OSHA partners with Torcon to protect workers on Penn State University construction project

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced a partnership with Torcon Inc. to promote workplace safety and health, and to provide guidance, technical assistance and training for workers involved in the construction of the Penn State University Biological Research Laboratory.

"Construction is a high-hazard industry, and when multiple employers are working on a construction site, the likelihood of injuries occurring increases," said Kevin Kilp, director of OSHA's Harrisburg Area Office, who represented the agency at a signing ceremony. "This partnership allows OSHA to work directly with Torcon, its subcontractor and the employees to provide the tools needed to prevent injuries and illnesses."

"Penn State University applauds OSHA's partnership with Torcon Inc.," said Don Fronk, Penn State physical plant occupational safety and environmental health specialist. "Safety has always been priority number one, and the university intends to maintain its fine track record."

The partnership aims to reduce the number of at-risk conditions and behaviors that could result in worker fatalities, injuries or illnesses, especially those relating to falls, struck-by, caught-in and electrical hazards.

Through its Strategic Partnership Program, OSHA partners with employers, workers, professional and trade associations, labor organizations and other stakeholders to establish specific goals, strategies and performance measures to improve worker safety and health.

OSHA continues targeted inspection program for federal workers

OSHA recently updated its Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program (FEDTARG) directive [PDF] for fiscal year 2012. FEDTARG directs programmed inspections of federal agency establishments that experienced high numbers of lost time injuries during Fiscal Year 2011. The directive outlines the procedures for carrying out programmed inspections at some of the most hazardous federal workplaces. Changes to this directive include provisions for reviewing alternate and supplementary standards for federal agencies, which are the equivalent of private sector variances from OSHA standards. Other changes include clarifications of how OSHA Area Directors determine the appropriate number and location of on-site inspections for establishments with multiple services or operations.

FEDTARG12 continues OSHA's nationwide inspection targeting program for federal worksites. OSHA's Office of Federal Agency Programs (FAP) provides leadership and guidance to the heads of federal agencies to assist them with their occupational safety and health responsibilities.

In an effort to help Federal employers comply with such regulations, National Safety Compliance has developed many OSHA compliant safety training materials.

National Emphasis Program

OSHA issues new National Emphasis Program
for chemical facilities

WASHINGTON – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today issued a new National Emphasis Program* (NEP) for chemical facilities to protect workers from catastrophic releases of highly hazardous chemicals.

"Far too many workers are injured and killed in preventable incidents at chemical facilities around the country," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "This program will enable OSHA inspectors to cover chemical facilities nationwide to ensure that all required measures are taken to protect workers."

The new NEP replaces OSHA's 2009 pilot Chemical Facility National Emphasis Program which covered several OSHA regions around the country. The program* establishes policies and procedures for inspecting workplaces that are covered by OSHA's process safety management (PSM) standard. The program's inspection process includes detailed questions designed to gather facts related to PSM requirements and verification that employers' written and implemented PSM programs are consistent. The intent of the NEP is to conduct focused inspections at facilities randomly selected from a list of worksites likely to have highly hazardous chemicals in quantities covered by the standard.

OSHA implemented a multi-year pilot NEP for PSM-covered facilities in July 2009 in an effort to reduce releases of highly hazardous chemicals. "During our pilot Chemical NEP we found many of the same safety-related problems that were uncovered during our NEP for the refinery industry, which is also covered by the PSM standard," said Michaels. "As a result, we are expanding the enforcement program to a national level to increase awareness of these dangers so that employers will more effectively prevent the release of highly hazardous chemicals."

OSHA's Safety and Health Topics Web page on Process Safety Management contains information on PSM for general industry and construction, guidance on how to develop a process hazard analysis, and OSHA requirements for preventing the release of hazardous chemicals.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.

OMB Approval: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Approval of Information Collection Requirements

OSHA is announcing that OMB approved the collection of information requirements contained in the General Working Conditions Standard under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB approval number is 1218-0259.

DATES: The rule is effective January 3, 2012. The final rule, published May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24576), became effective and enforceable on August 1, 2011, except for the provisions in Sec. 1915.89, which became effective and enforceable on October 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA published a final rule for General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment on May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24576), updating existing requirements to reflect advances in industry practices and technology, consolidating some general safety and health requirements into one subpart, and providing hazardous energy protection not addressed in the existing standard.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Register notice for the General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment final rule stated that compliance with the collection of information requirements was not required until OMB approved these requirements, and that the Department of Labor would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that OMB approved and assigned a control number to the requirements. See 76 FR 24695. Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless: (1) The collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number, and (2) the agency informs those members of the public who must respond to the collection of information that they are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

On May 2, 2011, OSHA submitted the General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart F) Information Collection Request for the final rule to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). On October 31, 2011, OMB approved the collections of information contained in the final rule and assigned this collection OMB Control Number 1218- 0259.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915

Occupational safety and health, reporting, Recordkeeping requirements, Hazards in general working condition in shipyard employment.

Fall protection on aerial lifts during construction activities

August 22, 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR:	REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
FROM:	JAMES G. MADDUX, Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT:	Fall protection on aerial lifts during construction activities.

On January 14, 2009, OSHA issued a letter of interpretation regarding the use of a particular shock absorbing lanyard to satisfy the requirements found in §1926.453(b)(2)(v). The Directorate of Construction has received inquires from regional offices, area offices, and the public asking if the January 2009 letter banned the lanyard in question.

OSHA did not ban the particular lanyard but stated, based on the manufacturer's instructions, which stipulated a minimum anchor point height of 18.5 feet, that it was likely that the lanyard's use would not comply with OSHA standards at lower heights.

In such cases, use of the lanyard below 18.5 feet would apparently not provide adequate fall protection. This determination has raised questions about the use of body harnesses, typically married with appropriate lanyards, for fall protection in aerial lifts. To help avoid any confusion on the issue, DOC is rescinding the January 2009 letter, #20070823-7896.

Under subpart L, employers must ensure that employees tie off at all times when working from an aerial lift [§1926.453(b)(2)(v)]. Employers must ensure that employees using personal fall arrest systems while working on aerial lifts at heights six feet or more above a lower level comply with §1926.502(d) of subpart M, specifically:

Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, shall:
...
(iii) be rigged such that an employee can neither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m), nor contact any lower level. [§1926.502(d)(16)(iii)]

However, §1926.502(d) does not require employers to comply with manufacturer's instructions when using personal fall arrest systems. To cite §1926.502(d)(16)(iii), the facts must show that the personal fall arrest system would permit a free fall of more than six feet or would permit contact with a lower level - and not base this conclusion solely on information provided by the manufacturer.

As has been the Agency's longstanding policy, an employer may comply with OSHA's fall protection requirements for aerial lifts in one of three ways:

1. Use of a body belt with a tether anchored to the boom or basket (fall restraint system),
2. Use of a body harness with a tether (fall restraint system), or
3. Use of a body harness with a lanyard (fall arrest system).

National Safety Compliance has produced an excellent Aerial & Scissor Lift Safety Training Video Program to ensure your compliance with OSHA's regulations. In conjunction with this Aerial & Scissor Lift Safety Program, NSC has also produced a Fall Protection Safety Training Video Program.

Employers get help from OSHA's free On-site Consultation Program: Worker safety and health improves

With a small business where workers risk both falls and dangerous chemical exposures, the owners of Tri-State Building Services LLC decided to call OSHA for help. The results, Tri-State improved their safety and health management programs through working with the New York State Department of Labor's (NYDOL) On-site Consultation Program. "It seemed like a no-brainer. Why not take advantage of the nation's top authority on safety?" said Dave and Jim Grady, co-owners of the upstate New York cleaning and property maintenance company.

Tri State contacted OSHA's free On-site Consultation Program, which provides small business workplaces with assistance in identifying and correcting workplace safety and health hazards, as well as guidance on improving their injury and illness prevention program. Thanks to OSHA's visit, Tri-State has made significant safety and health improvements, including purchasing and installing eye wash stations, properly labeling equipment and chemicals, and enhancing the company's safety manuals. The company has also increased efforts to communicate safety and health information to Spanish speaking workers and to provide training to all workers on topics including scaffolding, aerial lifts, window cleaning, and general construction. The results can be seen in their injury rates which are significantly lower than the industry averages.

"To maintain a safety and health environment, Tri-State has learned to train, re-train, and reinforce. The company examines their safety and health management program constantly by re-evaluating and modifying their overall existing program, searching for improvement," said Grady. "The On-site Consultation visits have helped the organization to enforce its safety and health expectations by encouraging Tri-State's employees to be safety conscious throughout the entire organization." See the online success story for more information.

Employer options after an OSHA Citation has been given.

As an employer who has been cited, you may take either of the following courses of action:

• If you agree to the Citation and Notification of Penalty, you must correct the condition by the date set in the citation and pay the penalty, if one is proposed.
• If you do not agree, you have 15 working days from the date you receive the citation to contest in writing any or all of the following:
• Citation;
• Proposed penalty; and/or
• Abatement date.

Before deciding to contest the citation, you may request an informal conference with the OSHA area director within the 15 working day period to discuss any issues related to the Citation and Notification of Penalty. (See the following section on Informal Conference and Settlement).

OSHA will inform the affected employee representatives of the informal conference or contest.

Before Deciding to Contest

Before deciding whether to file a Notice of Intent to Contest, you may request an informal conference with the OSHA area director to discuss the Citation and Notification of Penalty. You may use this opportunity to do any of the following:

• Obtain a better explanation of the violations cited;
• Obtain a more complete understanding of the specific standards that apply;
• Negotiate and enter into an informal settlement agreement;
• Discuss ways to correct violations;
• Discuss issues concerning proposed penalties;
• Discuss proposed abatement dates;
• Resolve disputed citations and penalties, (thereby eliminating the need for themore formal procedures associated with litigation before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission); and
• Obtain answers to any other questions you may have.