To OSHA watchers, 2005 will be remembered for one thing: the record $21,365,500 fine against British Petroleum Products North America to settle more than 300 citations in connection with the Texas City refinery fire and explosion that killed 15 and injured 170.

But the BP settlement was a blip in what was otherwise a humdrum year in enforcement. Last month, OSHA published its report on enforcement activities in fiscal year 2005 (Oct. 1, 2004 through Sept. 30, 2005). Here's a look at the numbers and what they suggest.

Inspection Totals

OSHA conducted 38,714 inspections, exceeding its goal of 37,700 but below last year's total of 39,167.

Inspection Types

Continuing a trend, OSHA invested most of its energy in programmed inspections in FY2005.

Programmed: For the fourth year in a row, OSHA did more programmed than unprogrammed inspections (21,404 vs. 17,310). Programmed inspections included 2,924 targeted inspections under the Strategic Management Plan which OSHA launched in 2003 and focused on the following seven high risk injuries:

• Landscaping/Horticultural
• Oil & Gas Field Services
• Fruit & Vegetable Processing
• Blast Furnace & Basic Steel Products
• Ship/Boat Building & Repair
• Public Warehousing & Storage
• Concrete & Concrete Products

EEP: There were also 615 Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP) inspections in FY2005, nearly twice as many as in FY2004. EEP targets facilities that have a record of "extremely serious" safety violations involving fatalities and/or multiple violations.

Citations

OSHA issued 85,307 citations in FY2005, as compared to 86,708 last year. This is the first annual drop in citations since FY2002 but still a 9.5 percent increase since 2001. OSHA attributed the drop off in total citations for the year to the allocation of resources to recovery efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Citation Types

Willful violations were up a whopping 62 percent from FY2004 (747 vs. 462); serious violations dropped slightly over the same period from 61,666 to 61,018; repeat violations held at just about the same level as last year-2,350 vs. 2,360 in FY2004.

Analysis

What do the numbers tell us? A couple of things:

1. The level of enforcement hasn't changed. The years before FY2005 were marked by slow but steady growth in the level of OSHA inspection activity. If not for Katrina and Rita, that plodding growth probably would have continued in FY2005. Barring further disruptions, expect the trend to resume and for inspection totals to rise incrementally in FY2006.

2. The pattern of enforcement continues to change. More significantly, the FY2005 data indicate that OSHA continues to emphasize programmed at the expense of random inspections. This pattern started at the end of the Clinton Administration, has been followed and expanded from the earliest days of the Bush presidency. The thinking was articulated by former OSHA Secretary John Henshaw: The purpose of emphasizing programmed inspections, said Henshaw, "is to more effectively allocate our inspection resources to those workplaces of highest safety and health risk. . . and to focus our enforcement where it will have the most benefit to workers and employers."

Conclusion

On March 15, the U.S. Senate confirmed President Bush's appointment of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. as OSHA Secretary. As I noted in the Feb. 6 issue of the SafetyXChange compliance newsletter, Foulke is a strong advocate of Bush policies. His confirmation is unlikely to result in perceptible changes to the direction of OSHA's enforcement activities.

OSHA ENFORCEMENT BY THE NUMBERS

Source: "OSHA Enforcement: Effective, Focused and Consistent," OSHA News Release Feb, http://www.osha.gov/dep/enforcement/enforcement_results_05.html

THE CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE

The Ontario Ergonomics Enforcement Initiative

By Glenn S. Demby, Esq.

The above article is of interest to Canadians only to the extent they have U.S. operations. Here's something of more immediate concern to the rest of the Canadian members of SafetyXChange. Although the enforcement program the piece discusses is in Ontario, it has implications in all of the other provinces, particularly BC and QC where there are well defined ergonomic regulations.

The Ontario government is launching a program on April 1 designed to get employers to take more active measures to protect their workers against ergonomic injuries. Here's a look at "Operation Pains and Strains" and what it bodes both inside and outside Ontario.

Overview of the Program

Why It Came About: Ergonomic injuries such as back pain and strained joints account for 42 percent of Ontario's lost-time injuries. But prosecutions, fines and work orders in connection with such injuries are extremely rare. Thus, an initiative like Operation Pains and Strains was all but inevitable.

What It Is: Pains and Strains is actually a series of initiatives designed to reduce ergonomic injuries at the workplace. This analysis focuses on the enforcement initiative.

How It Works: On April 1, 2006, MOL inspectors will start looking in earnest for ergonomic risk factors. Among other things, inspectors will review injury records for incidents and patterns of ergonomic injuries. Inspectors will also look at what, if any, steps employers took to prevent such injuries.

Analysis

No province spends more time, money and effort to enforce its OHS laws than does Ontario. Yet, Ontario's OHS laws and regulations are in some ways less progressive than those of other provinces.

Operation Pains and Strains is a perfect example of the current OHS paradox in Ontario. The MOL's effort to train inspectors and target ergonomic injuries is unprecedented-something that no other province is doing. However, Ontario doesn't specifically regulate ergonomic hazards the way other provinces such as QC and BC do. The employer's obligation to protect against them stems from the general duty to "take every reasonable precaution to protect workers from injury" (OHS Act, Sec. 25(2)(h)).

The general duty clause is fine as a stop-gap. But it doesn't provide employers specific guidance on compliance found in detailed regulation a la BC and QC. The MOL has been scrambling to fill this void. On January 26, the MOL and WSIB published an information sheet, http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/ergonomics/is_ergonomics.html, to help employers identify ergonomic risks.

But MOL guidelines are no substitute for regulation. This may be why the MOL suggests that early efforts under Pains and Strains won't be punitive. "Initially, the ministry will focus on raising employer and worker awareness of ergonomic-related injuries and risk factors in the industrial and health care sectors by providing information and discussing ergonomic hazards," according to the official MOL backgrounder.

Conclusion

Pains and Strains signals Ontario's intention to treat ergonomic hazards like traditional workplace risks. But enforcement without clear regulation is putting the cart before the horse. Unless and until Ontario adopts the detailed ergonomic regulation currently found in BC and QC, it will be difficult to justify punishing employers for anything but egregious violations.

This article is based on Safety Compliance Insider, Vol. 2, Issue 4, p. 7.

THIS DATE IN HISTORY

March 27, 1977

Tenerife: The second deadliest airline crash in history.

At 5:06 PM, two Boeing 747 airliners collided on the runway of Tenerife airport in the Canary Islands. KLM Flight 4805 was taking off when it slammed into the side of Pan Am Flight 1736 which was taxiing after landing and had failed to clear the runway. The accident, which killed 583, was blamed on faulty communication, fog and general confusion over what turned out to be a false terrorist threat by Canary Island separatists that forced the diversion of both planes to Tenerife.

The Tenerife disaster is the second deadliest airline crash in history, exceeded only by the September 11 attacks. The silver lining: As a consequence of the accident, sweeping changes were made to international airline regulations and airplanes, including mandatory use of standard terminology by aircrews and air traffic controllers and refinement of cockpit decision making rules.

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top