DOCSLIB.ORG

Top 10 OSHA Violations for 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TOP 10

SHA

VIOLATIONS

for 2016

E VEN TS

SPECIAL REPORT

Top 10 OSHA
Violations for 2016

i

Vice President,

  • Content and Product Development:
  • Patricia Trainor, JD

  • Robert L. Brady, JD
  • Founder:

Senior Managing Editor,

  • Environment, Health, and Safety:
  • Amanda Czepiel, JD

  • Emily Scace
  • Senior Editor, Safety:

Senior Production Manager—CMS: Content Production Specialist: Quality Control Associate: Proofreaders:
Matt Sharpe Sherry Newcomb Linda Costa Joan Carlson, Brechin Knapp

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. (From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers.)

© 2017 BLR®—BUSINESS & LEGAL RESOURCES All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in part or in whole by any process without written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use or the internal or personal use of specific clients is granted by Business & Legal Resources. For permission to reuse material from OSHA’s Top 10 Violations for 2016, 978-1- 55645-585-8, please go to http://www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978- 750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of uses.

ISBN: 978-1-55645-585-8 Printed in the United States of America Questions or comments about this publication? Contact: BLR—Business & Legal Resources 100 Winners Circle, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37027 800-727-5257

http://www.blr.com

ii

Top 10 OSHA Violations for 2016

Table of contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

General Duty Clause enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Recent GDC cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Severe injury reporting, enforcement, and RRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Types of OSHA citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Penalty increases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Coming soon: Electronic injury and illness submission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Most frequently violated standards— General industry 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Most frequently violated standards— Construction 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. 29 CFR 1926.501 Fall Protection in Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Total violations—6,877 Total penalties—$26,044,601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. 29 CFR 1910.1200 Hazard Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Total violations—5,646 Total penalties—$3,864,543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. 29 CFR 1926.451—Scaffolding in Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Total violations—3,884 Total penalties—$8,362,429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. 29 CFR 1910.134—Respiratory Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Total violations—3,562 Total penalties—$2,949,453 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. 29 CFR 1910.147—Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). . 14

Total violations—3,391 Total penalties—$13,288,827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6. 29 CFR 1910.178—Powered Industrial Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Total violations—2,843 Total penalties—$5,138,924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7. 29 CFR 1926.1053—Ladders in Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Total violations—2,615 Total penalties—$4,711,849 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

8. 29 CFR 1910.212—Machine Guarding—General requirements for all machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Total violations—2,437 Total penalties—$9,414,885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

©BLR®—Business & Legal Resources 10102600

iii

9. 29 CFR 1910.305—Electrical—Wiring methods, components, and equipment—General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Total violations—1,934 Total penalties—$2,289,718 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

10. 29 CFR 1910.303—Electrical—
General requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Total violations—1,703 Total penalties—$2,907,873 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

iv

Top 10 OSHA Violations for 2016

Introduction

Because the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cannot inspect all 7 million workplaces it covers each year, the Agency seeks to focus its inspection resources on the most hazardous workplaces in the following order of priority:

1. Imminent danger situations—hazards that could cause death or seri-

ous physical harm—receive top priority. Compliance officers will ask employers to correct these hazards immediately or remove endangered employees.

2. Fatalities, catastrophes, and severe injuries and illnesses—employers

are required to report all work-related fatalities within 8 hours and all work-related inpatient hospitalizations, amputations, or eye-loss incidents within 24 hours. Based on the severity of the incident and other specified criteria, OSHA will either conduct an on-site investigation or initiate a rapid-response investigation (RRI) that requires the employer to conduct its own root cause analysis and submit evidence of corrective actions.

3. Complaints—allegations of hazards or violations also receive a high priority. Employees may request anonymity when they file complaints.

4. Referrals of hazard information from other federal, state, or local agencies; individuals; organizations; or the media receive consideration for inspection.

5. Follow-ups—checks for abatement of violations cited during previous inspections are also conducted by the Agency in certain circumstances.

6. Planned or programmed investigations—inspections aimed at specific

high-hazard industries or individual workplaces that have experienced high rates of injuries and illnesses also receive priority.

As a result of OSHA’s enforcement efforts, many of the same standards make the “most frequently violated” list again and again.

In this year’s report, we have provided individual charts for the top 10 violations for both general industry and construction, with last year’s ranking in the last column. The report covers violations for fiscal year (FY) 2016, which runs from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016.

©BLR®—Business & Legal Resources 10102600

1

General Duty Clause enforcement

In this report, we discuss OSHA’s top 10 most frequently violated standards. But many employers do not realize that when there is no specific standard, OSHA will use the General Duty Clause (GDC), Section 5(a)(1), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 1970 to cite employers.

Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act requires: “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”

The GDC is the “gap filler” in enforcement actions that addresses recognized hazards where no OSHA standard exists. The Agency often looks to voluntary consensus standards such as those put out by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) or the American National Standards Association (ANSI) as a basis for GDC citations, as well as information in manufacturers’ instructions or product warning labels. Over the past several years, OSHA has shown itself to be increasingly willing to cite employers under the GDC for a variety of hazards not covered by its safety and health standards.

The courts have interpreted OSHA’s GDC to mean that an employer has a legal obligation to provide a workplace free of conditions or activities that either the employer or industry recognizes as hazardous and that cause, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees when there is a feasible method to abate the hazard.

An employer can be found to be in violation of the GDC if it can be shown that:
◆◆ A hazard existed. ◆◆ The hazard was likely to cause death or serious physical harm. ◆◆ The employer had knowledge of the hazard or should have had knowledge because the hazard had been recognized by the employer, the industry, or common sense.

◆◆ The hazard was foreseeable. ◆◆ Workers were exposed to the hazard.

Common areas in which OSHA uses the GDC include:
◆◆ Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) resulting from hazardous lifting, repetitive tasks, awkward positions;

◆◆ Failure to protect employees from heat stress; ◆◆ Failure to keep employee chemical exposure levels below recommended levels;

◆◆ Cell phone use while driving on the job; ◆◆ Use of a forklift without a seat belt; ◆◆ Risk of workplace violence; ◆◆ Improper storage of highly reactive chemicals; and ◆◆ Combustible dust explosion hazards.

2

Top 10 OSHA Violations for 2016

Necessary elements to prove a violation of the GDC include:
◆◆ The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed;

◆◆ The hazard was recognized; ◆◆ The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical

harm; and

◆◆ There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.
A GDC violation must involve both the presence of a serious hazard and exposure of the cited employer’s own employees within the previous 6 months. It is key under the GDC that employers can be cited only for exposure of “his own employees,” as worded in the GDC.

In 2016, more than 1,200 GDC violations were cited, with nearly $6 million in penalties. In any typical year, somewhat more than 1,000 OSHA inspections result in fines for a GDC violation. So, when designing and evaluating your safety program, remember that it’s not enough to stop at compliance with OSHA standards; you also must consider whether additional hazards at your facility might constitute a violation of the GDC and take steps to create a safe working environment for all your employees.

Recent GDC cases

Unloading trailers with forklifts

In FY 2016, OSHA used the GDC several times in cases where forklift drivers were exposed to fall, crush, and struck-by hazards while loading or unloading tractor trailers that did not remain stationary while the work was taking place. In one such case, an employee operating a forklift was traveling back and forth from a loading dock to a trailer. The employee was inside the trailer when it started to pull away from the dock, causing the employee and his forklift to roll out of the trailer and land on the ground approximately 4 feet below. In another case, a forklift operator was unloading a tractor trailer when the truck driver pulled away from the dock. The forklift was on its way out of the trailer as the trailer separated from the dock, forcing the forklift operator to jump from the forklift to the ground below, resulting in injuries. OSHA found that the employer did not verify that the forklift operator had exited the trailer before notifying the truck driver that the unloading was complete. The employer was fined $17,000 as a result.

Heat exposure

In FY 2016, OSHA issued over 50 citations for heat exposure under the GDC. Most of the employers cited for heat exposure were in construction, landscaping, and other outdoor industries, but employers with indoor operations weren’t immune.

For example, Hospital Central Services, a commercial laundry facility, was issued a serious violation and fined over $10,000 under the GDC for exposing

©BLR®—Business & Legal Resources 10102600

3

employees to heat stress while they worked around heat sources such as flat iron machines, dryers, and washing machines for 10-hour shifts. According to OSHA, employees were exposed to time-weighted average temperatures that exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in this environment, and some suffered from heat-related illnesses as a result.

In another significant heat stress case, OSHA cited the U.S. Postal Service after multiple employees were exposed to dangerously high temperatures. According to the agency, while working in weather conditions with temperatures exceeding 90°F, a mail carrier who had not become acclimatized to walking and delivering mail in high heat worked from a vehicle without air-conditioning and carried a mail bag weighing up to 15 pounds, causing him to develop a heat-related illness. Another worker was taken to the emergency room for heat exhaustion and dehydration after exposure to extremely high heat levels. Because the U.S. Postal Service had been previously cited for similar hazards, OSHA issued a repeat citation that carried a fine of $69,591.

Regardless of whether your employees work outdoors, in an indoor manufacturing environment, or in vehicles, you must consider whether they could be exposed to conditions likely to cause heat stress and take appropriate protective measures.

Workplace violence

In FY 2016, OSHA cited over 1 dozen employers under the GDC for hazards related to workplace violence. Many of these cases were in health care or related social services; others affected convenience stores, property management companies, and security services. In one tragic incident, a security guard was interacting with a visitor in a federal building when the visitor shot the employee with a firearm, killing him. OSHA determined that the employer failed to develop a workplace violence prevention program and take other measures to protect its employees from the known threat, given the nature of working as a security guard, of workplace violence and active shooter situations. The employer was cited with a serious violation and fined $7,000. In another case, OSHA cited a home healthcare company with a willful violation under the GDC for exposing its employees to verbal and serious physical assaults while they provided nursing care services to clients in what the agency referred to as “hostile home environments.” The company was fined $70,000 for the GDC violation, as well as an additional $28,000 for various recordkeeping violations.

Severe injury reporting,enforcement,and RRIs

Since January 2015, employers have been required to report to OSHA within 24 hours any work-related inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye, in addition to the existing requirement to report fatalities within 8 hours. The agency says that the new reporting requirement has provided timely information about where and how serious injuries were occurring in workplaces across the country and allowed it to focus its efforts more effectively.

4

Top 10 OSHA Violations for 2016

To prioritize its enforcement resources, OSHA does not conduct a full investigation in every one of these reported incidents. Instead, it uses a triage system to direct enforcement to the most hazardous locations. In over one-half of reported severe injury and fatality cases, OSHA does not send its inspectors to the site but instead uses a rapid response investigation (RRI) protocol, which requires employers to conduct their own root cause analysis of the incident and submit evidence of corrective actions. If an employer does not cooperate with the RRI process, an in-person inspection can result. If you are subject to an RRI following an incident at your facility, it is in your best interest to be thorough in conducting your root cause analysis and implementing and documenting corrective actions.

Types of OSHA citations

Willful. An employer has demonstrated either intentional disregard for the requirements of the OSH Act or plain indifference to employee safety and health. Penalties range from $9,054 to $126,749 per willful violation. If an employer is convicted of a willful violation that has resulted in an employee fatality, the offense is punishable by a court fine, by imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. Criminal conviction can result in fines of up to $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for a corporation.

Serious. A serious violation means there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition that exists or from practices, operations, or processes. OSHA may propose a penalty of up to $12,675 for each violation.

Other than serious. This type of violation results from a condition that is hazardous and has a direct relationship to employees’ safety and health but would probably not cause death or serious physical harm. OSHA may impose a penalty of up to $12,675 for each violation.

De minimis. These are conditions in which an employer has implemented a measure different from one specified in a standard that has no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health. These conditions do not result in citations or penalties.

Failure to abate. In this case, a previously cited hazardous condition has not been brought into compliance since the prior inspection and is discovered at a later inspection. If the violation is corrected but later recurs, the subsequent occurrence is a repeat violation. OSHA may impose a penalty of up to $12,675 per day for each violation.

Repeat. A repeated violation is one that has been cited previously within the past 5 years for the same or a substantially similar condition or hazard, and the citation has become a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). Repeat violations can bring a civil penalty of up to $126,749 for each violation.

©BLR®—Business & Legal Resources 10102600

5

Penalty increases

In August 2016, higher civil penalty levels for OSHA violations—the first increase in over 25 years—took effect. The August 2016 penalty levels, which represented a onetime “catch-up” increase to compensate for a long period without adjustment, were 78 percent higher than the previous levels. Penalties went up by an additional 1 percent in January 2017, the first in what is supposed to be a series of regular increases to keep pace with inflation.

Type of Violation

Other than serious Serious

Old penalty range

Up to $7,000

Current penalty range

Up to $12,675

  • Up to $7,000
  • Up to $12,675

  • Willful
  • Minimum of $5,000

up to $70,000
Minimum of $9,054 up to $126,749

  • Repeat
  • Up to $70,000
  • Up to $126,749

  • Failure to abate
  • Up to $7,000 per day
  • Up to $12,675 per day

Given this upward trend in fines, it is more important than ever to make sure your safety programs are on point so you don’t fall into the trap of one of the most frequent violations.

Coming soon: Electronic injury and illness submission

Under the Final Rule to Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, finalized in May 2016, certain employers will soon be required to submit data from their injury and illness records to OSHA electronically on an annual basis. Originally, the first electronic submission deadline was July 1, 2017; however, OSHA has extended that deadline to December 1, 2017.

By December 1, 2017, establishments with 250 or more employees that are required to keep injury and illness records, as well as establishments with 20–249 employees in designated high-hazard industries, must electronically submit data from their 2016 OSHA 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. Additional requirements are scheduled to be phased in through 2019.

As of August 1, 2017, OSHA has launched its online Injury Tracking Application, available at https://www.osha.gov/injuryreporting/ita. There are three options for data submission. Employers can manually enter data into a Web-based form, upload a CSV file, or, for those with automated recordkeeping systems, transmit data electronically via an application programming interface (API).

Recommended publications
  • 'Willful Neglect' Is Difficult to Pin Down but Can Result in Enormous

    'Willful Neglect' Is Difficult to Pin Down but Can Result in Enormous

    Volume 10, Number 2 • February 2010 Practical News and Strategies for Complying With HIPAA Contents First AG HIPAA Suit Portends More State Actions; Sends Message on Encryption Offshore BAs Pose 3 PHI Risk, But Have What began as an unfortunate — though not uncommon — loss of a hard drive has Incentives to resulted in a world of hurt for Health Net, Inc., which is now the target of the first-ever Self-Regulate lawsuit brought by a state attorney general for possible violations of HIPAA. Effective Dates for Compounding Health Net’s troubles, on Jan. 21, the Connecticut State Medical 3 Privacy and Security Society, which represents physicians, filed a formal complaint to the HHS Office for Provisions in ARRA Civil Rights, charging that Health Net gave UnitedHealthcare inappropriate access to all member files, committing “an unambiguous violation of hundreds of thousands of What to Include in 4 Amendments to Connecticut patients’ privacy rights” (see box, p. 11). BA Agreements Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal — an announced candidate for the U.S. Senate — brought the suit in U.S. District Court in Connecticut on Jan. 13, as Tighten Remote Access RPP predicted he might (RPP 12/09, p. 1). 6 Controls to Prevent the Loss of Data Blumenthal charged Health Net, United and Oxford Health Plans (both subsidiar- ies of UnitedHealth Group, which recently acquired parts of Health Net) with “mul- Patient Privacy tiple violations” of both HIPAA and state laws, including the Connecticut Unfair Trade 10 Court Cases Practices Act, stemming from the May 2009 loss of a hard drive.
  • Deep Sea Dive Ebook Free Download

    Deep Sea Dive Ebook Free Download

    DEEP SEA DIVE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Frank Lampard | 112 pages | 07 Apr 2016 | Hachette Children's Group | 9780349132136 | English | London, United Kingdom Deep Sea Dive PDF Book Zombie Worm. Marrus orthocanna. Deep diving can mean something else in the commercial diving field. They can be found all over the world. Depth at which breathing compressed air exposes the diver to an oxygen partial pressure of 1. Retrieved 31 May Diving medicine. Arthur J. Retrieved 13 March Although commercial and military divers often operate at those depths, or even deeper, they are surface supplied. Minimal visibility is still possible far deeper. The temperature is rising in the ocean and we still don't know what kind of an impact that will have on the many species that exist in the ocean. Guiel Jr. His dive was aborted due to equipment failure. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Depth limit for a group of 2 to 3 French Level 3 recreational divers, breathing air. Underwater diving to a depth beyond the norm accepted by the associated community. Limpet mine Speargun Hawaiian sling Polespear. Michele Geraci [42]. Diving safety. Retrieved 19 September All of these considerations result in the amount of breathing gas required for deep diving being much greater than for shallow open water diving. King Crab. Atrial septal defect Effects of drugs on fitness to dive Fitness to dive Psychological fitness to dive. The bottom part which has the pilot sphere inside. List of diving environments by type Altitude diving Benign water diving Confined water diving Deep diving Inland diving Inshore diving Muck diving Night diving Open-water diving Black-water diving Blue-water diving Penetration diving Cave diving Ice diving Wreck diving Recreational dive sites Underwater environment.
  • Weekly Safety Tip Life Is All About Choices!® August 1, 2016

    Weekly Safety Tip Life Is All About Choices!® August 1, 2016

    “Your Connection for Workplace Safety” Phone: 920-208-7520 We’re about service, commitment, results, and accountability! Weekly Safety Tip Life Is All About Choices!® August 1, 2016 SCI Safety Tip: Preparedness is Prevention: Emergency Preparedness Could Have Prevented These Injuries Source: http://www.blr.com Date: July 29, 2016 When a 900-gallon melt tank containing hexane and ethanol overpressurized and exploded in December 2015 at a food additive manufacturing facility in Newark, Ohio, owned by Arboris®, LLC, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) faulted the employer’s process safety management (PSM) for failing SCI Safety Slogan to prevent the explosion. But even when the fireball erupted, the injuries suffered by four employees were not necessarily inevitable. With better emergency preparedness, OSHA concluded, the employer could have prevented or minimized the workers’ injuries. Here’s where their emergency preparedness fell down on the job. Inadequate Egress According to OSHA, Arboris failed to designate sufficient egress routes. OSHA’s emergency exit routes design and construction requirements, found in 29 CFR 1910.36, require at least two exit routes to be available in a workplace if the number of employees, the size of the building, its occupancy, or the arrangement of the James Lehrke-SCI workplace is such that all employees would not be able to evacuate safely during an emergency. Two contractors working at the Arboris facility had to escape the fireball by climbing over an 8-foot security fence topped with triple- Safety Connections Inc. Page 2 strand barbed wire—clearly, the escape routes were less than ideal.
  • Secretary of Labor V. Seaworld of Florida, LLC, Docket No. 10-1705

    Secretary of Labor V. Seaworld of Florida, LLC, Docket No. 10-1705

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1924 Building - Room 2R90. 100 Alabama Street. S.W. Atlanta. Georgia 30303-3104 Secretary of Labor, Complainant v. OSHRC Docket No. 10-1705 SeaWorld of Florida, LLC, Respondent. Appearances: John A. Black, Esquire and Tremelle Howard-Fishburne, Esquire Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Atlanta, Georgia For Complainant Carla J. Gunnin Stone, Esquire Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia For Respondent Karen C. Dyer, Esquire and Jon L. Mills, Esquire Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Orlando, Florida For Intervenor Before: Administrative Law Judge Ken S. Welsch DECISION AND ORDER SeaWorld of Florida, LLC, is a marine animal theme park in Orlando, Florida. Although it features several different species of animals, killer whales are SeaWorld's signature attraction. The killer whales perform in shows before audiences at Shamu Stadium. On February 24, 2010, SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was interacting with Tilikum, a 29 year-old male killer whale, in a pool at Shamu Stadium. Ms. Brancheau reclined on a platform located just a few inches below the surface of the water. Tilikum was supposed to mimic her behavior by rolling over onto his back. Instead, Tilikum grabbed Ms. Brancheau and pulled her off the platform and into the pool. Ms. Brancheau died as a result of Tilikum' s actions. 1 In response to media reports of Ms. Brancheau's death, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance officer Lara Padgett conducted an inspection of SeaWorld. Based on Ms. Padgett's inspection, the Secretary issued three citations to SeaWorld on August 23, 2010.
  • Construction and Maintenance Division On-Call Underwater Hard

    Construction and Maintenance Division On-Call Underwater Hard

    Construction and Maintenance Division On-Call Underwater Hard Hat Diving Services REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS September 29, 2020 September 29, 2020 Prospective Consultants: SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON-CALL UNDERWATER HARD HAT DIVING SERVICES The City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (Harbor Department) invites the submittal of proposals to provide on-call underwater hard hat diving and related services for wharf pile inspections, pile wrapping, vessel hull cleaning, wharf repair, and other miscellaneous services. These services shall commence after a contract is approved by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Instructions and forms to be used in preparing the qualifications are found in the information included in the Request for Proposals (RFP). The schedule for this RFP will be as follows: Request for Proposals Published Tuesday, September 29, 2020 Questions Due Tuesday, October 6, 2020 by 3pm Responses Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2020 Proposals Due Wednesday, October 21, 2020 by 3pm If your firm cannot agree to the requirements exactly as set forth in this RFP, please do not submit a proposal. For questions regarding this RFP, please contact Susana Eldridge by email at [email protected]. Questions must be submitted by Tuesday, October 6, 2020 by 3pm. Responses will be posted on the Harbor Department’s website at https://www.portoflosangeles.org/business/contracting-opportunities/requests-for-proposals and www.labavn.org on Tuesday, October 13, 2020. It is the responsibility of all proposers to review the Port’s website for any RFP revisions or answers to questions prior to submitting a proposal in order to ensure their proposal is complete and responsive.
  • Chapter 4 VIOLATIONS

    Chapter 4 VIOLATIONS

    Chapter 4 VIOLATIONS I. Basis of Violations. A. Standards and Regulations. 1. Iowa Code 88.4 of the Act states that each employer has a responsibility to comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter, which includes standards incorporated by reference. For example, the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standard A92.2 – 1969, “Vehicle Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms,” including appendix, is incorporated by reference as specified in §1910.67. Only the mandatory provisions, i.e., those containing the word “shall” or other mandatory language of standards incorporated by reference, are adopted as standards under the Act. 2. The Iowa OSHA State Plan adopts through the Iowa Administrative Code - 875, standards promulgated by Federal OSHA and published in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations. The specific standards and regulations are found in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1900 series. Subparts A and B of 29 CFR 1910 specifically establish the source of all the standards, which serve as the basis of violations. Standards are subdivided as follows per IMIS Application. For example, 1910.305(j)(6)(ii)(A)(2) would be entered as follows: Subdivision Naming Example Convention Chapter 10 Part 1910 Section 305 Paragraph (j) Subparagraph (6) Item (ii) Subitem (A) Subitem 2 (2) NOTE: The most specific provision of a standard shall be used for citing violations. 3. Definition and Application of Vertical and Horizontal Standards. Chapter 4 - 1 March 1, 2012 Vertical standards are standards that apply to a particular industry or to particular operations, practices, conditions, processes, means, methods, equipment, or installations.
  • Risk Control Update

    Risk Control Update

    RRiisskk CCoonnttrrooll UUppddaattee IN THIS ISSUE VOLUME II, ISSUE 5 JULY 23, 2013 OSHA Inspection Upcoming Webinar OSHA Inspection – Be Prepared Did You Know? By Jean Velez, Risk Control Consultant Tribal First, Risk Control Consulting Under the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace. OSHA's mission is to assure safe and healthful workplaces by setting and enforcing standards. Employers may have an absence of injuries and visibly safe operation but may still receive a visit from a compliance officer. Here’s a look at how inspections are conducted and what employers should expect when visited by an OSHA compliance officer. OSHA Inspections can be conducted without advance notice and can take the form of a physical on-site inspection or a phone investigation. Since OSHA can’t inspect all 7 million workplaces it covers each year, inspections are conducted based on the following priorities: 1. Imminent Danger Situations – hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm. 2. Fatalities or Catastrophes – incidents that involve death or the hospitalization of three or more employees. Employers must report such incidents to OSHA within 8 hours. 3. Worker Complaints and Referrals – allegations of hazards or violations 4. Targeted Inspections – Aimed at employers with high injury/illness rates or employers that are part of specific high hazard industries. 5. Follow up Inspections – Checks of corrective action of past citations. Onsite Inspections begin with the presentation of the compliance officer’s credentials, which include both a photograph and a serial number. It is in the employer’s best interest to allow the officer to enter the worksite without too much resistance.
  • K.M. DAVIS CONTRACTING, INC., OSHRC DOCKET No. 12-0643

    K.M. DAVIS CONTRACTING, INC., OSHRC DOCKET No. 12-0643

    United States of America OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20036-3457 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. OSHRC Docket No. 12-0643 K.M. DAVIS CONTRACTING, INC., Respondent. ON BRIEFS: Anne R. Ryder, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor; Charles James, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC For the Complainant Andrew N. Gross, Esq.; General Counsel, H B Training & Consulting, LLC, Lawrenceville, GA For the Respondent DECISION Before: MACDOUGALL, Acting Chairman; and ATTWOOD, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected a worksite where K.M. Davis Contracting, Inc. was engaged in an underground water line project for the City of Marietta, Georgia. At the time of the inspection, a KMD crew was installing vertical PVC pipes in an excavation that closely abutted a highway. Following the inspection, OSHA issued KMD a one- item citation alleging a willful violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for failing to protect an employee working in an excavation from cave-ins.1 Former Administrative Law Judge Ken S. Welsch affirmed the violation, but characterized it as serious, and assessed a penalty of $5,000. 1 The cited provision states that “[e]ach employee in an excavation shall be protected from cave- ins by an adequate protective system . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1). The only issue on review is whether the judge erred in characterizing the violation as serious rather than willful.
  • The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Word Willful

    The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Word Willful

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 85 Article 12 Issue 4 Spring Spring 1995 The uprS eme Court's Interpretation of the Word Willful: Ignorance of the Law as an Excuse to Prosecutions for Structuring Currency Transactions Lindsey H. Simon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Lindsey H. Simon, The uS preme Court's Interpretation of the Word Willful: Ignorance of the Law as an Excuse to Prosecutions for Structuring Currency Transactions, 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1161 (1994-1995) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/95/8504-1161 THEJOURNAL OF CIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 85, No. 4 Copyright 0 1995 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD "WILLFUL": IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AS AN EXCUSE TO PROSECUTIONS FOR STRUCTURING CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS Ratzlaf v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 655 (1994) I. INTRODUCTION In Ratzlaf v. United States,' the United States Supreme Court held that to establish a "willful" violation of the federal statutes that pro- transactions, the government must hibit the structuring of currency 2 prove that the defendant had knowledge that his conduct was illegal. Structuring occurs when an individual breaks up a sum greater than $10,000 into more than one transaction of smaller amounts for the purpose of evading the federal reporting requirements.
  • Risk Management Manual 2020

    Risk Management Manual 2020

    Risk Management Manual 2020 “Creating Proactive Solutions to Empower and Protect” This page intentionally left blank Your Safety Matters Hi Everyone, I’m confident you know this — and it’s worth repeating: The City of Hillsboro is committed to providing a safe and healthful work environment for all employees. How do we walk our talk? Our Human Resources Department’s Risk Management Division… leads a Safety and Loss Control Program to prevent accidents by identifying hazards and training employees. Each City department… is responsible for providing and maintaining safe equipment and materials, and for ensuring employees are trained to perform their jobs safely. Risk Management staff help departments to develop and implement rules and operational procedures to ensure safe operations. Each City employee… must follow established rules and procedures, and report unsafe conditions and accidents to their supervisor. Supervisors then relay that information to assure that appropriate corrections are made. The City’s Safety Committees… play a significant role in workplace safety. Department managers and staff participate on and support the work of the committees. Maintaining a safe work environment requires your commitment, constant attention, and continual effort. Risk Management staff are available to assist you and your department. When you are healthy, injury‐free, and safe, your quality of life and your ability to perform well at work significantly increases. Let’s work together to achieve this. Robby Hammond City Manager P.S. Have fun at work. Just do it safely. This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents RISK MANAGEMENT Risk Management Overview ....................................................................................... 1 INSURANCE AND CLAIMS Insurance Program .....................................................................................................
  • A Nonprofit's Guide to OSHA

    A Nonprofit's Guide to OSHA

    A Nonprofit’s Guide to OSHA Revised July 2016 By DANIEL J. DAVIS, ESQ. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP JESSICA CHILDRESS, ESQ. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP This publication is available online at www.probonopartnership.org [This page is intentionally blank.] Table of Contents Page I. Overview: What is OSHA? .................................................................................................1 II. OSHA Inspections and Penalties .........................................................................................2 III. Specific OSHA Regulations That May Be Applicable To Nonprofits ................................3 IV. OSHA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements ..........................................................8 V. Implementing a Safety Program ........................................................................................13 VI. Employer Self-Assessment and Self-Inspection ................................................................16 VII. How to Survive an OSHA Inspection ................................................................................23 VIII. Communicable or Pandemic Diseases ...............................................................................26 IX. Additional Resources .........................................................................................................30 [This page is intentionally blank.] I. Overview: What is OSHA? The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act)1 was enacted to assure employees safe and healthful working conditions. It establishes safety
  • OSHA's General Duty Clause: a Guide to Enforcement & Legal Defenses

    OSHA's General Duty Clause: a Guide to Enforcement & Legal Defenses

    OSHA’s General Duty Clause: A Guide to Enforcement & Legal Defenses Adele L. Abrams, Esq., CMSP Law Office of Adele L. Abrams P.C. www.safety-law.com 301-595-3520 Eastern Office 303-228-2170 Western Office Overview General Duty Clause (GDC) is “gap filler” to address recognized hazards that OSHA has not yet regulated OSHA often looks to voluntary consensus standards as basis for GDC citations (ANSI A10, NFPA 70E etc.) as well as information in manufacturer’s handbooks and warning labels During recent 3-year period, OSHA use of GDC increased 15% In FY 2011, OSHA proposed over $7 mil. in penalties for GDC violations All GDC citations are “serious” in gravity, and can be classified as “willful” or “repeat” … but GDC willful violations cannot be basis for criminal prosecution Every state plan state must have its own version of GDC 2 1 Uses of GDC OSHA uses GDC frequently to cite: Ergonomic hazards Workplace violence Impairment on the job Chemical exposures for which there are no PELs Infectious disease control in workplace (Ebola, influenza) not covered by BBP standard Combustible dust Hazards in off-road equipment Heat-related illness 3 General Duty Clause: The Statute Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act requires: “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” 4 2 Elements of GDC Necessary elements to prove a violation of the general duty clause: ► The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed; ► The hazard was recognized; ► The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and ► There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.