Page 37 - MetalForming June 2010

procedure for OSHA regions and state plan states.
• Targeting of high-emphasis haz- ards for inspection, such as fall haz- ards, exposure to hazardous chemicals, LO/TO and 1910.212 general machine guarding amputation hazards.
What are OSHA’s criteria for any inspection or employer to be included under this new severe violator enforce- ment program? Here’s OSHA’s list: Any inspection that meets one or
more of criteria A through D, at the time that the citations are issued, will be considered a severe viola- tor enforcement case. Willful and repeated citations and failure-to- abate notices must be based on serious violations, except for recordkeeping, which must be egregious (e.g., per-instance cita- tions). See FOM, CPL 02-00-148, Chapter 6, paragraphs V.A.1. and VI.A.1.
A) Fatality/Catastrophe Criterion— A fatality/catastrophe inspection in which OSHA finds one or more willful or repeated violations or fail- ure-to-abate notices based on a serious violation related to a death of an employee or three or more hospitalizations.
Note: The violations under this criterion do not have to be high- emphasis hazards as defined in Section XII, (p.5).
B) Non-Fatality/Catastrophe Cri- terion Related to High-Emphasis Hazards—An inspection in which OSHA finds two or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to- abate notices (or any combination of these violations/ notices), based on high gravity serious violations related to a high-emphasis hazard as defined in Section XII, (p. 5).
C) Non-Fatality/Catastrophe Cri-
terion for Hazards Due to the Potential Release of a Highly Hazardous Chemical (Process Safety Management)—An inspec- tion in which OSHA finds three or more willful or repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices (or any combination of these viola- tions/notices), based on high grav- ity serious violations related to haz- ards due to the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical, as defined in the PSM standard.
D) Egregious Criterion—All egre- gious (e.g., per-instance citations) enforcement actions will be con- sidered SVEP cases.
And, what does OSHA plan to require in settlement agreements to settle SVEP citations? Here is its list of demands: D) Enhanced Settlement Provi-
sions—The following settlement provisions shall be considered to ensure future compliance both at the cited facility and at other relat- ed facilities of the employer:
1) Employers shall hire a qualified safety and health consultant to develop and implement an effective and comprehensive safety and health program or, where appro- priate, a program to ensure full compliance with the subpart under which the employer was cited under the SVEP;
with the National Office of the
Solicitor.
3) Requiring interim abatement con- trols if OSHA is convinced that final abatement cannot be accom- plished in a short period of time;
4) In construction (and, where appro- priate, in general industry), using settlement agreements to obtain from the employer a list of its cur- rent jobsites, or future jobsites within a specified time period. The employer should be required to indicate to OSHA the specific pro- tective measure to be used for each current or future jobsite;
5) Requiring the employer for a spec- ified time period to submit to the area director its log of work-relat- ed injuries andillnesses on a quar- terly basis, and to consent to OSHA conducting an inspection based on the information;
6) Requiring the employer for a spec- ified time period to notify the area office of any serious injury or illness requiring medical attention and to consent to an inspection; and
7) Obtaining employer consent to entry of a court enforcement order under Section 11(b) of the Act.
E) Federal Court Enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act—SVEP cases should be strongly considered for section 11(b) orders when it appears that such orders may be needed to assure compliance. An employer’s obligation to abate a cited violation arises when there is a final order of the Review Commission affirming the citation. For guidance on draft- ing citations and settlement agree- ments that can maximize the deter- rent effect of a Section 11(b) order, see FOM (CPL 02-00-148) Chap- ter 15, section XIV. MF
www.metalformingmagazine.com
METALFORMING / JUNE 2010 35
2)
Note: Employers cannot be required in a settlement agree- ment to use OSHA’s state con- sultation services; such services are strictly voluntary.
Applying the agreement company- wide (See CPL 02-00-090 Guide- lines for Administration of Corpo- rate-wide Settlement Agreements. June 3, 1991);
Note: Company-wide settlement agreements are to be coordinated