Welcome to Osh.netGateway for Safety & Health Information Resources
Sign up for your online newsletter
Powered by WorkCare
About UsLink DirectoryArticlesResource CenterBulletin Board
Industrial Hygiene
Emergency Management
Enviromental Management
Occupational Health
Government Agencies and Regulations
Internet EHS Sites
Professional Development
Safety Humor Site
Drug And Alcohol Testing
Vol. 1, No. 4 May 21, 1999
  OSHA News for Industry
  U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA North Aurora, Illinois

CCP Invalidated by DC Circuit Court of Appeals

In a decision dated April 12, 1999, the District of Columbia U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Cooperative Compliance Program directive. OSHA issued the CCP about a year and a half ago as a new way to impact safety in this country. The idea was to notify and convince employers with higher lost workday injury and illness rates to implement a comprehensive safety and health program and decrease their rates.

OSHA believed that the CCP directive constituted an inspection plan. The parties opposing the CCP felt that it was a safety and health standard which had not gone through the notice and comment procedure required to issue a standard. The Court concluded that the CCP imposed more stringent requirements than were already on the books, the CCP was a standard making employers implement a safety and health program, and the Court thereby vacated the directive.

In order to implement the CCP, OSHA is now required to go through a public notice and comment period. This course of action does not appear likely. Instead, it appears that we will continue to use alternate inspection targeting methods (discussed below). It is not known whether the court decision will be appealed.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the CCP can be found at:


Interim Targeting Inspection Program Ends

During the past year while the CCP was pending court review, OSHA implemented an alternate system of inspection targeting called the Interim Targeting Inspection Program. A few remaining ITIP inspections may be initiated/completed. To give you an idea of the problems we have seen on ITIPs, a summary of the hazards the Aurora office has been finding under this targeting system has been compiled. This summary is toward the end of the newsletter.

Site Specific Targeting Program Begins

The successor to the Interim Targeting Inspection Program took effect 4/19/99. OSHA Directive Number 99-3 (CPL 2), Site Specific Targeting is now in effect. OSHA offices already have received new site inspection lists based on a survey of 1997 injury and illness data for employers with 50 or more employees.

The following manufacturing and industry classifications with Lost Work Day Injury/Illness rates above 16 comprise the initial SST pool:



SICs with final digit of zero are three-digit SICs and include all four-digit SICs with the same first three digits. If you need to find out your SIC, there is an on-line SIC code manual at http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html

If an area office completes their first list, they can request a new list. The second list will contain firms with LWDII rates of 10 and above in the same SIC codes. This is only a quick notification of the existence of the new directive, for more details it is advisable to check the directive on the OSHA web at:


Letters Sent To High LWDII Rate Employers

OSHA has sent letters to 12,500 employers with LWDII rates of 8.0 and above to notify them of OSHA's concern for their injury/illness rate and to recommend action be taken. No requirements or partnerships are offered in this letter.

Recent Illinois Fatalities

Struck by freight pallet - Employee began moving several ton freight pallet out of a truck manually instead of using a forklift. As he was moving out of the truck and out of the path of the pallet, his foot got stuck in a 5" by 72" hole between the end of the truck and the truck dock. The pallet's mass/inertia cut his leg off and he died. (Note to those with docks: this was a standard dock with two rubber bumpers. No dock plate was in use. The hole his foot got caught in was the hole formed by the two rubber bumpers, the dock, and the truck. The company was cited for the floor hole opening.)

Struck by truck - Brakes failed on parked refuse truck, truck rolled down incline and crushed driver against a fence.

Crushed by elevator lift - Employee riding small product elevator was crushed between vertically moving platform and horizontal bracing of the lift structure.

Machine guarding/in running nip point - Employee checking unusual noise at slitter roll stand in a steel mill kicked the spindle box. In running rolls caught his foot and dragged him into the machine up to his chest.

Pressure vessel testing - Pressure vessel undergoing 1275 psig hydrostatic test had catastrophic failure of gasket. Millwright standing near the flange joint of the vessel was struck in the face by high pressure air/water.

Struck by truck - After fueling an airplane, the fuel truck backed up and struck an employee.

Exploding car tire - Car tire was lying on the floor of the service station, with an individual bent over the tire filling it from a 150 psi compressor. The tire exploded, striking him in the face.

Struck by truck - Landfill truck driver's view was obstructed by the truck's load, and as he backed the truck he ran over an employee.

Confined space entry - Employee entered the top of a silo and was overcome by an oxygen deficient atmosphere. Confined space entry procedures were not in place.

Struck by machined part - Part broke loose from the chuck jaws of a turret lathe, striking an employee.

Electrocution - Lineman repairing a storm-damaged line contacted a line and was electrocuted. The storm had jumpered a second line to the line under repair, energizing it.

Struck by tractor - Mower operator on golf course was run over by tractor and mower.

Flammable explosion - Employee making repairs to truck gasoline tank lit a propane torch without ventilating the area to eliminate flammable vapors. Vapors exploded, killing the employee.

Amputations and Other Industrial Incidents

Explosion at cylinder rehab firm - At an outdoor storage area of a propane cylinder rehabilitation firm, gas from a leaking cylinder ignited, causing many other cylinders to explode. Metal shrapnel was hurled throughout the adjacent neighborhood. Employees did a good job of evacuating the facility, and no one was hurt. A forklift not approved for this operation was used and may have been the ignition source.

Press Amputation - Employee's hand was crushed by a part revolution press and amputated at the wrist. The spring on the inch control was broken, allowing the press to be inched with one hand instead of two hand controls as designed. Set up operator reached around back of press to catch a part, the press cycled instead of inching, catching the employee's hand.

Press Amputation - Temporary employee clearing away scrap behind a mechanical power press placed his hand on the press to maintain his balance. The press operator cycled the press not realizing the other employee was behind the press. The back and sides of the press were not guarded. Four fingers were amputated. The temp employee was certified by the temp agency as a press operator, but his only prior experience was in food service.

Press Amputation - A setup person had completed press setup and was running a few parts. The press was equipped for a full barrier guard or pull backs. The setup person did not use either guarding device. The press either double-tripped, or the setup person unintentionally stepped on the foot pedal while his hand was in the point of operation.

Press Amputation - An employee attempting to unjam a part in the die on a mechanical power press reached through a hinged plate in the guard and accidentally stepped on the foot pedal, amputating three fingers.

Interlocks in Lieu of Lockout

An issue we grapple with frequently is the practice of using an interlock system instead of physically locking out a machine. An example would be a hinged guard which has an electrical interlock device installed: when the guard is opened the interlock breaks contact, shutting off control power to the machine.

An employer relying on interlocks to protect an employee from the point of operation will receive a citation for lockout or machine guarding (and often receives a citation for both issues). In OSHA's view, interlocks may only be used as a substitute for fixed fasteners connecting a guard to a machine. We do not accept interlocks in lieu of locking out a machine for the following reasons:

- Interlocks can be defeated,

- Interlock devices can fail,

- Typical interlock wiring shuts off power to the control circuit only. Full power is still available to the operating parts of the machine and the employee can thus be exposed to unexpected machine start up.

- We have investigated a number of amputations caused by failed or bypassed interlocks.

We performed an inspection of an amputation where interlocks were used instead of locking out the machine. Interlocks may have played a part in the injury (guarding was also an issue). An employee was setting up a machine which used an interlocked gate to cut control power. During set up the machine unexpectedly activated, and the employee experienced amputations and severe trauma. This could easily have been a fatality. Citations were issued for guarding and lockout.

Another amputation case involved a machine with a defeated interlock. Parts being pressed in the machine often stuck to the hot die, and the guard got in the way of removing these parts. In this case the guard was rotated out of the way, and the interlock on the guard was defeated by supervision/employees. When a new employee reached in to clear a part, the machine activated and caught her arm in the die, and she lost most of the arm.

In a third case an interlock failed but no one was injured. An employee performing set up opened an interlocked guard as a means of shutting the machine off, and then activated the machine start button to insure that the machine would not start. The machine promptly started because the interlock device failed. The employee did not perform set up and was spared potential injury. This example again illustrated OSHA's point: interlocks can fail.

Please check out your equipment and procedures for reliance on interlocks instead of locking out, and don't rely on interlocks.

Electrical Issue

Knockout box extension cords - It's easy to put together an extension cord from a metal knockout box and an electrical cord. These are often seen on construction sites, but are also observed in manufacturing. These custom made extension cords may be quick and inexpensive, but they also present electrical hazards. Knockout boxes are designed to be mounted on fixed surfaces, and are not appropriate for unsecured use for these reasons:

1. Knockouts can be displaced, exposing live electrical parts through the knockout holes.

2. Cords may pull out of the box due to lack of strain relief at the cord and box connection.

3. As the box is moved and knocked around, connections inside the box can and do come loose; when the hot lead contacts the metal box the box becomes electrically live.

4. Plastic outlet plates often crack and break, exposing live connections.

5. Finally, use of a knockout box extension cord in a wet location is hazardous.

Knockout boxes were designed to be secured to surfaces, please use them that way.

References: 1910.303(b)(2) and 1999 NEC 300-11(a) "... boxes, cabinets, and fittings shall be securely fastened in place."

A Word on "Employee Carelessness" and "Employee Error"

Some supervisors have the opinion that most occupational injuries are caused by employee error or carelessness. They will even quote an unnamed study that proves this (we are not sure what study they are talking about). We don't agree with the employee error theory. The attitude that employee error causes most/all injuries is often a roadblock to correction of hazards, as the supervisor fails to do a complete accident investigation. Supervisors need to take the time to find and fix the problem in order to reduce injuries and the costs associated with injuries.

Case in point: On a recent inspection of a plastic fabricator, our compliance officer noted an unguarded table saw. In interviewing the table saw operator, she discovered that the table saw had cut his middle finger, amputating it up to the first joint, and that the fourth finger had nerve damage from the saw cut. The compliance officer obtained a copy of the Supervisor's First Report of Injury, and here are the plant manager's findings:

NATURE OF THE INJURY: Saw cut on fingers of right hand.

OBJECT RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY: Plastic part kicked back, table saw blade entered fingers.


HOW DID ACCIDENT OCCUR?: Operator error.


OSHA-200 LOG ENTRY: cut right finger

The injury had occurred on the table saw in April 1998, and almost one year later the saw remained unguarded! We don't think that the finger amputation would have occurred if a saw blade guard was in place, despite any operator error or inexperience. To their credit, the employer asked how they could improve in this regard. Our suggestion to the company was to do a more thorough investigation in the future. In this case, the report should have said something to the effect of "Unguarded table saw blade cut/amputated employees fingers. Guard has been installed and supervision will ensure that guard is used."

Most injuries can be prevented. A thorough investigation of incidents will help pinpoint physical hazards and go a long way toward improving the company's injury/illness record. Injury investigations have a purpose beyond simply reporting the incident to the workers comp carrier: to help the company control/reduce the number of injuries. If completion of the first report of injury is viewed in this way (and as something more than just filling out paperwork or as a means to limit liability), progress can be made in cutting injuries and comp costs.

Questions and Answers

1) My company is in the process of developing a record retention policy. Is there a document that presently exists that would list all of the required documentation and retention period for each of OSHA's standards?

We don't know a document listing records retention requirements from all the OSHA standards, but would be happy to develop one for transmission to our subscribers. If any of you have a records retention policy, we would appreciate it if you would send it to us to assist in our effort.

2) We had a discussion yesterday about employee access to OSHA 200 logs and if employees can see the entire log. Could you answer the question in the e-mail newsletter, please?

According to the Blue Book, page 58, question a-4, employees have the right to see and/or copy the entire log, including the names of the injured employees.

3) Do I need a respirator program for voluntary use of a one strap dust mask purchased at a hardware store?

According to a Chicago Region 5 interpretation letter dated 4/20/98, the voluntary use of an uncertified dust mask such as the type that can be purchased at a hardware store is covered under the respirator standard. However, the only requirements which would need to be met are the same as for voluntary use of NIOSH certified filtering facepiece dust masks: (1) provide a copy of Appendix D of the respirator standard, and (2) make sure the mask itself does not pose a hazard (i.e. don't store it where it could pick up materials which could cause problems such as skin irritation).

This answer assumes that an air contaminant overexposure does not exist.

Recordkeeping Standard

As of 5/10/99, the proposed recordkeeping standard had not gone to the Office of Management and Budget for review. However, OSHA is still pushing hard to publish the final rule this year. The new standard is now expected to be published two-three months later than the June 1999 target date, with an effective date of January 1, 2000. OSHA will conduct extensive training and outreach on the new rule following publication.

Favorite OSHA Web Addresses

The OSHA web site is becoming more and more popular each month. January 1999 had 12.3 million hits to www.osha.gov, and two months later in March there were 17.3 million hits. Here are some of our favorite spots on the OSHA Internet:


Includes the "Blue Book" and information on the proposed standard.

ergonomics: http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/index.html

The draft ergo standard is available here.

standards and interps: http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_toc/OSHA_Std_toc.html

When you select a specific standard such as 1910.212, hit the interpretation button near the beginning of the section for all related interpretation letters.

new/proposed standards: http://www.osha-slc.gov/Reg_Agenda_toc/UA_toc_by_RIN.html

This is OSHA's regulatory agenda which is published every six months.

inspection history: http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/

Establishment search tracks the inspection history of any company.

frequently cited: http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/

Frequently cited standards are available for various industries.

Thank You

In March 1999, the Aurora OSHA Office received a national award for OSHA Innovators of the Year. This award was for the electronic mail newsletters OSHA News for Industry and Aurora Construction News. A good portion of the award nomination proposal consisted of testimonials and positive feedback from our readers. Thank you for your support.


ASSE/OSHA Joint Safety Conference - The 11th annual conference has been scheduled for 9/27-28/99, Rosemont, Illinois Holiday Inn. This meeting is co-sponsored by a number of groups, including the NE Illinois Chapter of the ASSE, Chicagoland federal OSHA offices, and the OSHA Training Institute. Contact this office for additional information.

OSHA 10 hour course - The Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs/On-Site Consultation Service is offering an OSHA 10 hour course for $25. The next two courses are scheduled for:

August 3 and 4, 1999 Manteno, IL

November 3 and 10, 1999 Effingham, IL

Please contact Tony DeAssuncao at 217-524-4141 for details on the 10 hour course.

Frequent OSHA Complaint Issues

These are the complaint issues received by the Aurora office. The first four are in order and represent 80% of the complaints received. The remaining issues are in random order.

1) Air Contaminants
2) Housekeeping - Sanitation
3) Personal Protective Equipment including Respirators
4) Electrical hazards
5) Struck by - storage hazards
6) Ergonomics
7) Lockout/tagout
8) Forklifts
9) Confined Space Entry
10) Bloodborne Pathogens
11) Welding
12) Machine Guarding
13) Emergency Response for Chemical Spills
14) Noise
15) Asbestos
16) Lead
17) Silica
18) Fire Protection/Egress
19) Structural Collapse
20) Trenching
21) Process Safety Management
22) Carbon Monoxide
23) Cranes/Slings
24) Hazard Communication
25) Fall Hazards

Frequently Cited Serious Violations By Program Area

Interim Targeting Inspection Program

Aurora Area Office

4/10/98 - 5/1/99

Standard Description

  • 1910.212 Machine Guarding



  • 1910.132 Personal Protective Equipment


  • 1910.147 Lockout/Tagout, Electrical Safe Work Practices


  • 1910.22 Walking and Working Surfaces


  • 1910.303 Electrical Hazards


  • 5a1 General Duty Clause
  • 1910.1200 Hazard Communication
  • 1910.178 Powered Industrial Trucks
  • 1910.95 Occupational Exposure to Noise
  • 1910.151 First Aid
  • 1910.242 Powered Hand Tools
  • 1910.106 Flammable and Combustible Materials
  • 1910.146 Confined Space
  • 1910.1000 Air Contaminants
  • 1910.252 Welding

    Comments on Frequent Serious Interim Targeting Inspection Program Violations

  • Machine Guarding - unguarded point of operation, unadjusted work rests and tongue guards, unguarded belts and pulleys

  • PPE - no hazard assessment, incorrect PPE, deficient respirator program, incorrect respirator

  • Lockout/Tagout - deficient written program, not using locks, not completing inspections

  • Walking/Working Surfaces - unguarded floor openings, missing guardrails, defective ladders

  • Electrical Hazards - frayed wires, defective cords, blocked electrical boxes

  • General Duty Clause - unguarded conveyor, defective cranes, deficient medical surveillance programs for employees exposed to silica, deficient lighting, misuse of golf carts, not marking capacity on custom made hooks

  • Hazard Communication - deficient written program, lack of training, missing labels

  • Powered Industrial Trucks - high carbon monoxide in emissions, defective trucks not removed from services, operating trucks without adequate lighting

  • Industrial Noise - employees exposed to noise above 90 dBA, no hearing conservation program, not performing annual audiograms, not using hearing protection

  • First Aid - not providing eye wash facilities when working with corrosive materials

  • Powered Hand Tools - defective cords, using air pressure above 30 p.s.i. to clean clothing
  • Flammable and Combustible Materials - incorrect flammable storage, not grounding during dispensing flammable materials

  • Confined Space - deficient written program, not following written procedures during an entry

  • Air Contaminants - over exposure to silica, carbon monoxide, and total dust

  • Welding - incorrect PPE, improper procedures for welding on containers containing flammable materials

Frequently Cited Serious Violations

Aurora Area Office

First Half Federal FY-1999

10/1/98 - 3/31/99

1. Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause
2. 1910.212(a)(1) General Machine Guarding
3. 1910.1200(h) Hazard Communication Training
4. 1910.23(c)(1) Walking/working surfaces
5. 1910.147(c)(1) Lockout program
6. 1910.147(d)(4)(I) Lockout devices not affixed
7. 1910.1000(e) Air contaminant overexposure/engineering controls
8. 1910.133(a)(1) Eye/face protection
9. 1910.305(b)(2) Covers for electrical boxes
10. 1910.147(c)(7)(I)(a) Lockout training

Comments on Frequent Serious Violations

1. General Duty Clause - Many of the general duty violations were observed on the Interim Targeting Inspection Program. ITIP visits are comprehensive wall-to-wall inspections, and we are taking a good look for hazards. See the next section of the newsletter for a description of various 5(a)(1)s issued in the past six months.

2. General Machine Guarding - For machine guarding hazards, OSHA looks to see if an employee can access the machine hazard by going over, under, around, or through the machinery or any existing guarding.

3. Hazard Communication Training - The purchase of new types of chemical products or employees transferred from one department to another may spur the need for additional chemical hazard training.

4. Walking/working surfaces - Floor openings, platform guardrails, ladders, and stairway guardrails

5. Lockout program - Many firms continue to have no lockout program at all, and of those that do have a written program, the program often does not include specific written procedures for each machine as required. An annual evaluation of the lockout program is also required.

6. Lock not used - We are making the effort to observe maintenance and servicing operations. It is surprising how many firms are not using locks. A periodic audit done in-house would help these sites to identify the problem of not using locks.

7. Air contaminant engineering controls - Air contaminant violations have broken into the top 10 serious hazards for the first time in memory, and it happened for two reasons. First of all, under the Interim Targeting Inspection Program we are visiting a different mix of sites than under past scheduling systems, and our industrial hygienists are doing a lot of sampling on these sites. Secondly, in the first half of the fiscal year there were a number of carbon monoxide poisoning incidents caused by forklift exhaust gas buildup inside facilities.

8. Eye/face protection - Protective equipment programs are an area of concentration for the Aurora office this year. We have asked our industrial hygiene compliance officers to conduct a thorough review of PPE/respirators.

9. Electrical box covers - Outlet boxes and panel boxes were missing covers/faceplates.

10. Lockout training - We continue to investigate lockout programs on all industry inspections, and part of the process is to check employee training records and interview employees on their training. In some cases maintenance employees have not been trained. In other cases, OSHA is citing for machine operators who are doing machine set up, cleaning, and unjamming equipment. Machine operators doing this kind of servicing and maintenance work are "authorized employees" under the lockout standard, and need authorized employee training.

General Duty Clause

Aurora Area Office, 10/1/98 - 3/31/99


Climbing up on equipment, 8 foot fall hazard

Inadequate/damaged lifting devices

Frayed electrical cord on electromagnet

No capacity markings (multiple instances)

Plate clamp no marking for plate thickness capacities

Custom made dual spreader bar not proof tested (device was manufactured in-house)

Custom made scissor clamp not proof tested (device manufactured in-house)

Eye bolts and hoist rings not marked with rated load

Custom made grab hooks not marked, proof tested, inspected, minimum design factor of 3

----- For above items, see ANSI B30.20 Below The Hook Lifting Devices standard


Restaurant deep fryer not drained or allowed to cool before cleaning


Ignition system of propane heater permanently wired in the "on" position (gas would continue to flow even if the flame was extinguished)

Mopping floors with xylene and toluene


Tuberculosis control program

Powered Industrial Trucks

Not using seat belts when provided on forklift

Using rough terrain forklift to move rail cars

When You Change Your E-Mail Address...

If you want to keep receiving these newsletters, please e-mail us change of electronic address. We find that 5-7% of the electronic mail subscriber base changes their e-mail address every three months, mostly through changing internet service providers and job changes. When the list was small, we telephoned people whose e-mail address failed in order to determine the new address. As the list gets larger (it is now at 750), it is becoming more and more difficult to find the time to telephone for the new address. In the near future, we plan on discontinuing the practice of telephoning for changed e-mail addresses.

Please send an address change, just as you would if you moved your residence.

About Our Newsletters

OSHA News for Industry is issued twice a year. Aurora OSHA Construction News is issued approximately four times a year. If you have comments, suggestions for future articles, or questions, please contact:

U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA
344 Smoke Tree Business Park
North Aurora, IL 60542

Requests to be added to the e-mail list should include a name and phone number. Please indicate general industry news, construction news, or both. We also like to have your company name and location, but that's optional.



Original articles © WorkCare™; Orange, California.