OSHA Update

Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College Safety Day Conference March 15, 2012 Mark Hysell Area Director Eau Claire, WI 54701 715-832-9019 [email protected]

Objectives

• Vision FY 2012 • Inspection Statistics • Enforcement Changes: Penalty & SVEP • OSHA Top 10 Update • Emphasis Programs • Global Harmonized System Update • Fatality Update • Question & Answers

Dr. Michaels’ Vision

• Stronger enforcement: some employers need incentives to do the right thing • Ensure that workers have a voice • Refocus and strengthen our compliance assistance programs • Change workplace culture: employers must “find and fix” workplace hazards

FY 2007 – FY 2011 Inspections Conducted (Federal)

50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 39,324 FY07 38,667 FY08 39,004 FY09 40,993 FY10 40,488 FY11

Region V FY 2011 Inspection • 7,141 total inspections – 3,512 of which were construction – 1,478 were health inspections • Wisconsin inspection data for FY 2011 – 1,665 inspections – 791 were construction – 346 were health inspections

FY 2007 – FY 2011 % Construction Inspections

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 59% FY07 60% FY08 61% FY09 60% FY10 56% FY11

FY 2007 – FY 2011 % Programmed vs. % Unprogrammed

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 59% 41% 60% 40% 62% 38% 60% 40% FY07 FY08 Programmed FY09 FY10 Unprogrammed 58% 42% FY11

FY 2007 – FY 2011 (Oct 1 – Sep 12 ) Significant Cases

250 200 150 100 50 0 107 FY07 121 FY08 120 FY09 164 FY10 201 FY11

Significant Cases Region V – FY 11 65 significant cases issued    Wisconsin – 11 issued Illinois – 26 issued Ohio – 28 issued

Region V Significant Cases by Inspection Type        Complaints – 21 Fatality/Accident – 9 NEP (Trench, Lead, PSM, SST) – 13 LEPs (Falls, PITs, PMI, Grain) - 6 Referrals/SVEP – 8 Follow-up – 5 Federal Agency – 3

Region V, Major Issues Sig Cases FY 11           16 – LO/TO, machine guarding 9 – trenching 6 – Grain 4 – Falls (General Industry) 3 – 1910.269 electrical power transmission 6 – Roofing/Falls/Scaffolds 3 – PSM 3 – PIV 3 - Federal Agencies 12 – Health

FY 2007 – FY 2011 Nationwide Average Current Penalty Per Serious

$2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 $918 FY07 $998 FY08 $970 FY09 $1,053 FY10 $2,203 FY11

Administrative Penalty Changes http://www.osha.gov/dep/administr ative-penalty.html

Administrative Penalty Changes

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Gravity-Based Penalty Size History Good Faith Increased Minimum Penalties Severe Violator Enforcement Program 7. Repeat Violations 8. Informal Conference Consideration 9. Application of penalty adjustment factors

Gravity-Based Penalty

High/Greater Medium/Greater Low/Greater High/Lesser Medium/Lesser Low/Lesser Current $5,000 or $7,000 $3,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 New $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000

Serial adjustment

Impact

• Medium size employer 50 employees • Received a serious (HG) citation four years ago • Good safety program

Serious Violation High Severity Lesser Probability • Old System • $2500 • History -10% • Good Faith -15% • Quick Fix -15% • Size -40% • $500 • New System • $5000 • History +10% $5500 • Good Faith – 15% • Size -30% • $2781.62

$4675 • Quick Fix -15% $3973.75

Severe Violator Enforcement Program

Criteria

Fatality/Catastrophe Criterion

•

One

or more

willful

or

repeated

citations or

failure-to abate

notices based on a serious violation related to a death of an employee or three or more hospitalizations

Criteria (cont.)

Non-Fatality/Catastrophe Criterion Related to High-Emphasis Hazards

•

Two

or more

willful

or

repeated

violations or

failure-to abate

notices based on high gravity serious violations related to a

High-Emphasis Hazard

Criteria (cont.)

Non-Fatality/Catastrophe Criterion for Hazards Due to the Potential Release of a Highly Hazardous Chemical (PSM)

•

Three

or more

willful

the PSM standard or

repeated

violations or

failure-to-abate

notices based on high gravity serious violations related to hazards due to the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical, as defined in

Egregious Criterion

• All

egregious

(e.g., per-instance citations) enforcement actions • Including Recordkeeping

High Emphasis Hazards

•

Examples:

–

Fall Hazards Covered by General Industry Standards

• 29 CFR §1910.23 - Guarding floor and wall openings and holes [Walking-Working Surfaces] • 29 CFR §1910.28 - Safety requirements for scaffolding [Walking Working Surfaces]

High Emphasis Hazards (cont.)

•

Hazards due to the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical as covered by the PSM

– 29 CFR §1910.119, Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals • Requires employers to develop management systems to control hazards related to the release of highly hazardous chemicals (HHC). The elements of the management systems are interrelated. Consequently, hazards from the potential release of HHC often result from deficiencies in several elements of the management system.

SVEP Actions

• Enhanced Follow-up Inspections • Nationwide Inspections of Related Workplaces/Worksites • Increased Company Awareness of OSHA Enforcement – Sending Citation and Notification of Penalty to Headquarters – Issuing a Press Release

SVEP Actions (cont.)

• Enhanced Settlement Provisions – Hiring a Qualified Safety and Health Consultant – Company-wide Settlement Agreement • Federal Court Enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act

Nationwide, FY 2011 Top 10 Most Cited Standards (General Industry)

1. Hazard Communication 2. Respiratory Protection 3. Lockout/Tagout 4. Electrical, Wiring Methods 5. Powered Industrial Trucks 6. Electrical, General Requirements 7. Machine Guarding 8. Recordkeeping 9. Personal Protective Equipment 10. Mechanical Power Transmission Apparatus

Most Frequently Cited OSHA Violations Region V General Industry

4.

5.

6.

7.

1.

2.

3.

8.

9.

10.

Machine Guarding, General Hazard Communication Program Hazard Communication, Training Lockout/Tagout Procedures Lockout/Tagout Program Powered Industrial Trucks Machine Guarding, Point of Operation Lockout/Tagout, Periodic inspections Hazard Assessment & PPE Selection Guarding Floor & Wall Openings & Holes

Nationwide, FY 2011 Top 10 Most Cited Standards (Construction Industry)

1. Scaffolding 2. Fall Protection 3. Ladders 4. Fall Protection, Training Requirements 5. Hazard Communication 6. Head Protection 7. General Safety & Health Provisions 8. Aerial Lifts 9. Eye & Face Protection 10. Specific Excavation Requirements

Most Frequently Cited OSHA Violations Region V Construction

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Fall Protection, Residential Fall Protection, Training Safety program, frequent & regular inspections Ladders Eye & Face Protection Head Protection Scaffolds, Fall Protection Fall Protection, General Safety program Excavations

National Emphasis Programs

• Current: • Lead • Combustible Dust • Amputations • Primary Metals • Recordkeeping • Silica • Trenching • Food Flavorings • Hex Chrome • Chemical Facilities In Development: Nursing Homes Isocyanates

Region V Local Emphasis Programs for FY 12 • Primary Metals • Fall Hazards in Construction • Powered Industrial Vehicles (Construction & General Industry) • Building Renovation/Rehabilitation (“Gut Rehab”) • Amputation Targeting in GI • Grain • Dairy Farm LEP for Wisconsin

HEAT FACT SHEETS

Global Harmonized System International Mandate Update • 1992 UNCED Agreement, endorsed by the UN General Assembly: – A globally-harmonised hazard classification and compatible labelling system, including material safety data sheets and easily understandable symbols, should be available, if feasible, by the year 2000.

» Programme Area B, Chapter 19, Agenda 21

The Beginnings of the GHS

 1983 Preamble to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) included commitment to harmonization.

 International mandate adopted in 1992.

 Negotiations to complete the GHS in several international organizations for the next 10 years.

 Adopted by the United Nations in 2003.

 GHS now available for worldwide implementation, with the goal of a fully operational system by 2008.

Why does OSHA need it?

• OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) has performance-oriented requirements for labels and safety data sheets • Hazard communication is often inconsistent as a result • Users of labels and safety data sheets would prefer a standardized approach • Adoption of the GHS would address this domestic concern

Impact on U.S. Regulations

 Affected agencies include OSHA, DOT, EPA, and CPSC.

 OSHA has more requirements affected by the GHS than other U. S. agencies – covering over 7 million workplaces, more than 100 million employees and 945,000 hazardous chemical products.

 OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard includes the primary affected requirements.

Environmental

• Environmental Effects – GHS covers aquatic toxicity, requires environmental information on safety data sheets – OSHA does not have authority for environmental information; will not adopt aquatic tox criteria or require environmental info on data sheets

Why is the GHS Needed?

    Protect Health and Safety Differing label/SDS elements Different definitions of hazard for same chemical Different information is required in different systems     Trade/Economic Multiple Regulations (domestically and internationally) Burden of Compliance Small/medium enterprises may be precluded

Benefits of the GHS

 Labels hazard. – Use pictograms (help address literacy issues), signal words, hazard statements. Same information and language for the same  MSDSs – Harmonized format. Hazard information is in consistent and prescribed locations.  Training – prescribed label elements and order of information on data sheets facilitate training/comprehensibility.

 Reduces barriers to trade.

The Benefits of Harmonisation • Countries, international organisations, chemical producers and users of chemicals all benefit – Enhanced protection of humans and environment – Facilitate international trade in chemicals – Reduce need for testing and evaluation – Assist countries and international organisations in the sound management of chemicals

The GHS Isn’t….

 A model regulation or a standard that can simply be adopted.

 It has criteria or provisions and explanatory text.  Countries and authorities will choose those parts of the system that apply to their sphere of regulation and prepare implementing text consistent with their own requirements.

Scope of the GHS

• The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals: – Is a comprehensive tool that harmonises chemical classification and hazard communication – Covers all hazardous chemical substances, dilute solutions and mixtures – Classification based on the hazard properties of the chemical

The Principles of Harmonization • The level of protection should not be reduced as a result of harmonisation.

• The scope includes both hazard classification criteria and hazard communication tools (labels, MSDS).

• Changes in all existing systems will be required.

The Principles of Harmonization • The GHS does not include requirements for testing.

• Target audiences include consumers, workers, transport workers and emergency responders.

• In relation to chemical hazard communication, Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be protected.

Key Elements of the GHS

• The GHS Elements include: – Classification Criteria • Physicochemical (Physical and Chemical) • Health (acute and chronic) • Environmental • Mixtures – Hazard communication • Labels • Safety Data Sheets • Education & Training

GHS Classification Criteria – Physical Hazards • Explosives • Flammability – gases, aerosols, liquids, solids • Oxidisers – liquid, solid, gases • Self-Reactive • Pyrophoric – liquids, solids • Self-Heating • Organic Peroxides • Corrosive to Metals • Gases Under Pressure • Water activated flammable gases

GHS Classification Criteria – Health & Environmental Hazards • Acute Toxicity • Skin Corrosion/Irritation • Serious Eye Damage/Eye Irritation • Respiratory or Skin Sensitization • Germ Cell Mutagenicity • Carcinogenicity • Reproductive Toxicity • Target Organ Systemic Toxicity – Single and Repeated Dose • Hazardous to the Aquatic Environment

Labels

 Labeling provisions are the biggest difference between HCS and GHS.

 HCS is performance oriented.

 GHS uses harmonized pictograms, hazard statements, and signal words for specific hazards.

 Specific approach will require all labels to be modified to comply.

GHS Labeling Requirements

Product/Chemical Identifier Supplier Identifier Hazard Pictograms* Signal Words* Hazard Statements* Precautionary Information * Standardized under GHS

51

Hazard communication – Label elements: GHS pictograms

Signal Words “Danger” or “Warning”



Used to emphasize hazard and discriminate between levels of hazard.

Safety Data Sheets (SDS)

 The GHS uses a specified order of information, as well as title descriptions, on the 16-section safety data sheet.

 Health, physical and environmental hazard criteria for substances and for classification of mixtures.

 Consistent with voluntary industry consensus standards, such as ANSI.  Should improve comprehensibility and issues regarding accuracy of information.

What That Means for HCS….

 The framework of the HCS will remain the way it is and those provisions not affected by the GHS will remain the same.  For example, the GHS does not include training. The HCS does and would continue to do so.  Label and Safety Data Sheet format would change.

 Hazard definitions would change.

OSHA Regulatory Agenda

 In the May 16, 2005 Semi-annual regulatory agenda OSHA indicated that it was adding modification of the HCS to adopt the GHS.

 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 12, 2006.

Other OSHA Standards also affected  Will likely need to change hazard communication provisions in OSHA’s substance-specific standards to be consistent. (1910.10XX or 1926.11XX)  May also need to address parts of other standards that have criteria for hazard definitions, such as flammable liquids.

Where are we at?

• Revise HCS to Align with GHS – Maintain HCS framework – Enhance protection – Based on GHS Rev 3 (2009) • Proposed Rulemaking in Review – Public hearings, 2010 – Final ruling (201?) By end of March 2012 – Adoption possible in 201?

• Compliance Enforcement • Training within 2 years of final rule • Full compliance expected with 3 years

Resources: OSHA’s Website

http://www.osha.gov

Look under hazard communication

GHS Guide

 A substantive guide to the GHS has been made available on OSHA’s web page.

 The guide describes the GHS in some detail to provide a better understanding of its provisions, and help people to provide better input.

Conclusion

 The GHS is being implemented by individual countries at their own pace.

 The U.S. will implement standards compatible with GHS through various Agencies with hazard communication responsibilities (OSHA, DOT, EPA, CPSC).

 OSHA is working on a proposal to make §1910.1200 compatible with GHS and is considering the impact of GHS on other standards.

SO WHAT WILL CHANGE

The proposed modifications to the standard include: (1) revised criteria for classification of chemical hazards;.

(2) revised labeling provisions that include requirements for use of standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements (3) a specified format for safety data sheets (4) related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard, requirements for employee training on labels and safety data sheets.

Largely apply to chemical producers vs. users

FY 2007 – FY 2011 Fatality Investigations

1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 1,043 FY07 936 FY08 797 FY09 804 FY10 666 FY11

Rate of Fatal Work Injuries 1992 – 2009

3 4 6 5 5 4 5.2

5.2

5.3

Fatal Work Injuries per 100,000 Workers 4.9

4.8

4.8

4.5

4.5

4.3 4.3

Fatality rates are down 37.7% since 1994 4.0 4.0

4.1

4.0 4.0

3.8

3.7

3.3

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics .

• Provided

at no cost to

employers • Developed for

smaller

employers with more hazardous operations • Delivered by WisCon or the State Laboratory of Hygiene •

No penalties are proposed or citations issued

• Possible

violations

of OSHA standards

are not reported to OSHA

enforcement staff unless employer fails to eliminate or control any serious hazard or imminent danger

Eau Claire Madison Appleton Milwaukee

Wisconsin Compliance Assistance Specialists (CAS)

Kelly Bubolz U. S. Dept. of Labor - OSHA

1648 Tri Park Way Appleton, WI 54914 (920) 734-4521

Mary Bauer U. S. Dept. Of Labor - OSHA

1310 W. Clairemont Ave Eau Claire, WI 54701 (715) 832-9019

Leslie Ptak U. S. Dept. of Labor - OSHA

4802 E. Broadway Madison, WI 53716 (608) 441-5388

Jim Lutz U. S. Dept. of Labor - OSHA

310 W. Wisconsin Ave Milwaukee, WI 53203 (414) 297-3315

QUESTIONS