Page 46 - MetalForming August 2015

You and The Law
incidents involving repeat offenders; incidents involving SVEP/NEP/LEP employers; and any report of imminent danger. Frankly, none of these should come as a surprise to an employer famil- iar with how OSHA operates. Still, it is helpful to know that you can absolutely, positively expect a knock on the door if you fall into one of these scenarios.
Category 2 reports are incidents that may be inspected depending on how an employer responds to certain questions asked during the intake discussion. Although the list of questions set forth in the memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, multiple “yes” responses most likely will result in an inspection. Among the factors to be considered are
whether: 1) the incident resulted from the failure of a safety program such as LOTO, PSM, etc.; 2) the employee was exposed to a serious hazard; 3) tempo- rary workers were injured or made ill; 4) another governmental agency made the referral; 5) the employer has a prior OSHA inspection history; 6) a whistle- blower complaint pending; or 7) the employer is a participant in a coopera- tive program such as VPP or SHARP.
Category 3 reports likely will involve situations where the majority of responses to the above questions were negative. The applicable area office, however, still may launch what OSHA refers to as a rapid response investiga- tion (RRI). Just like the initial intake call, OSHA has prepared a script to be followed during the conversation with an employer when initiating an RRI. As part of the process, OSHA will require a written response and has cre- ated what it refers to as a non-manda- tory investigative tool, which the employer can fill out and return in lieu of sending a letter. Notably, this tool includes a request for a root cause analysis. Although the sample size at this time is small, many employers pre- fer to draft their own letter rather than use OSHA’s tool, for obvious reasons.
So, while some employers may view this memorandum and its appendices as yet another example of OSHA mak- ing their lives more difficult, I believe that it provides valuable insight into how the agency evaluates reports, clues employers in on the questions they likely will be asked, and gives a good idea of when to expect that knock on the door. Proactive employers would be well-served to ensure that their employee health and safety leaders are fully aware of this development and consider training any and all individu- als who routinely handle incident reporting and/or interface with OSHA.
For a copy of this hard-to-locate reporting memorandum, contact us at dehlke@ehlkelawoffices.com. MF
Aaron Gelb of Vedder Price, Chicago, IL, contributed to this article.
KEEP SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY FROM GOING UP IN SMOKE WITH QUINTOLUBRIC® FIRE-RESISTANT HYDRAULIC FLUIDS.
Mineral oils are highly flammable and are a serious source of fire hazard in high temperature environments and applications close to open flames or red-hot metal parts. The risk is further increased
by the rapid and aggressive ignition rate of mineral oils which can cause disruption in production, plant shutdown, increased insurance premiums, and threats to worker safety.
For those who won’t compromise on efficiency or safety, there’s the QUINTOLUBRIC®line of fire-resistant hydraulic fluids. Our solutions keep your machines working at optimal performance with fewer interruptions and a longer life span for a lower total cost of ownership, increased safety and reduced risk.
Our experts work with you to improve operations, process and efficiency, so you’ll keep going strong and keep your workers safe.
QUINTOLUBRIC®– Minimize Risk. Maximize Production.TM
Contact us today.
info@quakerchem.com | quintolubric.com | 1.800.523.7010
© 2015 Quaker Chemical Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
44
MetalForming/August 2015
www.metalformingmagazine.com