1 / 38

OSHA Update -- June 2011

OSHA Update -- June 2011. Richard E. Fairfax, CIH Deputy Assistant Secretary Occupational Safety and Health Administration. FY 2007 – FY 2011 Inspections Conducted. FY 2007 – FY 2011 % Programmed vs. % Unprogrammed. FY 2007 – FY 2011 % Complaint Inspections.

glyn
Download Presentation

OSHA Update -- June 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. OSHA Update -- June 2011 Richard E. Fairfax, CIH Deputy Assistant Secretary Occupational Safety and Health Administration

  2. FY 2007 – FY 2011Inspections Conducted

  3. FY 2007 – FY 2011% Programmed vs. % Unprogrammed

  4. FY 2007 – FY 2011% Complaint Inspections

  5. FY 2007 – FY 2011% Inspections In-Compliance

  6. FY 2007 – FY 2011Total Violations Issued

  7. FY 2007 – FY 2011Total Violations Issued as Serious

  8. FY 2007 – FY 2011% Total Violations Issued as SWR

  9. FY 2007 – FY 2011% NIC Inspections with only OTS Violations

  10. FY 2007 – FY 2011% of Inspections Contested

  11. FY 2007 – FY 2011Average Penalty /Serious Violation

  12. FY 2007 – FY 2011% Construction Inspections

  13. FY 2007 – FY 2011Significant Inspections

  14. FY 2007 – FY 2011Egregious Cases

  15. FY 2007 – FY 2011Fatality Inspections

  16. Hazard Communication Respiratory Protection Lockout/Tagout Electrical, Wiring Methods Powered Industrial Trucks Electrical, General Requirements Machine Guarding Recordkeeping Personal Protective Equipment Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus Top Ten General Industry Violations

  17. Scaffolding Fall Protection Ladders Fall Protection, Training Requirements Hazard Communication General Safety & Health Provisions Head Protection Aerial Lifts Eye & Face Protection Excavation, Specific Excavation Requirements Top Ten Construction Violations

  18. Scaffolding Fall Protection Hazard Communication Lockout/Tagout Electrical, Wiring Methods Ladders Powered Industrial Trucks Machine Guarding Respiratory Protection Electrical, General Requirements FY 2011 – Top 10 Serious Violations

  19. Excavation, Protective Systems Fall Protection Grain Handling Facilities Process Safety Management Asbestos Recordkeeping, General Recording Criteria Lockout/Tagout Safeguards for Personnel Protection Lead Recordkeeping, Recording Criteria FY 2011 – Top 10 Willful Violations

  20. FY 2011 – Top 10 PSM Violations • 1910.119 J – Mechanical Integrity • 1910.119 D – Process Safety Information • 1910.119 F – Operating Procedures • 1910.119 E – Process Hazards Analysis • 1910.119 L – Management of Change • 1910.119 G – Training • 1910.119 O – Compliance Audits • 1910.119 H – Contractors • 1910.119 I – Pre-Startup Review • 1910.119 M – Incident Investigation

  21. Stuff in the Works • FOIA Manuals – Whistleblower and Enforcement • GHS • Referral system for inadequate MSDS • SVEP - Serious Violators Inspection Program

  22. Stuff in the Works NOISE • Current policy: 1983 interpretation and current FOM policy • CSHO must conduct a cost estimation of a hearing conservation program (HCP) and of engineering controls.  • Training • We have estimated the cost of a HCP for a large company to be $310-320 per employee per year and for a smaller company the numbers aren't in but we are hearing about $600/per year/employee.  • Stakeholder Meeting • Public comments • New Noise Website

  23. Stuff in the Works SVEP: As May 31, 2011, DEP has logged: • 149 SVEP cases • 27 (18 %) of the 149 SVEP cases are fatalities • 101 (68 %) of the 149 SVEP cases are Non-fatality/Catastrophe Related to a High-Emphasis Hazard • 1 (.7 %) of the 149 SVEP cases are Non-fatality/Catastrophe for PSM • 93 (63 %) of the 149 SVEP cases are in construction • 9 (10 %) of the 93 SVEP construction cases are fatalities • Number of SVEP cases that are egregious cases: 20 (14 %) of 149 SVEP cases

  24. Stuff in the Works SVEP • In addition, there have been: • 4 Follow-up inspections • 13 General Industry- Related inspections, 1 of which was also an SVEP • 1 Construction-Related inspection • The Regional Offices also reported: • 15 enhanced settlement agreement • 20 company headquarters were sent copies of citations and/or notified • 0 Section 11(b) case referred to SOL or filed with the courts • Size of Employers (size based on # of employees controlled) • 73 employers had 1-25 employees, 49 % of the SVEPs • 35 employers had 26-100 employees, 24 % of the SVEPs • 13 employers had 101-250 employees, 9 % of the SVEPs • 27 employers had 251 employees or greater, 18% of the SVEPs

  25. Stuff in the Works SVEP • Removal from te SVEP -

  26. Stuff in the Works Directives: • Workplace Violence • Family Fatality • CSHO Training • Pyrotechnics

  27. Stuff in the Works CSAs • Status of Directive – with Assistant Secretary for signature • Major Changes include: • Clarifies the distinction between National and Regional CSAs • OSHA may initiate negotiation of CSA • Broadens the scope of enforcement issues appropriate for a CSA (no longer only egregious) • Current Negotiations • Sunoco • USPS • BP • CVS

  28. Stuff in the Works Penalties • Continues to closely monitor metrics captured by IMIS • Completing manual data collection to compare impact of penalty changes between FY 10 and FY 11 • Challenges moving forward: • Other OSHA policy changes impacting settlement negotiations

  29. Stuff in the Works • New NEPs • Health Case • Metals (Just released) • Isocyanates • Issues with NEPs • How many is enough • Should they have a sunset clause • Should our strategy change

  30. Stuff in the Works • Initiatives • Grain (will continue) • Heat stress • Under represented workers

  31. Stuff in the Works • Social media • Apps • Customer service project • Click and fix • ERGO

  32. Standards • Backing Operations – RFI, August 2011 • Backing vehicles and equipment are common causes of struck-by injuries and can also cause caught between injuries when backing vehicles and equipment pin a worker against something else. • OSHA is seeking comment on technological and non technological solutions to prevent back over incidents.

  33. Standards • Consensus Standards-Acetylene – DFR, August 2011 • Construction Confined Spaces – Final – Fall 2011

  34. Standards • Cranes & Derricks-Underground & Demolition – DFR, August 2011 • The final rule for Cranes & Derricks was issued on August 9th, 2010. This DFR will ensure that the Cranes & Derricks standard is applied to subsectors of construction work, demolition, and underground construction that were previously exempted from coverage.

  35. Standards • HazCom/GHS – Final, August 2011 • This final rule modifies the current HCS to align with the provisions of the United Nations’ (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The modifications to the HCS will improve the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards by providing harmonized criteria for classifying and labeling

  36. Standards • Infectious Diseases, Stakeholder Meeting, July 2011 • Injury and Illness Prevention Program, SBREFA, June 2011 • SIPs III – Final – Published June 8th, 2011

  37. Standards • Reinforced Concrete – ANPRM, June 2011 • Current rules regarding reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities do not adequately address worker hazards in work related to post-tensioning and reinforcing steel. • OSHA is seeking public comment on Post-tensioning and Reinforcing Steel from professionals who work in the post-tensioning and reinforcing steel field and will consider rulemaking to prevent worker deaths and injuries related to these operations. • OSHA hopes to determine whether a new rule is necessary, and, if so, what hazards need to be addressed.

  38. QUESTIONS ???????

More Related