In a May 30 Harvard Business Review article, researchers Michael Toffel and David Levine emphasize the weight of their recent findings that OSHA inspections benefit both workers and businesses.

"Managers should welcome OSHA inspections," explain the researchers. "Randomly inspected establishments improve worker safety and reduce employers' premiums for workers' compensation insurance. And we found no evidence that these establishments suffer any of the competitiveness problems suggested by political rhetoric — like disruptions leading to lost sales or solvency concerns, or any effects on wages — compared to our control group. The differences are small but telling: OSHA inspections offer substantial value to workers, companies, and society."

Their Science article, "Randomized Government Safety Inspections Reduce Worker Injuries with No Detectable Job Loss," is now available for free through researcher Michael Toffel's publications page. For further details, read the updated blog from Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA and the QuickTakes Special Issue about the results of the study.

Summary of Changes

The revised Hazard Communication Standard will now provide specific criteria for health and physical hazards to help chemical manufacturers and importers classify chemical hazards. Hazard classification is the procedure of identifying and evaluating available scientific evidence to determine if a chemical is hazardous, and the degree of the hazard.

Chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to provide new labels that include a harmonized signal word, pictogram, and hazard statement based on the hazard classification. Precautionary statements must also be provided. Safety data sheets (SDS) will have a specified 16-section format.
The modified HCS will also require that workers receive information and training by December 1, 2013 to facilitate recognition and understanding of the new labels and safety data sheets.

visit OSHA's HazCom page here

Hazard Communication Standard Pictogram

As of June 1, 2015, the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) will require pictograms on labels to alert users of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed. Each pictogram consists of a symbol on a white background framed within a red border and represents a distinct hazard(s). The pictogram on the label is determined by the chemical hazard classification.

 See the new HazCom Pictograms here

The Final Rule was filed on March 20th at the Office of the Federal Register and available for viewing on their Public Electronic Inspection Desk. The Federal Register published the final rule on March 26, 2012. The effective date of the final rule is 60 days after the date of publication.

On March 12, 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a memo detailing the agency’s policy regarding safety incentive and disincentive policies that can discourage employee reports of injuries which may violate section 11(c), or other whistleblower statutes.

An internal policy memo provides guidance to Regional Administrators and Enforcement Officials on how to apply OSHA policies and procedures when handling investigations.

The memo includes what OSHA considers the most common potentially discriminatory policies. The following are examples of those policies:

1. Policies of taking disciplinary action against employees who are injured on the job, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury.
2. Employees who reports an injury or illness is disciplined, and the stated reason is that the employee has violated an employer rule about the time or manner for reporting injuries and illnesses.
3. Employees report an injury, and the employer imposes discipline on grounds that the injury resulted from the violation of a vague safety rule such as a requirement that employees “maintain situational awareness” or “work carefully” may be manipulated and used as a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
4. Employers establish programs that unintentionally or intentionally provide employees an incentive to not report injuries such as entering all employees who have not been injured in the previous year in a drawing to win a prize, or a team of employees might be awarded a bonus if no one from the team is injured over some period of time.

OSHA also suggested in the memo that the potential for unlawful discrimination under all of these policies may increase when management or supervisory bonuses are linked to lower reported injury rates.

To view the memo from OSHA's website click here.

Most workplaces have great slogans and banners that state their commitment to safety. Things like “Safety First!” or “Safety is our Top Priority!” are emblazoned across t-shirts and hats. Everybody loves to get them and wear them. But are they really a lie?

The problem with saying that safety is a priority lies in the very definition of the word. The word “priority” means: a precedence established by order of importance or urgency. A person can only have 1 top priority at a time. And in the course of a workday, that priority shifts over and over again as we react to the happenings around us.

Most of us start out each day with a to-do list – a prioritized list, either written or in our head, of tasks we hope to accomplish that day. But then the phone rings or we get an email or a text message and so the messages and information continues to assault us all day long with fires to be put out and never ending demands on our time.

So where does workplace safety fit into barrage of information and distraction? We start by being honest, realizing that safety can’t possibly be the top priority at every single moment of the day.

So we have to shift the idea of safety into one of a value – a principle considered worthwhile or desirable. When we look at safety as a value or underlying principle to be followed, then it stays with us, no matter what our ever shifting priorities are.

When we view safety as a value, we then have the mindset that safety and health will always be considered – no matter the priority.

As business focus and needs change throughout any given day, so will the needs and focus of safety. If employee safety and health is considered a value, then safety will always be present.

Do you consider Employee Safety to be a Value in your organization?  If so, how do you demonstrate that value as your priorities shift throughout the day?

But this change could save money in long run
Watch out. EPA's planning to force facilities with underground storage tanks (UST) to beef up their ability to prevent any leaks.

To do this, the agency wants tank owners and operators to:
• install secondary containment systems to capture leaks and spills
• add release prevention and detection technologies to new and repaired tank systems, and
• meet new operational and maintenance requirements.

More training for empioyees
Plus, facilities will face new employee training requirements to ensure that they know how to:
• inspect storage tanks and piping systems for leaks
• respond to leak warnings, and
• notify emergency agencies once a leak is discovered.

Failure to comply would risk fines of up to $37,500 per day, per violation.

Nearly 1 million tanks affected
The changes are detailed in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) proposal from EPA that addresses 959,000 active underground tanks at 214,000 facilities. This RCRA Subtitle 1 proposal will tighten operation of tanks used to store motor fuels and hazardous chemicals. It's the first revision of national UST standards since they were issued in 1988.

Investment avoids costly cleanups
The new UST rules will cost industry about $210 million a year, EPA estimates.  However, this investment is well worth it, the agency says, because it will save tank owners and operators up to $770 million a year that's currently spent cleaning up petroleum and chemical contamination.

The proposal also calls for eliminating exemptions enjoyed by several industries. EPA proposes to extend RCRA tank requirements to:
• tanks used to store fuel for power generators
• wastewater treatment tanks
• airport hydrant fuel distribution systems, and
• tanks used on construction sites. These exemptions were granted in 1998 because technology wasn't available then for these situations. These exemptions are no longer justified, EPA says, because systems are now available that economically sound alarms for spills and leaks.

Reprinted with permission from:

Environmental Compliance Alert 12/12/11

Facilities get chance to push for more flexible standard
Some good news for those with stormwater runoff issues: EPA doesn't seem to be in any rush to reissue its controversial turbidity standard that measures sediment contamination in stormwater runoff. 

Agency admits using bad math
The agency just announced that instead of revamping the limit, it is inviting more public comment on how it should revise the turbidity standard for runoff from construction and development activities.  EPA had proposed a numeric effluent limit of 280 nepholometric units a day for turbidity in 2009.  But the agency withdrew this when it realized it was based on shaky data and calculations that relied on passive sediment filtering technology.  Now rather than just correct the mistakes itself by Feb. 15, the agency says it will repropose the turbidity standard.  EPA wants public comment on how it should treat runoff data gathered from construction sites.

Reprinted with permission from:

Environmental Compliance Alert 12/12/11

Feds holding EHS pros personally liable

How likely is it that a safety manager will be thrown in jail or fined - personally - for violating a government regulation?  It might be more likely than you think, especially if your duties have expanded beyond workplace safety.  From 2007-2010, the Department of Justice (DO]) has acted on just 49 criminal referrals from OSHA.

Much easier under EPA regs

But in this age of job consolidation, take note if you have an "E" in your title. During that same period, the DOJ has handled 1,392 environmental criminal prosecutions, and some EHS managers have gone to prison after violating environmental rules.  At the National Safety Council's 2011 Congress, Neil Feldscher, an attorney with the New York City Department of Environmental Detection, said there are only three reasons why OSHA pursues criminal charges:
• falsification of statements or required OSHA records
• a worker fatality tied to a willful violation (and most of these aren't referred for criminal prosecution), and
• forcibly resisting an OSHA officer.
But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can pursue criminal charges against any responsible manager for any violation, and does so about 350 times per year.

Got clean water?

Example: Dhiren Patel, former EHS manager for AMCAN Beverages, was sentenced in June to four months in prison, ordered to do 100 hours of community service and give four talks to at least 100 other EHS managers explaining what led to his jail term.
Patel pled guilty to a felony charge of violating the Clean Water Act, specifically, introducing a pollutant into the sewer system of the City of American Canyon, CA.  The former EHS manager admitted he directed AMCAN employees to dilute samples of the plant's wastewater before they were sent for testing. He then prepared reports that contained the inaccurate analytical results.

Protect yourself

To protect themselves against prosecution, Feldscher says EHS managers need to:
• Stay in compliance - of course, it's the best defense
• Remember that ignorance of the law and regulations is not an acceptable defense, and
• Document, document, document. That includes discussions, phone calls, meetings and decisions.

Reprinted with permission from: Safety Compliance Alert 12/14/11

Nothing could be simpler than using a ladder: You just set it up and get to work, right?

Wrong. Many workers are injured on ladders each year because they underestimate or don't understand the risks.
Test your people's knowledge by having them answer True or False to the following:
1 An unsecured ladder should extend three feet past its highest support point.
2 When carrying heavy or unwieldy objects up a ladder, you should make sure they're held with the non-dominant hand.
3 Having a worker stand at the bottom of a ladder to warn people not to bump into it is the best way to prevent an accidents in high-traffic areas.

Reprinted with permission from:

Supervisor's Safety Bulletin

12/21/11

Cutting PPE use through process design

New way of thinking about design addresses the work itself

Here's a fresh way of thinking about worker safety protections: Rather than outfit workers with bulky and unpopular protective gear, see if you can enclose the work process and eliminate the hazard instead.  The strategy of re-engineering work processes to cut down on PPE use has been tested successfully in the pharmaceutical industry, where new kinds of high-potency drugs have also created major worker exposure problems.  When one pharma company added up all the costs of providing workers with PPE, the firm realized it was more effective to rework the process.
PPE costs included:
• $172,800 per year for PPE (with the cost of fit-testing workers of all shapes and sizes rising)
• $78,000 in extra labor costs for PPE donning and doffing time (45 minutes per employee for putting it on and taking it off after every bathroom trip, lunch hour and other break), and

• $30,000 in outsourced industrial hygiene sampling costs.

The perks of enclosing the process:
• less medical monitoring required
• reduced training costs, and
• a 40% reduction in disposal costs and less water usage for worker showers.

Solution: 'Glove bags'

With all those direct and indirect costs, the company found it cheaper to design a "glove bag" to enclose the most critical part of the process, the final pill mixing. To prevent skin absorption, ingestion or inhalation, the glove bag allows workers to put their hands inside gloves and interact with the products that way.  It's not PPE -it stays with the product and doesn't need to be tailored to employees. The final result? A 6% return on investment (ROI).

Reprinted with permission from:

Safety Compliance Alert

11/10/11

Check your Standard Practices and your Safety Culture.

So you’ve got all your required OSHA programs in place: Hazard Communication, Lockout/Tagout, Confined Space, Personal Protective Equipment, etc. You completed all of your required training last year. Your safety program looks great on paper, all the elements are there. But you are still too many having accidents. What gives?

Look at the Data

Where are the predominant areas where incidents are occurring (look at everything, not just OSHA recordables) Are there any trends that can be identified based on location, activity, production schedules, employee tenure, day of week, time, etc.?

What are your Standard Practices?

The written procedures may say one thing, but what’s really going on in the work area? Are people taking shortcuts? Is the procedure out-of-date or maybe it doesn’t even work as it’s written? Look at what people are actually doing, not what the procedures say they should be doing.
Talk to your employees, find out what their issues are and get their ideas for improving safety in the area.   Challenge the notion of “This is the way we’ve always done it.”

Hazards and Controls – Do you automatically jump to PPE?

Is there any kind of organized effort to evaluate the real hazards of tasks and identify reasonable controls? Or do you simply slap PPE on everything and everyone? This solution can cause employees to be so bogged down with equipment that they are hindered from doing their tasks effectively.

The hierarchy of hazard controls should walk through a series of steps to find the right control that works in a given situation:

• Elimination – Can we get rid of the hazard completely?
• Substitution – Is it possible to trade out a hazardous material or equipment for one that is less so?
• Engineering Control – Can something be designed to create a barrier between the hazard and the person?
• Administrative Controls – Through policies and procedures or training, can we limit the exposure or educate the workers to perform tasks in a way that minimizes the risk?
• Warnings – Are our signs and alarms effective?
• Personal Protective Equipment – Have I looked at all other options?

Anytime a hazard is identified, there should be some measure of interim control implemented until the final solution can be completed. PPE should be the hazard control method of last resort!

What is your Safety Culture?

It’s important to recognize the true culture of your organization. Every workplace has a Safety Culture, but it may not necessarily be a good one. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• Do we sacrifice safety for the sake of production?
• Do supervisors and managers ignore safety issues and hope they’ll go away?
• Do employees or supervisors walk by a safety hazard and not even notice it?
• When someone puts themselves at risk (either knowingly or unknowingly) does another person intervene to stop them?
• Do we talk a lot about safety in meetings, but when push comes to shove and the product has to get out the door, do we forget about it?
• Is safety a value or a priority in this company?

In order to take a safety program beyond the “looks good on paper” phase, an organization must start facing the tough decisions and be willing to challenge their pre-existing notions about their everyday practices and their attention to safety.

Management commitment, employee involvement, worksite analysis and hazard recognition and controls are the elements needed to truly eliminate accidents and build a strong Safety Culture where safety becomes “The way we do business.”

Everyday mistakes added up to $570K EPA fine: Why?

Yet again, another facility has been forced to pay a huge EPA penalty for violations that don't involve any release or threaten people or the environment.  The latest case is that of a paint manufacturing plant in Baltimore run by the Sherwin-Williams Co.  lt's paying a whopping $570,000 fine to settle hazardous waste storage violations observed by EPA inspectors.

Racked up history of mistakes

Like a lot of companies, Sherwin­Williams ran into trouble over basic housekeeping requirements for managing hazardous. wastes.  EPA says the company had a history over several years of failing to:

• perform hazwaste determinations required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• prepare a contingency plan to respond to possible spills
• keep hazwaste containers closed
• keep records of its RCRA hazwaste shipment manifests, and
• check underground tanks and lines for leaks.

Why the high price for what many see as basic housekeeping mistakes?

EPA justifies its crackdown on RCRA and other environmental laws as part of a larger effort to warn all facilities: "Don't take basic compliance lightly."  EPA's Donna Heron says the latest fines emphasize that compliance is really all about preventing problems. If companies don't take that seriously, they'll also face fines that accrue at $37,500 per day per violation..  She also notes that Sherwin­Williams would've faced a far tougher penalty had there been any release.

Housekeeping under several laws

It's all part of EPA's push to enforce compliance with the prevention aspects of its rules. Facilities risk penalties for failing to:

• prevent accidental air releases as required by the general duty clause of the Clean Air Act (see ECA 10/1 0/11, Page 1)
• notify local emergency responder agencies about on-site chemical storage as required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act
• conduct leak detection inspections for air toxic emissions
• update stormwater prevention plans
• monitor runoff when it rains (see story on Page 3), and
• develop spill control plans.

Reprinted with permission from:

Environmental Compliance Alert

11/7/11

It’s time to post your Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Form 300A(not the OSHA 300 log), the summary of job-related injuries and illnesses that occurred last year. The OSHA Form 300A summary must list the total number of job-related injuries and illnesses that occurred in 2011 and were logged on the OSHA 300 form.

Additional information about your annual average number of employees and total hours they worked during the calendar year also is required to help the agency calculate incidence rates. Even if you had no recordable injuries or illnesses for 2011, you still must post the OSHA Form 300A, listing zeros on the total line. The summary form must be signed by a company executive and placed in a conscpicuous location where employees can easily view it.  Most employers post their 300A Summary next to their OSHA and Wage Posters.

If you have 10 or fewer employees or fall within one of the industries normally excused from the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s (OSH Act) recordkeeping and posting requirements, you’re required to post OSHA Form 300A ) annually from February 1 to April 30.

A complete list of exempted industries in the retail, services, finance, and real estate sectors is posted on OSHA’s website along with pdf copies of the necessary forms which can be downloaded at www.osha.gov.

You can find copies of the OSHA Form 300A at OSHA’s recordkeeping webpage along with the OSHA Recordkeeping Handbook, which answers frequently asked questions and provides other information that will help you comply with your recordkeeping obligations.

Additionally, You must retain 5 years of past OSHA 300 logs.  So that means you should have 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 OSHA logs on file at your location.

OSHA says that you dont have to keep updating old logs, or the 300A summary once you post it. But you do have to start a new log for 2012 and keep it up to date throughout the year. 

One final note: Even if you’re excused from the recordkeeping requirements, all employers must report any  fatal accident or accidents involving the inpatient hospitalization of three or more employees.nearest OSHA office within eight hours.

Here's a tip for safety pros: If you want to minimize the amount of attention your company gets from OSHA, don't post sprawling criticisms of the safety agency online.  It seems pretty obvious, but it wasn't for All-Feed Processing and Packaging, Inc., based in Alpha, IL.  Inspectors issued 23 violations following a May inspection of the Galva, IL site that uncovered:
• nine per-instance willful violations for failing to mandate that six workers use respirators, and
• four single-instance willful violations for combustible dust, noise and electrical hazards.

Those 13 citations make up more than $700,000 of the fine.  The inspectors also uncovered repeat and serious violations, several of which were cited under OSHA's General Duty Clause.

A long history
Why did inspectors throw the book at the company?  No surprise:  The company has a history with OSHA.  All-Feed has been inspected 11 times since 2000 and is in the agency's Severe Violator Enforcement Program. The company even barred inspectors from entering the facility and forced them to get a warrant.  The firm also took to Facebook and YouTube calling OSHA the "oppression of American business."  The company has since taken down the YouTube videos, and the OSHA tab on its site displays an upside down American flag.

Reprinted with Permission from:

Safety Compliance Alert 11/25/11

The current OSHA administration has made no secret about its desire to publicly shame the companies it hits with violations.  The agency's most recent effort: A major upgrade to its enforcement website, where it lists companies that have been cited for safety violations or other enforcement actions.
New features on the site include:
• a map of inspection data
• the ability to filter data by year or by violation
• link to other online resources from several government agencies, and
• downloadable formats for data.

Teaming up with MSHA
The site combines OSHA enforcement data with MSHA's mine inspection results. It also allows users to create visualizations of specific sets of data.  The page also includes links to the Department of Labor's Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts.  Perhaps the biggest feature is an enhanced search function that lets visitors search by agency, location, company name, violation and penalty amount, among others.  The site is part of the Obama Administration's Open Government Initiative aimed at increasing transparency and collaboration.

Updates for construction, chemical standards
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and OSHA have emphasized replacing duplicate or outdated standards through its Standards Improvement Project (SIP).  Now OSHA is building on the success of the first three SIP efforts with two new initiatives.

The first target: Transitioning to the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) system, which standardizes material safety data sheets (MSDSs).  OSHA says it will cut down on training time and improve employees' knowledge of chemical hazards. Agency officials estimate it will save employers up to $784.4 million.  Phase four of the SIP will focus on construction standards and removing unnecessary and inconsistent regs. Specifically, the project is seeking stakeholder input on recordkeeping
and training certification standards.

Reprinted with Permission from:

Safety Compliance Alert 9/22/11

Two workers are killed every month in trench collapses.

Since 2003, more than 200 workers have died in trench cave-ins, and hundreds more have been seriously injured.  Although trenching regulations have been in place for over 12 years, cave–ins during excavations are some of the most common and grisliest causes of worker fatalities, especially  in the construction industry, yet they are entirely preventable.

When OSHA's compliance officers see a trench, they will inspect a trench.

Because of the severity of trenching hazards, OSHA has announced a Special Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavations.  A Special Emphasis Program sets procedures for increased enforcement activities wherever trenching and excavation worksites are observed.

What are Excavations and Trenches?

An Excavation is any man-made cut, cavity, trench, or depression in an earth surface formed by earth removal.

A Trench is  a narrow excavation (in relation to its length) made below the surface of the ground. In general, the depth is greater than the width, but the width of a trench (measured at the bottom) is not greater than 15 feet.

One Cubic Yard of Soil Can Weigh as much as a Car!

Dangers of Trenching and Excavation

Cave-ins pose the greatest risk and are much more likely than other excavation-related accidents to result in worker fatalities. Other potential hazards include falls, falling loads, hazardous atmospheres, and incidents involving mobile equipment. One cubic yard of soil can weigh as much as a car. An unprotected trench is an early grave. Do not enter an unprotected trench.

Trench Safety Measures

Trenches 5 feet deep or greater require a protective system unless the excavation is made entirely in stable rock. If less than 5 feet deep, a competent person may determine that a protective system is not required. Trenches 20 feet (6.1 meters) deep or greater require that the protective system be designed by a registered professional engineer or be based on tabulated data prepared and/or approved by a registered professional engineer in accordance with OSHA Excavation Standards.

Competent Person. 

OSHA standards require that employers inspect trenches daily and as conditions change by a competent person before worker entry to ensure elimination of excavation hazards. A competent person is an individual who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards or working conditions that are hazardous, unsanitary, or dangerous to workers, soil types and protective systems required, and who is authorized to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate these hazards and conditions.

Access and Egress

Safe access and egress to all excavations is required. This can inclue ladders, steps, ramps, or other safe means of exit for employees working in trench excavations 4 feet or deeper.  These devices must be located within 25 feet  of where people are working.

General Trenching and Excavation Rules

•        Keep heavy equipment away from trench edges.

•        Identify other sources that might affect trench stability.

•        Keep excavated soil (spoils) and other materials at least 2 feet from trench edges.

•        Know where underground utilities are located before digging.

•        Test for atmospheric hazards such as low oxygen, hazardous fumes and toxic gases when > 4 feet deep.

•        Inspect trenches at the start of each shift.

•        Inspect trenches following a rainstorm or other water intrusion.

•        Do not work under suspended or raised loads and materials.

•        Inspect trenches after any occurrence that could have changed conditions in the trench.

•        Ensure that personnel wear high visibility or other suitable clothing when exposed to vehicular traffic.

Protective Systems

There are different types of protective systems.

•        Benching involves  excavating the sides of an excavation to form on or a series of horizontal levels or steps, usually with vertical or near vertical surfaces between levels.

Note: Benching cannot be done in sandy soil,  gravel,  submerged or unstable rock.

•        Sloping involves cutting back the trench wall at an angle inclined away from the excavation.

•        Shoring requires installing aluminum hydraulic or other types of supports to prevent soil movement and cave-ins.

•        Shielding protects workers by using trench boxes or other types of supports to prevent soil cave-ins. Designing a protective system can be complex because you must consider many factors: soil classification, depth of cut, water content of soil, changes caused by weather or climate, surcharge loads (e.g., spoil, other materials to be used in the trench) and other operations in the vicinity.

An Unprotected Trench is an Early Grave!

OSHA, (2011, October 3) OSHA publishes new educational materials on working safely during trenching operations  and Trenching and Excavation Fact Sheet , retrieved October 23, 2011 from  www.osha.gov

Safety managers know it too well: Workers don't like wearing PPE. But, a new survey offers specifics on why workers don't wear the gear when they should.

The survey by Kimberly-Clark Professional uncovered that most safety pros see workers not wearing PPE when it's needed. Although only 119 pros were surveyed, they were all responsible for selecting and purchasing PPE at their company. 

Among workplace injuries, eye injuries are the most prevalent. Three out of five eye injuries occur when a worker isn't wearing eye protection.

Better emphasize PPE use

So why don't workers wear PPE?  Nearly 70% think PPE isn't necessary. They also consider it uncomfortable, unattractive or too hot. Given the statistics, it's important to show workers why PPE is crucial. The EHS professionals surveyed revealed their most successful strategies for encouraging PPE compliance:

• increase monitoring of employees
• invest in more comfortable and more stylish PPE
• tie in compliance with individual performance reviews, and
• develop incentive programs to encourage workers to wear PPE.

Reprinted with permission from:

Compliance Safety Alert

9/22/11

 Convincing workers to bring issues to you - not regulators

Consider these two potential safety scenarios:

In the first, a worker files a safety complaint with your local OSHA office. It prompts an inspection, resulting in a sizable fine and negative press for your company.
In a second scenario, a worker brings that same complaint to you or another safety leader. You and your safety team eliminate the hazard and make the workplace safer.
In both cases, the hazard is corrected. The second situation is obviously preferable for safety pros, but not every company takes the right steps after it receives complaints from workers.

Which industries complain to OSHA most?

Here are the five industries that sent the most complaints to OSHA in fiscal years 2009 and 2010:

1. Roofing, siding and sheet metal work (904 complaints)

2. United States Postal Service (466)

3. General contractors, nonresidential buildings (414)

4. Special trade contractors (273), and

5. General contractors, residential buildings (252).

Complaints that led to inspections
In 2010, 21 % of OSHA inspections were initiated because of complaints.
OSHA says it's more likely to visit a facility after receiving a complaint based on several conditions, including:
• an employer failing to respond to an OSHA inquiry after an incident
• a fatality covered by an emphasis program, and
• a facility with a history of poor safety compliance.

Keep complaints in-house
Workers should feel comfortable coming to you with safety issues. A few things to keep in mind:
• Have an open-door policy. Let workers know you're ready to hear complaints as soon as they see them.
• Let them be anonymous. Give workers a form to bring up issues without using their names, and
• Follow-up with results. Make sure you tell workers how you addressed their concerns, even if you decide not to act.

7 mistakes companies make on stormwater compliance

Whether facilities face drought or floods, they face a common challenge: stormwater compliance. The key to avoiding fines that can be as high as $37,500 per day per violation is a basic realization: Compliance is not about stopping the rain. It's about keeping the rain from running off your property.

What's in a bulletproof plan
Polly Porter, a stormwater expert with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), told attendees at its environmental trade show how to create a bulletproof stormwater plan. Consider:- No-discharge exemption. In theory, companies can avoid a stormwater permit. "But you're taking a big chance," Porter warns, because a company has to prove that it contained 100% of runoff on its property. Any trickle that leaves a property can trigger a fine for failing to obtain a stormwater permit.
- No-exposure exemption. Move materials, products, waste, storage and work areas indoors. If you put a roof over them, keep materials and equipment off the ground so any runoff won't come into contact with equipment.
- Who signs the permit? A corporate officer or designated manager must sign the permit. If turnover is an issue, list the manager's title as the designated corporate official. That way, the next manager automatically assumes responsibility for filing notices of intent and meeting other stormwater permit requirements.
- Update the stormwater plan. Perfectly prepared plans make inspectors suspicious. They like to see dog-eared pages and coffee stains that prove the plan is a work in progress. A good plan should be full of changes documenting how you modified your best management practices and replaced controls.
- Repair records. Inspectors expect controls to malfunction. A good plan will have detailed repair records and explanations of changes made. Note: You have to be in compliance 24/7, not just during storms.
- Good housekeeping. Inspectors' alarm bells ring loudly when they see a messy operation or sloppy waste storage areas. Inspectors assume that if it's a mess outside, it's a mess everywhere on a property.
- Investigate any discharges. If you bust a discharge limit, document your follow-up inspection and how you fixed the problem. Example: If zinc's in your runoff and it came from your metal roof, add a grass swale or rain garden to capture the runoff and keep it on the property.

Reprinted with permission from:

Environmental Compliance Alert 6/10/11

Did you know that the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that forklifts cause approximately 85 fatal accidents and 34,900 serious injury accidents per year? Or that in most fatal accidents involving forklifts, the operator is the one who is killed? Many of these accidents may be avoided when safe driving skills are understood and practiced. A forklift is very different from the family car and driving one can be hazardous to your health and the health of others if the differences are not properly understood.

Forklifts are less stable than cars and can tip over more easily. Forklifts have rear-wheel steering so the rear end of the forklift swings out when it turns. Steering a forklift requires skill and experience because its functional design makes it harder to steer and to stop. A loaded forklift weighs, on the average, as much as six times the weight of a full sized automobile, or 14,000 pounds. There may be no well-defined roads for forklift travel, making driving from one area to another unpredictable. No one should ever drive a forklift unless they have been trained and have passed an operations and driving test for each model of forklift they operate.
There are many safety areas to consider when operating forklifts.  Here are some of the most important safety tips to follow when operating a forklift:

Pedestrians
• Be aware of pedestrians and give them the right-of-way.
• Don't let anyone walk or stand under the raised forks.
• Keep a clear view so you can avoid pedestrians or obstacles in your path.
• Never let a person get between the forklift and a hard surface like a wall, table, bench or any other fixed object.
• Never let anyone ride on the forks for any reason.
• Use your horn, mirrors and flash your lights to indicate your presence to others.

Parking
• Don't park on an incline.
• Inspect and secure trailers before driving in, don=t rely on anyone else to secure it for you.
• Turn the engine off when refueling and never smoke around the forklift.

Driving
• Always use your seatbelt.
• Always look before backing up.
• Use a spotter when visibility is impaired.
• Always make sure the dock plate is secure before driving over it.
• Avoid sharp turns; you could tip the forklift over.
• Cross railroad tracks on the diagonal to prevent damage to wheels and to keep the load from slipping.
• Don't allow unauthorized drivers on your forklift and especially don't let the forklift be used for horseplay.
• Drive in reverse (except up slopes) if the load blocks your view.
• Keep to the right when driving unless layout or conditions indicate otherwise.
• Keep your arms, legs, head and feet inside the forklift when driving.
• Never drive with the forks up, or use the forklift to push other vehicles.
• Never pass a forklift going in the same direction, especially at blind spots, intersections or other dangerous areas.
• Obey speed limits, floor markings and any other road signs.
• Remember it takes a forklift traveling at 10 mph about 22 feet to come to a full stop on a dry surface.
• Slow down when driving on slippery or wet surfaces since the stopping distance is greatly increased.
• Report any and all crashes to your supervisor.
• Stay at least three vehicle lengths behind the vehicle ahead of you.
• When driving on an incline with a load, always travel with the load pointing uphill.
• When driving on an incline with no load, always travel with the forks pointing downhill.
• When you park your forklift, fully lower the forks, put the controls in neutral, turn off the engine, check the parking brake, and remove the key.
• Use wall and ceiling mirrors to help you see around corners.
• When you come to blind corners slow down, sound horn.

Remember to practice safety, don’t learn it by accident!

Fact: OSHA violations were up 15% in 2010. That stat and other data in OSHA's 2010 enforcement summary show the agency's made good on its promise to ramp up enforcement efforts.  But the agency's going beyond just slapping companies with more fines.  The summary also offers a clearer picture of how OSHA is choosing the industries and companies to inspect.

More programmed inspections
OSHA says it's devoted more resources to targeting workplaces where employees face the most risk.  Programmed inspections were up 15.1 % in 2010. Specifically, OSHA is targeting hazards under its National Emphasis Programs, including:
• amputations
• combustible dust
• crystalline silica, and
• lead.

The lesson: Pay close attention to what OSHA's targeting on a national level and what your regional office is focused on.

Taking complaints seriously
For unprogrammed inspections, OSHA's relying more heavily on one source: your employees. OSHA inspections prompted by complaints were up by almost 9% last year.  Make sure workers know you take their concerns seriously. If they feel they're not being heard, they may complain to OSHA, which is now more likely to result in an inspection.

Targeting severe violators
OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) has given the agency more power to target workplaces after a safety incident.  As a result, follow-up inspections have become more common.  But the SVEP doesn't stop there. You're also more likely to get a visit from an inspector if another facility operated by your company has been fined recently. The SVEP allows OSHA to inspect other worksites to look for "a broader pattern of non-compliance." OSHA's sending a message: Once you're on our hit list, it's tough to get off.

Willful violations through the roof
Perhaps the most startling statistic in the report: Willful violations were up 217% over 2009.  OSHA says some of the increase is due to a few headline-grabbing inspections. But it still shows: OSHA cops will use every tool at their disposal to boost fine amounts for violations.

Reprinted with permission 

Safety Compliance Alert 4/21/11

Chances are you've heard pretty much every excuse in the book from workers dropping the ball on safety procedures.
And while the more off-the-wall excuses may be entertaining (or that much more frustrating) from time to time, most safety pros can list several excuses they hear again and again.  But there are ways to fight those excuses and get workers to follow safety procedures.

The PBP executive report, Employees' Top 10 Safety Excuses and How to Counter Them, lists strategies to get workers on board.

Here are the top five excuses from the report and what to say when workers try to use them.
1. 'It won't happen to me'
Two polar-opposite groups of workers often use this excuse.  Veteran workers think they've seen it all before, and if they haven't been hurt yet, they must be doing something right.  Young workers think they're invincible.
The response: Telling these workers that gruesome injuries happen isn't enough. To really send the message, ask workers who've suffered an injury to share their stories, or include some gory images in your next training.
2. 'Safety's not my job'
Some employees see safety as a separate department, so they're not responsible for it.
The response: Show workers how safety impacts the bottom line, from workers' comp costs to OSHA fines.
3. 'Safety's boring'
Employees often associate safety with boring training sessions or confusing OSHA regs.
The response: Get workers involved in training. Encourage them to actively participate or even lead a session. That way at least they'll have an appreciation for what it takes to get others engaged in the topics.
4. 'The gear's uncomfortable'
It's the most common excuse when workers are caught not wearing PPE.
The response: Give workers a say in PPE selection. Get a few employees to test new gear and let them pick which new equipment to buy.
5. 'I just forgot'
This is the toughest excuse to counter, because it's often a cover for some other cop out.
The response: Get tough on this excuse. If a worker forgot "just this once," issue disciplinary action "just this once."

Reprinted with permission from

Safety Compliance Alert 3/24/11

What Respirator?!

In June 2008, a heat exchanger ruptured and caused an ammonia release at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Houston, killing one worker and injuring six.  The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) released its investigation of the incident as a case study.  Among CSB's conclusions: Shortcomings in Goodyear's maintenance schedule and emergency response plan contributed to the workers' injuries.

Employee tracking system down
The day before the incident, a maintenance worker closed a valve on the equipment to make repairs.  The next day, an operator closed another valve, unaware that the maintenance worker had closed one the day before, the report said.  The pressure built up until a violent explosion sent debris flying.  The report also found that when managers ordered an evacuation of the facility, they were not able to get an accurate headcount because the employee tracking system was broken.

In the case study, CSB recommends that companies:
• ensure proper communication between maintenance crews and equipment operators, and
• conduct evacuation drills to test managers' and workers' ability to react quickly in an emergency.

Reprinted with permission

Safety Compliance Alert 2/23/11

March 18, 2011

Three Phoenix area firms fined for hazardous waste violations

Tempe, Goodyear and Casa Grande companies to pay $131,000
SAN FRANCISCO – Three Phoenix area companies were fined for violating state and federal hazardous waste laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today. In separate actions, the manufacturing and processing companies will pay penalties that total $131,000.

“We impose strict environmental controls to make sure hazardous waste is properly handled,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Worker safety and the health of nearby communities is our primary concern, but it’s also important to enforce against violators to prevent them from gaining an economic advantage over their competitors.”

EPA and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality inspectors found numerous hazardous waste violations during inspections in 2008 and 2009 at Acme Aerospace, AZZ Galvanizing Services, and Hexcel Corporation.

Tempe-based Acme Aerospace, currently under new management, designs and manufactures custom batteries and battery control electronic systems for military and commercial aircraft applications. Acme was fined $31,000. AZZ Galvanizing Services, the nation’s largest galvanizer, which “hot-dips” machinery to prevent corrosion at its Goodyear facility, was fined $79,700. Casa Grande-based Hexcel Corporation develops and manufactures composites for use in commercial aerospace, wind energy and industrial applications. Hexcel Corporation was fined $20,000.

During multiple inspections, EPA and ADEQ inspectors found the facilities violated hazardous waste laws in a variety of ways, including:
· Failing to maintain the facility to minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or contaminate the environment
· Failing to label containers of hazardous waste which increases the possibility of improper handling of the waste
· Failing to properly characterize wastes, which led to hazardous waste being disposed of in the general trash
· Failing to close containers of hazardous waste, which increases workers’ exposure to hazardous constituents, contributes to air pollution, and increases the likelihood of spills
· Failing to provide proper training, which increases workers’ risk of exposure and increases the possibility of improper management of the wastes
· Storing hazardous waste for over 90 days without a permit

The EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program oversees the safe management and disposal of hazardous waste.
For more information on the RCRA program, please visit:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/rcra/index.html

EPA Updates National Air Toxics Assessment

What would you do in this situation? An employee comes to you with a safety complaint.   The hazard the employee brings up is legitimate, but he goes about the complaint all wrong.  He's disrespectful and disruptive to the point where some managers might consider firing him.  Where would you draw the line?  Was the employee a whistleblower?
That's the situation involving one worker who was considered too disruptive when he brought up hazards and was fired.

The unnamed worker complained several times about an unsafe crane lift that was endangering workers.  Eventually MMR Contractors, based in Baton Rouge, LA, and general contractor Fluor Corp., of Greenville, SC, decided to let the worker go for disruptive behavior.

The worker said he was fired for bringing up safety concerns, and OSHA agreed. The companies backed down and came to a settlement with the worker. Under that settlement the employers must:

• pay $17,500 in back wages
• remove any reference to the termination from his personnel file
• provide neutral employment references, and
• agree not to unlawfully retaliate against other employees

Why did the companies agree to the settlement? OSHA said the employee's behavior fell under the "leeway doctrine" of the OSHA Act. That doctrine gives employees some leeway in how they bring up safety issues. Basically, it says workers have a right to be a little PO'd if they're exposed to unchecked hazards.  But it doesn't give workers a blank check to fly off the handle just because a safety issue is involved.  Workers still need to be respectful.

In another recent whistleblower case, a worker said he was fired in retaliation for bringing up safety concerns.  In that case, the company won because the worker was hostile and rude to several workers and managers, not just the safety manager.  Bottom line: With any safety concern an employee has, the hazard should be addressed first.  Then, if the worker's tone was rude, tackle those issues separately.

Reprinted with permission from:

Safety Compliance Alert 2/23/11

OSHA backs off on ergonomic column for injury records

Heads up: The OSHA proposal to add an ergonomic injury column to illness and injury logs has been put on the back burner -for now.  Under the proposed rule, employers required to record injuries and illness on the OSHA 300 log would have to use a new column to indicate which injuries were musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).  But OSHA withdrew the proposed rule to get more input on its impact from small business and advocacy groups.

Other rules also halted
In its release announcing the rule's withdraw, OSHA noted that MSDs accounted for 28% of all injuries and illnesses requiring time off of work in 2009.  OSHA also indicated that most small businesses aren't required to maintain OSHA 300 logs.  But outside pressure forced the agency to slow down on the proposed rule -and other new enforcement efforts. 

OSHA also recently halted proposed changes to its occupational noise exposure standard.  The MSD rule was originally set to take effect at the beginning of this year, but in it's semi-annual regulatory agenda, OSHA said the earliest it would start was Jan. 1, 2012.  OSHA said the next step will be a meeting with small business. Details of that meeting will be announced within the next month.
Info: tinyurl.com/ergo381

Reprinted with permission from:

Safety Compliance Alert 2/7/11

Central Valley Biomass Power Plants Fined More Than $830,000 For Clean Air Act Violations

Action Reduces Facilities Air Emissions By Up To 545 Tons Per Year

SAN FRANCISCO - The United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District lodged consent decrees against two biomass power plants in Chowchilla and El Nido, Calif. The two companies have agreed to pay a combined civil penalty of $835,000 to resolve alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and District rules, including excess emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides—a precursor to ozone—and fine particulates.

“EPA is committed to doing our part to tackle the worst air quality in the nation. Today’s enforcement actions are a victory for human health,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “San Joaquin Valley communities can now breathe easier as a result of the significant pollution controls won in these settlements.”

The settlements require the facilities to install devices to improve monitoring and reporting of air pollutants; enhance automation of the control systems for nitrogen oxides emissions; and prepare more stringent control plans to minimize emissions of air pollutants. As a part of this action, the companies have installed controls that reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by up to 180 tons per year and carbon monoxide by up to 365 tons per year. The EPA and District will continue to monitor both facilities for an additional two years to ensure completion of all requirements.

Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC, (ACB), and Merced Power, LLC, (MP), located within 12 miles of each other in the San Joaquin Valley, are required to pay $328,000 and $492,000, respectively; EPA and the District will split the penalty equally. ACB is also required to pay an extra $15,000 to the District for a District-only violation.

After refurbishing the plants in 2007-2008, ACB and MP initiated operations in 2008. A joint investigation by the EPA and District found that ACB and MP violated the air permits issued to them by the District by:
· Emitting air pollutants including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide in excess of the permit limits;
· Failing to perform timely source testing to measure emissions of various air pollutants;
· Failing to properly install and operate emissions control systems for nitrogen oxides, a precursor to ozone; and
· Failing to certify the continuous emissions monitoring systems.

The plants also violated various District rules including requirements for emissions control plans. 

Biomass power plants use green waste from farms and other operations that would otherwise be subject to open burning, and construction debris that might have gone to a landfill, to generate power.

The San Joaquin Valley exceeds the national health standards for ozone and particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides react with other chemicals to form ozone and small particles, both harmful to the public’s health. Ozone and particulate matter affect the human respiratory system, and are linked to a variety of significant health problems ranging from aggravated asthma to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

Both proposed consent decrees are subject to a 30-day public comment period and final approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.A copy of each decree is available at: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.
For more information on air pollutants, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairpollutants.html.
For more information on the Clean Air Act, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa.

Ruling puts the brakes on OSHA's latest attempt to hike fines

OSHA's using a slew of enforcement tactics to boost fine amounts against employers.  One popular agency strategy: issuing more repeat citations to increase total fine amounts.  But a judge recently said OSHA was reaching too far to classify hazards as repeat violations.  Here's what happened in that case.

Different facility, same hazards?
OSHA inspected Loretto-Oswego Residential Health Care's Oswego, NY facility. Inspectors doled out five violations for the company and said two of them were repeat violations.  Why?  Inspectors said they'd found similar hazards at other Loretto facilities during recent inspections.  Those two repeat citations increased the overall fine by $55,000.
Loretto accepted the violations, but contested the repeat classifications before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC).

Who handled safety?
The commission threw out the repeat citations for several reasons. Although the separate locations were all under the same president and CEO, the court found employees at the Oswego site were responsible for safety there.

That facility had its own safety committee and conducted safety training for new workers, OSHRC said.  Another note: No executives were located at the Oswego site. They were based at a different location.  Because this site was  operated independently, especially when it came to safety, OSHRC said the citations didn't qualify as repeat.

Fines upheld in another case
In another recent case involving repeat citations, OSHRC said OSHA could issue repeat citations under unique circumstances.  In that case, S&W Construction filed for bankruptcy, then reopened as Sharon & Walter Construction, Inc., six weeks later.  When the "new" company was fined for fall protection hazards, inspectors said they were repeat citations -S&W had been fined for similar hazards recently. 

When the company fought the repeat violation, OSHRC used a three-point test to determine if the repeat fines should stick.  They should, OSHRC said, since the companies were essentially the same and the same people were responsible for making decisions that impacted workers' safety.

Safety Compliance Alert 2/7/11