OSHA Update

2. OSHA Update Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College Safety Day Conference March 15, 2012 Mark Hysell Area Director Eau Claire, WI 54701 715-832-9019 hysell.mark@dol.gov

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

4. 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

5. FY 2007 – FY 2011Inspections Conducted (Federal)

6. 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

7. FY 2007 – FY 2011% Construction Inspections

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

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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. FY 2007 – FY 2011 NationwideAverage Current Penalty Per Serious

14. Administrative Penalty Changes http://www.osha.gov/dep/administrative-penalty.html

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

16. Gravity-Based Penalty

17. Serial adjustment

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

19. 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% $4675 Quick Fix -15% $3973.75 Size -30% $2781.62

20. Severe Violator Enforcement Program

21. 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

22. 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

23. Criteria (cont.) Non-Fatality/Catastrophe Criterion for Hazards Due to the Potential Release of a Highly Hazardous Chemical (PSM) • Three or more willful 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 the PSM standard Egregious Criterion • All egregious (e.g., per-instance citations) enforcement actions • Including Recordkeeping

24. 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]

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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

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

29. Most Frequently Cited OSHA Violations - Region V 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 General Industry

30. Nationwide, FY 2011 Top 10 Most Cited Standards(Construction Industry) Scaffolding Fall Protection Ladders Fall Protection, Training Requirements Hazard Communication Head Protection General Safety & Health Provisions Aerial Lifts Eye & Face Protection Specific Excavation Requirements

31. Most Frequently Cited OSHA Violations - Region V 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 Construction

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

33. 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

34. HEAT FACT SHEETS

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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

41. Benefits of the GHS Labels – Use pictograms (help address literacy issues), signal words, hazard statements. Same information and language for the same hazard. 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.

42. 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

43. 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.

44. 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

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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.