Well, it’s looking like the OSHA Regulatory Agenda will be published early next week – most likely on Monday 12/20 (my guess). I don’t know why there was a delay in getting it out but I am sure that all of us in the field will be very interested in reading it. Sure do hope that at least some progress was made on the “real” / important items at least. Personally, I am most anxious to see if they have made any progress whatsoever on Diacetyl rulemaking. We shall see.
Ironically: Monday is the first day of Winter… so would this actually be the Winter Reg Agenda or still technically the Fall?
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
Some helpful quick links:
OSHA Consulting, OSHA Consultants, OSHA Experts, Prometrix, Prometrix Consulting, OSHA Resources, OSHA Blog, Diacetyl, Diacetyl NEP, OSHA Diacetyl, DAPORS, DIACETYL SHIB, Cal/OSHA Diacetyl Rule.
I’m not quite sure why the Agency has overlooked this, so I sent them an email to let them know of the oversight regarding the Diacetyl NEP. As we all know, OSHA released its first NEP (Diacetyl in Microwave Popcorn) in 2007 and that program ran its course so to speak. Then in 2009, the Agency issued an expanded NEP (Food Flavorings Containing Diacetyl) and they have stated that they are looking at expading the program yet again to basically include “all” (I use that term loosely) food flavoring chemicals which may pose a hazard. According to the SHIB, this amounts to some 40-50 chemicals, including Furfural, Acethaldehyde, Acetic Acid, Acetoin, and many others.
Lets keep in mind: 1) OSHA published (albeit one with flaws) a new SHIB. Then, 2) Cal-OSHA published a new Diacetyl rule a few short weeks later. And now, 3) OSHA Regulatory Agenda is due to come out literally any day now.
But in the mean time, OSHA’s website makes it easy to find the old / expired NEP on Microwave Popcorn by having it posted on the list of active NEPs. By my count, there are the lucky #13 number of OSHA National Emphasis Programs currently underway. However, the NEP which covers the Food Flavorings Containing Diacetyl are nowhere to be found. I had to spend quite a bit of time searching, Googling, etc in order to find that NEP (it wasn’t all that easy to find, actually). It’s not even posted on its Health Topics Page. So why is the Agency seemingly going out of its way to hide the NEP? I don’t know. Could just be a simple oversight, though something tells me that it could have something to do with the upcoming Reg Agenda. I hope this isn’t some sort of omen for the Agency’s decision to either withdraw the diacetyl rule or delaying its proposal..!!!!
Hey OSHA…. can you please finally post the ALL of the NEPs on your website, please! Much appreciated!
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
Some helpful quick links:
OSHA Consulting, OSHA Consultants, OSHA Experts, Prometrix, Prometrix Consulting, OSHA Resources, OSHA Blog, Diacetyl, Diacetyl NEP, OSHA Diacetyl, DAPORS, DIACETYL SHIB, Cal/OSHA Diacetyl Rule.
To be honest, I don’t know yet as I have only read the press release at this point. HOWEVER, I can definitely see where this might be going.
Well, looks like Cal/OSHA has published a new rule on Diacetyl which may explain why Fed OSHA recently issued their own SHIB as what seems to be a last minute effort. I don’t know if there is a PEL in there or not. I can only hope that there is one and that it’s not a cop-out level of 0 (zero) ppm. I’ll read the rule later and see if any ‘revelations’ come to mind that should be posted as an update. By the way, I’m not really following the issue too closely from the FDA perspective but I do know that they have (still are?) looking at Diacetyl. That’s where the consumer end of the exposures (or alledged exposures if you want to get legally technical, I suppose) will be addressed. And by the way, it’s not just popcorn where the FDA could theoretically take this… see article (or blog post) about presence of Diacetyl in “fake cigarettes” posing possible health risks for kids.
One thing that is bothering me a litte bit is that there seems to be more of a focus by the agencies (both Cal-OSHA and Fed OSHA) over “who’s the leader” and jabbing each other etc. That’s noted with the quote “At this time, not even Federal OSHA has a safety regulation for diacetyl, but we hope that this standard will serve as a model for them to follow.” in the press release. This brings, to my mind, the famous quote from President Ronald Reagan …. “There is no limit to what you accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.” I wish they would focus more on helping to identify and solve the dang problem instead of trying to play ‘one-upsmanship’. What that comment really necessary – or helpful? I don’t. As for it being a model for Fed OSHA to follow, I’ll have to read it first to see. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I guess that would put me as ‘cautiously optimistic’.
I don’t want this next comment to be misconstrued because I really do, on a professional level, appreciate the fact that at least they’re trying to do something about the problem. But come on…!!! To let the Diacetyl SHIB out when you have to know that there are flaws or shortcomings in it (even more than I mentioned in a previous post but didn’t do so because I didn’t want to make it a laundry list…) just to ‘beat the other out of the gate’ is just plain silly-season. I’m genuinely concerned that the SHIB may cause confusion among affected manufacturing companies, particularly since it delves into substitutes and numerous other chemicals and not just Diacetyl. Let’s clearly define the problem so that the industry, safety and health professionals, affected workers, and other stakeholders can develop prudent strategies to mitigate the risks! Not elbow each other for “who’s first” jokeying position. Solve the problem, the rest shall follow.
What will be even more helpful in this whole debate is for OSHA and relevant State Plans to publish a report on what they have found in their two Diacetyl related NEPs (Microwave Popcorn issued 3 years ago and Food Flavorings Containing Diacetyl issued a little more than a year ago). Here’s a ‘shout-out’ to OSHA… the 1-year progress report for the NEP on Combustible Dust was PHENOMENAL. You created your own problem here (that’s a compliment) by producing a fantastic document — and stakeholders wanting more of them. I can only hope that you do continue in releasing such reports. What a great “tradition” to leave as a legacy so to speak for future Administrations to come! Seriously!
More posts on this topic will likely follow in the coming days and weeks. Mean time, in case you are interested in reading the press release, it is posted below for your reference.
*** Reposted Press Release ***
California Becomes First State to Set Safety Guidelines for Flavoring Chemical
OAKLAND, Calif., Dec. 2, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Cal/OSHA continues to be a national leader in worker safety by implementing a new standard today to protect employees who work with diacetyl, a chemical commonly used to give food flavorings a buttery taste. Cal/OSHA, a division of the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), is the only state-OSHA plan to have such a standard.
“The diacetyl standard is the latest example of how Cal/OSHA is on the forefront of worker safety,” said DIR Director John C. Duncan. ”We have taken the lead on this issue from day one and have worked closely with national medical experts as well as the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to get to this point. We refuse to wait until more workers suffer serious lung ailments to take action. At this time, not even Federal OSHA has a safety regulation for diacetyl, but we hope that this standard will serve as a model for them to follow.”
The new standard, section 5197 of the California Code of Regulations, requires employers covered by the standard to create a regulated area for each process using diacetyl, unless the process is enclosed. Employers must also provide safeguards for employees who work with diacetyl at certain concentrations. These safety measures include creating a written diacetyl control program, periodic monitoring of exposure levels and providing personal protective equipment, respirators, training, and medical surveillance at no cost to employees. The standard goes into effect today.
“Diacetyl, a chemical that is harmless when it occurs naturally or as an ingredient in many of the foods we eat, can be dangerous in industrial settings where flavorings or foods are manufactured because it is used in much higher concentrations that allow it to get into the air that workers breathe,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Len Welsh. ”Cal/OSHA has issued citations in the past related to exposure to diacetyl, but this comprehensive standard will allow us to better target our enforcement efforts.”
Workers from two California flavoring companies that use diacetyl have been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans — inflammation and scarring of the small airways that can result in permanent and life threatening narrowing of the airways. A number of employees nationwide who have been exposed to diacetyl have developed the serious respiratory illness which in some cases has resulted in patients being placed on lung transplant wait lists or dying. Symptoms include persistent dry cough, shortness of breath when using extra energy, and wheezing.
Cal/OSHA Consultation also works to protect employees from dangerous food-flavoring chemicals. Consultation initiated its Flavor Industry Safety and Health Evaluation Program (FISHEP) in 2006 to provide assistance to California food flavor manufacturing companies. Consultation staff conducted mandatory onsite evaluations and consultations with 28 California companies that use pure flavoring ingredients to manufacture food flavors.
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
Some helpful quick links:
OSHA Consulting, OSHA Consultants, OSHA Experts, Prometrix, Prometrix Consulting, OSHA Resources, OSHA Blog, Diacetyl, Diacetyl NEP, OSHA Diacetyl, DAPORS, DIACETYL SHIB, Cal/OSHA Diacetyl Rule.
After taking a closer look at the SHIB, a few issues come to mind and are noted below. Hopefully, with the Diacetyl rulemaking effort, all stakeholders will soon be able to provide substantive comments help facilitate meaningful progress. Workers’ protection is at stake… it’s not like that’s important or anything. (yes, that is a bit of scarcasm at the end there).
- There is a distinct change in language in this new SHIB which seems to be going unnoticed by stakeholders in the food manufacturing and flavoring industry. Specifically, there is a new purpose for this SHIB which I have not seen in previous guidance documents. That is, ‘to: Help employers understand the steps they must <emphasis added> take to provide their workers a safe and healthful work environment free of recognized hazards.’ The unusual and confusing use of the term ‘must’ conflicts with the SHIB’s disclaimer whereby it states that this document creates no new legal requirements. As a result, this document may create confusion among employers, industry safety and health professionals, workers, and other stakeholders as to what is required, what is recommended, and what might be cited. By virtue of this SHIB, is OSHA mandating new requirements on employers? This is a serious issue which ought to be addressed, clarified, and/or corrected by OSHA. Historically, the purpose of OSHA SHIBs has been to create awareness among employers and stakeholders of emerging risks, assist employers in identifying and mitigating potential risks, and generally to provide useful information to employers in order to better protect their employees. It appears that this SHIB may be taking that approach into a new direction.
- Diacetyl has been identified as a ‘marker chemical’ suspected of contributing – solely or in combination with other chemicals – to a debilitating and irreversible lung disease commonly referred to as popcorn lung. As a result, the Agency seems to be taking the position that many or all of the viable substitutes for Diacetyl will require the same precautions. If this is the case, then OSHA and NIOSH need to provide clearer and more definitive direction because the industry is moving away from Diacetyl with substitutes which may not be any less problematic. In other words, the industry may be unwittingly jumping out of the pot and into the fire. The SHIB’s purpose uses the word ‘must’. The section in the SHIB which introduces OSHA’s recommendations states that certain practices are recommended for all flavorings including Diacetyl and its substitutes. The SHIB’s disclaimer states that this creates no new legal obligations. Which is it…. a must, strong recommendation, or simply information?
- Is this OSHA’s attempt at backdoor rulemaking? I guess the release of the anticipated Fall Unified Regulatory Agenda may shed some light in that regard.
- The industry has been awaiting definitive direction on the issue of Diacetyl and related substances. This SHIB seems to be confusing the issue, especially as it relates to substitutes. The industry wants to protect its workers. However, instituting expensive engineering controls and product reformulation without knowing whether they have reduced exposures low enough — or unwittingly substituted one problem for another — is unsettling.
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
Some helpful quick links:
OSHA Consulting, OSHA Consultants, OSHA Experts, Prometrix, Prometrix Consulting, OSHA Resources, OSHA Blog, Diacetyl, Diacetyl NEP, OSHA Diacetyl, DAPORS, DIACETYL SHIB.
We at Prometrix Consulting wanted to send out a happy Thanksgiving message to everyone. Please be sure to stay safe over the weekend – whether flying, driving, or staying home. Below are some helpful links for this holiday occassion.
Thanksgiving safety tips for your pets.
Seat belt enforcement stepped up for this weekend.
Feds cracking down this weekend on unsafe rental cars.
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
Some helpful quick links:
OSHA Consulting, OSHA Consultants, OSHA Experts, Prometrix, Prometrix Consulting, OSHA Resources, OSHA Blog.
City of West Palm puts in traffic light cameras to find that the number of crashes of decreased as expected – and hoped. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the number of rear-end crashes increased. That makes sense considering that people will naturally react to traffic lights by slamming on the breaks, thereby causing the car behind to crash into them as an unintended consequence. It’s only been about 9 months since city installed the cameras, so maybe there is some sort of ”learning curve” effect that will occur before the rear-end crashes begin to subside. Maybe. Either way, why are folks tail-gating like that to begin with?
The fact that its having a ‘net’ positive effect of fewer crashes is a good thing, obviously. However, it does sort of act as a reminder that unintended consequences of changes — even when they are is well intentioned – can happen. One might argue that this serves as a parallel to implementing a change in the workplace to make a work process safer only to create a new hazard that needs to be corrected. Something that safety and health professionals, employers, and workers ought to keep in mind!
Not far from my house is a speed camera, but it’s not at a traffic light so it captures speeders in moving traffic where a sudden stop is unlikely. Presumably, this camera does not have that same phenomenon of rear-end or any other type of crash but still has the effect of “encouraging” drivers to keep within the speed limit.
Considering that each state has different auto/insurance laws (no-fault, etc), I wonder how the insurance carriers view this issue….
As a side note, who knew those cameras were so expensive: $4,750 per month! The revenue from tickets issue generates the cash flow, so the theory goes, to pay for the equipment and make a little “profit” for the local government.
This begs an interesting question, then. If these cameras are – on a net basis – successful in reducing accidents, then will the locals take them out if they become a net cost? Will they err on public safety or their budgets? A paradoxical question for the locals, I suppose.
*** Article from Sun-Sentinel.com ***
Nine months after West Palm Beach issued the first red-light camera fines in Palm Beach County, injuries have increased fivefold at the city’s four camera intersections compared with the same period last year, records show.
West Palm Beach, which began doling out fines in February, reported clearing $10,000 per month on camera fines after paying a vendor, but safety results offer a mixed picture. The number of crashes declined, but injuries recorded in accident reports are up: five under cameras compared with one before.
The statistics amount to just one snapshot in a limited time frame, but the safety debate matters now because the future of the cameras is under review across the county.
Royal Palm Beach and Haverhilldropped cameras after a new state law effective July 1 made the program less financially attractive to municipalities. Juno Beach is delaying cameras until next year. Palm Beach County is readying its first camera near Boca Raton. Boynton Beach plans to make its first camera operational in February.
Palm Springs can walk away from a contract with a camera vendor that ends in February. Accidents are down significantly at three intersections in the early going there, with injuries running even compared with the same period last year. The village became the county’s second municipality to start fines Aug 13.
West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel, who once got a ticket for rolling right on red — which is now less rigidly enforced — said she is willing to support cameras if they can be shown to enhance safety. At the same time, she expressed concern that the cameras can create the impression of “gotcha” government.
“I do not believe it should be a cash cow for the city,” Frankel said. “I personally don’t like the cameras.”
Police Chief Delsa Bush, however, said she would not recommend removing the cameras: “I do not believe that they have been in use long enough to comprehensively evaluate the effect that they have on red-light running in specific, and overall public safety in general.”
Bush noted that the cameras show indications of playing a helpful role in tracking suspects in crimes and said the city is exploring enhancing them with license plate readers that capture all plate numbers automatically.
In West Palm Beach, overall accidents at the camera intersections decreased to 26 compared with 38 a year earlier, and damage cited in police reports fell below $96,000 from more than $113,000. But rear-end collisions climbed almost 30 percent to 17 from 13, and recorded injuries rose.
Reports cited various head, neck, chest and other injuries for which drivers or passengers sought treatment. No injury was fatal in either period.
Rear-end collisions sometimes have increased under cameras in other states such as Virginia as drivers may be more likely to stop abruptly, though no police reports in West Palm Beach said drivers blamed red-light cameras for accidents.
Camera fines began Feb. 21 at Banyan Boulevard and Australian Avenue, Belvedere Road and Parker Avenue, and Parker and Summit Boulevard. Fines began June 15 at a fourth intersection, Australian and 25th Street.
The statistics are compiled from the county’s accident database, supplemented by West Palm Beach accident reports that were not in the county database but fall within the appropriate dates.
Only accidents that occurred within 300 feet of the intersections were considered. The county compiles its database from reports municipalities voluntarily provide, though sometimes there can be delays in the flow of information, said Dan Weisberg, director of the county’s traffic division.
In neighboring Palm Springs, crashes fell to 32 from 55 in the first three months of cameras fines, compared with the same period a year earlier. Both periods included three injuries, none fatal.
Damage cited in Palm Springs police reports dropped almost in half to about $100,000.
Palm Springs police Capt. Mark Hall said cameras supplemented educational campaigns against aggressive and drunken driving and promoting seat belts. The cameras are located at Congress Avenue intersections with Forest Hill Boulevard, 10th Avenue North and Lake Worth Road.
Like West Palm Beach, Palm Springs pays camera vendor American Traffic Solutions $4,750 per camera per month, totalling $19,000 per month for four cameras, including two at one intersection. The village reported a net $3,000 loss on the program as of the end of its Sept. 30 fiscal year. A $3,000 gain recorded since then means the town is even, but the figures do not include the cost of paying officers to review footage. Neither city offered a precise figure for manpower costs. In Palm Springs, the hours are built into the schedules of several officers.
In contrast to Royal Palm Beach and Haverhill, Palm Springs officials said they consider it money well spent if safety gains hold up.
“Our intent was to stop crashes and stop people from running red lights,” Palm Springs Mayor Mike Davis said. “If the statistics bear out they’re reducing crashes, then I really don’t mind if we have to pay a few dollars for a law enforcement official to look at the footage.”
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
Well, it is about that time of the Fall/Winter when we should be expecting the new Regulatory Agenda from OSHA. In the last agenda, which was published in April, we saw a total of 6 regulatory items withdrawn a and few items introduced. I would not expect OSHA to withdraw any additional rulemaking items in this edition, though it is obviously theoretically possible for that to happen.
There are currently 3 items at OMB for final rule review which include Ergo Reporting/MSD Column rule, General Working Conditions in Shipyards, and Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints for Federal Employees. Of these, the most anticipated item is the Ergo/MSD reporting rule, particularly since it has been pending at OMB for more than 4 months.
The Fall Reg Agenda will obviously provide status updates and projected timelines for the rules which are in the funnel. I suspect the greatest attention will be placed on the Safety Program Rule / I2P2, Cooperative Agreements, GHS/Hazcom, Combustible Dust, Silica (proposed rule was anticipated for Feb 2011), and maybe some curiousity interest over data collection. That is not to say, of course, that the other items are as important – just not as ‘higher profile interest’ perhaps. As far as Diacetyl goes, there will be a lot of interest from the food manufacturing industry and I imagine a great deal attention will be put on any schedule or timeline projections.
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
A Prometrix Consulting client has recently completed multiple inspections with each one being closed out as “in-compliance” (no violations). By the way, these were long-term inspections — not in/out on the same day. To get this news on a Friday and after a long week… let me tell you… it feels pretty darn nice! The inspections involved everything from safety as well as health issues, national/regional/local emphasis programs, and other actions. The client, understandably, wishes to remain anonymous so to speak so I won’t be able to post company specific details. Shoot, they even got an “atta boy”. This company’s commitment to workplace safety and health is outstanding. This result could actually be considered a fantastic affirmation of that commitment. Kudos to this employer for demonstrating true leadership in protecting employees from hazards! And to know that Prometrix was an integral part of this success is something to which we are extremely proud.
We know what the proverbial they say… you can’t rest on your laurels. Hopefully, this company will decide to pursue VPP. We’ll see. Surely, they are already well on their way there — employee involvement and all. Again, to Company ABCD… we say congratulations for doing the right things to protect your employees!
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
The following was submitted as part of the record for the rulemaking on Cooperative Agreements. The comment period closed on 11/2/2010.
The opportunity to submit an official public comment into the record is appreciated. Prometrix Consulting is a professional services firm with expertise in OSHA compliance and training, strategic planning, and business development.
The vast majority of employers understand that they have the legal obligation to provide their employees with an environment free from recognized hazards and they take this responsibility seriously. To do so, many employers implement safety and health programs and are committed to providing related training for their employees as part of their effort to comply with strict OSHA requirements. [Note: It shall be noted that although my firm works with clients in a variety of industries and of wide ranging sizes, these enclosed comments are submitted on our own behalf as a ‘stakeholder’. The enclosed comments, for simplicity, may only mention On-Site Consultation or SHARP; however, where applicable, the comments are intended to apply to all cooperative program aspects in the proposed rule].
Obviously, the OSH Act of 1970 defines the Agency’s mission, in part, “to assure the safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.” The Act specifically provides a number of tools to assist the Agency with its pursuit of its mission. These tools include setting standards, enforcing requirements, providing training, and others. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Act, in part, states that Congress declares it to be the purpose and policy, as far as it is possible, to assure that working men and women are provided proper working conditions “by building upon advances already made through employer and employee initiative for providing safe and healthful working conditions.” (Section 2(b)(4)).
The On-Site Consultation Program, SHARP, VPP, and the other compliance assistance resources at OSHA, have proven to be highly effective for those who leverage these opportunities. Thus, these programs are noteworthy examples of what was intended by Section 2(b)(4) of the OSH Act. In fact, the published proposed rule highlights this understanding where it states:
“…Following the successful completion of an on-site consultation visit, employers may seek to participate in OSHA Consultation’s SHARP… The program recognizes employers who have demonstrated exemplary achievements in workplace safety and health by receiving a comprehensive safety and health consultation visit, correcting all workplace safety and health hazards, adopting and implementing effective safety and health management systems, and agreeing to request further consultative visits if major changes in working conditions or processes occur that may introduce new hazards… ”
The proposed rule recognizes the worker protection and compliance benefits of cooperative programs; however, some in the business community will perceive it as conflicting with that very premise by asserting that participating employers require an enforcement action to abate a newly discovered or introduced hazard(s). Such incongruence will certainly lead to confusion amongst the small business community, which in turn, would have the unintended consequence of diminishing their willingness to pursue exemplary compliance recognition (SHARP) and/or On-Site Consultation services. These, among other factors, suggest that the proposed changes are seemingly at odds with the intent of 2(b)(4) of the OSH Act.
The following excerpt from the proposal describes a reason for an inspection by Federal OSHA:
One such situation might arise in connection with workplace accidents that generate widespread public concern about a particular hazard or substance. As part of a national response to these hazards, OSHA may need to conduct programmed inspections of all sites within a specific industry.
Even if such a situation arose, Prometrix contends that it would be more effective for the State plan partner, employer, and OSHA to work together to collect whatever data or information is needed to properly abate the hazard. There is a lack of data to suggest that a judicious employer that has volunteered for Part 1908 review might abandon their responsibility of providing a safe work environment for its employees. The excerpt appears antithetical to current experience of employers seeking cooperative relationships with OSHA.
The next excerpt from the proposal describes the level of approval for OSHA to conduct an inspection at an “exempted” site.
To ensure this exception is applied only in exceptional circumstances where an onsite
investigation is clearly warranted, such investigations must be approved by the Assistant Secretary.
Prometrix fail to see the need for this proposed change in accordance with the reasons outlined herein. However, if this proposal is ultimately promulgated, Prometrix recommends that the highest level of scrutiny will be necessary and must not be delegated to Regional Administrators or Area Directors. In fact, Prometrix believes that such approval must be in writing as a directed action from the Assistant Secretary to the respective Regional Administrator and/or State Plan Director. This formality will ensure that this proposed enforcement oversight authority will be used with the utmost discretion — which may help to partially allay the concerns from the small business community.
In aggregate, my interactions and discussions with small businesses lead me to conclude that – should these changes become a final rule – there will be a significant chilling effect on the demand for such services and recognition among employers that would otherwise seek OSHA’s assistance in achieving exemplary safety and health performance.
Mechanisms are already in place to ensure the safety of employees in a facility participating in a SHARP effort. It is counter-intuitive, not to mention counter-productive, for OSHA to deviate from the consultative working relationship existing between a judicious employer and Federal OSHA or State program on what appears to be issues that could be worked out informally. After all, abatement of hazards should be the end result sought by all parties involved. Common sense tells us that an employer investing significant resources and effort to pursue SHARP recognition is also committed to making its workplace an example of safety and health excellence. Similarly, employers that volunteer for On-Site Consultation services are also, by virtual definition, committed to identifying and abating workplace hazards.
It may be appropriate for the Agency, to conduct a review (or publish the data if already available) to support the notion that participating On-Site Consultation, SHARP, or other similarly recognized workplaces have a history of reluctance when it comes to abating identified hazards during the pre or concurrent 29 CFR 1908 review process(es). Otherwise, the program(s) will run the very real risk of being perceived as establishing “gotcha” opportunities for enforcement. If deemed appropriate, OSHA ought to further consider surveying a statistically significant and diverse set of SHARP-approved and On-Site Consultation recipients to assess this proposal’s impact on their participation rate (quantify the chilling effect).
It is common for most proposed rulemaking items published in the Federal Register to include the benefit of how many injuries, illnesses, and fatalities will be prevented with that new rule. This proposal neglects to consider the potential unintended consequence of needlessly exposing, in an aggregate net basis, employees to hazards which could have otherwise been identified and abated had the employer’s deciding not to participate due to this change had sought On-Site Consultation services.
It will prove helpful to OSHA to provide statistically significant data which reinforces the notion that the proposed changes are needed to address the “recalcitrance” of some participating employers that by implication would be reluctant to abate hazards under certain scenarios. It is reasonable conclude, that such “recalcitrant employers” would not be selected as possible SHARP participants in the first place.
With regards to OSHA State Plans, it is highly unlikely that these proposed changes will have any adverse administrative consequences with the exception of, as highlighted earlier, a significantly lower demand for On-Site Consultation services, SHARP, and other compliance assistance programs and resources.
The proposed rule also has some conflicts with common OSHA practice in the field. For example, there is an inconsistency between the proposed rule and Chapter 9 of the Field Operations Manual (FOM[1]). Formal complaints, unless they fail to allege a safety and health issue covered by OSHA, will routinely result in an on-site enforcement inspection without advanced notice while most non-formal complaints will initially result in “inquires” to the employer and may never actually be physically inspected. According, there is a distinction between the two terms and Prometrix believes that the distinction between formal and non-formal complaints significantly impacts how they are administered; to state otherwise will foster confusion.
OSHA is strongly urged to reconsider this proposal in its entirety so that its critical shortcomings can be addressed. These shortcomings include, among other things:
- the unintended consequences of discouraging employers from seeking exemplary safety and health performance;
- · inefficiently overextending limited Agency resources by deploying them to the very employers who are most eager to protect their employees;
- · inconsistencies in the proposal which will create confusion for those it is intended to cover; and most importantly; and
- allocating limited Agency resources on matters already under the auspices of OSHA’s state partners which creates duplicative efforts.
My experience and interactions with the small business community tells me that an employer’s motivation to achieve “exemplary” workplace safety and health status does not depend upon inspection exemptions. They understand that, in reality, they are more likely to be inspected as a result of a complaint than a programmed selection. Most small businesses, in my experience, will admit that achieving the ‘recognition of excellence’ from the preeminent Agency is of greater value. Furthermore, participants understand that SHARP validates their good faith effort to protect their employees while also obtaining bottom-line competitive advantages over their peers and foreign competitors. Cooperative Programs offer a universal win-win result because workers are protected from hazards, employers have an improved bottom-line, and the communities benefit from the jobs and tax base remaining local.
This proposal will have a chilling effect on employers’ desire to enter into the SHARP program or seek On-Site Consultation services. With this proposed rule, it is easy to envision small businesses becoming skeptical of State OSH assistance and abandoning this invaluable pool of professional expertise. Many of these employers may, because of tight fiscal constraints, resort to seeking compliance with sub-optimized in-house resources and expertise, thus, resulting in delayed abatement – or worse… no abatement at all due to lack of proper expertise. Employers in this scenario have the will to become exemplary but often lack the expertise to do so.
In summary, this proposed rule promotes a “lose-lose” environment for employers and workers.
[1] http://www.dealer.org/files/public/OSHA-Safety/OSHA%20Field%20Operations%20Manual%203-09%20CPL_02-00-148.pdf
My experience and interactions with the small business community tells me that an employer’s motivation to achieve “exemplary” workplace safety and health status does not depend upon inspection exemptions. They understand that, in reality, they are more likely to be inspected as a result of a complaint than a programmed selection. Most small businesses, in my experience, will admit that achieving the ‘recognition of excellence’ from the preeminent Agency is of greater value. Furthermore, participants understand that SHARP validates their good faith effort to protect their employees while also obtaining bottom-line competitive advantages over their peers and foreign competitors. Cooperative Programs offer a universal win-win result because workers are protected from hazards, employers have an improved bottom-line, and the communities benefit from the jobs and tax base remaining local.
This proposal will have a chilling effect on employers’ desire to enter into the SHARP program or seek On-Site Consultation services. With this proposed rule, it is easy to envision small businesses becoming skeptical of State OSH assistance and abandoning this invaluable pool of professional expertise. Many of these employers may, because of tight fiscal constraints, resort to seeking compliance with sub-optimized in-house resources and expertise, thus, resulting in delayed abatement – or worse… no abatement at all due to lack of proper expertise. Employers in this scenario have the will to become exemplary but often lack the expertise to do so.
In summary, this proposed rule promotes a “lose-lose” environment for employers and workers.
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix
I wrote earlier about OSHA’s activities in the area of Recordkeeping where the question was posited: Are Employers Under-Reporting? The debate on this question is literally decades old. Well, a new little wrinkle sort of entered the fold when the Assistant Secretary of OSHA wrote a follow-up to the open letter he had sent to Agency staff on July 19.
Considering that the Agency had temporarily put the NEP on Recordkeeping on hold because it wasn’t finding ‘bad actors’ in a manner that they were hoping/expecting, coupled with OSHA publishing and RFI asking – cynically – ‘are you under-reporting injuries and illness?, and the majority in Congress requesting a GAO study to investigate if employers are encouraging their employers to not report injuries or illnesses…. one might think that the three actions support to the notion that under-reporting is not as widespread a problem as some may believe.
In the October 15th follow-up letter, the following statement provides a new argument. Specifically, it states “…OSHA has initiated 187 inspections under the NEP. Almost 50 percent of the inspections conducted to date have found recordkeeping violations. The program focused initially on those high hazard establishments with the lowest injury and illness rates…”
What is peculiar about this quote? Well, if almost 50% of the NEP Recordkeeping inspections are resulting in RK violations, then that means — obviously – that the IN-COMPLIANCE rate for these inspections is more than 50%! Consider, furthermore, that the national average in-compliance rate (where no violations are cited by the inspector) in FY2010 is 21%… as in 1-in-5.
Hmmm, the average in-compliance rate for recordkeeping inspections is greater than 50% whereas the overall national average is just 21%. So, a “typical (Federal) inspection” is 2.5+ times more likely to uncover a violation than a recordkeeping NEP inspection. Hardly an indication that under-reporting is a rampant problem. Nevermind that the NEP is neglecting to record cases of OVER-REPORTING. If accurate data is what “we” want, then “we” really ought to be getting the data right and not just finding cases of under-reporting. But that’s a topic for another day, perhaps.
All of this is in no way intended to imply that accurate data is not important. Proper recordkeeping is important and employers need to be conscientious in complying with OSHA reporting requirements! With the NEP now being expanded, employers really ought to take another look at not only their reporting history to make sure that recordables and loss-time/restricted/transferred injuries are properly classified, but also review their safety incentive programs to make sure that they are properly structured so that employees are not inadvertantly encouraged to “hide” injuries or illnesses.
***
Prometrix Consulting, with a staff of former OSHA officials, offers expert consulting and training services to help clients ensure compliance with complex workplace safety and health requirements. These services include, in part:
Workplace Safety and Health Programs:
Prometrix experts can help you establish a workplace safety and health program that sets the foundation for OSHA compliance and worker protection. We can also review existing programs to ensure ongoing compliance with complex requirements.
Preparations for OSHA National Emphasis Programs (NEPs):
Our staff of former senior OSHA officials will conduct a thorough mock inspection consistent with NEP directives and Agency procedures to identify and address areas of vulnerability.
Action Planning for OSHA Citations:
Our staff will analyze your case, and if applicable, negotiate a settlement or help contest an unfair citation predicated on us also helping you implement corrective safety and health programs for continued compliance.
Contact us via http://prometrixinc.com/contact-us or info@prometrixinc.com regarding your OSHA compliance issues.
Follow us on Twitter: @Prometrix