OSHA Update Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College Safety Day Conference March 15, 2012 Mark Hysell Area Director Eau Claire, WI

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)

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

FY 2007 – FY 2011 % Programmed vs. % Unprogrammed

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

Significant Cases Region V– FY 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 – 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

Administrative Penalty Changes ative-penalty.html

Administrative Penalty Changes 1.Gravity-Based Penalty 2.Size 3.History 4.Good Faith 5.Increased Minimum Penalties 6.Severe Violator Enforcement Program 7.Repeat Violations 8.Informal Conference Consideration 9.Application of penalty adjustment factors

Gravity-Based Penalty CurrentNew High/Greater$5,000 or $7,000$7,000 Medium/Greater$3,500$6,000 Low/Greater$2,500$5,000 High/Lesser$2,500$5,000 Medium/Lesser$2,000$4,000 Low/Lesser$1,500$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% $4675 Quick Fix -15% $ Size -30% $

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 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

High Emphasis Hazards Examples: –Fall Hazards Covered by General Industry Standards 29 CFR § Guarding floor and wall openings and holes [Walking-Working Surfaces] 29 CFR § 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 § , 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 1.Machine Guarding, General 2.Hazard Communication- Program 3.Hazard Communication, Training 4.Lockout/Tagout Procedures 5.Lockout/Tagout Program 6.Powered Industrial Trucks 7.Machine Guarding, Point of Operation 8.Lockout/Tagout, Periodic inspections 9.Hazard Assessment & PPE Selection 10.Guarding Floor & Wall Openings & Holes General Industry

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 1.Fall Protection, Residential 2.Fall Protection, Training 3.Safety program, frequent & regular inspections 4.Ladders 5.Eye & Face Protection 6.Head Protection 7.Scaffolds, Fall Protection 8.Fall Protection, General 9.Safety program 10.Excavations Construction

National Emphasis Programs Current:In Development: LeadNursing Homes Combustible Dust Isocyanates Amputations Primary Metals Recordkeeping Silica Trenching Food Flavorings Hex Chrome Chemical Facilities

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 »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  Negotiations to complete the GHS in several international organizations for the next 10 years.  Adopted by the United Nations in  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 – 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.

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.

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

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. ( XX or XX)  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 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 § 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

Rate of Fatal Work Injuries 1992 – 2009 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Fatality rates are down 37.7% since 1994 Fatal Work Injuries per 100,000 Workers

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 Milwaukee Appleton

Wisconsin Compliance Assistance Specialists (CAS) Kelly BubolzLeslie Ptak U. S. Dept. of Labor - OSHAU. S. Dept. of Labor - OSHA 1648 Tri Park Way4802 E. Broadway Appleton, WI 54914Madison, WI (920) (608) Mary BauerJim Lutz U. S. Dept. Of Labor - OSHAU. S. Dept. of Labor - OSHA 1310 W. Clairemont Ave 310 W. Wisconsin Ave Eau Claire, WI 54701Milwaukee, WI (715) (414)

QUESTIONS