Photo. Toxic and Hazardous Substances Hazard Communication

Transcription

1 Photo Toxic and Hazardous Substances Hazard Communication Analysis of OSHA Violation Data

2 Toxic and Hazardous Substances Hazard Communication Background OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (US Department of Labor/ Occupational Safety and Health, 2016) requires the development and dissemination of information on the hazards associated with chemicals in the workplace, and assigns responsibilities to chemical manufacturers and importers as well as employers. Chemical manufacturers and importers are required to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import, and prepare labels and safety data sheets to communicate the hazard information to their customers. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces are required to have labels and safety data sheets for their exposed workers, and must train the employees to handle the chemicals appropriately. The Hazard Communication Standard was rewritten in 2012 to align with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). This update provides a common and coherent approach to classifying chemicals and communicating hazard information on labels and safety data sheets. GHS is also intended to enhance the understandability of hazards by workers and reduce the burden of the regulation by aligning with the international system. The 2012 standard became fully effective on June 1, There are several studies that have attempted to quantify the burden of injury and disease associated with the exposure to chemicals in the workplace. (Driscoll, Nelson, Steenland, & et.al., 2005) These studies, none of which is comprehensive in nature, point to a significant burden in chronic disease, cancer and premature death due to chemical exposure (Pruess-Ustuen, Vickers, Haeflger, & Bertollini, 2011). Protecting workers from unnecessary exposure to chemicals is not only required by law, but also reduces health effects on workers and healthcare costs to employers. Despite the longstanding nature of the regulations associated with communicating the hazards of chemicals to employees, violations of OSHA regulations pertaining to this topic remain in the top five enforcement actions year after year. In 2015, violations of were the second most common violation of OSHA regulations. page 2

3 Purpose UL s Data Science team undertook a study to determine trends and insights about the violations of OSHA s regulations related to hazard communication, specifically OSHA Standard The intent is to bring awareness and visibility to common issues and concerns as well as to provide information to employers as to OSHA s actions since GHS has been incorporated into US regulation. Methods Data sources: The principal data source for the analysis was the OSHA Violation data set available at the Department of Labor website (US Department of Labor/ Occupational Safety and Health, 2016). The data set consists of inspection case detail for approximately 100,000 OSHA inspections conducted annually. The data set includes information regarding the impetus for conducting the inspection, and details on citations and penalty assessments resulting from violations of OSHA standards. Data is available from 1972 to the present. The analysis looked at data from 2010 to the present. Data Set: The OSHA violation data set consisted of 11,701,450 records. Each record is defined by 28 data fields (see appendix A). Specific data used for the analysis included: Year Total Violations Violations ,932 15, ,235 13, ,703 13, ,697 13, ,811 13, ,609 10,009 Total 1,305,987 78,509 overall violation data set, records were extracted where the referenced standard was equal to , and the Issuance Date was in the years 2010 through Each unique citation ID was counted as a violation, as each citation represents a deviation from a specific portion of the standard. Discussion Over the period approximately 6% of the total violations (78,509 of 1,305,987) were violations of OSHA In 2015, there were 10,009 violations of OSHA This number is down 24% from 2014 and continues a downward trend in overall violations attributed to this standard. However, violations of this standard have been in the top 10 citations for several years, including The gross number of violations is only one way to look at the trends in this area. OSHA classifies violations in a number of different ways: By type Serious, Other-than-serious, Willful, De Minimis, Repeat and Failure to Abate By the gravity of the violation. The gravity of the violation is determined by two assessments: The severity of the illness or injury that could result from the violation, assessed as high, medium or low. The probability that an illness or injury could occur as a result of the violation assessed as greater or lesser. The combination of severity and probability result in a gravity, assessed on a scale of 0 (low) to 10 (high). These 1. Issuance date of the citation 2. Standard 3. Violation Type 4. Current Penalty 5. Gravity 6. Number Exposed Data processing: The OSHA violation data set was imported into and queried using R Studio (v ). From the page 3

4 gravities are then used in a penalty determination system to assign penalties between $3,000 and $7,000. The three most frequent violation types, as it relates to hazard communication, are Serious, Other-than-Serious and Repeat. The overall proportion of these violation types has remained relatively stable, except during In 2014, a significant number of additional Other-than-Serious violations were recorded, such that more than 57% of the violations were classified as such, up from an average of 52% during the previous four years. In 2015, the proportion of violation types returned to close to the averages with 47% Serious, 51% Other-than-Serious and 2% repeat violations. Considering the assigned gravity of the violations, the proportion of the gravest violations, rated a 10 on a scale from 0-10, in 2015 is higher than in previous years, rising from 2.8% of violations in 2014 to more than 5% in The absolute number of gravity 10 violations was also higher in 2015 than it had been in any year since Grouping the violations into low (0-3), moderate (4-6) and high gravity (7-10), we uncover another trend: the proportion of violations ranked moderate and high changed significantly in During the previous 3 years, approximately 50% of the violations were not assigned a gravity. During 2015, that proportion dropped to 35%, and the proportion of moderate (4-6) gravity violations increased from 16.72% to 27.39% and the proportion of high (7-10) gravity violations almost doubled from 3.32% to 6.16%. Clearly, either the gravity of the violations has recently changed, or, more likely, OSHA has changed its view on the thresholds for moderate and high gravity violations. As OSHA has adopted a gravity based penalty (GBP) determination system, average penalties assessed in 2015 have also increased. The average penalty in 2015 was $1,355, up more than 17% from the previous year and reversing a trend of lower average penalties since OSHA Leadership issued interim guidance on administrative penalties at the end of FY 2010, and updated that guidance in The net result of these changes in administrative penalties was a step change in average penalty amounts post In that year, average penalties were only $810 per violation, and subsequent years the average has been more than $1,200. Penalties are expected to increase significantly in FY 2017, as the Final Rule on the Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act was issued on July 1, 2016, raising all administrative penalty amounts, with the highest amount changing from $7,000 to more than $12,000. (US Department of Labor, 2016) Another dimension of the data captured in the OSHA database is the number of employees (potentially) exposed through the violation. The trend over the last five years has been a generally increasing one, although 2015 was lower than The average number of employees (potentially) exposed per violation has increased from 9 in 2010 to 14 in page 4

5 Make compliance part of the leadership agenda. Recommendations Communicate changes in your Hazardous Communication program and your expectations. Communication with employees is crucial for compliance. Over the last 4 years, the alignment of and GHS has been deliberate and detailed to ensure greater communication and understanding, while providing less confusion while transitioning to the new standard. Organizations must realize the importance of communicating the expectations of the alignment between company operations and OSHA requirements; then disseminating what that means for each worker during their typical work day. Train - communication is not enough. All employees, as well as all others (contractors, vendors, etc.) who are potentially working around hazardous chemicals, must be properly trained and educated on the new Standard. The organization, and leadership, must make it a priority to train employees on what must be done to ensure the safest working environment possible. Some have characterized the new requirements as a worker s right to understand the chemical hazards in their environment. Previous regulations placed the burden that workers should be aware. Many changes have occurred for those employees who were aware of the old system, and they must now have a thorough understanding of the new requirements and the hazards in their work environment. Conduct audits and inspections to validate change. Hazard Communication plays an essential role in the health and safety of an organization. For the previous several years, violations to this standard have been in the top 10 provided by OSHA. And now that a pivotal change has occurred to the standard, it will continue to be a point of emphasis for OSHA inspectors. Implementing a detailed internal audit and inspection program to understand the current status of the hazard communication program will provide clarity in improvement efforts resulting in a sound program. Proactive actions such as this will also show the priority the organization has made in embracing the changes. For organizations to be successful with this new standard and reduce OSHA violations related to it, leadership must play an integral part and ensure compliance with the new regulation in both letter and spirit. OSHA has estimated that the implementation of the standard will result in 43 fewer deaths and $475 million in enhanced productivity for U.S. businesses each year. For most organizations, those two numbers will create a more than positive return-on-investment. page 5

6 Conclusions UL analyzed the publically available enforcement data for the Hazard Communication standard over the period Violations of the Hazard Communication standard OSHA continue to be a significant point of enforcement by the agency. During the last five years, there has been a slight downward trend in the total number of violations; however, given that the new, harmonized standard is now fully effective, it is likely that there will be more infractions recorded in next several years. & et.al., 2005) (Pruess-Ustuen, Vickers, Haeflger, & Bertollini, 2011). Manufacturers of chemicals and employers are legally responsible to comply with the standard; failure to do so may result in enforcement actions including administrative penalties. More important may be the ethical and economic responsibility for reducing the burden of disease, resulting in a healthier, more productive workforce. The proportion of the three primary violation types Serious, Other-than-Serious and Repeated has remained stable over the time period studied, with a slightly higher proportion of Otherthan-Serious violations than Serious violations. Repeat violations constitute less than 2% of the total each year since In 2015, there was a significant shift in the assessed gravity of violations when compared to previous years. The number of gravity level 5 and 10 violations was significantly higher than the previous five-year average. This is particularly significant for businesses, as OSHA bases the administrative penalty amount on the gravity of the violation. The net result is that the average penalty in 2015 was up more than 17% over With the adjustment of administrative penalties due to inflation, the potential for even higher penalties in is high. The revised standard, aligned with the requirements of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, became fully enforceable in While there has been a transition period between the approval of the standard in 2012 and its effective date, it is expected that the number, type and gravity of violations will increase as OSHA begins enforcement of all aspects of the standard. With the transition period and the number of organizations who have successfully implemented the new standard, there are clear steps companies can implement in order to protect workers and comply with the standard. They include clear communication, specific training, proactive audits and inspections and leadership involvement. Violations of the standard are an indicator of the broader health and safety concern relative to the exposure of employees to hazardous chemicals. The burden of disease associated with chemical exposure is difficult to assess, yet most public health officials believe it to be significant (Driscoll, Nelson, Steenland, page 6

7 References Driscoll, T., Nelson, D., Steenland, K., & et.al. (2005). The global burden of disease due to occupational carcinogens. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48(6), doi: /ajim Pruess-Ustuen, A., Vickers, C., Haeflger, P., & Bertollini, R. (2011). Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review. Environmental Health, 10(1), 9. doi: / x-10-9 US Department of Labor. (2016, Jul 12). Department of Labor Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, Catch-up Adjustments Final Rule 81: Retrieved from United States Department of Labor: oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=federal_register&p_id=27407 US Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health. (2016, Jun 29). Hazard Communication. Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved Jun 29, 2016, from cgi-bin/text-idx?sid=d30ccb1050b915c6502ad01c0c34eb49&mc=true&node=se _11200&rgn=div8 US Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health. (2016). OSHA Enforcement Data. Retrieved from US Department of Labor: gov/views/data_summary.php page 7

8 Appendix A OSHA Enforcement Data Dictionary Long Name Field Name Description Format Abate Complete abate_complete Q=Quick Fix X=Abatement Completed I=Corrected During Inspection E=Not Completed - Employer out of business W=Not Changed - Worksite changed S=Not Completed - Solicitor advised A=Not Completed - AD discretion Alphanumeric, Length=1 Abate Date abate_date Date by which the violation must be abated (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 Activity NR activity_nr Identifies the parent inspection Numeric, Length:9 Citation Id citation_id Identifies the citation number. item number. and item group of the issued citation. Alphanumeric, Length:7 Contest Date contest_date Date contested (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 Current Penalty current_penalty Current penalty assessed (ZZZZZZ9.99) Alphanumeric, Length:10 Delete Flag delete_flag D=deleted Alphanumeric, Length:1 Emphasis emphasis X. blank Alphanumeric, Length=1 Exposed nr_exposed Number of employees exposed Numeric, Length=5 Final Order Date final_order_date Date of final order (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 FTA Contest Date fta_contest_date FTA contest date (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 FTA Current Penalty fta_penalty FTA penalty (ZZZZZZ9.99) Alphanumeric, Length:10 FTA Final Order Date fta_final_order_date FTA final order date (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 FTA Inspection NR fta_insp_nr FTA inspection nr Numeric, Length:9 FTA Issuance Date fta_issuance_date FTA issuance date (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 Gravity gravity Level of gravity for serious violation blank (primary consideration in determining penalty amounts.) Alphanumeric, Length=2 Hazard Category hazcat General industry standard hazard category Alphanumeric, Length:10 Hazardous Substance 1 hazsub1 Hazardous substance code Alphanumeric, Length:4 Hazardous Substance 2 hazsub2 Hazardous substance code Alphanumeric, Length:4 Hazardous Substance 3 hazsub3 Hazardous substance code Alphanumeric, Length:4 Hazardous Substance 4 hazsub4 Hazardous substance code Alphanumeric, Length:4 Hazardous Substance 5 hazsub5 Hazardous substance code Alphanumeric, Length:4 Initial Penalty initial_penalty Initial penalty assessed (ZZZZZZ9.99) Alphanumeric, Length=10 Instances nr_instances Number of instances Numeric, Length=5 Issuance Date issuance_date Date of citation issuance (yyyymmdd) Numeric, Length:8 REC (Related Event Code) rec A=Accident C=Complaint I=Imminent Danger R=Referral V=Variance Alphanumeric, Length:1 Standard standard The OSHA standard violated Alphanumeric, Length=22 Violation Type viol_type S=Serious W=Willful R=Repeat O=Other Alphanumeric, Length=1 page 8

9 Gravity of Violation. The gravity of the violation is the primary consideration in determining penalty amounts. It shall be the basis for calculating the basic penalty for both serious and other violations. To determine the gravity of a violation the following two assessments shall be made: 1. The severity of the injury or illness which could result from the alleged violation. 2. The probability that an injury or illness could occur as a result of the alleged violation. Violations. The following circumstances may normally be considered, as appropriate, when violations likely to result in injury or illness are involved: 1. Number of workers exposed. 1. Frequency of exposure or duration of employee overexposure to contaminants. 1. Employee proximity to the hazardous conditions. 1. Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). 1. Medical surveillance program. 1. Youth and inexperience of workers, especially those under 18 years old. 1. Other pertinent working conditions. Reference: page 9