By Phil Molé, MPH

After years of preparatory work, OSHA recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on heat injury and illness prevention that will affect many outdoor and indoor US worksites. Employers across different industries will need to understand the potential requirements in OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule and start planning changes to their workplace safety and risk management practices.

In what follows, you’ll get a break down of OSHA’s new heat injury and illness NPRM and learn key takeaways to prepare for the next steps.

What is the Background of OSHA’s New Heat Injury and Illness Proposed Rule?

It might be helpful to review some of the milestones on the road to OSHA’s new heat injury and illness prevention proposed rule.

OSHA’s 2021 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

OSHA has always had the authority to regulate hazards associated with indoor and outdoor heat exposure. Even in the absence of a specific regulation, they could issue violations to employers for unaddressed heat-related hazards under the General Duty Clause (GDC).

Even so, OSHA concluded that existing enforcement protocols were not sufficient to protect workers from exposure to indoor and outdoor heat hazards. As is often the case, OSHA was driven mostly by the injury and illness statistics. According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the effects of hazardous heat exposure resulted in an average of 35 fatalities per year and an average of 2,700 cases with multiple days away from work between 2015 and 2019. The actual numbers may be higher, because BLS indicates that heat-related fatalities may be underreported and improperly diagnosed due to failures to document when exposures to heat caused or contributed to “official” causes of death, such as heart attacks.

OSHA published an ANPRM in the Federal Register on October 27, 2021. For context, an ANPRM is a preparatory step in the rulemaking process to solicit feedback from experts and stakeholders that can lay a foundation for later steps. OSHA’s stated purpose in starting to work on a heat exposure standard, according to the landing page for the ANPRM, is to “more clearly set forth employer obligations and the measures necessary to more effectively protect employees from hazardous heat,” in light of the disturbing trends in heat related injury and illness numbers.

Another topic that OSHA sought stakeholder feedback on via the ANRPM is heat acclimatization planning. The term acclimatization refers to an employee’s build-up of resistance to heat exposure over time. There is a growing body of research and established best practices on heat acclimatization, including guidance published by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These existing guidelines have implications about how employers might use heat acclimatization as part of their plans to protect workers from harmful heat exposures. For example, because acclimatization takes time, employers should not assign a new employee who hasn’t yet built-up heat resistance to work a long shift in a hot environment.

OSHA’s Heat National Emphasis Program (NEP)

OSHA demonstrated that it was keeping the goal of protecting workers from heat exposures top of mind by rolling out a new NEP on “Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards” on April 8, 2022. The NEP lays out OSHA’s inspection and enforcement priorities to support reduction of occupational illnesses and fatalities from heat exposure.

OSHA’s NEP contains an Appendix A of “Target Industries for the NEP” that lists the industry sectors, represented by North American Industrial Classification (NAIC) codes, that they’ll be focusing upon for inspections purposes.

How did OSHA decide which NAIC codes to include? According to the NEP, inclusion of an NAIC in Appendix A results from:

1) High numbers or high incidence rates of heat related illnesses from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data;

2) Elevated number of days away from work (BLS) or high numbers of severe cases of heat-related illnesses, as indicated by death or hospitalization, from OSHA severe injury reports made by employers; or

3) the highest number of heat-related general duty clause 5(a)(1) violations and HALs over a 5-year period (1/1/2017 through 12/31/2021), or the highest number of OSHA heat inspections since 2017.

Not surprisingly, OSHA’s heat exposure NEP targets several subsectors of the construction industry, as seen in the image below.

The NEP is currently in effect and applies “OSHA-wide,” (everywhere that federal OSHA has jurisdiction). States that have federally approved state OSHA plans are not required to adopt the NEP, but if they do so, they must adopt provisions at least as stringent as the federal NEP.

OSHA’s 2022 Public Hearing

OSHA held a public hearing on May 3, 2022, to solicit stakeholder feedback on its efforts to develop a heat injury and illness standard, along with its other efforts to protect employees from heat exposure. There was much public interest in the hearing, with over 3,000 registrants, which forced OSHA to expand access through YouTube livestreaming in addition to the original Zoom virtual meeting. VelocityEHS virtually attended the hearing, which extended over a significant part of the day, and featured presentations by OSHA in addition to multiple 3-minute statements by stakeholders.

Stakeholders at the public hearing brought up the importance of heat acclimatization and  ensuring that any future OSHA standard stress the need for employers to include heat acclimatization policies in their heat illness reduction plans. OSHA representatives also talked about acclimatization in the context of their heat safety campaign video “Remembering Tim Barber.” Barber was a 35-year-old construction worker who died in July 2020 from heat-related illness on only his second day on the job. The video, which talks about the role that lack of time for acclimatization played in Barber’s very preventable death, includes very emotional testimony from Barber’s father.

Some commentators pointed out the connection of this issue with protection of vulnerable worker populations. For example, contracted and temporary workers may not work in the same place long enough to develop acclimatization, or may lose their acclimatization when shifted between worksites.

Which Workplaces Would OSHA’s NPRM Apply To?

OSHA’s efforts to protect workers from heat exposure risks based on stakeholder feedback have resulted in development an NPRM. At the time of this writing, OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule is still not published in the Federal Register, which means we don’t yet know the deadline for submitting comments, but interested readers can review the full text of the NPRM here, as submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

The proposed requirements in OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule would apply to almost all workplaces with outdoor and indoor operations in the general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture sectors, if those workplaces are covered under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. The NPRM does have some exclusions, such as:

• short duration employee exposures to heat;
• emergency response activities;
• work at indoor sites kept below 80°F;
• telework; and
• indoor sedentary work activities

According to a preliminary economic analysis OSHA conducted for the NPRM, some of the industries likely to be affected by the proposed requirements include:

• Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing;
• Building Materials and Equipment Suppliers;
• Commercial Kitchens;
• Construction;
• Drycleaning and Commercial Laundries;
• Landscaping and Facilities Support;
• Maintenance and Repair;
• Manufacturing;
• Oil and Gas;
• Postal and Delivery Services;
• Recreation and Amusement;
• Sanitation and Waste Removal;
• Telecommunications;
• Temporary Help Services;
• Transportation;
• Utilities; and
• Warehousing

Alongside the economic analysis, OSHA also conducted an equity assessment of the potential impacts of the final rule and concluded that the provisions of the NPRM would “have a positive impact on underserved populations (e.g., low income and Hispanic workers) by providing workplace protections from extreme temperatures that have a disproportionate impact on occupations held by individuals from underserved communities.” This assessment shows that OSHA considered and incorporated stakeholder feedback during the 2022 public hearing about the priority to protect the most vulnerable worker populations.

OSHA considers the industries listed above to be “core” sectors in their economic analysis, meaning that they’re industries where “employees have the most exposure to heat-related hazards, such as through exposure to high outdoor temperatures, radiant heat sources, or insufficient temperature control or ventilation in indoor work settings.” You’ll also see that there’s some overlap between these sectors and those targeted by OSHA’s heat exposure NEP discussed earlier.

Still, remember that not seeing your industry sector on this bulleted list doesn’t mean the NPRM’s proposed requirements won’t apply to you. The proposed requirements will apply to you if you have significant indoor or outdoor heat exposure in your workplace, and you’ll have specific things to do under certain conditions, as you’ll now learn.

What Would OSHA’s New Heat Injury and Illness Proposed Rule Require?

In general, OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule sets out proposed requirements that OSHA intends to establish consistent employer obligations to protect employees from the hazards of heat exposure in both indoor and outdoor work environments.

Below, you’ll find a discussion of some of the major proposed requirements in the NPRM.

Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP)

Employers must develop a site-specific HIIPP describing workplace measures to evaluate and control heat hazards.

Note the “site-specific” part, because that’s important. An already existing, widely applicable regulation with similar “site specific” plan requirements is the HazCom Standard, which requires employers to develop and maintain a site-specific written plan describing workplace HazCom practices. Similarly, the intention expressed in the NPRM is for the HIIPP to include specific details such as:

• A comprehensive list of the types of work activities covered by the plan;
• All policies and procedures necessary to comply with the requirements of this standard;
• An identification of the heat metric (i.e., heat index or wet bulb globe temperature) the employer will monitor to comply with their obligations; and
• The identity of one or more heat safety coordinators designated by the employer to implement and monitor the HIIPP.

If any employees wear vapor-impermeable clothing at the worksite, the employer must evaluate heat hazards from the clothing and implement policies and procedures to protect employees from increased heat injuries and illness risks associated with the clothing and describe these policies and procedures in the HIIPP. The NPRM defines “vapor-impermeable clothing as “full-body clothing that significantly inhibits or completely prevents sweat produced by the body from evaporating into the outside air,” including encapsulating suits, various forms of chemical resistant suits, and other forms of nonbreathable PPE.

If the employer has more than 10 employees at the worksite, the plan would need to be in writing. The NPRM also specifically proposes that the employer must develop and implement the HIIPP with the participation of “non-managerial employees,” language that echoes established safety management best practices in standards like ISO 45001, the international standard for occupational health & safety (OH&S) management systems. The NPRM also states that the employer would need to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the HIIPP whenever a heat-related illness or injury occurs that results in death, days away from work, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness, making updates as needed. The employer would also need to review and update the plan at least annually.

Finally, OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule states that the employer must make the HIIPP available to all employees at the worksite and must be available “in a language each employee, supervisor, and heat safety coordinator understands.”

Identification of Heat Hazards

OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule would require employers at both indoor and outdoor work sites to identify heat hazards, as follows:

Employers at outdoor work sites would need to monitor heat conditions by tracking local heat index forecasts or measuring heat index or wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT). You can think of WBGT as a measurement of how heat “feels” to humans and incorporates all four major environmental heat factors: air temperature, humidity, radiant heat (from sunlight or sources such as furnaces), and air movement (wind or ventilation).

Employers at indoor work sites would need to identify work areas with the potential for hazardous heat exposure, develop and implement a monitoring plan, and seek employee input.

General Employer Responsibilities

OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule would establish the following general requirements for all employers:

• Take steps if an employee is experiencing signs and symptoms of a heat-related illness or a heat emergency and develop a heat emergency response plan.

• Provide initial and annual refresher training for supervisors, heat safety coordinators, and employees, and supplemental training after changes in exposure to heat hazards, policies and procedures, or the occurrence of a heat injury or illness.

• Have and maintain, for a minimum of six months, written or electronic records of indoor monitoring data.

• Ensure that all requirements are at no cost to employees.

Control Measures at Initial Heat Trigger

The NPRM proposes a two-tiered system of triggers that works something like the Action Level (AL) and Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) do in existing exposure standards. That is, certain requirements kick in for the employer when the first (lower tier) exposure criteria are present, and additional requirements kick in at the higher tier.

In OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule, the “initial heat trigger” represents the lower exposure tier. The NPRM defines the initial heat trigger as a heat index of 80°F or a wet bulb globe temperature equal to the NIOSH Recommended Action Limit (RAL). When employers identify that worksite temperatures are at or above the initial heat trigger, they must provide their employees with the following provisions:

• cool drinking water;
• break areas with cooling measures;
• indoor work area controls;
• acclimatization protocols for new and returning unacclimatized employees;
• paid rest breaks if needed to prevent overheating; and
• regular and effective two-way communication.

Control Measures at the High Heat Trigger

The second exposure tier in the NPRM is the “high heat trigger,” defined as conditions at or above a heat index of 90°F or wet bulb globe temperature equal to the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL).

When workplace conditions meet or exceed the high heat trigger, the employer must provide employees with the following:

• mandatory rest breaks of 15 minutes at least every two hours (unpaid meal break may count as a rest break);
• observation for signs and symptoms of heat-related illness;
• a hazard alert to remind employees of key parts of the HIIPP; and
• warning signs at indoor work areas with ambient temperatures that regularly exceed 120°F.

Summary of Employer Responsibilities in OSHA’s New Heat Injury and Illness Proposed Rule

The chart below summarizes all proposed requirements for employers in OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule.

What Happens Next?

The public comment period for OSHA’s new heat injury and illness proposed rule is now open, and stakeholders may submit their feedback to OSHA via the docket. OSHA will then take some time to sort through the feedback en route to developing a final rule.

In the meantime, employers need to start preparing now. That means broadening your approach to safety and operational risk management to include exposure to heat hazards and prevention of heat injuries and illnesses. You’ll need to prepare inspection programs to confirm that indoor and outdoor work areas affected by the proposed requirements have necessary provisions in place, such as access to cool water, and functioning work areas controls like forced air cooling systems. It’s also important to reassess your incident management system to ensure it enables fast reporting of identified heat hazards, as well as any occupational injuries and illnesses that may occur, with the ability to quickly enter cases on OSHA Recordkeeping Forms.

Check this space often for additional updates about OSHA’s heat injury and illness NPRM as they happen!

Let VelocityEHS Help!

Preparing to meet the potential requirements in OSHA’s NPRM on occupational heat exposures involves many of the same safety management tasks you’re already doing. You just need the flexibility to adapt them, and the ability to make them easy enough to do consistently. Velocity’s Safety software allows you to develop site-specific checklists to confirm that supplies and PPE are on hand, and to use them in the field from a mobile device. You’ll also get the incident management control you need to document and follow up on heat illness cases, and to complete and access your OSHA recordkeeping forms.

Operational Risk software can also help you to improve your risk assessment acumen, with access to tools like hazard identification (HAZIDs), job safety analyses (JSAs), or risk bowties that can help you identify and control many kinds of hazards and risks, including those associated with heat exposure. You’ll also get enterprise-level visibility of hazards across your organization, and better ability to communicate risks and controls in place to all of your employees.

As always, please feel free to contact us anytime to learn more about how we can help your business become safer and more sustainable.

The post Understanding OSHA’s New Heat Injury and Illness Proposed Rule appeared first on VelocityEHS.

By Phil Molé, MPH

OSHA published its long-awaited final rule updating requirements in its Hazard Communication (HazCom) Standard. The publication of OSHA’s final rule ended months of waiting and uncertainty by manufacturers and users of hazardous chemicals and aligns HazCom with updated versions of the UN’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), mostly Revision 7, but includes select elements of Revision 8. Users of hazardous chemicals throughout the supply chain, from chemical manufacturers or importers to distributors to end users, need to understand the HazCom final rule and start preparing to meet updated requirements.

This blog covers what you need to know about OSHA’s final rule, including its background, its major changes to the HazCom Standard, and most importantly, how those changes will affect you.

What is the Background of OSHA’s HazCom Final Rule?

At a high level, the major changes associated with OSHA’s final rule include:

What’s Changing Because of OSHA’s HazCom Final Rule?

OSHA published its HazCom final rule in the Federal Register on May 20, 2024.

Here’s a closer look at the changes brought by OSHA’s final rule:

Revised Classification Criteria

Flammable Gases

OSHA’s final rule subdivides Category 1 of this hazard class into two subcategories (1A and 1B), requiring pyrophoric gases and chemically unstable gases to be classified as Category 1A. OSHA maintains that these changes will provide more detailed information about flammable gas hazards and align with GHS Rev. 7 (UN GHS, 2017, Document ID 0060). Under HazCom2012, products classified as Flammable Gas Category 1 could have a wide range of flammability properties, so this update to subdivide category 1 will allow more specific and concise hazard communication information relative to a flammable gas’s intrinsic properties.

The tables below show OSHA’s updated flammable gas categories and associated hazard communication elements:

OSHA proposed these changes in their 2021 HazCom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), intending to give downstream users a better understanding of the severity of hazards associated with flammable gases. Specifically, downstream users could use this information to take appropriate precautions under all conditions (i.e. transport, handling and use) or determine if an available substitute chemical is less hazardous. Furthermore, OSHA noted that the proposed bifurcation (splitting flammable gases Category 1 into Category 1A and 1B) would not alter transportation requirements for flammable gases because all flammable gases categorized as either 1A or 1B would still count as Category 1 flammable gases for the transportation classification and communication scheme.

OSHA’s classification of pyrophoric gases in the final rule recognizes newer strategies for protecting workers from the hazards of these chemicals. When OSHA first aligned the HazCom Standard with GHS Revision 3 in 2012, the GHS did not yet classify pyrophoric gases. To ensure that the 2012 HazCom update would communicate the hazards of pyrophoric gases and not reduce worker protections, OSHA added pyrophoric gases under the definition of a “hazardous chemical” in paragraph (c) of the HazCom Standard. After the 2012 final rule, UNSCEGHS updated the criteria for flammable gases in GHS Rev. 6 to include pyrophoric gases. GHS Rev. 7, which OSHA is mostly aligning with via the 2024 final rule, instructs chemical manufacturers to classify pyrophoric gases and chemically unstable gases as Category 1A flammable gases, and OSHA is adopting that classification via the final rule.

Desensitized Explosives

OSHA’s final rule is following GHS Rev. 7 (UN GHS, 2017, Document ID 0060) by adding a new physical hazard class for desensitized explosives. There will be 4 categories (1,2,3, and 4) within this new hazard class in new Appendix B.17.

Desensitized explosives are explosive chemicals treated to stabilize the chemical or reduce or suppress explosive properties. To be classified as a desensitized explosive, a chemical must be a solid or liquid, must remain homogenous with its desensitizing/stabilizing agent, and cannot also be classified as an explosive, flammable liquid, or flammable solid.

Desensitized explosives pose explosive-equivalent hazards in the workplace when the stabilizer is removed or inadvertently lost, either as part of the normal work process or when the chemical is stored. Therefore, it is urgent that chemical manufacturers identify and appropriately communicate hazards, including the importance of the stabilizer.

The chart below shows the four categories of desensitized explosives as adopted by the final rule. The “burning rate” in the chart refers to its combustion rate as determined by testing the product in packaging as stored and used. Note that the upper range of Category 1 is 1200 kg/min. This makes sense considering the concept of desensitized explosives, since there needs to be an upper limit on the burn rate of a chemical for it to be able to be stabilized. In the chart, products with a burn rate greater than 1200 kg/min would be explosives.

The 2012 HazCom Standard (which OSHA aligned with GHS Rev. 3) acknowledged that these chemicals would be explosives if the wetting agents weren’t used, including them in Appendix C, C.4.14 with the precautionary statement “keep wetted with” followed by the name of the appropriate wetting agent. Still, the limitation of this method was that desensitized explosives were covered by the ‘explosives’ hazard class under HazCom 2012, and hazard information such as the precautionary statement, pictogram, hazard statement and signal word required under C.4.14 primarily target more conventional explosives, for example the exploding bomb pictogram was present for desensitized explosives under HazCom2012. Many stakeholders recognized that ineffective or inaccurate communication carried serous risks of danger, since if users did not understand and apply the precautions to keep desensitized explosives wetted, the materials could become explosive, especially after long-term storage.

To better ensure that downstream users would receive and understand necessary handling and storage precautions, the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on GHS (UNSCEGHS) determined that desensitized explosives merited a separate hazard class, which they provided in GHS Revision 7. The desensitized explosives class is associated with a flame pictogram rather than the exploding bomb pictogram used for other explosives. The final rule adds the desensitized explosives hazard class to the HazCom Standard as Appendix B.17, and the image below shows the hazard communication elements associated with the four desensitized explosive categories:

Hazard statements associated with each of the four categories highlight the importance of keeping the desensitized explosive stabilized, stating, “increased risk of explosion if desensitizing agent is reduced.” The final rule also requires precautionary statements to “keep wetted with” the appropriate agents for the specific chemical. Manufacturers must include specific information in key sections of the SDSs, such as details about shelf life and ways to verify desensitization in Section 10.

OSHA’s final rule states that even though “desensitized explosives” is a new hazard class, the explosion hazards are well-known, and employers should already cover them in current hazard communication training. OSHA maintains that the new classification will further improve workplace safety.

Aerosols

OSHA’s final rule is following GHS Rev. 7 (UN GHS, 2017, Document ID 0060) by renaming the existing Flammable Aerosols hazard class “Aerosols” and expanding Appendix B.3 to include non-flammable aerosols, while retaining flammable aerosols. Non-flammable aerosols will now be under a newly created Category 3, while flammable aerosols will continue to be under Category 1 or Category 2.

In its 2021 NPRM, OSHA maintained that most aerosols were classified as gases under pressure by GHS Rev. 3 (and accordingly under HazCom 2012) because of the design criteria of the aerosols (ERG, 2015, Document ID 0163) under DOT regulations. Since HazCom 2012 went into effect, OSHA has learned that their classification did not adequately represent the full spectrum of varying aerosol hazards, because aerosol containers have different characteristics including failure mechanisms. Accordingly, OSHA proposed to classify flammable aerosols in existing Categories 1 and 2 and bear the flame pictogram, but to classify non-flammable aerosols in a new Category 3 with no pictogram. The diagram below shows the new categories and their associated labeling elements:

OSHA’s final rule adopts the revisions to the aerosols hazard class as proposed. It should be noted that in their 2021 NPRM, OSHA had also solicited stakeholder feedback on whether to adopt classification criteria for aerosols from text in a table in GHS Rev. 8, specifically Table 2.3.1, rather than using decision logic for classification. However, due to NIOSH pointing out inconsistencies in Table 2.3.1, OSHA indicated that they would not adopt the GHS 8 table at this time and would work with the UN subcommittee to ensure that subsequent editions of the GHS address inconsistencies and improve worker protections.

Aerosol manufacturers can expect the final rule’s classification changes to significantly impact the authoring of SDSs for affected products.

Chemicals Under Pressure

OSHA has adopted a new hazard category, Chemicals Under Pressure, within the aerosols class following classification criteria in GHS Revision 8. These revised classifications also change some associated hazard information, including hazard pictograms and hazard and precautionary statements.

The term “chemicals under pressure” refers to liquids or solids in a receptacle (other than an aerosol dispenser) pressurized with a gas at a gauge pressure of >=200 kPa (29 psi) at 20°C / 68°F. A product classified as a chemical under pressure cannot also be classified as an aerosol, a gas under pressure, or a flammable gas, liquid, or solid. In general, chemicals under pressure typically contain 50% or more by mass of liquids or solids whereas mixtures containing more than 50% gases are typically considered as gases under pressure.

In finalizing the chemicals under pressure hazard classification, OSHA has included all three categories as defined in Table 2.3.3 in Rev. 8 and largely included the hazard communication elements in Table 2.3.4 in Rev. 8 (Document ID 0065, p. 62) in Appendix C.16. The table below shows the chemical under pressure categories and associated classification criteria adopted in the final rule.

OSHA’s final rule largely implemented GHS Revision 8 labeling elements for Chemicals Under Pressure; however, OSHA did modify the Hazard Statements relative to GHS Revision 8 – particularly by using the word “burst” instead of “explode” for categories 1 and 2, and by using the same Hazard Statement for a Category 3 Chemical Under Pressure as is required by the Aerosols Category 3 classification.

Classification Based on “Intrinsic Properties” and Known Downstream Uses

OSHA’s final rule states that, “hazard classification must include hazards associated with the chemical’s intrinsic properties including: (i) a change in the chemical’s physical form and; (ii) chemical reaction products associated with known or reasonably anticipated uses or applications.” The final rule clarifies that hazards from a chemical reaction (the actual GHS-based classifications) belong in Section 2(c) of the SDS, and hazards from changes in intrinsic and physical form belong in 2(a).

Stakeholders during the public comment period possibly expressed more concerns about this provision of the NPRM than any other, especially because the NPRM’s original text referencing “normal conditions of use” and “foreseeable emergencies” seemed too broad. Some chemical manufacturers worried that they’d need to factor in every possible downstream use and scenario when classifying a chemical, and that was effectively impossible. OSHA’s updated text in the final rule is an attempt to delineate the narrower expectations for manufacturers to classify chemicals only based on “known or reasonably anticipated uses.”

OSHA provides the following useful summary in the text of the final rule:

“In conclusion, OSHA agrees with commenters that it would not be possible for every manufacturer, importer, and distributor to be aware of every single use or application of its products, and the agency is not requiring these entities to do the kind of intensive investigations that many of the commenters described as infeasible. Additionally, regulated parties will not immediately be aware of all uses when new products are developed or when there are trade secret issues with downstream users. Similarly, OSHA would not expect a manufacturer to know every use of feedstocks (raw materials used to make other chemical products), starting materials or commodity chemicals, solvents, reactants, or chemical intermediates where there could be thousands of uses or the substances are used in downstream manufacturing to produce new chemical products. However, the agency concludes that manufacturers must make a good faith effort to provide downstream users with sufficient information about hazards associated with known or reasonably anticipated uses of the chemical in question. As discussed above, OSHA is finalizing language to make this clear, and to tie the classification obligation to either the manufacturer, importer, or distributor’s own knowledge or facts that the manufacturer or importer can reasonably be expected to know.”

The diagram below provides some takeaways on how chemical manufacturers can move forward with classifying their chemicals under the revised guidelines.

New Provisions for “Small” and “Very Small Containers

Allowances for “Small Containers”

OSHA’s final rule incorporates guidance previously provided by OSHA for labeling “small containers” into the text of the Standard, defining a small container as 100 mL or less in volume. Paragraph (f)(12) in the revised standard, addressing labeling of small containers, specifies that chemical manufacturers, importers and distributors can include less information on the shipped label when they can demonstrate that it is not feasible to use pull-out labels, fold-back labels or tags to provide the full label information as required by paragraph (f)(1).

Allowances for “Very Small Containers”

OSHA’s final rule allows chemical manufacturers, distributors, or importers to provide only a product identifier on “very small containers” (3 ml or less) if they can demonstrate that a label would interfere with the normal use of the container, although they’d still need to include the full shipped container label information on the outer packaging.

Requirements for Both Small and Very Small Containers

Manufacturers of both small and very small containers must include the following information on the label of the immediate outer package:

• Full shipped container label information for each hazardous chemical, and
• A statement that the small container(s) must be stored in the immediate outer package when not in use.

OSHA established these requirements to balance out the allowances for chemical manufacturers to use less information on the immediate chemical container, to ensure that end users can easily access the full range of information normally present on the shipped container label.

OSHA essentially finalized these guidelines for small and very small containers as proposed in the 2021 NPRM. Stakeholders during the public comment period appreciated being able to include only the product identifier on very small containers but argued that OSHA shouldn’t require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate that a label would interfere with use of the container to be able to use the allowance. OSHA disagreed with this feedback, stating that “requiring a showing of infeasibility is appropriate” because the default approach needs to be “ensuring that, whenever possible, workers have the full label information on the immediate container to ensure safe use at all times.” Based on this analysis, OSHA retained the requirement for manufacturers to demonstrate that a shipped label would interfere with the use of the container.

New Labeling Provisions for “Containers Released for Shipment”

OSHA’s final rule states that manufacturers, distributors, or importers that become aware of new significant hazard information would not need to relabel chemical products already released for shipment, as previously required.

Over the years, many stakeholders informed OSHA about the difficulty, and danger, of accessing shipped containers that had already been “released for shipment,” meaning they’d been bound together or secured to pallets. Suppose a manufacturer learns of new hazard information about a chemical that’s already been bundled up for shipment into commerce. Employees would need to potentially cut apart binding, climb up onto palletized shipments, and physically struggle to access the shipped labels on individual containers. These efforts could lead to many bad outcomes, including employee injuries or spills of hazardous chemicals. That’s why OSHA proposed to eliminate the requirement for chemical manufacturers to relabel packages released for shipment in their 2021 NPRM. Stakeholders supported this regulatory change, so OSHA made it official in the final rule.

However, OSHA has not finalized its modified requirements exactly as written in the NPRM, and most notably is not requiring a “released for shipment” date on the label. OSHA had originally maintained that requiring chemical manufacturers to provide the date a chemical is released for shipment on the label would allow manufacturers and distributors to determine their obligations more easily under paragraph (f)(11) when new hazard information becomes available. Stakeholders objected, citing practical concerns about lack of space for a “released for shipment” date on the label, costs of updating printed label stock, or how to determine the date to use. Based on this feedback, OSHA dropped the “released for shipment date” label requirement from the final rule.

Concentration Ranges and Confidential Business Information (CBI)

In the 2021 NPRM, OSHA proposed several changes to paragraph (i) of HazCom, describing the conditions under which a chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer may withhold the specific chemical identity (e.g., chemical name), other specific identification of a hazardous chemical, or the exact percentage (concentration) of the substance in a mixture, from the SDS as a trade secret, or CBI. OSHA proposed to allow manufacturers, importers, and employers to withhold a chemical’s concentration range as a trade secret, which had not previously been permitted, and to clarify that it is Section 3 of the SDS from which trade secret information may be withheld.

After considering all stakeholder feedback, OSHA finalized its proposed CBI changes mostly as proposed but added a new paragraph (i)(1)(vi) allowing the use of narrower ranges than those prescribed in (i)(1)(iv) and (i)(1)(v). The range must be fully within the bounds of a prescribed range listed in (i)(1)(iv) or fully within the bounds of a combination of ranges allowed by (i)(1)(v).

The table below shows the prescribed concentration ranges OSHA is adopting:

Information Requirements for SDSs

OSHA has updated information requirements for SDSs, including addition of “particle characteristics” for solid products in Section 9 of SDSs.

The 2021 NPRM proposed that only manufacturers of solids would need to include “particle characteristics” information such as particle size (median and range) and, if available and appropriate, further properties such as size distribution (range), shape, aspect ratio, and specific surface area in the SDS. OSHA explained that they were trying to better align with GHS Revision 7, which includes an updated list of physical properties for chemical manufacturers to include in Section 9, and that characteristics such as particle size distribution were important determinants of hazardous properties, since particles less than 100 microns in size carried greater exposure risks, especially through inhalation.

The final rule adopts the “particle characteristics” requirement essentially as proposed in the NPRM. OSHA explained that the Standard does not require chemical manufacturers to conduct testing to determine particle characteristics, and that chemical manufacturers would not need to present particle characteristic information in a specific order.

OSHA’s final rule makes several other slight revisions to Section 9 requirements. For example, OSHA has added a parenthesis stating, “includes evaporation rate” in Section 9 (o), Vapor pressure.

Other minor changes include the term “viscosity” replacing “kinematic viscosity” and “physical state” replacing “appearance (physical state, color, etc.)”

Remember that OSHA has also finalized revised requirements for including hazards due to known or reasonably anticipated downstream uses in Section 2, and has stated that under some circumstances, importers may need to author new SDSs for products from foreign suppliers that didn’t come with SDSs containing domestic supplier contact information. Altogether, these changes will affect SDSs for many products.

Labeling for Bulk Shipments

OSHA’s final rule codifies an allowance for bulk shipments originally provided via a 2016 joint memorandum, clarifying that labels required under OSHA’s HazCom Standard and by Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) can appear on the same container.

OSHA and DOT originally issued the 2016 joint memorandum because while both agencies have policies that containers should not be labeled with any labels required by regulatory agencies other than their own, they were aware of situations in which a manufacturer or distributor might want to put both kinds of labels on the same package. For example, a tanker truck or railcar that’s stationary at an employer’s worksite would need to be labeled with HazCom shipped container labels, but the same vehicle would be subject to DOT/PHMSA regulations while in transit. The 2016 joint memo allowed the same container to bear both kinds of labels and the final rule formalizes the allowance within the HazCom Standard.

According to OSHA’s final rule, labels for bulk shipments may be:

• On the immediate container (as shown in the image above), or
• Transmitted with shipping papers, bills of lading (BoLs), or electronic means

Other Changes Due to HazCom Final Rule

Additional changes in the HazCom final rule include:

Responsibilities for Importers: The final rule canonizes guidance OSHA has provided over the years, most recently and most clearly in a 2018 letter of interpretation (LOI) responding to an inquiry submitted by VelocityEHS, that Section 1 of an SDS needs to have domestic/US contact and emergency contact information, so there can’t (for example) be a foreign emergency contact phone number in this section. If a US company is the first to import a chemical to the US and does not receive an OSHA-compliant SDS with domestic contact information, that company would become the responsible party and would need to author an SDS for the product containing domestic contact information in Section 1.

Classification methods: The final rule makes several revisions to classification methods, including:

• Adding new testing criteria in the form of UN Test O.3 for oxidizing solids;
• Aligning with Canada’s HPR by allowing chemical manufacturers to use the “exclamation mark” pictogram for Hazards Not Otherwise Classified (HNOC);
• Incorporating previous guidance on classifying Corrosive to the Respiratory Tract (CTRT) hazards into the text of HazCom and introducing new requirements for CTRT relative to Specific Target Organ Toxicity (STOT) and Skin Corrosion/Eye Damage;
• Skin Corrosion/Irritation: OSHA has aligned their skin corrosion/skin irritation tiered approach to classification to be in line with GHS Revision 8. Broadly speaking this elevates the importance and allowance of non-animal test methods, which can allow easier evaluation of chemicals under this hazard class.
• Slightly updating the numerical threshold for “In contact with water, emits flammable gases” – Category 3 materials;
• Modifying the flammable liquid definition to explain that the boiling point must be determined by the methods specified under OSHA’s Flammable Liquids standard (29 CFR 1910.106(a)(5)) and listed on the SDS; and
• Adding a conditional statement to the existing hazard statement for combustible dusts and an alternate hazard statement.

Hazard and precautionary statements

OSHA’s final rule makes several updates to HazCom regarding hazard and precautionary statements, including slight revisions to align with GHS Rev. 7. The final rule also adds a new paragraph, C.2.4.10, to address cases where substances or mixtures classified for multiple hazards may trigger multiple precautionary statements for medical responses and codifies an allowance of textual variations in P-statements originally provided in a LOI. OSHA intends for the latter change to improve alignment of HazCom with Canada’s HPR, which already allows minor differences in phrasing.

What is the Timeline for Compliance with OSHA’s HazCom Final Rule?

OSHA has extended the timeline for compliance with the final rule, compared to the timeline originally proposed in the NPRM. The proposed phased-in compliance timeline had been 1 year for manufacturers of substances and 2 years for manufacturers of mixtures, as measured from the final rule’s effective date of July 19, 2024. Between the effective date and the respective compliance dates for substances and mixtures, manufacturers of chemicals can comply with either the previous version of the HazCom Standard or the revised Standard when classifying their chemicals, authoring SDSs and labeling their shipped containers.

Based on stakeholder feedback, OSHA has lengthened the timeline in the final rule to 18 months for manufacturers of substances and 36 months for manufacturers of mixtures, as measured from the final rule’s effective date of July 19, 2024. Employers at workplaces using chemical products affected by the final rule would have six months from the manufacturer deadlines for substances and mixtures, respectively, to make any changes necessary to workplace hazard communication practices (e.g., workplace labels, written HazCom plan, and worker training) based on updated chemical hazard information provided by their suppliers.

The chart below summarizes compliance deadlines for different parties in the chemical supply chain affected by OSHA’s final rule:

Note that in the above table, employers’ ability to use updated hazard information from their chemical suppliers to update their workplace HazCom practices depends on those suppliers meeting their respective deadlines for substances and mixtures.

What are the Main Takeaways about OSHA’s HazCom Final Rule?

The new HazCom final rule won’t have the same level of impact as the 2012 final rule that first aligned HazCom with the GHS. The current changes are more limited in scope, affecting a handful of chemical hazard classes, and specific details related to chemical classification and information on SDSs. Even so, many manufacturers will have to reclassify some of their products, resulting in new SDSs and shipped container labels. End users of those chemicals will need to know whether they have products affected by the changes, and be ready to track and use updated SDSs, including incorporation of any updated hazard classifications in their workplace labeling system and HazCom training.

The image below summarizes how the final rule affects different parties throughout the chemical supply chain. Keep in mind when looking at it that the first two categories, manufacturers and distributors, play dual roles as employers for their own workforce, and so would also need to meet employer obligations.

Preparation starts by having simple ways to maintain an up-to-date SDS library that you can access from anywhere. Make sure you have the tools you need to keep up with the changes that will now be going into effect and protect the safety of your workers.

Looking for More Information?

If you’re looking for more information to help you improve your HazCom practices, VelocityEHS has you covered.

Our written HazCom plan template will help you develop a written plan that meets OSHA’s expectations, with key prompts to consider aspects of HazCom affected by the final rule.

No matter where you are in the supply chain, our readiness checklist will help you identify areas to focus on to comply with updated HazCom requirements.

Finally, for an in-depth look at the final rule and the ways you can start preparing for compliance today, check out our upcoming live webinar.

Let VelocityEHS Help!

There’s never been a more urgent time to make sure your chemical and SDS management practices are working effectively. The VelocityEHS Safety Solution makes it easy for you to maintain an updated SDS library that you and your people can access from anywhere 24/7, along with streamlined ability to manage other core safety tasks such as inspections (including ability to develop and implement tailored chemical storage location inspection checklists), safety meetings, incident investigations, and corrective actions management.

If you need deeper insights into your chemical inventory, the Velocity Chemical Management Solution can help. You’ll get chemical ingredient indexing capabilities that use machine learning to extract information on chemical ingredients from SDSs, cross-reference them against various regulatory lists such as EPA’s Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHSs) and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reportable chemicals, and provide a Levels of Concern (LoC) summary containing regulatory radar screen “hits” and other key information, including established Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) you need to know when managing your indoor air sampling program.

Contact us today to learn more about our solutions and services and the ways we can help you maintain compliance with HazCom or schedule a demo.

The post A Closer Look at OSHA’s Final Rule Updating the HazCom Standard appeared first on VelocityEHS.

In September of last year, the California Legislature signed Senate Bill SB 553 into law. SB 553 authorized the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA, to amend the California Labor Code to include workplace violence prevention and reporting as part of employers’ current workplace injury prevention program requirements. The new workplace violence prevention requirements echo existing Cal/OSHA requirements for employers and workers in the healthcare industry that have been in place since 2017 and expand workplace violence prevention program requirements to ALL employers within the state of California, with very limited exceptions. The new requirements will be in effect and enforceable on July 1, 2024. If you’re not already up to speed and in compliance with Cal/OSHA’s workplace violence prevention program requirements, the clock is ticking.

Workplace Violence Trends

So, what are the impacts of workplace violence? Here’s some data from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) that illustrate these tragic trends.  

• Workplace fatalities due to violence and other injuries by persons or animals increased 11.6 percent to 849 in 2022, compared to 761 in 2021. Homicides accounted for 61.7 percent of these fatalities, with 524 deaths, an 8.9 percent increase from 2021.
• As of 2022, workplace violence remains a close 3^rd in terms of the most common cause of fatal workplace injuries, behind slips, trips, and falls, and transportation incidents.
• Workplace violence is the second leading cause of work-related fatalities among black and African American workers.
• An annual average of 1.3 million nonfatal workplace violent victimizations occurred during the combined 5 years from 2015 to 2019. This was a rate of 8.0 nonfatal violent crimes per 1,000 workers age 16 or older.
• According to the US Department of Justice, during 2019 female workers had more than 2 times greater rates of nonfatal injuries due to workplace violence resulting in days away from work compared to male workers (5.1 cases per 10,000 FTEs for females compared to 2.3 per 10,000 FTEs for males).
• Workplace violence ranked as the 5^th most common cause of non-fatal work-related injuries among US workers in 2022.

For further statistics on workplace violence-related fatal and non-fatal injuries, visit the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website here. These statistics are not exhaustive, and studies on workplace violence impacts are quite well established. The point being that workplace violence continues to be a challenge for employers, workers, lawmakers, and the general public to address.

Cal/OSHA Workplace Violence Prevention Program Requirements

SB 553 specifically directs Cal/OSHA to amend Section 6401.7 of the California Labor Code, which establishes general requirements for employers’ injury prevention programs, to now include “A workplace violence prevention plan conforming to the requirements of Section 6401.9.” That section (6401.9) lays out the practical steps employers must take to achieve and maintain compliance with the new requirements. The good news for employers is that the required compliance tasks are relatively straightforward and can be condensed into a handful of key categories. These categories are:

1. Written workplace violence prevention program
2. Workplace violence incident recordkeeping and reporting
3. Worker training
4. Workplace violence prevention program records retention and access

Let’s look at each of these major categories of compliance tasks to discuss how to meet the requirements and explore how VelocityEHS Safety Solution capabilities can help you automate and simplify complex compliance tasks.

Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program

Cal/OSHA requires each employer to develop and maintain a written workplace violence prevention program plan. The specific information that this program plan must contain includes:

• Names or job titles of the persons responsible for implementing the plan.
• Procedures to obtain the active involvement of employees and authorized employee representatives in developing and implementing the plan.
• Methods to coordinate implementation of the plan with other employers, when applicable, to ensure that those employers and employees understand their respective roles as provided in the plan.
• Procedures for the employer to accept and respond to reports of workplace violence, and to prohibit retaliation against an employee who makes such a report.
• Procedures to ensure that supervisory and nonsupervisory employees comply with the plan in a manner consistent with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3203 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.
• Procedures to communicate with employees regarding workplace violence matters, including, but not limited to:
  • How an employee can report a violent incident, threat, or other workplace violence concern to the employer or law enforcement without fear of reprisal.
  • How employee concerns will be investigated and how employees will be informed of the results of the investigation and any corrective actions to be taken.
• Effective procedures to respond to actual or potential workplace violence emergencies, including, but not limited to:
  • Systems to alert employees of the presence, location, and nature of workplace violence emergencies.
  • Evacuation or sheltering plans.
  • How to obtain help from staff assigned to respond to workplace violence emergencies including security personnel and law enforcement.
• Procedures to develop and provide required training.
• Procedures to identify and evaluate workplace violence hazards, including, but not limited to, scheduled periodic inspections to identify unsafe conditions, work practices and employee reports and concerns.
• Procedures to correct workplace violence hazards identified and evaluated in a timely manner.
• Procedures for post-incident response and investigation.
• Procedures to review the effectiveness of the plan and revise the plan as needed. The plan shall be reviewed at least annually, when a deficiency is observed or becomes apparent, and after a workplace violence incident.
• Procedures or other information required by Cal/OSHA as being necessary and appropriate to protect the health and safety of employees.

The Challenge…

Developing your workplace violence prevention program written plan is a collaborative effort that requires participation from multiple stakeholders across your workplace and your organization. Your workplace safety committee is the ideal forum for planning and developing the procedures and other safety controls required for your written plan. However, your safety committee can only do so much unless you have an effective means of generating, documenting, assigning, and enforcing accountability for the improvements, hazard controls, and other corrective actions necessary to implement your workplace violence prevention program plan. Communication is key to ensuring that everyone not only has visibility of your workplace violence prevention program plan, but also understands what they need to do to achieve the goals of that plan.

The Solution

The Velocity Safety Solution offers Safety Meetings software functionality that is specifically designed for safety committee planning and administration. From meeting schedules and agenda tracking down to action item assignment and management, our Safety Meetings capabilities help you to coordinate and communicate your workplace violence prevention program plan and facilitate ownership for compliance.

Workplace Violence Incident Recordkeeping & Reporting

Another essential aspect of compliance with Cal/OSHA’s workplace violence prevention program requirements is documentation of workplace violence incidents that may occur in your workplace. In addition to the information that must be detailed in your written workplace violence prevention program plan, you also need to document the following information for any workplace violence incidents that occur in your workplace:

• The date, time, and location of the incident.
• The workplace violence type or types (see Workplace Violence Hazard Recognition).
• A detailed description of the incident.
• A classification of who committed the violence, including whether the perpetrator was a client or customer, family or friend of a client or customer, stranger with criminal intent, coworker, supervisor or manager, partner or spouse, parent or relative, or other perpetrator.
• A classification of circumstances at the time of the incident, including, but not limited to, whether the employee was completing usual job duties, working in poorly lit areas, rushed, working during a low staffing level, isolated or alone, unable to get help or assistance, working in a community setting, or working in an unfamiliar or new location.
• A classification of where the incident occurred, such as in the workplace, parking lot or other area outside the workplace, or other area.
• The type of incident, including, but not limited to, whether it involved any of the following:
  • Physical attack without a weapon, including, but not limited to, biting, choking, grabbing, hair pulling, kicking, punching, slapping, pushing, pulling, scratching, or spitting.
  • Attack with a weapon or object, including, but not limited to, a firearm, knife, or other object.
  • Threat of physical force or threat of the use of a weapon or other object.
  • Sexual assault or threat, including, but not limited to, rape, attempted rape, physical display, or unwanted verbal or physical sexual contact.
  • Animal attack.
  • Other
• Consequences of the incident, including, but not limited to:
  • Whether security or law enforcement was contacted and their response.
  • Actions taken to protect employees from a continuing threat or from any other hazards identified as a result of the incident.
  • Information about the person completing the log, including their name, job title, and the date completed.

The Challenge…

The information that must be documented following a workplace violence incident is similar to the types of information you would normally record following any workplace safety incident, but the Cal/OSHA’s workplace violence prevention standard requires some very specific pieces of information. Having an incident reporting and recordkeeping system that accommodates the specific incident information that must be recorded will help you do a few things:

• ensure any incident records meet Cal/OSHA report formatting and information requirements to maintain compliance.
• standardize incident information and hazard classification criteria across all incidents and even across multiple workplace locations. This allows you to compare workplace violence data across areas of your facility or across locations “apples to apples” and more accurately identify trends.
• More quickly and thoroughly capture and communicate workplace violence incident data, as well as reference that data for the purposes of incident investigation (required), root cause analysis, and other critical follow-up actions.

The Solution

The VelocityEHS Safety Solution’s Incident Management capability accommodates Cal/OSHA workplace violence prevention program reporting requirements. In addition to our comprehensive OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping compliance functionality, we give California employers the unique configurability options to tailor their incident recordkeeping and reporting systems to meet Cal/OSHA’s specific requirements for workplace violence incident reporting. Here’s a rundown of our workplace violence incident reporting configuration options:

In addition to Cal/OSHA’s unique workplace violence incident reporting information requirements, the VelocityEHS Safety Solution’s Incident Management capability offers reporting and analysis functionality that helps evaluate and identify workplace violence incident data to identify root causes so you can implement appropriate controls (including training) and compare safety performance data across departments, locations, and your entire organization.

Workplace Violence Prevention Training

Among the various types of hazard controls that employers must implement to help prevent and/or mitigate the risks of workplace violence, training plays an especially crucial role. This is because of the unpredictable nature of workplace violence risks. It can be difficult to assess the potential frequency and severity of a workplace violence incident, and physical hazard controls are often infeasible in many situations and workplace environments where these incidents tend to occur. As a result, worker training in how to respond to workplace violence and all other aspects of the workplace violence prevention program plan is often the first and only line of defense workers have.

The Challenge…

Effective workplace violence training starts with recognizing the types of workplace violence hazards that workers may encounter. There are four major types of workplace violence incidents, and recognizing distinctions among these types of incidents is not only required for the Cal/OSHA mandated incident reporting and recordkeeping requirements, but it is also a first step to developing the Cal/OSHA-required training, procedures, and other hazard controls best suited to each type of incident. These incident types include:

• Type 1 – workplace violence committed by a person who has no legitimate business at the worksite and includes violent acts by anyone who enters the workplace or approaches workers with the intent to commit a crime.
• Type 2 – workplace violence directed at employees by customers, clients, patients, students, inmates, or visitors.
• Type 3 – workplace violence against an employee by a present or former employee, supervisor, or manager.
• Type 4 – workplace violence committed in the workplace by a person who does not work there but has or is known to have had a personal relationship with an employee.

Additional Cal/OSHA workplace violence prevention training requirements include:

• The employer’s Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program, how to obtain a copy of the employer’s plan at no cost, and how to participate in development and implementation of the employer’s plan.
• The definitions and requirements of the Cal/OSHA workplace violence prevention standard.
• How to report workplace violence incidents or concerns to the employer or law enforcement and their right to do so without fear of reprisal.
• Workplace violence hazards specific to the employees’ jobs, the corrective measures the employer has implemented, how to seek assistance to prevent or respond to violence, and strategies to avoid physical harm.
• Incident documentation procedures required under the standard and how to obtain copies of records.
• How to submit questions and receive responses from a person knowledgeable about the employer’s plan.
• Review and update of training whenever a new or previously unrecognized workplace violence hazard has been identified, and when changes are made to your written plan.

Two important things to remember with this final aspect of Cal/OSHA’s workplace violence prevention training requirements:

• Any changes to the workplace or working conditions could potentially introduce or change the nature of workplace violence hazards that workers may be exposed to. Therefore, workplace changes should be developed and implemented using Management of Change (MOC) processes to ensure changes are evaluated in a systematic manner and newly introduced workplace violence hazards are assessed and controlled as early as possible during the change process and incorporated into your written workplace violence prevention program plan.
• The training review and update requirement is a prime example of how the hazard recognition and reporting procedures required in your written plan form the basis for your training program and activities. Ensure that you provide workers with a standardized, user-friendly, and accessible system to document and report hazards, and reinforce a workplace culture that encourages and incentivizes reporting of workplace violence hazards without fear of retaliation. If you do these things, you will capture workplace violence hazards in an accurate, timely, and detailed manner so that you can quickly incorporate them into your updated written program plan.  

The Solution

VelocityEHS Safety Solution capabilities give you the ability to easily develop and deliver the required workplace violence prevention training to your workers. Our Training & Learning software offers an extensive library of interactive eLearning training content that includes more than 30 essential workplace violence prevention topics so you can provide your workers with the training they need, when and where they need it. The software’s built-in learning management system (LMS) provides intuitive course development tools to easily build and deliver training content specific to your unique workplace violence hazards while giving you the ability to assign, schedule, and monitor training from a single, centralized tool where training records can be easily documented and quickly accessed. Combine that with our Incident Management capabilities, including intuitive Hazard Identification tools that allow workers to easily document workplace violence hazards wherever and whenever they find them, and you have a system which allows you to train your workers to a high level of workplace violence hazard awareness, and incorporate the hazards they identify into your workplace violence training as part of a continuous improvement approach to risk management and prevention.

Records Retention & Access

Cal/OSHA requires that employers retain records related to their workplace violence prevention program for a period of 5 years. The records retention requirements include:

• Training records maintained for a minimum of one year and include training dates, contents or a summary of the training sessions, names and qualifications of persons conducting the training, and names and job titles of all persons attending the training sessions.
• Violent incident logs maintained for a minimum of five years.
• Records of workplace violence incident investigations maintained for a minimum of five years. These records shall not contain “medical information,” as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 56.05 of the Civil Code.
• All records required by this subdivision shall be made available to the division upon request for examination and copying.

Compliance with this aspect of Cal/OSHA’s workplace violence prevention program standard is pretty straightforward, and easy to achieve if you have an effective system for documenting this information in the first place. The VelocityEHS Safety solution capabilities, including our Incident Management and Training & Learning functionality, fulfil this requirement by making it easy to document and access the records and data that Cal/OSHA requires for compliance.

VelocityEHS Can Help!

There are a lot of things employers need to do to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA’s Workplace Violence Prevention Program requirements. Why not have a single software system that manages every aspect of those requirements including written plan development, incident reporting and investigation, worker training, and incident recordkeeping? That’s exactly what the VelocityEHS Safety Solution capabilities offer to employers like you, whether you’re based in California and are covered under the new requirements, based in other jurisdictions where workplace violence prevention requirements apply, or just want to provide the greatest degree of protection from workplace violence for your employees.

Click here to learn more about the VelocityEHS Safety Solution capabilities and Request a Demo to see first-hand how we can help you achieve compliance and strengthen your workplace violence prevention program.

The post Cal/OSHA Workplace Violence Prevention Requirements for General Industry Effective July 1, 2024 appeared first on VelocityEHS.

This year’s VelocityEHS User Conference theme of “Lighting the Way,” was more than just an inspirational catchphrase. The goal of the conference was to bring VelocityEHS customers together with our partners and experts to learn, share and plan a strong, bright future together.

Generational Diversity in the Workplace

A standout session of the conference was the Building Safety Cultures for Multi-Generations discussion, led by VelocityEHS Principal Solutions Executive for Safety and Operational Risk, Marc Juaire, with panelists from VelocityEHS partner Fit For Work and customers Allegion and Komatsu sharing insights on varying generational perspectives in the workplace, considering effective communication, customized training, leadership approaches, technology utilization, and measuring success.

In a world where technology is advancing rapidly and the workforce is made up of the widest generational diversity than ever before, bridging the gap between generations has become more crucial than ever before. Colleagues in the workplace today span four generations, who have each experienced the world very differently:

• Boomers (Generation W), born between 1946-1964

• Gen Xers, born between 1965-1980

• Millennials (Generation Y), born between 1981-1996

• Gen Zers, born between 1997-2012

Millennials Bridging the Generational Gap

A focus of the discussion was on millennials, currently the largest generational population in the workplace. As the generation who grew up alongside the internet, millennials have a unique perspective to serve as a bridge between previous generations, who may not be as tech-savvy, and those who grew up immersed in technology.

Millennials have become the generation who aspire to drive positive change by bridging generational divides, challenging stereotypes, and fostering inclusivity. By prioritizing empathy and understanding, millennials can help create workplaces where everyone feels respected, empowered, and safe to thrive in their roles.

One of the key pitfalls to avoid in forging better workplaces is operating from assumptions about others based on generational stereotypes. Whatever the common jokes or comments are on the attitudes, behaviors or opinions of each generation, it’s vital to have real conversations on what each group needs to feel safe and supported. Challenging these assumptions and fostering open dialogue breaks down these generational barriers and builds stronger, more cohesive teams. As millennials progress into management positions, they wield even greater influence in driving positive change and dispelling those harmful stereotypes.

True inclusion goes beyond surface-level gestures; it requires a deep commitment to understanding and meeting people where they are. This involves communicating effectively through different styles and mediums, ensuring that everyone feels heard and valued.

Boomers prefer to call people directly with a question or issue; yet Gen Zers feel that calling out of the blue is aggressive or intrusive, they prefer email. Inclusion means fully recognizing and respecting the diverse ways in which people learn, interact with technology, and process change, and by then incorporating that understanding to find an easy path to the best outcome of the conversation for everyone.

Cultural awareness also plays a pivotal role in fostering a safe and inclusive workplace environment. By understanding the unique backgrounds and experiences of all colleagues, we can create a culture of respect, empathy, and psychological safety. This extends to addressing sensitive issues like workplace violence and organizational change, which are often overlooked or brushed aside by organizational leadership – who have been made up of older generations.

Soft Skills = Human Skills

Moreover, it’s essential to recognize the value of “soft skills” today in the workplace – what can be more accurately described as simply “human skills.” These skills encompass empathy, communication, and the ability to support and empower others, where for a long time, employees were told to “leave their emotions at the door.”

By cultivating these common, human skills within ourselves and our teams, we can optimize our workplaces and create environments where everyone feels valued and supported.

VelocityEHS organizes events all year to help you learn and excel in your role as an EHS professional. Check out our Events page to see what’s coming up next.

The post VelocityEHS User Conference 2024 Session Digest: Building Safety Cultures for Multi-Generations appeared first on VelocityEHS.

In all my research and study of OSHA workplace standards over the years, I’ve yet to come across a specific requirement that employers must apply and document a job safety analysis (JSA) to comply with an OSHA standard. In fact, you don’t really see any references to JSAs within the text of OSHA’s volume of occupational safety and health standards. At the same time, OSHA points to job safety analysis as an essential tool for hazard recognition and control, worker safety training, and communicating safe work practices—all of which ARE core requirements at the heart of numerous OSHA standard requirements. In other words, JSA is integral to compliance with many aspects of a broad range of OSHA standards and is therefore a valuable tool that every safety professional should be using and improving on a regular basis.

If you’re a safety professional, you’re probably familiar with JSAs but might not be as familiar with how you can apply the information and findings they provide to address, document, and verify compliance with various OSHA requirements. If you’re not familiar with JSAs, here’s some quick background.

What is Job Safety Analysis?

There are numerous definitions of job safety analysis out there but at its core, JSA can be simply described as a “systematic method for identifying, assessing, and controlling job task hazards and risks.” It involves a six-step process that goes as follows:

1. Job selection
2. Job task breakdown
3. Task hazard identification
4. Task risk assessment
5. Identification and implementation of controls
6. JSA review

The ultimate output of a JSA is a detailed list of individual job tasks, recognized hazards of each job/task, the corresponding risk level of each hazard (usually in the form of a qualitative or semi-qualitative risk assessment), specific hazard controls required to minimize those risks, and an assessment of the control effectiveness for each recognized hazard. The completed JSA might look a little something like this:

Sounds simple, right? While the process for documenting JSAs is a relatively straightforward exercise, there are many nuances that safety professionals and other members of your JSA team should be aware of to obtain the most accurate JSA information possible.

For more information on JSA techniques and best practices, view our on-demand webinar “Job Safety Analysis: Facts & Myths.”

How Can Job Safety Analysis (JSA) Help with OSHA Compliance?  

There are nearly 1,000 distinct OSHA standards covering employers and jobs performed across the construction, maritime, agriculture and general industries, each with very specific and often prescriptive requirements. However, I would argue that all these standards have three common essential objectives: hazard recognition and control, worker safety training, and ensuring safe work practices. I would also argue that JSAs provide an ideal tool for performing and achieving all three of these objectives.

Hazard Recognition & Control

At the end of the day, safety is all about risk management – identifying hazards, evaluating the risks, and applying the most effective risk controls. This concept is the core of safety and underlies numerous OSHA standards:

Respiratory Protection Standard 1910.134(d)(1)(iii) – “The employer shall identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation shall include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminant’s chemical state and physical form. Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer shall consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.”

Respirable Crystalline Silica 1926.1153(d)(2,3) – “The employer shall assess the exposure of each employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with [1926.1153(d)(2)(ii, iii)]. The employer shall use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL, […]”

Personal Protective Equipment 1915.152(b) – The employer shall assess its work activity to determine whether there are hazards present, or likely to be present, which necessitate the employee’s use of PPE. If such hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer shall […]”

Hazard Abatement Verification1903.19 –  “The employer must inform affected employees and their representative(s) about abatement activities covered by this section by posting a copy of each document submitted to the Agency or a summary of the document near the place where the violation occurred.”

The list of standards rooted in the fundamental risk management process of identifying, assessing, controlling, and communicating workplace hazards goes on and on, and job safety analysis (JSA) offers an excellent tool for performing, documenting, and communicating every stage of this process.

Worker Safety Training

Safety training is also woven into nearly all OSHA standards, with more than 60 individual subparts of 29 CFR containing specific safety training requirements. At their core, however, all these requirements have a common purpose – to ensure workers have the training necessary to recognize hazards and work safely and ensure employers can demonstrate that they have provided that training.

Click here for more detailed information about Training Requirements in OSHA Standards

JSAs provide an ideal tool to identify training needs and corresponding training requirements, assign required training to the workers who perform the jobs being reviewed, and verify that required training has been completed.

For example, let’s say a worker needs to perform maintenance on a conveyor system in a food manufacturing facility. To repair the conveyor, the worker needs to shut down and isolate the conveyor system at the main control panel and potentially other isolation points, remove machine guards, and potentially risk exposure to unexpected release of hazardous mechanical or electrical energy.

This scenario would most definitely require a lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedure and trigger the requirements of the OSHA LOTO standard, including requirements to train workers on LOTO procedures and the function of the workplace LOTO program. In this example, compliance with the LOTO standard requires identifying what job task hazards are present, determining which tasks involve hazardous energy and are therefore covered under the OSHA LOTO standard, and satisfying any LOTO training requirements that are applicable to those job tasks. Because the JSA process is all about breaking a job down into tasks to better identify and control associated risks, it can help employers ensure that they don’t miss these kinds of job-critical training responsibilities.

This same basic process of job task hazard identification and delivery of required training is common to all OSHA training requirements. Fortunately, JSA provides a user-friendly format to identify applicable regulatory requirements, assign required training activities accordingly, and verify training compliance as you would with any other control prescribed under applicable OSHA standards.

Safe Work Practices

JSAs offer an excellent tool for safety professionals to identify training requirements and deliver required training to ensure compliance, but simultaneously provide an ideal format to communicate work instructions and safe work practices to employees. Remember, at a fundamental level a JSA is intended to break down a job task-by-task, identify the hazards present, specify necessary hazard controls, and spell out step-by-step instructions for how to perform each job task safely. This is an essential component of worker safety, which is why many OSHA standards contain requirements for employers to develop and communicate safe work practices to workers, including:

29 CFR 1910.333 Subpart S covering safe work practices in performing electrical installation and maintenance specifies that employers must develop and implement safety-related work practices “to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts, when work is performed near or on equipment or circuits which are or may be energized. The specific safety-related work practices shall be consistent with the nature and extent of the associated electrical hazards.”

29 CFR 1926.502(k) covering fall protection systems criteria and practices establishes requirements for employers to develop and implement a fall protection plan that communicates fall protection measures applied in the workplace, identification of workers performing jobs where uncontrolled fall hazards are present, any changes to fall protection systems and hazards in those areas, and requires that “In the event an employee falls, or some other related, serious incident occurs, (e.g., a near miss) the employer shall investigate the circumstances of the fall or other incident to determine if the fall protection plan needs to be changed (e.g. new practices, procedures, or training) and shall implement those changes to prevent similar types of falls or incidents.”

29 CFR 1910.119 “Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals” contains multiple requirements for development and communication of safe work practices including 1910.119(f)(4) stating that “The employer shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to employees and contractor employees.” The standard continues at 1910.119(g)(1)(i) stating “Each employee presently involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, shall be trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. The training shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks.”

1910.119(h)(2)(iv) “The employer shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent with paragraph (f)(4) of this section, to control the entrance, presence and exit of contract employers and contract employees in covered process areas.”1910.119(l)(5) “If a change covered by this paragraph results in a change in the operating procedures or practices required by paragraph (f) of this section, such procedures or practices shall be updated accordingly.”

1910.119(o)(1) “Employers shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed.”

There are numerous other OSHA standards requiring employers to develop and communicate safe work practices to workers, and JSAs offer an ideal means of doing so. I recently spoke at the 2024 Wisconsin Safety Conference and met with an attendee who approached me at the end of my session to share how they use their JSAs as a tool to communicate safe work practices to their workers. Basically, they print out their JSAs and post them at each corresponding workstation where each job is performed. In practice, the JSAs are used as an instruction manual for workers to operate that equipment and perform those jobs safely. I complimented the attendee that I thought this was an excellent use of their JSAs since in many cases they are often simply filed away, never really put to use, and rarely updated.

However, our conversation soon shifted to what systems their organization had in place to update their JSAs when new job task hazards are recognized, how those newly recognized hazards are communicated and controlled, how JSA safe work practices can be scaled across similar jobs and across multiple locations, and ultimately how those learnings are incorporated into safe work practices. That’s really the point where a paper-based JSA format fails. After all, if a JSA is inaccurate or incomplete and the true hazards of the job are not addressed within it, that job presents uncontrolled risks to workers.

JSA Brings it All Together

I’m a firm believer in the utility and value of JSAs as a tool for OSHA compliance. They’re a practical and valuable tool for inventorying applicable compliance requirements for each of the jobs performed in your workplace, documenting compliance with corresponding training requirements, and providing step-by-step safe work instructions in an easy to understand format to workers. In addition to all of that, they are a collaborative exercise in safety that provides an excellent opportunity to engage workers and other stakeholders in your safety program.

At VelocityEHS, one of the biggest barriers we hear about when talking to safety professionals is that most are still using paper-based systems to perform and document their JSAs. This imposes significant and unnecessary limitations when it comes to getting the greatest value from your JSAs, primarily because paper-based JSAs are, by their nature, static documents. A JSA should be a dynamic, living document that is easily communicated, responsive to the changing nature of training requirements and job hazards, and provides an easily accessible resource for workers to understand how to perform their jobs safely. With the right systems for managing your JSAs, you can realize all of the benefits that JSAs can provide to your safety and risk management programs and get the greatest value from them.  

VelocityEHS can Help!

Risk management is the most fundamental purpose of any workplace safety program and our Operational Risk solution has the capabilities you need to do JSAs right. You get centralized, enterprise-wide visibility of your JSA processes to help you easily monitor hazards and control activities, standardize your risk assessment and scoring criteria, and take the guesswork out of JSAs with access to a consolidated control library that allows you quickly select the right controls for the jobs being reviewed. Most importantly, you’ll have the insights you need to assess performance and prioritize your workplace safety improvement efforts.

If you’re looking for a system to help you implement and coordinate a world-class safety program built around continuous improvement principles, we can help you there, too. Our Safety Solution gives you the support you’re looking for, with intuitive capabilities for inspections, audits, safety observations, incident investigations, safety meetings, compliance management, corrective actions, safety performance tracking and reporting, and much more.

Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you get the most from your JSAs and help you build a safer and more sustainable workplace.

The post Job Safety Analysis (JSA): The Essential OH&S Compliance Tool appeared first on VelocityEHS.

Federal civil penalties for non-compliance with federal regulations are once again going up in 2024…but not quite as bad as last year. It’s the new year and OSHA, EPA, MSHA, and all other US federal agencies have recently published their 2024 annual civil penalty adjustments under the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015. Under the Act, all federal agencies are required to revise and publish their schedule of civil penalties based on the previous year’s rate of inflation, which is calculated based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). 2024 federal civil penalty adjustments are based on a published Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) multiplier of 1.03241.  In other words, all federal fines and penalties for non-compliance are going up by roughly 3.2%.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the updated civil penalty schedules for US federal agencies most relevant to EHS professionals to see how these changes could impact your business.   

OSHA Civil Penalties

On January 11, 2024, The US Department of Labor published its updated civil penalties in the Federal Register, including those issued and enforced by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which become effective January 16. The table below shows a brief comparison of 2023 and 2024 penalty amounts for violations of selected OSHA regulations.

EPA Civil Penalties

As of January 15, 2024, EPA fines have also increased 3.2%. The EPA’s published penalty adjustments provide additional details on how the changes affect penalty amounts under specific regulations. For example, the table below shows a comparison of 2023 and 2024 penalty amounts for violations of selected EPA regulations:

*2023 penalty amounts are or violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, where penalties were assessed on or after January 6, 2023, but before December 27, 2023

**2024 penalty amounts are for violations that occur or occurred after November 2, 2015, where penalties are assessed on or after December 27, 2023

MSHA Civil Penalties

Like OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) operates under the purview of the US Department of Labor (DOL). MSHA has also updated its penalties to account for the 3.2% rise in CPI-U for 2024. The table below shows a comparison of 2023 and 2024 penalty amounts for violations of selected MSHA regulations:

Additional 2024 Federal Civil Penalties

Updated penalty amounts published by other important EHS regulatory agencies can be found at the links below:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Simplify Compliance and Avoid Costly Fines with VelocityEHS

Penalties for non-compliance are only going up and even a single violation can quickly turn into a significant financial blow that could sink your business. Velocity offers a comprehensive suite of EHS & ESG software solutions that make it easier to manage compliance with a wide range of EHS regulations, helping you to avoid penalties for noncompliance and protect worker health and safety, and the environment.

Request a demo today to learn more about the VelocityEHS Accelerate^® Platform’s range of EHS & ESG solutions and see how we can help you simplify compliance, automate complex and time-consuming compliance tasks, and build a safer and more sustainable workplace.

The post OSHA, EPA, and Other Federal Civil Penalties Increase for 2024 appeared first on VelocityEHS.

OSHA recently released its eagerly awaited annual list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2023 at this year’s National Safety Council (NSC) Safety Congress & Expo. The OSHA Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards is so highly anticipated because it provides valuable insights for safety professionals and other health and safety industry stakeholders into OSHA’s enforcement activities during the previous year, trends in workplace health and safety risks, and clues as to where employers should focus their efforts to improve compliance and better protect workers.

OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2023

Below is the full ranked list of OSHA’s Top 10 Safety Violations during FY 2023 ending September 30:  

1. Fall Protection—General Requirements (1926.501): 7,271 violations
2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200): 3,213 violations
3. Ladders (1926.1053): 2,978 violations
4. Scaffolding (1926.451): 2,859 violations
5. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178): 2,561 violations
6. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147): 2,554 violations
7. Respiratory Protection (1910.134): 2,481 violations
8. Fall Protection—Training Requirements (1926.503): 2,112 violations
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection (1926.102): 2,074 violations
10. Machine Guarding (1910.212): 1,644 violations

Get an in-depth understanding of all these standards with the updated OSHA’s Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards Blog Series:

1. Fall Protection—General Requirements
2. Hazard Communication
3. Ladders
4. Scaffolding
5. Powered Industrial Trucks
6. Lockout/Tagout
7. Respiratory Protection
8. Fall Protection—Training Requirements
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection
10. Machine Guarding

OSHA Top 10 Citations: Recent Trends & Statistics

The OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2023 closely resembles last year’s list, featuring the same familiar Standard violations that we continue to see on the list year after year. However, there are a couple interesting shifts in the rankings compared to 2022, as well as an overall increase in citations and enforcement activities. Here are a few takeaways:

• For at least the past decade, Fall Protection continues to hold the #1 spot on OSHA’s Top 10 for 2023.
• OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom) continues to rank #2 on the list for the second consecutive year (2022-2023), after falling to #4 in 2021.
• OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard fell to #7 in 2023, after ranking #3 in 2020 and 2022, and #2 in 2021, presumably due to increased Respiratory Protection Standard enforcement emphasis during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Citations for OSHA’s Ladders Standard rose from #4 in 2022 to reach #3 in 2023. That rank as steadily risen in the past six years, from 7^th and 8^th between 2013 through 2016 to consistently ranking 3^rd and 4^th since 2021.
• Overall numbers of inspections and citations continue to return to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels and show signs of continued upward trends, perhaps reflecting the increased funding and enforcement efforts at DOL/OSHA under the leadership of the current administration. (See Table 1)

*2023 total inspection data not available

**Citation numbers preliminary as of September 30, 2023

Read an in-depth analysis of each of OSHA’s Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2022 in our EHS Blog Series.

Improve Workplace Safety by Leveraging the OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards List 

With OSHA ramping up inspections and enforcement efforts, and civil penalties increasing consistently every year, it’s important for employers to ensure compliance. The OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards list is a valuable resource to you prioritize your compliance efforts and ensure your safety programs are addressing the most common and serious workplace hazards.  

If you’re responsible for safety management at your company, here are some ways to take advantage of the OSHA Top 10 List: 

• Examine your safety program and identify potential hazards covered under OSHA Standards on the list that may be present in your workplace(s). 
• Evaluate your company’s past and present written safety programs, safety records, and recordkeeping practices and make sure they’re in compliance with OSHA standards. 
• Engage with your workforce to get insights and ideas into how safety can be improved in these most commonly cited areas of compliance, above and beyond your routine worker safety engagement efforts. 
• Have a solid training program in place and ensure all employees are up to date on their training, specifically the areas of OSHA Standards compliance listed in the OSHA Top 10. 

VelocityEHSCan Help! 

The Velocity Safety Solution, part of the VelocityEHS Accelerate^® Platform, gives you the rapid access and clear visibility of safety data and trends that you need to identify critical EHS issues, verify compliance, and optimize workplace safety performance. The solution scales to meet the needs of any size company across any industry and provides an intuitive, user-friendly interface to engage and empower your employees to play an integral role in your workplace EHS programs. With a solid EHS management software platform in place, you’ll have the foundation for pursuing EHS maturity and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) excellence.

Request a Demo today to learn how we can help you simplify compliance, improve workplace safety performance, and promote a stronger workplace safety culture.

The post OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2023  appeared first on VelocityEHS.

We’ve come to the final installment in our VelocityEHS Blog Series on OSHA’s Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2022, where we’ll discuss number ten on the list, the OSHA Machine Guarding Standard. Don’t let the tenth-place ranking fool you. Machine hazards are severe, often resulting in serious injury, amputation, and even death.

Here, we’ll take a closer look at OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard, including the most commonly cited provisions of the Standard, key enforcement initiatives and directives you should have on your radar, along with best practices and tools you can use to simplify and strengthen compliance.

OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard Requirements: A Persistent Compliance Challenge for Employers

In case you missed the list, here’s a quick recap of OSHA’s Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for FY 2023:

1. Fall Protection – General Requirements (1926.501): 7,271 violations
2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200): 3,213 violations
3. Ladders (1926.1053): 2,978 violations
4. Scaffolding (1926.451): 2,859 violations
5. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178): 2,561 violations
6. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147): 2,554 violations
7. Respiratory Protection (1910.134): 2,481 violations
8. Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503): 2,112 violations
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection (1926.102): 2,074 violations
10. Machine Guarding (1910.212): 1,644 violations

OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard has consistently ranked among the Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for years, and it’s important to think about why. One potential root cause is the surprising brevity and arguably intentional vagueness of the Machine Guarding Standard. The entire body of text of the Machine Guarding Standard is just 388 words, and that includes the section numbers, and yet it is so critical in protecting workers from machine hazards.

We say the Machine Guarding Standard is intentionally vague because we believe OSHA anticipated the applicability of the Standard to a virtual universe of machine types and configurations used in the industry. Similar to its Control of Hazardous Energy Standard (Lockout/Tagout), the Machine Guarding Standard was written broadly enough to cover as great a variety of machine types and configurations as possible, including those yet to be designed or invented. As a consequence of this vagueness, there continues to be a great deal of confusion among employers as to how to apply the Machine Guarding Standard, and how to ensure compliance. In fact, OSHA has published 152 Letters of Interpretation (LOIs) since the original Standard was published in 1973, with each LOI addressing specific employer questions and concerns regarding the specifics of compliance. Despite this ongoing confusion and the continuing evolution of industrial operations and technologies, OSHA is not formally considering any updates to the Machine Guarding Standard as of its recently published Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

OSHA Machine Guarding Standard Enforcement

As we mentioned in the first installment of our blog series, OSHA’s Fall Protection Standard was, by far, the most frequently cited OSHA Standard in 2023. While it is last on OSHA’s Top 10 List, the OSHA Machine Guarding Standard is certainly not least. If you look at the total numbers of violations cited under the OSHA Machine Guarding Standard relative to others on the Top 10 list, there’s not a great difference among OSHA’s Powered Industrial Trucks, Fall Protection Training Requirements, and Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection Standards, meaning it remains a strong priority for OSHA’s enforcement efforts.  

This is supported by the fact that OSHA is currently pursuing two separate National Emphasis Programs (NEPs) aimed specifically at addressing machine hazards. These include:

• OSHA Instruction – CPL 03-00-026 – National Emphasis Program on Warehousing and Distribution Center Operations – 07/13/2023 – PDF
• OSHA Instruction – CPL 03-00-022 – National Emphasis Program on Amputations in Manufacturing Industries – 12/10/2019 – PDF

OSHA also establishes numerous Regional Emphasis Programs (REPs) across the US, many of which are focused, at least in part, on addressing machine hazards and Machine Guarding Standard enforcement. Examples include:

• Region 1 – CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT
  • CPL-04-00-026 – Local Emphasis Program for the Seafood Processing Industry – PDF
• Region 4 – AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
  • CPL 23/09 (CPL 04) – Regional Emphasis Program (REP) for Poultry Processing Facilities – PDF
  • CPL 23/10 (CPL 04) – Regional Emphasis Program (REP) for Safety Hazards in Auto Parts Industry – NAICS 3363XX (Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing) – PDF
• Region 5 – IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
  • CPL 04-05-2304 – Local Emphasis Program for the Wood Pallet Manufacturing Industry – PDF
  • CPL 04-05-2306 – Regional Emphasis Program for Food Manufacturing Industry – PDF
  • CPL 04-05-2301 – Regional Emphasis Program for Grain Handling Facilities – PDF
• Region 6 – AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
  • CPL 2 02-00-028B – Regional Emphasis Program for Grain Handling Facilities – PDF
  • CPL 2 02-00-030B – Regional Emphasis Program for Poultry Processing Facilities – PDF
  • CPL 2 02-00-022B – Regional Emphasis Program for Safety & Health Hazards in the Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products – PDF
• Region 7 – IA, KS, MO, NE
  • CPL 02-11-03J – Kansas Local Emphasis Program (LEP) for Grain Handling Facilities – PDF
  • CPL 2-13-001I – Nebraska Grain Handling Industry Local Emphasis Program (LEP) – PDF
  • CPL 02-16-05E – Nebraska Local Emphasis Program (LEP) for Meat Processing Industries – PDF
• Region 8 – CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
  • CPL 20-06 (04-01) – Regional Emphasis Program for Automotive Services – PDF
  • CPL 20-03 (04-01) – Regional Emphasis Program for Grain Handling Facilities – PDF
  • CPL 23-01 – Regional Emphasis Program for Wood Manufacturing and Processing Facilities – PDF
  • CPL 2022-01 – Regional Emphasis Program on Silica in Cut Stone and Slab Handling – PDF
• Region 9 – AZ, CA, HI, NV, and American Samoa, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands
  • CPL 04-09-2401 – Regional Emphasis Program on Amputations – PDF
• Region 10 – AK, ID, OR, WA
  • 21-05 (CPL 04) – Local Emphasis Program for Inspections in the Grain Handling Industry – PDF

OSHA’s current NEPs and REPs targeting Machine Guarding Standard compliance and enforcement, span a wide range of industry types, but if we look at the most recent enforcement numbers for FY 2023, we can see that the vast majority of citations (80% of 1,638 total violations in 2023) were given to employers in the manufacturing industries (NAICS 31-33).   

Analyzing OSHA’s Most Cited Machine Guarding Standard Provisions

Of the 1,644 violations cited under OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard in FY 2023, here are the five most commonly cited provisions of the Standard:  

1. 1910.212(a)(1): “Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.” –1,089 violations
2. 1910.212(a)(3): “Point of operation guarding.” –402 violations
3. 1910.212(a)(2): “General requirements for machine guards. Guards shall be affixed to the machine where possible and secured elsewhere if for any reason attachment to the machine is not possible. The guard shall be such that it does not offer an accident hazard in itself.” –60 violations
4. 1910.212(b): “Anchoring fixed machinery. Machines designed for a fixed location shall be securely anchored to prevent walking or moving.” –57 violations
5. 1910.212(a)(4): “Barrels, containers and drums. Revolving drums, barrels and containers shall be guarded by an enclosure that is interlocked with the drive mechanism, so that the barrel, drum or container cannot revolve unless the guard enclosure is in place.” –13 violations

If we look at the numbers, we find that the five most common violations here account for 98% of all violations of OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard.

The Costs of Non-Compliance

Penalties for violations of OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard (and all OSHA Standards) can quickly pile up, with a single inspection or workplace injury often resulting in multiple citations. That’s because in addition to OSHA’s continuing focus on machine hazards and strong enforcement of Machine Guarding Standard requirements, OSHA announced earlier this year that it would expand the application of “Instance by Instance” (IBI) citations.

Employers should also be conscious of the fact that federal civil penalties for non-compliance with federal regulations have gone up in 2023…way up. In January, OSHA published their 2023 annual civil penalty adjustments as required under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015. Under the Act, all federal agencies are required to revise and publish their schedule of civil penalties based on the previous year’s rate of inflation, which is calculated based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). 2023 federal civil penalty adjustments are based on a published Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) multiplier of 1.07745.In other words, all federal fines and penalties for non-compliance went up by 7.7%—roughly equal to the average rate of inflation faced by all consumers in the US during 2022.

January 2024 will bring new annual inflation-adjusted penalty increases across OSHA and all federal agencies, and even though rate of inflation in the US has contracted significantly compared to 2022, preliminary CPI figures from the BLS for November 2023 place that number around 3.1%, and the reference point agencies will use to calculate 2024 inflation adjustments will likely be around this amount.

Machine Guarding-Related Injury & Illness Statistics: The Human Costs

The financial penalties for non-compliance with OSHA’s Machine Guarding Standard can certainly damage your business’ bottom line, as well as its reputation in the eyes of customers, partners, investors, and other stakeholders. Sadly, it’s all too easy to overlook the cost to your business’ most important resource…your workers. Great companies focus on protecting the safety and health of their workers and the physical and mental costs of failure to do so, rather than worrying about the regulatory risks and compliance costs of OSHA Machine Guarding Standard violations.

The monetary costs of these injuries are difficult to quantify, but OSHA’s Safety Pays calculator allows us to calculate estimated costs of a wide range of occupational injury and illness types. For example, a simple laceration that can be caused by improper or faulty machine guarding is estimated to have direct costs of $21,872 and indirect costs of $24,059 for a total of $45,931. That’s quite a lot for just a cut, and this estimate does little to account for the ongoing legal and workers’ compensation costs that could arise because of a potential disability and associated injury claims.

Machine Guarding Best Practices

Fortunately, OSHA’s enforcement data and enforcement priorities (vis a vis OSHA’s NEPs and REPs) allow us to see where some of employers’ greatest weaknesses lie and draw some general assumptions about what provisions of the OSHA Machine Guarding Standard employers should focus on to help strengthen the compliance of their own machine guarding programs.

Unlike a lot of other Standards on OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards, the OSHA Machine Guarding Standard is primarily directed at the design features and specifications of machines and machine guarding devices, and has little to say about training, inspection, or other personnel-related requirements as many other OSHA Standards. In that way, the Machine Guarding Standard is primarily a technical standard. Therefore, verifying that machine hazards are identified and assessed, and that sufficient/compliant machine guarding devices and machine hazard controls are installed are the fundamental basis of compliance.

Fortunately, there are several aspects of your existing safety management system that will be instrumental in performing these machine hazard assessments and control verification tasks. Here are a few to focus on:

Inspections

You need to establish inspection systems that allow you to identify inspection targets (i.e., machines and machine guarding devices) and schedule periodic and regular inspections for each individual target. This includes:

• Identifying the assigned/responsible inspector roles and personnel
• Verifying that inspectors possess the necessary knowledge, training, and qualifications to perform that inspection
• Developing inspection checklists for each machine/machine guard configuration and being able to integrate OSHA Machine Guarding Standard requirements and other regulatory/design requirements into those checklist criteria
• The ability to quickly report and respond to checklist discrepancies/non-conformances
• The ability to create and assign corrective actions for individual checklist discrepancies/non-conformances
• Visibility of inspection activities and performance to verify inspection programs and procedures are being implemented, and that they are effective

For additional information on inspection program management, check out our on-demand webinar “Beyond Checklists: A Systems-Based Approach to Inspection Program Management.”

Hazard Identification & Observations

Everyone throughout the workplace, especially machine operators, maintenance personnel, supervisors, and safety managers, should possess sufficient knowledge and training to identify machine hazards, and to identify non-compliance of machine guarding devices with OSHA Machine Guarding Standard requirements. They also require rapid, real-time ability to document and report these hazards, and to have visibility into the corrective action planning and implementation process to confirm that hazards are being identified, assessed, and controlled.

And it’s not just about identifying hazards. It’s also about observing employee behaviors, both safe and unsafe. Many machine guarding-related injuries occur because workers bypass functional machine guards so that they can clear the point of operation, perform some sort of quick maintenance or repair, or just to get the job done faster because of pressure from supervisors or managers. That’s never acceptable.

It’s the responsibility of the employer to provide comprehensive work instructions on how to clear jams or resolve other types of maintenance issues safely, and ensure workers are trained and knowledgeable in how to effectively operate machines and machine guarding devices. It’s also the responsibility of workers to remain vigilant and not think of observing unsafe actions or behaviors as “calling out” their co-worker but reporting an unsafe behavior that others might repeat in the future. Though they might get away with it unscathed this time, the next time could result in a life-altering injury. On the flip side of that coin, we also want to be capturing and documenting safe behaviors that help us better understand how to do things safely, and even recognize opportunities for how to be safer.

The key is being able to capture and report these hazards and behaviors and put them on the map so that safety managers and others can learn from them, and that means having a system to document them in real-time where and when they occur.

Task Hazard Assessment (THA)

THA is a type of pre-job inspection designed to evaluate job-specific hazards and ensure appropriate safety precautions, controls, operator training and qualifications, and other preventive measures are in place prior to beginning the job. THA is an invaluable method for machine operators to verify the proper function and design of machine guarding devices and should, ideally, be performed before every work shift to verify this. If they are not in conformance with the THA, operators should be reporting any unrecognized or insufficiently controlled hazards to responsible employees so corrective actions, including installation of sufficient machine guards or repair to existing controls, can be performed.

Also, if an operator identifies a faulty or insufficient machine guarding device, that worker (and all workers) should be clearly delegated with “stop work authority”. This authority strengthens the quality of your workplace safety culture. No worker should feel pressure to continue using a machine with recognized hazards, nor should they feel like they do not have the right to refuse unsafe work.  

Job Safety Analysis (JSA)

A JSA is a comprehensive job evaluation designed to fully assess and control hazards during the job design phase, and periodically thereafter. It involves breaking jobs down into individual tasks or steps and carefully analyzing potential hazards at each step that may be introduced by the tools, equipment, work environments, and work practices used. Once hazards are identified, risks are qualitatively evaluated, prioritized, and corrective actions are taken to manage individual hazards and risks.

You should perform JSAs prior to start-up of any machine in your workplace to clearly identify, assess, and implement effective machine design and hazard controls before work ever begins. The JSA should be readily accessible to operators and other potentially affected employees to provide clear guidance on the hazards of a given job and is also invaluable as a training tool for machine operators. You should periodically and regularly evaluate the JSA to ensure it fully addresses the hazards of the job, especially after you’ve made any alterations or modifications to the machine in question. Also, you should perform JSAs in collaboration with operators, supervisors, maintenance personnel, safety managers, and other impacted employees so you get a full perspective on the hazards presented by a given machine and given job.

For more information on how to optimize your hazard identification practices and programs, task hazard assessments, and JSAs, download our guide Hazard ID & Observation, Task Hazard Assessment (THA), & Job Safety Analysis (JSA).

For additional guidance on OSHA Machine Guarding compliance and safety best practices, check out OSHA’s Machine Guarding eTool.

Final Thoughts…

We hope you’ve enjoyed our VelocityEHS Blog Series on the OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for 2023 and learned some valuable insights on how to not only improve compliance with OSHA Standards, but more importantly, protect the health and safety of your people. Follow us on LinkedIn and stay tuned to the VelocityEHS blog page for further information on the EHS topics that impact businesses like yours, and to learn how VelocityEHS can help you surpass your compliance challenges and achieve EHS & ESG excellence.

Catch up on all OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards Blog Series:

1. Fall Protection—General Requirements
2. Hazard Communication
3. Ladders
4. Scaffolding
5. Powered Industrial Trucks
6. Lockout/Tagout
7. Respiratory Protection
8. Fall Protection—Training Requirements
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection
10. Machine Guarding

Simplify Compliance & Strengthen Workplace Safety with VelocityEHS

The Velocity Safety and Operational Risk Solutions, part of the VelocityEHS Accelerate^® Platform, offers EHS professionals full and flexible capabilities to meet every aspect of your safety management system needs. From inspections, Hazard ID & Observations, THAs, JSAs and much, much more, you’ll get a system that provides a rock-solid foundation for your management programs and help you ensure you have a full picture of the machine hazards and controls present in your workplace.

Check us out and Request a Demo today to learn how we can solve your safety management and compliance challenges.

The post OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards: Machine Guarding appeared first on VelocityEHS.

The #9 most frequently cited standard for 2023, was one again Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), workers suffered 18,510 eye-related injuries and illnesses in 2020. That means there were roughly 1.7 cases per 10,000 full-time workers. OSHA states thousands of people are blinded each year from work-related eye injuries. Preventing eye and face injury can be achieved with the proper selection and use of eye and face protection.

There are two personal protective equipment (PPE) standards for eye and face protection put in place by OSHA. One is 29 CFR 1910.133, which concentrates on safety regulations in the general industry, and the other 29 CFR 1926.102 that centers on the constructions industry. Although, they are similar, they have some industry-specific nuances. In this blog, the focus will be on 29 CFR 1926.102.

OSHA’s Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection (1926.102) Overview

This standard applies to the construction industry. It requires employers to ensure that all their employees use appropriate eye or face protection when they are exposed to eye or face hazards such as:

• Flying Particles
• Molten Metal
• Liquid Chemicals
• Acids or Caustic Liquids
• Chemical Gases or Vapors
• Potentially Injurious Light Radiation

PPE for the eyes and face is designed to prevent or lessen the severity of injuries to your team members when engineering or administrative controls are not feasible or effective in reducing these exposures to acceptable levels.

When it comes to PPE, it’s important to make sure your team members are aware what different types of eye and face protection are available to them. They’re properly trained on how to use this equipment, and the PPE fits them correctly and comfortably.

What Are the Top PPE Citations for Eye and Face Protection?

There are many individual provisions within OSHA’s PPE for Eye and Face Protection Standard. In 2023, OSHA issued 2,074 violations. Among these, the top four types of violations were:

1. 1926.102(a)(1)—2,034 violations: “The employer shall ensure each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.”
2. 1926.102(a)(2)—32 violations: “The employer shall ensure each affected employee uses eye protection that provides side protection when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable side protectors (e.g., clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.”
3. 1926.102(b)(1)—6 violations: “Protective eye and face protection devices must comply with any of the following consensus standards.”
4. 1926.102(a)(3)—2 violations: “The employer shall ensure that each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye hazards wears eye protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or wears eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses.”

Protecting your team members’ eyes and faces is necessary because loss of sight or injury to either is a life-changing event. Many of your members are unaware of the potential hazards in their work environments, making them vulnerable to injury. The use of PPE helps to prevent these life-changing hazards. Although the use of PPE, according to the hierarchy of controls, is viewed as the “last line of defense,” it still helps to keep your team members safe, when selected and used properly.

Tips to Help You Maintain Compliance with OSHA’s PPE Eye and Face Standard

OSHA notes in its updated Personal Protection Equipment Guide that many occupational eye injuries occur because team members are not wearing any eye protection, while others result from wearing improper, inadequate, or poorly fitting eye protection or eye protection without a prescription when the person wears glasses. Be sure that your team members wear appropriate eye and face protection. They know how to select properly fitting the eye and face protection appropriate for the work being performed.

OSHA also recommends management of PPE through a shared effort between employers and employees, to ensure the greatest possible protection for your team members. A team effort will help establish and maintain a safe and healthy work environment.

According to OSHA, employers are responsible for:

• Performing a “hazard assessment” of the workplace to identify and control physical and health hazards
• Identifying and providing appropriate and adequate PPE for employees
• Training employees in the use and care of the PPE
• Maintaining PPE, including replacing worn or damaged PPE
• Periodically reviewing, updating, and evaluating the effectiveness of the PPE program

According to OSHA, team members are responsible for:

• Wearing PPE properly
• Attending training sessions on PPE
• Caring for, cleaning, and maintaining PPE provided to them
• Informing a supervisor of the need to repair or replace PPE

Promoting the use of PPE has many advantages. These advantages include maintaining compliance and avoiding fines and citations, while also encouraging confidence in your team members. Confidence is instilled fist because they know they can safely perform their jobs, and second because they see you investing in their safety. It also helps to improve workplace morale and overall productivity. When your members see that you value and prioritize their health and safety, they feel more valued, experience less stress, and have an overall more positive attitude to the work they do—that should be enough to have an effective PPE management program in place.

VelocityEHS Can Help!

As an EHS manager, you can’t be everywhere at once, so make safety and preventative measures everyone’s responsibility. The Velocity Safety Solution gives you the platform you need to have visibility across safety tasks, better manage reporting, and stay on top of important compliance dates and deadlines. You can further your safety program with the Operations Risk Solution by helping to stop incidents before that happen with its Risk Analysis and Critical Control Verification capabilities.

Having safety management programs in place is just one aspect of cultivating a strong safety culture. The VelocityEHS Accelerate^® Platform includes a wide range of innovative software solutions and built-in expertise to meet your toughest EHS and ESG challenges. Talk to one of our experts and discover how software can help make it easier for you to manage, maintain, and ensure long-term success.

Catch up on all OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards Blog Series:

1. Fall Protection—General Requirements
2. Hazard Communication
3. Ladders
4. Scaffolding
5. Powered Industrial Trucks
6. Lockout/Tagout
7. Respiratory Protection
8. Fall Protection—Training Requirements
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection
10. Machine Guarding

The post OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards: Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection appeared first on VelocityEHS.

Continuing our digest of OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards, we move on to the eighth most-commonly cited workplace violation—Fall Protection Training Requirements. Among OSHA’s many regulations, the Fall Protection Training Standard is of utmost importance, as falls continue to be a leading cause of workplace injuries and fatalities. 

A fall protection training requirement seems pretty self-explanatory—it’s important to train employees how to work at heights that keep them safe from falling—and seems like it would be pretty straightforward to keep up with the requirements of that training. But with 2,112 citations for this standard in 2023, it’s important to make sure that we understand the purpose and key requirements of the fall protection training standard, recognize where and how violations happen, and strategize what employers can do to meet this standard and keep their employees safe.   

 In this blog post, we will delve into the key elements of OSHA’s Fall Protection Training Standard and explore why it is essential for employers and employees to adhere to these guidelines. 

Understanding the Fall Protection Training Standard 

OSHA’s Fall Protection Training Standard, found in 29 CFR 1926.503, establishes requirements for training employees who may be exposed to fall hazards. The standard applies to numerous industries, including construction, general industry, and maritime operations. It focuses on equipping workers with the knowledge and skills necessary to identify fall hazards, implement preventive measures, and properly use fall protection systems. 

Identifying Fall Hazards

Before being able to address any hazards, they need to be identified.  

Employers are required to assess their work environments to identify areas where fall hazards exist, such as unprotected edges, holes, or elevated surfaces, and create training materials to teach employees how to stay safe working amongst those hazards. Training programs should emphasize hazard recognition such as these, encouraging employees to be vigilant and proactive in identifying potential fall hazards. 

Prevention and Protection Measures 

The Fall Protection Training Standard emphasizes the importance of implementing preventive measures to eliminate or reduce fall hazards. This may involve engineering controls such as guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems. Training programs should cover the proper use, inspection, and maintenance of these protective systems. Employees should also be educated on the significance of using personal protective equipment (PPE), including harnesses, lanyards, and anchor points. 

Training Requirements 

OSHA’s Fall Protection Training Standard outlines specific training requirements that employers must fulfill. The standard mandates that employers are to provide training to any employee exposed to fall hazards. This includes both initial training for newly hired workers and refresher training to ensure ongoing competence. Training programs must cover topics such as recognizing fall hazards, understanding fall protection systems, and emergency procedures in case of a fall. 

OSHA also requires that workers need to be trained in job hazards in a language that they can understand. This aspect of the standard could be one of the sources of some citations—if an employer has fall protection training available in two of three common languages for the location, this would count as a violation.

The OSHA Fall Protection Training Requirement Standard States:

The employer shall provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards. The program shall enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and shall train each employee in the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards. 

The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained, as necessary, by a competent person qualified in the following areas: 

• The nature of fall hazards in the work area 
• The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining, disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used 
• The use and operation of guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, safety net systems, warning line systems, safety monitoring systems, controlled access zones, and other protection to be used 
• The role of each employee in the safety monitoring system when this system is used 
• The limitations on the use of mechanical equipment during the performance of roofing work on low-sloped roofs 
• The correct procedures for the handling and storing of equipment and materials and the erection of overhead protection 
• The role of employees in fall protection plans 

The standard also requires a certification of training, meaning that: 

The employer shall verify compliance by preparing a written certification record. The written certification record shall contain the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer.  

If the employer implements training conducted by another employer or completed prior to the effective date of this section, the certification record shall indicate the date the employer determined the prior training was adequate rather than the date of actual training. The latest training certification shall be maintained. 

When the employer has reason to believe that any affected employee who’s been trained previously does not have the understanding and skill required, the employer shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is required include, but are not limited to, situations where: 

• Changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete.
• Changes in the types of fall protection systems or equipment to be used render previous training obsolete.
• Inadequacies in an affected employee’s knowledge or use of fall protection systems or equipment indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill.

The Importance of Compliance 

Compliance with OSHA’s Fall Protection Training Standard is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it helps to prevent injuries and fatalities caused by falls, protecting workers from harm and reducing healthcare costs for employers.  

Secondly, compliance demonstrates an employer’s commitment to workplace safety, fostering a positive safety culture and boosting employee morale. Employees are safer when compliance is met, but they feel safer when they see the efforts their organization makes to keep them safe. 

The Costly Concerns of Citations 

Finally, adherence to the standard helps organizations avoid penalties and legal consequences that may arise from non-compliance. With the average cost of an OSHA violation being $15,625—which is a potential $33,000,000 in fees in the last year alone—organizations could save literal millions of dollars and use that money elsewhere for their employees. Most directly, they could use that money to bulk up their fall protection training. 

This post is meant to be an overview of OSHA Fall Protection Training Standard, sharing key elements that can help organizations stay in compliance with the standard. If you’re looking for more details and information, please refer to the official regulation. 

Let VelocityEHS Help!

Safety is just one aspect of cultivating a work culture where people feel they matter. The VelocityEHS Accelerate^® Platform includes a wide range of innovative software solutions and built-in expertise to meet your toughest EHS and ESG challenges. Talk to one of our experts and find out more about how we can help make it easier to manage, maintain, and ensure your long-term success.

Catch up on all OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards Blog Series:

1. Fall Protection—General Requirements
2. Hazard Communication
3. Ladders
4. Scaffolding
5. Powered Industrial Trucks
6. Lockout/Tagout
7. Respiratory Protection
8. Fall Protection—Training Requirements
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face Protection
10. Machine Guarding

The post OSHA’s Top 10 List of Most Frequently Cited Standards: Fall Protection Training Requirements appeared first on VelocityEHS.