Every autumn, OSHA announces its top 10 list of most frequently cited violations for the year. Let's take a look at the numbers for fiscal year 2007 (October 2006 through September 2007). Note that the numbers are for federal OSHA and don't include citations by states that have their own state occupational health and safety plans.

Total Citations for the Year

Continuing a five-year pattern, the number of all Top 10 citations for FY 2007 was below previous year's totals. The 34,098 citations in the Top 10 for FY 2007 was 2,787 fewer than in FY 2006 and 6,365 below FY 2005 totals. Here's the entire Top 10:

Number 1: Scaffolding, General Requirements - 7,592 citations (2006: 7,895)

Comment: Scaffolding was the most cited standard for the fifth year in a row. And it wasn't even close. Scaffolding beat second place Hazard Communication by almost 2,500 violations, or roughly 33%.

Number 2: Hazard Communication - 5,099 citations (2006: 5,586)

Comment: Last year, Haz Com fell to number 3 on the Top 10 list after holding the second position the previous two years. This year, Haz Com leapfrogged back over Fall Protection to reclaim the 2 spot. Even so, total Haz Com citations for the year were almost 500 less than last year.

Number 3: Fall Protection - 5,095 citations (2006: 5,746)

Comment: Fall Protection fell back to the third spot that it had occupied in FYs 2004 and 2005. And after actually rising in FY 2006, the number of Fall Protection citations decreased by about 700 (roughly 15%).

Number 4: Respiratory Protection - 3,145 citations (2006: 3,410)

Comment: Respiratory Protection remained in the fourth spot for the second year in a row. Total citations in the category were down about 300 from last year.

Number 5: Lockout/Tagout - 2,973 citations (2006: 3,068)

Comment: Lockout/Tagout remains locked in at number 5. Total Lockout/Tagout citations for the year were down by fewer than 100 (95).

Number 6: Powered Industrial Trucks - 2,577 citations (2006: 2,582)

Comment: Powered Industrial Trucks first cracked the Top 10 in 2004. In 2005, it jumped two places from 8 to 6. It seems to have settled in at number 6. Note that total citations were almost identical to last year.

Number 7: Electrical Wiring Methods, Components, and Equipment for General Use - 2,412 citations (2006: 2,396)

Comment: This is the third year in a row that wiring has occupied the seventh position. But wiring bucked the trend and actually had slightly more citations than last year.

Number 8: Ladders - 2,113 citations (2006: 2,115)

Comment: In 2005, Ladders cracked the Top 10 for the first time. In 2006, it advanced from 10 to 9. This year, ladders maintained the pattern, moving up one place to eighth.

Number 9: Machine Guarding, General Requirements - 2,054 citations (2006: 2,296)

Comment: Machine Guarding fell back one place from seventh to eighth. Machine guarding violations are down by almost 33% in the past two years.

Number 10: Electrical, General Requirements - 1,848 citations (2006: 1,790)

Comment: Electrical, General finished at number 10 for the second year in a row. But total citations for the year actually increased by 58.

What Does It Mean?

The fact that scaffolding was OSHA's most frequently cited standard isn't surprising when you consider:

• The disproportionate number of construction sites on OSHA's list of priority enforcement targets;
• The high incidence of fall injuries; and
• The complexity of the scaffolding standard itself.

The most striking observation we can make from this year's Top 10 list is how similar it is from last year's. In fact, all 10 of the standards are holdovers from last year; only the positioning has changed. And even those changes were miniscule. Two sets of standards swapped one spot (Haz Com replacing Fall Protection at number 2; and Ladders supplanting Machine Guarding, General at number 8); all of the other standards remained in the same position as last year.

The other aspect of this year's Top 10 that stands out is the continued drop in the overall numbers of citations. Eight of the 10 standards in the Top 10 had fewer citations than they did last year at this time. Critics will point to the decline as evidence of OSHA's relative lack of interest in enforcement. Defenders will claim that citations are down because workplace injuries have fallen. And so it goes.

TOP 10 LIST

Highest OSHA Penalties

By Nicole R. Lefton

The Top 10 list above is based on frequency of OSHA violations. Which OSHA standards generated the highest penalties in FY 2007? Here's the countdown:

10. Guarding Floor & Wall Openings & Hole
9. Aerial Lifts
8. Excavations, General
7. Powered Industrial Trucks
6. General Duty Clause
5. Machines, General
4. Excavations, Requirements for Protective Systems
3. Lockout/Tagout
2. Fall Protection

And the OSHA standard for which the highest total penalties were assessed is (drum roll, please):

1. Scaffolding, General

THE CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE

Due Diligence Patterns from 2005-2007

By Glenn Demby

In the interest of equal time, here's an overview of Canadian OHS enforcement trends. Bill C-45 took effect on March 31, 2004. Since that time, there have been at least 28 OHS prosecutions across Canada that have gone to trial and been decided on the basis of an employer's due diligence defence.

The Scorecard

• Employer Wins: 7
• Employer Losses: 19
• Mixed Results: 2

The 7 Wins

• R. v. Timminco Ltd., [2004] O.J. No. 5324 (No liability for failure to guard machine given lack of foreseeability of injury and warnings from JHSC and MOL);
• R. v. Ledcor, [2005] A.J. No. 766 (No liability for boom collapse at oil rig because worker involved had received adequate training);
• R. v. CIC Foods Ltd., [2004] S.J. No. 479 (No liability for worker's loss of two fingers because victim had been trained and warned and deliberately violated safety rules);
• R. v. Starcan Corp., [2005] O.J. No. 4725 (No liability for submitting audit report late after company made every reasonable effort to comply with government's order);
• R. v. GC-North Inc., [2006] NU C.J. 18 (CanLII) (No liability for indoor smoking violation since company made all reasonable efforts to remove ashtrays, post signs, provide warnings and enforce rules and employees deliberately violated the no-smoking policy);
• R. v. Vipe Construction Ltd., [2006] O.J. No. 2034 (No liability for failure to shore trenches by small company with first rate safety program, excellent training and flawless record of compliance);
• R. v. Urus Industrial Corp., [2006] O.J. No. 5139, Nov. 16, 2006 (No liability for company that made the reasonable mistake of believing that it had been given more time to comply with an OHS inspector's order).

The 19 Losses

The cases where employers lost were decided in ON (11), AB (3), SK (2), BC (1) and NS (1).

The Mixed Results Case

The cases where an employer was found to have exercised due diligence on some counts but not on others were:

• A federal decision involving a barge company called R. v. Miller Shipping Ltd., [2005] N.J. No. 54;
• An Ontario case involving a mining company called R. v. Placer Dome, [2006] ONCJ 306 (CanLII), Aug. 24, 2006.

FOR MORE DETAILS

If you want to read about the particulars of each case and its significance to you and your safety program, see Bongarde Media's Safety Compliance Insider, Vol. 1, No. 11-12; Vol. 2, No. 11-12; and Vol. 3, No. 11-12

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top