Occupational Safety And Health Administration Inspection Research Articles

An Analysis of Violations of Osha’s (1987) Occupational Exposure to Benzene Standard

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which was formed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), establishes enforceable health and safety standards in the workplace and issues violations and penalties for non-compliance with these standards. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the number and type of violations of the OSHA (1987) Occupational Exposure to Benzene Standard. Violations of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), particularly those that may pertain to specific provisions of the benzene standard, were also assessed. All analyses were based on OSHA inspection data that have been collected since the early 1970s and that are publicly available from the U.S. Department of Labor enforcement website. Analysis of these data shows that fewer than a thousand OSHA violations of the benzene standard have been issued over the last 25+ years. The results for benzene are in contrast to those for some other toxic and hazardous substances that are regulated by OSHA, such as blood-borne pathogens, lead, and asbestos, for which there have been issued tens of thousands of OSHA violations. The number of benzene standard violations also varies by time period, standard provision, industry sector, and other factors. In particular, the greatest number of benzene standard violations occurred during the late 1980s to early/mid 1990s, soon after the 1987 final benzene rule was promulgated. The majority of benzene standard violations also pertain to noncompliance with specific provisions and subprovisions of the standard dealing with initial exposure monitoring requirements, the communication of hazards to employees, and medical surveillance programs. Only a small fraction of HCS violations are attributed, at least in part, to potential benzene hazards in the workplace. In addition, most benzene standard violations are associated with specific industries within the manufacturing sector where benzene or benzene-containing products may be used or produced during production processes, such as petroleum refineries, metal industries, and chemical companies. Not surprisingly, the greatest number of benzene standard violations have been issued to private facility owners (rather than government entities), given that the OSH Act primarily covers private sector employers. More violations have also been issued during inspections where union representation was present and from complaint-driven (vs. planned or other) inspections, which is consistent with OSHA inspection priorities. Violations of the benzene standard have typically involved a single instance per facility and 10 or fewer exposed employees. Because the OSH Act prescribes penalty caps for citations, initial penalties issued for noncompliance with the benzene standard have generally been less than $5,000 per violation. Despite some potential limitations, the OSHA inspection database contains the best available data for assessing historical and current violations of the benzene standard. These data, which have not been previously analyzed or published for benzene, may be of interest to professionals and practitioners involved in benzene risk assessment, risk management, and/or public policy issues.

Using OSHA inspection data to analyze respirator protection program compliance

Several million American workers wear respirators on a regular basis, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that nonagricultural firms have a respiratory protection program. This article uses the OSHA inspection data base to examine all inspections in manufacturing in 47 states from 1999 through 2006; the examination starts with 1999 because an expanded OSHA respiratory program standard became effective in late 1998. The article identifies all inspections and all establishments at which respiratory protection (RP) violations were cited, and it compares the prevalence of violations by industry with the prevalence reported in a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of respirator use. Multivariate analyses are used to identify the roles of industry, establishment size, union status, and employee participation in the inspection on noncompliance at the inspection level and for repeated inspections at the same establishment. The authors find that the pattern of noncompliance across industries mostly mirrors the survey findings about the prevalence of requirements for respirator use, although the chemical industry has fewer violations than expected. The probability of citing an RP violation is similar across establishment size categories, except for a large drop for establishments with over 200 workers. The presence of a worker accompanying the inspector increases the probability that a respiratory program violation will be cited; the presence of a union slightly decreases it.

Surveillance of Washington OSHA Exposure Data to Identify Uncharacterized or Emerging Occupational Health Hazards

Chemical substance exposure data from the Washington State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) program were reviewed to determine if inspections conducted as a result of a report of a hazard from a complainant or referent may alert the agency to uncharacterized or emerging health hazards. Exposure and other electronically stored data from 6890 health inspection reports conducted between April 2003 and August 2008 were extracted from agency records. A total of 515 (7%) inspections with one or more personal airborne chemical substance samples were identified for further study. Inspections by report of a hazard and by targeting were compared for the following: number of inspections, number and percentage of inspections with workers exposed to substances above an agency's permissible exposure limit, types of industries inspected, and number and type of chemical substances assessed. Report of a hazard inspections documented work sites with worker overexposure at the same rate as agency targeted inspections (approximately 35% of the time), suggesting that complainants and referents are a credible pool of observers capable of directing the agency to airborne chemical substance hazards. Report of a hazard inspections were associated with significantly broader distribution of industries as well as a greater variety of chemical substance exposures than were targeted inspections. Narrative text that described business type and processes inspected was more useful than NAICS codes alone and critical in identifying processes and industries that may be associated with new hazards. Finally, previously identified emerging hazards were found among the report of a hazard data. These findings indicate that surveillance of OSHA inspection data can be a valid tool to identify uncharacterized and emerging health hazards. Additional research is needed to develop criteria for objective review and prioritization of the data for intervention. Federal OSHA and other state OSHA agencies will need to add electronic data entry fields more descriptive of industry, process, and substance to fully use agency exposure data for hazard surveillance.

Survey of Current Lead Use, Handling, Hygiene, and Contaminant Controls Among New Jersey Industries

In 2003, a chemical handling and use survey was mailed to New Jersey employers identified as currently using lead in their industrial processes. This survey was used to ascertain characteristics about lead use, handling, and protection of employees during manufacturing operations. The survey included a diverse group of current lead users with a total lead use range from less than 1 pound to more than 63 million pounds of lead per year. The survey allowed for a comprehensive characterization of hazards and protective measures associated with this metal, still commonly used in many products and industrial processes. Forty-five surveys were returned by companies that are listed in the New Jersey Adult Blood Lead Registry, which is part of the New Jersey Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) program. This program records and investigates cases of adults with greater than 25 μ g/dL of lead in their blood; most cases are related to occupational exposures. This survey found that greater than 25% of these surveyed companies with significant potential for lead exposure did not employ commonly used and basic industrial hygiene practices. In addition, the survey found that 24% of these companies had not conducted air sampling within the last 3 years. Air sampling is the primary trigger for compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) general industry lead standard. Only 17% of the companies have ever been cited for a violation of the OSHA lead standard, and only 46% of these companies have ever had an OSHA inspection. State-based surveillance can be a useful tool for OSHA enforcement activities. Elevated blood lead values in adults should be considered as a trigger for required compliance with an OSHA general industry lead standard.

Demystifying the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Process

• BEING PREPARED FOR an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection can save a facility money, as well as potentially protect employees from serious illness or injury. • THIS ARTICLE EXPLAINS the OSHA inspection process, types of violations that may be cited, and the appeals process for employers and employees. • ACTUAL CITATIONS GIVEN in four recent OSHA health care facility inspections are discussed and general recommendations to prepare for an OSHA site visit are given.

Demystifying the Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection process

Being prepared for an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection can save a facility money, as well as potentially protect employees from serious illness or injury. This article explains the OSHA inspection process, types of violations that may be cited and the appeals process for employers and employees. Actual citations given in four recent OSHA health care facility inspections are discussed and general recommendations to prepare for an OSHA site visit are given.

A Little Occupational Audiology for the Clinical Audiologist

A Little Occupational Audiology for the Clinical Audiologist

OSHA Compliance Issues

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require employers to report workplace-related fatalities.(1) OSHA inspection policy and procedures require that a workplace fatality or workplace hazards with potential imminent danger receive the highest priority for inspection.(2) This inspection began on a Saturday when a local fire department advised the OSHA area office of a workplace fatality. The fire department also reported that the death was due to natural causes, based on a county coroner's report that stated the worker had died from a heart attack. Under normal circumstances OSHA begins a workplace fatality investigation within one day of notification. Workplace deaths due to natural causes, as was initially reported in this case, may not receive an OSHA inspection. However, subsequent to the incident, a family member contacted the OSHA area office and reported that the death may have been due to chemical vapor exposures, based on information from co-workers of the deceased. The family had already requested a toxicological screening of the victim and the coroner had agreed. Based on this new information, the local OSHA area office opened a facility inspection.

Surviving an OSHA inspection takes planning, organization

While examining your 20th patient of the day, you are interrupted by a knock on the exam room door. A breathless medical assistant informs you that someone from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is here to inspect the office. You rush out of the exam room and nervously usher

Occupational Noise Sources and Exposures in Construction Industries

This is an assessment of occupational noise exposures in the construction industry based on (1) noise measurements observed during Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections over the period from 1986 through early 1997 and (2) the observed incidence of noise exposures over 85 dB (A) in a national random sample of construction firms done as part of the NIOSH National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) in 1981-83. The OSHA inspection data are analyzed by both industry categories and a classification system of equipment and occupational types based on free form descriptions of “job title” by OSHA inspectors.Because construction workers' jobs and work tasks change frequently, the noise observations within each industry were treated as a distribution indicating the fraction of time that workers would be likely to spend at various noise levels projected to a common year (1995). The time at each noise level in OSHA measured dB(A) was summarized in terms of “90 dB(A) equivalents” using the “equal energy rule” which weights a day of exposure time at 100 dB(A), for example, as the equivalent of 10 days of exposure at 90 dB(A). Overall the 1995 projected exposures are slightly less than one “90 dB(A) equivalent” of continuous noise exposure per worker in the industry. This estimate is generally compatible with three other extensive sets of noise measurements for construction workers in the U.S. and Canada.In further work the exposure estimates developed here will be used to project the hearing losses likely to result from work in construction industries. Those results will be compared with extensive available data on the hearing loss experience of construction workers in British Columbia. The results will

A descriptive study of U.S. OSHA penalties and inspection frequency for musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace.

Information on the frequency and cost of OSHA enforcement penalties for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in the literature is limited. Such information would be of value to organizations in estimating the likelihood and financial impact of enforcement activity in their operations. This descriptive study utilized data from federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections to examine the distribution of penalty costs arising from inspections with MSD-related citations from January 1985 to June 1994 and to estimate the probability of OSHA inspection in general and OSHA citation for MSD hazards from October 1985 to September 1993. The mean and median values of proposed penalties were $47,707 and $3600 respectively. A substantial influence of 1991 changes to the penalty structure was noted with decreasing mean and increasing median penalty values. Penalty values increased with establishment size and were higher for unplanned than for planned inspections. The probability of a federal OSHA inspection for any establishment ranged from 1:50 in 1986 to 1:100 in 1993 whereas the estimated probability of an inspection with MSD-related citations ranged from 1:167,000 in 1996 to as much as 1:38,000 during the peak of enforcement activity in 1990. The probability of an inspection with MSD citations for the largest establishments during the period was more than 1000 times greater than that for the smallest. The results of this study may be utilized by organizations seeking to demonstrate the advantages of reducing musculoskeletal morbidity in the workplace.

A Descriptive Study of U.S. OSHA Penalties and Inspection Frequency for Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Workplace

Information on the frequency and cost of OSHA enforcement penalties for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in the literature is limited. Such information would be of value to organizations in estimating the likelihood and financial impact of enforcement activity in their operations. This descriptive study utilized data from federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections to examine the distribution of penalty costs arising from inspections with MSD-related citations from January 1985 to June 1994 and to estimate the probability of OSHA inspection in general and OSHA citation for MSD hazards from October 1985 to September 1993. The mean and median values of proposed penalties were $47,707 and $3600 respectively. A substantial influence of 1991 changes to the penalty structure was noted with decreasing mean and increasing median penalty values. Penalty values increased with establishment size and were higher for unplanned than for planned inspections. The probability of a federal OSHA inspection for any establishment ranged from 1:50 in 1986 to 1:100 in 1993 whereas the estimated probability of an inspection with MSD-related citations ranged from 1:167,000 in 1986 to as much as 1:38,000 during the peak of enforcement activity in 1990. The probability of an inspection with MSD citations for the largest establishments during the period was more than 1000 times greater than that for the smallest. The results of this study may be utilized by organizations seeking to demonstrate the advantages of reducing musculoskeletal morbidity in the workplace.

Your legal rights before, during, and after an inspection by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was developed to ensure that every American has a safe and healthy work environment. An important component of OSHA's mission is to develop and promulgate minimum standards for workplace safety, and we recently published, JAVMA fan 15, 1994 through Mar 1, 1994, a series of articles giving practical suggestions for complying with current OSHA standards. However, an equally important part of OSHA's mission is inspection of American workplaces to determine whether those workplaces are complying with safety standards. Few veterinarians know what to expect during an OSHA inspection, nor understand what their rights and responsibilities are. In this article, Ms. Richard, an attorney who specializes in management labor and employment law, outlines what to expect and what to do if your practice is inspected by the OSHA. Please remember that the information in this article is based on the author's best interpretation of current law. However, the law can change, and the accuracy of any interpretation of the law can be challenged by the OSHA. Therefore, information in this article is intended to be only a guideline and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Veterinarians are advised to consult with their own attorneys for advice on specific matters. Finally, this information is based on current federal OSHA guidelines. Veterinary practices located in one of the 25 states and territories with OSHA-approved state plans may have to comply with slightly different guidelines.—Kurt J. Matushek, Assistant Editor.

Analysis of OSHA Inspection Data with Exposure Monitoring and Medical Surveillance Violations

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection data from the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) enforcement data base are presented for lead, ethylene oxide, and formaldehyde for fiscal years 1985, 1987, and 1989, and are discussed with emphasis on exposure monitoring or medical surveillance section violations. These data suggest that the exposure monitoring section of these standards is more commonly used to cite workplaces below these standards than is the medical surveillance section. Medical surveillance violations more commonly resulted in fines, but there were no differences in the magnitude of the fines for exposure monitoring or for medical surveillance violations. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Targeting of workplace inspections for lead

The prevention of occupational lead poisoning requires identification of worksites with ongoing excessive lead exposures. The utility of different sources of surveillance data in identifying worksites was evaluated by comparing a list of companies inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for lead with 1) Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) claims for lead poisoning, and 2) the New York Health Department's Heavy Metal Registry (NYHMR) reports of individuals with elevated blood lead levels. For the period 1981 through 1985, the NYHMR identified 179 companies with at least one employee having an elevated blood lead level. Of the 134 OSHA inspections conducted in New York during the same time period, 23 (17%) companies were identified by the NYHMR. In Ohio from 1979 through 1985, 50 companies had workers' compensation claims filed against them involving documented elevated blood lead levels. OSHA inspected 306 companies; 23 (7.5%) were identified by the BWC. In both states, companies inspected by OSHA were concentrated in larger industries with traditional, well-recognized lead hazards (e.g., primary metal and fabricated metals). Companies identified by compensation claims and laboratory reports tended to be in industries dominated by smaller establishments where lead is not a primary part of the industrial process (e.g., automotive repair and construction). Sources of surveillance data, such as workers' compensation claims and laboratory reports, identify worksites that tend not to be routinely inspected by OSHA and which need intervention to prevent excessive lead exposure. To maximize the impact of public health resources devoted to the elimination of occupational lead poisoning, follow-up efforts at companies identified by state health departments and workers' compensation systems offer an important opportunity to complement OSHA's inspection efforts.

Viscusi's Risk by Choice: Regulating Health and Safety in the Workplace

would only impose large costs and red tape on employers. Did they listen to us? You can bet they didn't. Those do-gooders filled the pages of the Federal Register. They required employers to buy new toilet seats and replace 29 inch handrails with 30 inch handrails. As we predicted, they held the government up to ridicule, wasted billions of dollars, and didn't improve worker safety by one whit. When all that was painfully clear to everyone, many, many years later, we got them to let the market do most of the job. Telling the story with relish, although in less colloquial English, Viscusi scores those economically ignorant (politically savvy) do-gooders who won most of the battles when he was Deputy Director of the Council on Wage and Price Stability. Of course, the last act, giving greater role to market forces, has yet to be written, but this book is intended to be boost to the process. The inadequacies of OSHA * Viscusi is at his best in describing the current and past operations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the nature of its regulations, and the reason one should not have expected much of an improvement in worker safety. The chapters are crammed with facts, summaries of the relevant literature, and insightful observations. Viscusi argues that the increase in worker injury rates in the 1960s that stirred attention and led to the creation of OSHA was a statistical artifact; job hazards actually were continuing to diminish throughout this period, as were other risk levels. The inadequacies of OSHA inspection are detailed, along with the lack of focus on serious problems and the areas where OSHA could do the most good. The level of fines has been so low that the economic incentive for improving safety is virtually zero. Viscusi summarizes analyses of how workers perceive and react to occupational hazards. Unions are seen as affecting health and safety by reflecting the average preference of workers, rather than the preferences of those workers who self-selected into the most dangerous jobs. This phenomenon might be used to explain why organized labor invested so much effort in having OSHA created and why the unions support its efforts so strongly-they are limiting competition by workers who are less risk averse and by the nonunion companies who would employ them. The differences in risk aversion are estimated to be large: The average worker (in job of average, relatively low risk) puts much higher premium on safety than does worker who is employed in one of the most

Air pollution exposures to five target health hazards

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) initiated a Target Health Hazards Program (THHP) in January 1972. The five substances singled out as target health hazards (asbestos, cotton dust, carbon monoxide, lead and silica) are discussed. Outlines are given of the pertinent points of the present and proposed OSHA standards for each substance as well as data of OSHA inspection efforts with regard to the THHP. A summary statement is made of the National Emphasis Program and of OSHA efforts to upgrade standard setting and compliance activities.