Safety Consultants    1-888-755-8010    info@FDRsafety.com

T: 1-888-755-8010
E: info@FDRsafety.com

 

Occupational Safety Blog

By Fred Rine, CEO of FDRsafety and former long-time Managing Director of Safety and Health at FedEx, Jim Stanley, President of FDRsafety and former No. 2 at OSHA headquarters and Mike Taubitz, Senior Advisor to FDRsafety and former Global Safety Director for General Motors.


Archive for the ‘Recordkeeping’ Category

Injury, illness rates were heading down even without OSHA enforcement push

March 25th, 2011 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

There’s great news in a recent report from OSHA – injury and illness rates, collectively known as recordables, were down sharply in 2009 compared with 2005.

As you can see from the chart below, the trend line moved on a steady downward path.

Of course that’s great news for workers and their companies. With a safer workplace, everyone wins.

But the chart does make you wonder. Nearly all that progress in injury and illness reduction was made prior to OSHA’s announcement that there was a new “sheriff” in town for workplace safety enforcement.

Under the Bush administration, there was a much stronger emphasis on voluntary cooperation between industry and OSHA. When the Obama administration took over, OSHA’s new leaders said the voluntary approach did not do enough to protect workers and reduce injuries and illnesses. But many business leaders have complained that OSHA’s enforcement push has been misguided and overdone.

As time goes on and OSHA compiles figures for 2010 and 2011, during the full bloom of the enforcement campaign, it will be interesting to see where the trend line goes and whether the sheriff got the real job done – keeping workers safe.

Share




Following the safety path to zero incidents

February 24th, 2011 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

Let’s assume that you are the head of safety in your organization. The good news is that your OSHA recordable and lost work-day rates are extremely low and a point of pride for the organization. The bad news is that you seem to have hit a plateau and management keeps looking for ideas to achieve the elusive goal of zero incidents.

We’ll also assume that your manufacturing operations are well guarded, employees are trained, leading indicators are utilized and you have tried behavior-based safety approaches. What’s next?

The answer lies not in the latest program or a “silver bullet.” The solution is a long-term process of continuous improvement that engages the workforce to continually making things better. In an ideal situation, employees will take personal responsibility for their safety and look out for their colleagues. There is a foundation step before you embark on this journey:

• Employees “wanting to” be safe rather than “having to” be safe is the cornerstone of workers being responsible for their actions.

• Safety viewed as a 24-7 family-driven value is the motivator for employees “wanting to” be safe.

Ingredients of continuous improvement

Think of a continuous improvement process as a completed home that is always improved. If you only build the foundation, it won’t be a very pleasant home. Building the remaining structure requires things such as:

• Processes that communicate problems on the factory floor
• Engaging workers in identifying and mitigating hazards
• Supervisors treating employees with respect
• On-going training and hazard abatement processes
• Management communicating a personal “I care” message
• Risk assessment and other simple tools allowing employees to identify and mitigate risk without having to call the safety department

Organizations that choose this approach will reap the benefits of improved safety, quality and productivity. Remember that safety is a value – not a priority competing with the priorities of other functions. Improving safety not only improves the health and well-being of workers but also improves overall organizational performance.

If we want employees to commit to us, we need to commit to them on a personal level. That commitment can only be demonstrated with a process of continuous improvement.

Share




OSHA budget plan: Agency still pushing enforcement, but pulls back in one area

February 15th, 2011 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

With the President trying to accommodate business on the issue of excessive regulation, OSHA seems to be trying to walk a tightrope in its budget request for 2012.

The agency is asking for 25 additional compliance officers. That is in keeping with a two-year trend of increased emphasis on enforcement. OSHA chief David Michaels also gave other indications of continued pressure on enforcement in a webchat Monday:

• The agency’s top priority, he said, is a putting into place an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, which has become known as I2P2. The agency is proposing that every company under its jurisdiction be required to develop a safety program that meets specific OSHA requirements.

As I have blogged previously, while it is an excellent idea to require every company to have a safety program, it is not a good idea to force companies to follow specific requirements. Businesses vary too much to make that practical.

• The agency is also proposing to expand its Site Specific Targeting program. That program currently targets companies with 40 or more employees that have high injury rates. OSHA is proposing to broaden the program to include companies with 20 or more employees.

“By targeting employers with high injury rates who have 20 or more employees, we will be impacting a far larger group of workplaces, while actually conducting a slightly higher number of inspections,” Michaels said. “In 2012, we project about 2,000 SST inspections compared to 1,780 conducted in FY 2010.”

Backing off on Voluntary Protection Program

On the other hand, Michaels said OSHA was backing away from a plan to reduce support for the Voluntary Protection Program. This program encourages voluntary cooperation between companies and OSHA.

OSHA had proposed eliminating the appropriation to run the program and redirecting the funding elsewhere. In its place, OSHA wanted a fee-based system to fund the program. But Michaels said Monday, “We are no longer proposing alternative funding for the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). OSHA will continue to fund VPP out of the federal compliance assistance budget activity.”

This pullback follows two other retreats on enforcement last month, when OSHA said it was withdrawing both a noise control proposal and a plan to add an separate ergonomics column to the injury and illness recordkeeping log companies are required to keep.

Withdrawing those two proposals and restoring the voluntary cooperation program with industry will go a long way to righting the “excessive” regulation that the President pointed to as a barrier to economic growth. Further moderation of enforcement zeal would help as well.

Share




As OSHA withdraws ergonomics proposal, here’s what else it should rethink

January 26th, 2011 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

In its second course reversal in a week, OSHA has withdrawn a proposal to step up recordkeeping requirements for ergonomic injuries, naturally raising questions about what else the agency might be rethinking. My suggestion is to look next at the proposed Injury and Illness Prevention Program, known as I2P2.

The ergonomics proposal would have required employers to enter musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses in a separate column on their OHSA logs. The agency said in a news release that small business had raised concerns about the plan and that it was being temporarily withdrawn to gather more input.

The ergonomics proposal and a proposed noise control initiative withdrawn last week were in the forefront of OSHA’s massive enforcement push over the last two years. While it is unclear what is behind the two withdrawals, the timing is interesting — coming just after President Obama announced a plan to revise federal regulations deemed excessive and harmful to economic growth.

There is no indication whether OSHA plans to backtrack elsewhere and doing so would be much more difficult in many cases since it would mean pulling back on initiatives that have already been put in place, such as the Severe Violators Enforcement Program and the substantial increases in average penalties across the board.

However, there is another proposal not yet implemented that OSHA would be well-advised to rethink – the Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Under that plan, announced last spring, all employers under OSHA’s jurisdiction would be required to have a safety program following specific federal guidelines.

While I agree with the idea of requiring all employers to have a safety program, it is impractical to have very specific federal requirements for those programs, since there are so many differences among businesses. I2P2 is another case of OSHA overstepping and it ought to be rethought.

Share




Labor Department’s lawyers to fight reductions of OSHA penalties, attack industry-wide issues

January 12th, 2011 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

As OSHA pushes forward with tougher enforcement, the critical role played by the legal office of the Department of Labor is not always fully appreciated. The office of the Solicitor of Labor is not a part of OSHA, but handles its legal work and has a significant role in calling the shots on enforcement.

So for those trying to figure out where OSHA is headed, the annual operating plan issued by the solicitor’s office can provide important clues.

Jonathan Snare and Howard Radzely of the Morgan Lewis law firm have done an excellent job of analyzing that document in a recent article.

Among the things to watch for from OSHA and the solicitor’s office:

• Action from a new “Penalty Reduction Task Force,” set up to reduce the rate of cases in which administrative law judges and the OSHA Review Commission substantially reduce OSHA penalties.

• More publicity about litigation against alleged violators. This matches up with OSHA’s plan to make increased use of public “shaming” of companies that are issued citations.

• Greater emphasis on targeting allegedly unlawful practices across industries and enterprises, rather than company-by-company enforcement. What this means, Snare and Razely say, is: “employers should be alert to industry enforcement trends, and immediately adapt their policies and procedures to match current enforcement patterns. Employers no longer have the luxury of waiting for particular industry enforcement trends to ‘hit’ (or not) at their workplace, nor can they assume that enforcement will be limited to one facility.”

• Action from an “Ergonomics Response Team” to identify cases that have set precedents contrary to the agency’s agenda and then find cases that can be used to reverse those precedents.

• Development of a strategy to litigate against companies that evade penalties and compliance by going in and out of business.

The office is also preparing for expected legal challenges to the cranes standard and to the proposal to include a separate column to record musculoskeletal disorders on the OSHA 300 accident and illness log.

To keep up with the latest news about increased OSHA enforcement, subscribe to this blog and have it sent automatically to your Reader or email box.

Share




Repeat citations against U.S. Minerals, Postal Service show OSHA will keep coming back

December 28th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA is delivering on its promise to organizations it considers to be “severe violators” – it is going to visit other facilities the organization owns to see if there are problems there as well.

One example is U.S. Minerals Co., against which OSHA has proposed penalties of more than $870,000 for citations at three facilities. The company was also placed in OSHA’s new Severe Violator Enforcement Program. The citations resulted from two inspections at the company’s Baldwin, Ill., facility, followed by one at its Harvey, La., location and one at its Galveston, Texas, facility.

A company placed in the Severe Violators Enforcement Program is subject to having all their facilities inspected to see if a problem found at one location is occurring elsewhere as well.

But OSHA is also showing up at multiple locations for companies not placed in the Severe Violators program.

The top example is a bit surprising: The U.S. Postal Service. OSHA has issued citations against at least 17 postal facilities in 2009 and 2010 with proposed penalties, mostly for electrical hazards, of about $4.5 million. As a result, OSHA issued a complaint asking that the Postal Service be ordered to correct electrical violations at 350 facilities. It is the first time the department has sought enterprise-wide relief as a remedy.

And this fall, OSHA cited a well-known retailer and proposed fines of more than $180,000 for failing to document and report injuries and illnesses at a distribution center. OSHA said the company willfully disregarded OSHA regulations. That followed citations in 2009 for willful recordkeeping violations at two other locations with proposed penalties of more than $100,000.

OSHA defines as a willful violation as one “committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.”

The lesson In this is clear for companies with multiple locations – your safety program must be consistent corporation wide. At the first sign of a problem at one location, you need to make sure it is not occurring elsewhere.

To keep up with the latest news about increased OSHA enforcement, subscribe to this blog and have it sent automatically to your Reader or email box.

Share




Hidden in the stats: The dangers of maintenance work

December 8th, 2010 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

Thorough recordkeeping is essential to a strong safety program, but even companies that keep good records may be missing something in their numbers: the high risk presented by maintenance activities.

About 6 percent of workers are involved in maintenance activities on a daily basis, where they are exposed to a wide variety of hazards. Figures from EUROSTAT indicate that around 10 to 15 percent of all fatal accidents are related to maintenance.

So a one-day conference called “Maintenance: Do It Safely,” sponsored by EU-OSHA and the Belgian EU Presidency last month was particularly valuable. The goal was to show how safe maintenance could save lives. This coincided with the release of EU-OSHA’s report, “Safe maintenance in practice: outlining key strategies businesses should adopt to prevent maintenance risks.”

The conference noted that maintenance is not only necessary to ensure the reliability of physical structures and productivity, but also is important to safer and healthier working conditions. “While maintenance is essential to keep equipment, machines and the work environment safe and reliable and prevent harm, the maintenance work itself is a high-risk activity,” the conference said.

The report details how safety and health risks associated with maintenance can be successfully managed. Good occupational safety and health management practices are at the heart of reliable and safe maintenance. Worthy of note is the recognition and inclusion of Prevention through Design, a NIOSH initiative.

Normal safeguards not always available

Awareness, skills, training, procedures and PPE become more important during maintenance work, because normal safeguards no longer provide protection. Unplanned/unscheduled breakdowns require maintenance to get back into production. Such situations are inherently higher risk when normal safeguards must be bypassed, for example:

• Guards must be removed
• Two hand controls do not provide protection
• Power may be required for diagnostic work and trouble shooting

These hazards and hazardous situations cannot be identified by analyzing lost time or recordable injury cases resulting from different exposures. If your company is primarily “focused on the numbers,” you may be overlooking some of the highest risk situations facing your workers – maintenance work. Two other factors inhibit efforts to deal with maintenance related injuries and fatalities:

• Research has shown that these high-severity incidents have low probability. Unless you have a database of near miss incidents for maintenance work, you will not have past history to analyze. Again, the exposures in maintenance work are different from those in your traditional injury illness database.

• There may be hundreds (even thousands) of unplanned maintenance tasks performed each year in small and medium enterprises. Unplanned maintenance typically involves many more tasks than planned maintenance and may pose greater risk because the risks have not been analyzed.

These issues could explain why good companies have an employee fatality when their injury statistics have been trending downwards for years. CEOs and others ask themselves, “What did we miss?” Maintenance cases are typically infrequent but often high severity. The maintenance recordable cases will be different exposures than those that result in a death. Near miss reporting could provide a history – but few have it.

Elements of a prevention initiative

Make sure that your injury prevention initiatives include:

• A process for proactively identifying high-risk maintenance work:

    –Talk to the workers and engage them in identifying the highest risk jobs.
    –Use task-based risk assessment to assure that proper protection is provided.
    –Observation

• Strong supervision
• Procedures
• Responsibility and accountability

If you have any questions, FDRsafety can help or feel free to contact me at mtaubitz@fdrsafety.com.

Share




Confusion abounds about OSHA’s recordkeeping pilot program

October 6th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

A confusing picture has emerged about the status of an OSHA pilot program to crack down on alleged under-reporting of accidents and illnesses.

As noted on this blog in August, a trade publication called Inside OSHA (subscription required to view) reported that OSHA was suspending a pilot recordkeeping program to clamp down on the alleged under-reporting. The newsletter said that the reason for the suspension was that the program had not found significant numbers of violations.

OSHA announced the program last year and said it would concentrate on industries with traditionally high accident rates. Within those industries, companies that have reported low accident rates were to be the most likely to be audited because of suspicions that the low rate might be generated by under-reporting.

But this week Jordan Barab, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, said that the recordkeeping program had not been shelved. Rather, he said, the program is refocusing on large manufacturing sites, according to an account by the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit group that conducts investigative journalism. Barab said OSHA has inspected 187 worksites as part of its Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program, finding violations in about half of them.

OSHA has come under criticism from a different non-profit, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which also said the recordkeeping program has been suspended. The group, known as PEER, said the agency had been ignoring high-hazard industries – petroleum refineries, chemical plants and paper mills, for example – while focusing on small businesses and certain geographic areas.

The criticism is unusual because OSHA has been stepping up enforcement since the Obama administration took over. Most previous questioning about the agency’s enforcement efforts has come from business groups saying that OSHA has been too aggressive.

Regardless of how this confusing situation plays out, it is vital for all companies to do a thorough job in compiling injury and illness records to meet OSHA requirements. For some hints on how to do so, see my post on the top 10 mistakes companies make with OSHA recordkeeping.

To keep up with the latest news about increased OSHA enforcement, subscribe to this blog and have it sent automatically to your Reader or email box.

Share




Top 10 mistakes companies make with OSHA recordkeeping

September 27th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

One of the most persistent sources of problems we see as safety consultants is confusion over how to handle OSHA recordkeeping requirements for accidents and illnesses.

Arthur Sapper, an attorney with McDermott Will & Emery and a leader in OSHA compliance law, has written an excellent and comprehensive article about the top mistakes he sees employers making on their OSHA 300 logs.

At the top of his list: The mistaken belief by employers that if an injured worker can still perform useful work, the injury need not be recorded as a work restriction.

Others:

• Believing that light duty is not a recordable work restriction.
• Failing to give proper weight to the account of an accident provide by the injured employee.
• Misunderstanding the recordability of a non-occupational injury that was aggravated on the job.
• Failing to keep track of days away from work for an injured employee who has stopped reporting for work because he or she is on long-term injury leave.

The full article is well worth reading.

Share




Numbers that will put you on OSHA’s inspection list

September 10th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA is giving very specific guidance as to which companies with high rates of workplace injuries can expect to see an OSHA inspector soon.

The 4,100 companies on the list were identified from a larger list of 15,000 employers who reported high injury rates to OSHA and who received a notification from the agency that they should “take immediate steps to protect their workers.”

The smaller list of 4,100 is called the Site-Specific Targeting primary inspection list. In an OSHA compliance directive, the agency spelled out what it took to get on the list:

• Manufacturing establishments with a Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate at or above 7.0, or a Days Away from Work Injury and Illness (DAFWII) case rate at or above 5.0
• Nursing and personal care facilities (i.e., establishments in Standard Industrial Classification code 805) with either a DART rate at or above 16.0 or a DAFWII case rate at or above 13.0
• Other non-manufacturing establishments with a DART rate at or above 15.0 or a DAFWII case rate at or above 14.0

More details on this directive are available in an excellent article by Eric J. Conn and James A. Lastowka of the McDermott Will Emery law firm. Conn and Lastowka go on to say that a number of companies on the list have already been inspected and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If you are concerned about the possible arrival of an OSHA inspector, read my article “How to meet the challenge of greatly increased OSHA enforcement.”

To keep up with the latest news about increased OSHA enforcement, subscribe to this blog and have it sent automatically to your Reader or email box.

Share