the job done safely. For roof work, there are many ways to prevent falls. If workers use personal fall arrest systems (PFAS), provide a harness for each worker who needs to tie off to the anchor. Make sure the PFAS fits, and regularly inspect all fall protection equipment to ensure it’s still in good condition and safe to use.

TRAIN everyone to use the equipment safely
Falls can be prevented when workers understand proper set-up and safe use of equipment, so they need training on the specific equipment they will use to complete the job. Employers must train workers in hazard recognition and in the care and safe use ladders, scaffolds, fall protection systems, and other equipment they’ll be using on the job.

OSHA has provided numerous materials and resources that employers can use during toolbox talks to train workers on safe practices to avoid falls in construction. Falls from ladders, scaffolds and roofs can be prevented and lives can be saved through three simple steps: Plan, Provide and Train.

Campaign Partners

 

“OSHA Issues Site-Specific Inspections Targeting Directive For 2014”

image002

The OSHA SST-14 Program is intended to direct its enforcement resources to workplaces where the “highest rates of injuries and illnesses occur.” The Directive calls for programmed inspection plans targeting high-hazard, non-construction workplaces that have 20 or more workers. The Program is based on data collected from the last year’s OSHA Data Initiative survey of 80,000 establishments in high-hazard industries. In the Directive appendix A, OSHA lists the many industries that were surveyed, and so targeted, including: manufacturing, trucking, warehousing, air transportation and courier services, automobiles, construction materials, scarp and waste, groceries, poultry products, department stores, medical facilities.

OSHA’s intention is that implementation of the Directive will achieve its goal of reducing the number of injuries and illnesses that occur at individual workplaces by directing enforcement resources to those workplaces where the highest rate of injuries and illnesses have occurred.

Among other things, the Directive provides a checklist for compliance safety and health officers and provides scheduling and inspection procedures. According to the Directive, the Program’s primary inspection lists for federal jurisdiction Area Offices will be comprised of 1,260 establishments.

Directive Memo:

Feb. 26, 2014
Contact: Office of Communications
Phone: 202-693-1999

OSHA issues 2014 inspection plan to reduce injuries and
illnesses at high-hazard workplaces

WASHINGTON – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued its annual inspection plan under the Site-Specific Targeting 2014* program to direct enforcement resources to workplaces where the highest rates of injuries and illnesses occur.

The SST program is one of OSHA’s main programmed inspection plans for high-hazard, non-construction workplaces that have 20 or more workers. The SST plan is based on data collected from a survey of 80,000 establishments in high-hazard industries.

“By focusing our inspection resources on employers in high hazard industries who endanger their employees, we can prevent injuries and illnesses and save lives,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels.

As part of the SST-14 program, OSHA is conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the program based on 1,260 randomly selected establishments.

Programmed inspections of nursing and personal care establishments will continue under OSHA’s Nursing and Personal Care Facilities National Emphasis Program.

In addition to the SST program, OSHA implements both national and local emphasis inspection programs, which include programmed inspections, to target high-risk hazards and industries. OSHA currently has 13 National Emphasis Programs that intensify inspections on hazards or industries such as lead, silica, shipbreaking, trenching/excavations and process safety management, and approximately 140 Regional and Local Emphasis Programs.

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 ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

OSHA’s 13 National Emphasis Programs:

OSHA’s Active National & Special Emphasis Program Index


COMBUSTIBLE DUST

FEDERAL AGENCIES

HAZARDOUS MACHINERY

HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM

ISOCYANATES

LEAD

NURSING AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES

PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES

PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT

  • CPL 03-00-014 – PSM Covered Chemical Facilities National Emphasis Program (Date:11/29/2011)[PDF*]
  • OSHA Instruction CPL 03-00-010 – Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management National Emphasis Program (Date: 08/18/2009) [PDF*]. Note: This NEP is still in effect, but Federal inspections of all refineries have been completed and there are no inspections currently programmed. However, this NEP may still provide guidance for State Plan Offices which program refinery inspections within their jurisdictions.

SHIPBREAKING

SILICA

TRENCHING & EXCAVATION


* Accessibility Assistance: Contact the Directorate of Enforcement Programs at (202) 693-2129 for assistance accessing PDF and XLSX materials.

140 Local Emphasis Programs

Local Emphasis Programs (LEPs) are enforcement strategies designed and implemented at the regional office and/or area office levels. These programs are intended to address hazards or industries that pose a particular risk to workers in the office’s jurisdiction. The emphasis programs may be implemented by a single area office, or at the regional level (Regional Emphasis Programs), and applied to all of the area offices within the region. Often times, these LEPs will be accompanied by outreach intended to make employers in the area aware of the program as well as the hazards that the programs are designed to reduce or eliminate. This outreach may be in the form of informational mailings, training at local tradeshows, or speeches at meetings of industry groups or labor organizations.

Region I | Region II | Region III | Region IV | Region V | Region VI | Region VII | Region VIII | Region IX | Region X

REGION I:  (CT,** ME, MA, NH, RI, VT**)
Directive Title
CPL 2-1.26 Fish Processing Industry [PDF*]
CPL 2-1.27 Ship Building and Repairing and Boat Building and Repairing [PDF*]
CPL 02-00-021 Health High Hazard – Top 100 [PDF*]
CPL 04-00.018 Residential Construction [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-002B Fall Hazards [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-016.2 Crane Operation in Construction [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-020C Mast Climbing Work Platforms [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-021B Crystalline Silica Exposure in Construction [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-022 Scrap Waste and Refuse Industries [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-023 Powered Industrial Trucks [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-024B Underground Construction and Tunneling Operations [PDF*]
REGION II:  (NJ,** NY,** Puerto Rico,** VI**)
Directive Title
2013-01 (CPL 2) Fall Hazards in Construction [PDF*]
2013-02 (CPL 2) Heavy Highway and Bridge Construction and Maintenance [PDF*]
2013-03 (CPL 2) Logging [PDF*]
2013-04 (CPL 04) Ship/Boat Building and Repair [PDF*]
2013-05 (CPL 2) Gut Rehabilitation and Demolition [PDF*]
2013-06 (CPL 03-00-003) Amputations [PDF*]
2013-07 (CPL 2) Warehousing and Refuse Handlers and Haulers (Multiple SICs) [PDF*]
2013-08 (CPL 2) Construction Worksites – Local Targeting [PDF*]
2013-09 (CPL 2) Virgin Islands General Industry [PDF*]
2013-10 (CPL 2) Health High Hazard – Top 50 [PDF*]
2013-11 (CPL 2) Natural Gas Drilling Operations [PDF*]
2013-12 (CPL 2) Federal Agencies [PDF*]
2013-13 (CPL 2) Metal Recycling Industry [PDF*]
2013-14 (CPL 03-00-009) Lead [PDF*]
2013-15 (CPL 03-00-007) Crystalline Silica [PDF*]
2013-16 (CPL 2) Car Wash Establishments [PDF*]
2013-17 (CPL 2) Sandy Cleanup and Recovery [PDF*]
REGION III:  (DE, DC, MD,** PA, VA,** WV)
Directive Title
2013-01 (CPL 04) Oil and Gas Service Industry [PDF*]
2013-02 (CPL 04) Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (VI) [PDF*]
2013-03 (CPL 04) Falls Hazards in the Construction Industry [PDF*]
2013-04 (CPL 04) Department Store Industry [PDF*]
2013-05 (CPL 04) Health Hazards in the Healthcare Industry [PDF*]
2013-06 (CPL 04) Concrete Block and Brick, Concrete Products and Ready Mix Concrete [PDF*]
2013-07 (CPL 04) Health Hazards in the Fabrication of Metal Products [PDF*]
2013-09 (CPL 04) Health Hazards in the Fabrication of Structural Metal Products [PDF*]
2013-11 (CPL 04) Logging in West Virginia [PDF*]
2013-17 (CPL 04) Scrap Yards [PDF*]
2013-20 (CPL 04) Ship/Boat Building and Repair [PDF*]
2013-21 (CPL 04) Bloodborne Pathogens – Erie, Pennsylvania Area Office [PDF*]
2013-24 (CPL 04) Bloodborne Pathogens – Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Area Office [PDF*]
2013-26 Health Care Industry [PDF*]
2013-29 Department Store Industry [PDF*]
2013-30 (CPL 04) Health High Hazard Work Places Without an OSHA Inspection Since 1998 [PDF*]
2013-31 (CPL 04) Safety High Hazard Work Places Without an OSHA Inspection Since 1998 [PDF*]
2013-32 High Level Noise [PDF*]
REGION IV:  (AL, FL, GA, KY,** MS, NC,** SC,** TN**)
Directive Title
CPL 03-00-007 Silica [PDF*]
CPL 03-00-009 Lead [PDF*]
CPL 13/01 (CPL 02-03) Falls in Construction [PDF*]
CPL 13/02 (CPL 02-03) Landscaping and Horticultural Services [PDF*]
CPL 13/03 (CPL 02-03) Electrical Hazards [PDF*]
CPL 13/04a (CPL 02-03) Ship/Boat Building and Repair [PDF*]
CPL 13/05a (CPL 02-03) Noise Hazards [PDF*]
CPL 13/06 Construction [PDF*]
CPL 13/07 (CPL 02-03) Powered Industrial Trucks [PDF*]
CPL 13/8 (CPL 02-03) Sanitation and Clean-up operations in the Major SIC Group “20” – Food and Kindred Products [PDF*]
CPL 13/09 Programmed Maritime Inspections [PDF*]
CPL 13/10 (CPL 02-03) Reducing the Number of Sharps Injuries in Urgent Care Centers, Medical Clinics and Ambulatory Surgical Centers in Region IV (NAICS 621493) [PDF*]
CPL 13/11 Methylene Chloride [PDF*]
CPL 13/12 Federal Agencies [PDF*]
REGION V:  (IL,** IN,** MI,** MN,** OH, WI)
Directive Title
CPL 04-00 (LEP 001) Building Renovation/Rehabilitation [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 002) Powered Industrial Vehicles [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 008) Fall Hazards in Construction and General Industry [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 009) Dairy Farm Operations [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 011) High Rise Building Construction Inspections in Chicago, Illinois [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 017) Grain Handling Facilities [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 11-04) Primary Metal Industry [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 25) Federal Agencies [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 026) Tree Trimming Operations [PDF*]
CPL 04-00 (LEP 100) Maritime Industries engaged in ship building & repair, marine cargo handling, navigation services to shipping, port and harbor operations, other support activities for water transportation, boat building, and marinas engaged in recreational boat repair located on or adjacent to navigable waterways [PDF*]
REGION VI:  (AR, LA, NM,** OK, TX)
Directive Title
CPL 2 02-00-013 Upstream Oil and Gas Industry [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-014 Construction [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-015 Marine Operations [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-017 Demolition Activities [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-020 Work Zone Safety and Health [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-021 Cranes Used in Construction [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-022A Safety and Health Hazards in the Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-023 High Noise in Manufacturing Industries [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-024 Fall Hazards in Non-Construction Industries [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-027 Heat Illnesses [PDF*]
CPL 2 02-00-028 Grain Handling Facilities [PDF*]
REGION VII:  (IA,** KS, MO, NE)
Directive Title
CPL 2-07-01D Logging and Sawmill Industries [PDF*]
CPL 2-07-04F Powered Industrial Trucks in Construction and in General Industry – St. Louis Area Office [PDF*]
CPL 2-07-06F Powered Industrial Trucks and Other Material or Personnel Handling Motorized Equipment in Construction and General Industry [PDF*]
CPL 2-07-11F Powered Industrial Trucks in Construction and General Industry – Wichita Area Office [PDF*]
CPL 2-07-13F Oil and Gas Operations [PDF*]
CPL 2-08-05D Commercial and Residential Construction [PDF*]
CPL 2-08-07D Grain Handling Industry [PDF*]
CPL 2-09-01D Covering Maritime Employers [PDF*]
CPL 02-11-01B Work Places With Noise and Respiratory Hazards [PDF*]
CPL 02-11-02B Recycling and Scrap Hazards in General Industry Establishments [PDF*]
CPL 02-11-03B Grain Handling Facilities [PDF*]
CPL 02-11-04B Recycle and Scrap Material Hazards in General Industry Establishments [PDF*]
CPL 02-11-06C Workers Compensation [PDF*]
CPL 02-11-07A Crystalline Silica [PDF*]
CPL 2-12-02A High Hazard Work Places Safety Inspections – St. Louis [PDF*]
CPL 2-12-08A Powered Industrial Trucks in Construction and in General Industry [PDF*]
CPL 2-12-09A High Hazard Work Places Safety Inspections – Omaha [PDF*]
CPL 2-12-10A High Hazard Work Places Safety Inspections – Kansas City [PDF*]
CPL 2-13-001 Grain Handling Industry [PDF*]
CPL 02-13-002 Workers Compensation – Wichita Area Office [PDF*]
CPL 02-13-004, CH-1 Amputations [PDF*]
CPL 02-13-006 Construction on Federal Properties [PDF*]
CPL 02-13-008 Missouri Workers Compensation [PDF*]
CPL 02-13-009 Commercial and Residential Construction Following a Severe Weather Event [PDF*]
CPL 98-02R Region-wide Problem Solving Initiative on Falls, Scaffolds, and Electrocutions from Overhead Power Lines in Construction [PDF*]
REGION VIII:  (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT,** WY**)
Directive Title
13-01 (CPL 04-05) Asbestos Abatement Industry [PDF*]
13-02 (CPL 04-05) Noise and Respiratory Hazards in General Industry – Englewood Area Office [PDF*]
13-03 (CPL 04-04) Logging Operations in Bark Beetle Incident Areas [PDF*]
13-04 (CPL 04-01) Roadway Work Zone Activities [PDF*]
13-05 (CPL 04-01) Oil and Gas Industry [PDF*]
13-06 (CPL 04-02) Noise and Respiratory Hazards in General Industry – Billings Area Office [PDF*]
13-07 (CPL 04-02) High Hazard Work Places without an OSHA Inspection Since 2000 [PDF*]
13-08 (CPL 04-01) Fall Hazards in Construction [PDF*]
13-09 (CPL 04-03) Automotive Lifts [PDF*]
13-10 (CPL 04-01) Silica Hazards in Cut Stone and Slab Handling [PDF*]
13-11 (CPL 04-01) Grain Handling Facilities [PDF*]
13-12 (CPL 04-05) Automotive Services [PDF*]
REGION IX:  (AZ,** CA,** HI,** NV,** and American Samoa, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands)
Directive Title
CPL 04-00-01 Amputations [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-02 Inspections of Programmed Construction Inspections [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-03 Warehousing Operations [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-05 Programmed Maritime Inspections [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-06 Inspections of Smelters [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-07 Federal Agencies [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-08 Combustible Dust [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-09 Silica and Portland Cement Exposures [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-10 Programmed Construction Inspections at Military Installations [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-11 Hotels, Casinos and/or Casino Hotels [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-13 Inspections of Longshoring Activity [PDF*]
CPL 04-00-14 Local Emphasis Program for Automotive Lifts [PDF*]
REGION X:  (AK,** ID, OR,** WA**)
Directive Title
13-01 (CPL 04) Residential Construction [PDF*]
13-02 (CPL 04) Floating Seafood Processors [PDF*]
13-03 (CPL 04) Construction Fall Hazards in Idaho [PDF*]
13-04 (CPL 04) Off-Shore Oil and Gas Drilling Platforms [PDF*]
13-05 (CPL 04) Logging in Idaho [PDF*]
13-06 (CPL 04) Shipyard Employment Operations [PDF*]
13-07 (CPL 04) Logging Operations Under Federal Jurisdiction in Oregon and Washington [PDF*]
13-08 (CPL 04) Federal Agencies [PDF*]
13-09 (CPL 04) Construction [PDF*]
13-10 (CPL 04) Native Health Care Facilities [PDF*]
13-11 (CPL 04) Facility Support Management Service Contractors at Military Bases and National Parks [PDF*]
13-12 (CPL 04) Silica Exposure and Slab Handling in Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing [PDF*]
13-13 (CPL 04) Employers with Nationally Targeted Hazards at Military Bases, National Parks and National Cemeteries [PDF*]
13-14 (CPL 04) Casinos and or Casino Hotels at Native American Reservations or American Trust Lands [PDF*]
13-15 (CPL 04) Lead [PDF*]
13-16 (CPL 04) Grain Handling Industry [PDF*]
13-17 (CPL 04) Inspections of Longshoring Activity [PDF*]
13-18 (CPL 04) Local Emphasis Program for Powered Industrial Trucks [PDF*]
13-19 (CPL 04) Regional Emphasis Program for Cranes used in Construction, General Industry and Maritime Employment [PDF*]

** These states and territories operate their own OSHA-approved job safety and health programs and cover state and local government workers as well as private sector workers. The Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Virgin Islands plans cover public workers only. States with approved programs must have standards that are identical to, or at least as effective as, the federal OSHA standards. Visit OSHA’s State Plan States Web page for more information.

%d bloggers like this: