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. 5 November 23, 1999
  OSHA News for Industry
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA North Aurora, Illinois

OSHA Ergonomics Standard Proposed

The long awaited proposed ergonomics standard was published today 11/23/99 in the Federal Register (Federal Register reference is http://www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19991123.html). The document is 312 pages, but only the last 12 pages comprise the proposed rule.

Here is a brief outline of the proposal. Further information is available on OSHA's web page.

  • Applies only to general industry, does not apply to construction, agriculture, or maritime operations.
  • Covers certain manufacturing jobs, certain manual handling jobs, and jobs with a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD). The proposed standard is job-based, applying to specific jobs having physical work activities/physical exertion as a core element of the job. Ergonomics programs need not cover all jobs at a workplace.
  • At the minimum, covered employers would be required to implement a basic er.gonomics program, implementing the (a) Management Leadership/Employee Participation and (b) Hazard Information and Reporting portions of the proposal.
  • Employers experiencing an MSD would be required to implement the full six point er.gonomics program. However, there is a Quick Fix option to exempt an employer from having to implement a full er.gonomics program if a problem job is corrected quickly and completely.

  • One provision grandfathers existing ergo programs.

  • Work restriction protection provision to maintain pay and benefits for up to six months while an employee is on temporary work restriction.

At no charge, OSHA is making available a CD with the complete regulatory text, the preamble, the complete regulatory analysis and the full discussion of health effects. Both the CD and printed copies can be ordered over the web, or by calling 202-693-1888. These materials will also be available on the OSHA website.

Ergonomics Proposal Comment Period and Hearing Dates

January 24, 2000 Filing deadline for the "Notice of intent to appear"

February 1, 2000 Postmark or fax deadline for written comments, e-comments and written testimony

Feb 22- March 17, 2000 Hearing in Washington DC

March 21-31, 2000 Portland, Oregon hearing

April 11-21, 2000 Chicago, Illinois hearing

No Routine OSHA Request for Employer Voluntary Self-Audit Reports

In the 10/6/99 Federal Register, OSHA proposed a policy concerning employer internal safety and health audits. The proposal states that OSHA will not routinely request voluntary self-audit reports at the initiation of an inspection. In other words, OSHA staff would be directed not to use audits as a road map to focus inspection activity.

Note that this does not mean that OSHA will never request employer audits. If the agency is investigating a specific safety or health hazard, OSHA may exercise its authority to obtain the relevant portions of voluntary self-audit reports relating to a hazard. For example, if OSHA was evaluating exposure to an air contaminant, we would request past air sampling data.

OSHA issued a 10/6/99 press release regarding the employer audit policy making three points:

1. No Routine Request for Voluntary Self-Audit Reports (as described above)

2. Safe Harbor--No Use of Voluntary Self-Audit Reports as Evidence of Willfulness (if an employer promptly takes diligent steps to correct the violation and provides effective interim employee protection where necessary)

3. Good Faith Penalty Reduction

With regard to OSHA inspection penalty credits, OSHA will treat a voluntary self-audit that results in prompt action to correct violations found as well as steps to prevent similar violations as strong evidence of an employer's good faith with respect to matters covered by the voluntary self-audit. The policy will not apply to repeat violations.

Comments on the policy are due to the OSHA Docket Office by December 6, 1999.

Dock Safety: Use of Trailer Support Jacks During PIT Loading/Unloading

Many companies do not routinely use support jack(s) to support the front ends of uncoupled trailers during PIT (powered industrial truck) loading/unloading. If you have an uncoupled truck trailer at your loading dock, the trailer's landing gear alone may not be enough support to prevent possible downturning of the and subsequent PIT tipover. You should know the weight of your heaviest PIT, the load capacity of the trailer it's entering and the condition of the trailer's landing gear. We recommend the following steps to eliminate or reduce potential hazards:

1. On trailers which are less than 30 feet in length, place one T-frame style jack (approximately 36 inch wide center bar) under front center of trailer or two post-type jacks under the front end corners of trailer, prior to loading or unloading by a PIT. The potential for downturning of trailers is far greater in smaller, single axle "pup" trailers than in larger, tandem axle trailers.

2. Confirm that the rated load capacities of any support jacks used are appropriate for the maximum weights of the loaded trailers and PITs they will support.

3. Train personnel in the proper selection, placement and maintenance of jacks.

4. Train applicable personnel in the visual inspection of landing gear on all trailers. Signs of landing gear damage or road fatigue are misaligned or bent legs. Landing gear damage or fatigue can easily lead to landing gear failure (collapse) on any size trailer.

5. If the trailers are longer than 30 feet and will be loaded to their rated capacity, consider using support jacks.

Recent Illinois Fatalities

Fall from platform - An employee was cleaning a grating located 30' above a river. The grating was corroded , and when the employee stepped onto the grating it gave way. He fell 30' to the river and died.

Crushed - An employee was removing a coil of sheet metal from a turnstile using a coil cart. An employee moved the cart and the coil rolled off the cart pinning the employee. The employee was crushed to death.

Fall through ceiling - Two hotel employees entered a ceiling to take measurements of a plumbing pipe that needed to be repaired. The walking surface consisted of beams 16" apart. The employees had taken the measurement when one of the employees fell between the beams, falling 30 feet to the ballroom floor.

Ammonia leak - Two employees entered a cheese cooler to identify the origin of a possible ammonia leak in a cooling line. One employee in a man basket attempted to tighten a valve when the release of anhydrous ammonia occurred. The employee in the man basket died from acute exposure to ammonia and the second employee on ground level was treated.

Fall from elevated platform - An employee was pushing 250 pounds of copper cooling plates along a 24 inch high horizontal conveyor towards the edge of a 45-foot high platform. A 23 inch long portion of the mid-rail belonging to the metal guardrail system surrounding all open sides of this platform was missing. The employee is believed to have fallen through the 23 inch wide opening, falling 45 feet.

Amputations and Other Industrial Incidents

Amputation - Four inch wide piece of material was placed into press brake. Stock was incorrectly aligned (placed at an angle) and there was no guarding on the brake. Press brake cycled, amputating the tips of three fingers.

Forklift Accident - An employee riding the forks of a forklift was injured when the forklift operator ran into an I-beam. The employee on the forks was crushed between the I-beam and the forklift, suffering a fractured pelvis. The employees had been trained based on the requirements of 1910.178 less than 3 weeks before the accident occurred.

Amputation - An employee was a magnet stuffer in the extrusion department when a jam occurred. Instead of de-energizing the machine, the employee reached over the guard. His left middle finger was caught in a belt and pulley, amputating the finger at the first joint.

Useful Web Sites

OSHA Letters of Interpretation

  • Log on to OSHA home page. The address is www.osha.gov.
  • Arrow down to Regulations and Compliance.
  • Single Click on Interpretations.
  • There are three different search methods:
  • Word search

Enter a word for a search. This is a great way to search with very specific keywords, otherwise you will get too much data. For example, if you enter a general search for recordkeeping you will get many (247) records to sift through. However, if you do a search for recordkeeping and hearing loss, a much more manageable 27 records are located.

  • Information Date Search

An entire year's worth of letter subjects will be displayed. Just click on the subject that looks like what you want and the letter will be displayed. If you know the month or exact date this is a great way to search.

  • Standard Number Search

Some of the OSHA folks think this is the best way to search. You will need to know the standard number, as there is no text description. Select the appropriate standard from the list. You will then see a list all letters of interpretation for that set of standards.

OSH Review Commission Decisions

  • Logon to www.osha.gov

  • Click on either ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) decisions, or Commission Decisions. ALJ decisions are the first level at which a contested OSHA citation case would be heard, and Commission decisions are the appealed cases. Commission decisions are easier to search because there are fewer Commission decisions than ALJ decisions.

  • The only word-searchable decisions are the 1981-1992 Commission decisions.

  • 1993-1999 ALJ and Commission decisions have no search function. You will have to cursor through a year's worth of decisions and know which one you are looking for, because each case is listed by the company's name not by topic.

New Small Business Web Site

  • Logon to OSHA's home page (www.osha.gov)
  • Scroll down to the Outreach section and single click on Small Business.
  • There are 9 different topics of information

a. SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)

b. Consultation --Lists all consultation offices and description of services provided.

    • Software Advisor -- Interactive training for topics such as asbestos, confined space, respiratory protection, and more.
    • OSHA Liaison - OSHA's Liaison is Art DeCoursey, number and e-mail address found here.
    • Training Resources - Training materials developed by the OSHA Training Institute located in Des Plaines Illinois.
    • OSHA Publications - Publications that are available for printing. Not all publications are listed here.
    • VPP - Voluntary Protection Plan is explained here.
    • Safety & Health - Useful ways to search OSHA'S inspection database and more.
    • Workplace Hazards - Hazards listed by type such as biological, physical, chemical, etc.

Safety Pays

Pay Me Now Or Pay Me Later

How does the old saying go, "Pay me now or pay me later"? This is a case where a company would have saved money and time through a good preventive maintenance program.

The incident:

A forklift was parked on the decline of a loading ramp and the operator was repositioning the load in front of it. The brakes failed and the operator was struck in the lower back by the forks.

The cost:

Medical treatment (hospital, ambulance, x-ray, etc) $ 1400

Lost production time for thirty co-workers $1350

Four supervisor's time $ 360

Clerical costs $ 200

Filing the insurance report $ 180

Additional management time to investigate the accident $ 720

Overtime to keep the order on schedule $ 4050.

Additional cost of Worker's Compensation Insurance $ ????

The total cost of this accident $8260 + Insurance Rate Increase

Cost of repairing/replacing the brakes $800 - $3000.

Unfortunately for the employee and the company's bottom line, they decided to pay later by deferring lift truck maintenance.

You Can Ship Safety

When he received the CCP letter in December 1997, the Human Resources Manager at one of our local sites was furious with OSHA for picking on them. Many of the company's employees reportedly felt the same way. The attitude and low value about safety could be summed up by one of their production manager's sayings, "You can't ship safety". Now the company has changed its mind and thinks that the CCP was the best thing that OSHA head Charles Jeffress ever did, even if the CCP did not survive in court.

What caused this change of heart? The CCP notification made the company sit back and ask the question, "Are we really one of the worst employers in the industry sector?", and they did not like the answer. After looking at the moral, business, and financial perspective of implementing a safety program, they began to take action on a safety program.

The safety program improved quickly due to the full support of the top manager of the facility, including his time, attention, budget, and authority. In addition, the employees were involved and the safety committee was given shut down authority. At that point the progam really took off. Many improvements were implemented in the past year, and more are planned.

What were the results? The facility engineered a huge decrease in worker's compensation costs from 1998 to 1999. Worker's comp costs exceeded $400,000 in 1998, but year to date 1999 worker's comp costs are less than $10,000. They are $260,000 to the good when comparing direct costs only, and when factoring very conservative indirect costs they are $1,000,000 ahead in 1999.

This company has now realized a huge payback through investment in a safety program. This year, safety was the biggest contributor to an improved bottom line. This company has realized that a good safety program is a part of their product. You can ship safety after all!

Hazard Communication Still A Problem

Even though the Hazard Communication Standard (1910.1200) has been in place for over 13 years, OSHA is still documenting numerous violations of the standard. In Fiscal Year 1999, penalties assessed for violations of this standard exceeded $1.2 million for Region 5 OSHA.

An Offer We Could Refuse

This is a case where a construction employer wanted OSHA to overlook hazards, and attempted to bribe two OSHA employees. The employer ended up in prison, and the citations were affirmed.

A compliance officer conducted an inspection at a Chicagoland construction site, and citations were issued. After the employer failed to verify corrective action, the site was again inspected and repeat citations were issued. After no response to the repeat citations, the site was inspected a third time and the same hazards were noted. When the employer was told of the violations, he asked the compliance officer what could be done to make the third set of citations go away. He then immediately gave the compliance officer a book which had an envelope containing $1000. A short time later the compliance officer found the envelope in the middle of the book, returned to the office, and turned the book/money over to the OSHA supervisor.

OSHA contacted the FBI. A meeting was set up between the employer and the OSHA supervisor, and the supervisor was wearing a wire during the meeting. The employer again asked what could be done to take care of the citations, stating that he knew that it was illegal to bribe a federal officer. He gave the OSHA supervisor $1000 in an envelope. The employer was convicted of bribery and was sentenced to one year in prison, one year house arrest, 5 years of probation and a fine of $5,000.

Grain Handling Facilities Local Emphasis Program

Aurora and Peoria's Grain Handling Facilities LEP is now in full swing! The goals of the program are to provide safety and health information to as many grain handling facilities as possible through leveraging and to ensure compliance through enforcement. Through this emphasis program, we hope to reduce country grain elevator deaths and injuries caused by engulfment, falls, auger entanglement and electrocution. Outreach efforts, facilitated by a strong cooperative relationship with the Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, began in December of 1997. Since then, many grain handling facilities have taken positive steps to address and correct hazards, prior to an OSHA inspection.

Enforcement activity began in early June 1999 and as a result, serious hazards have been eliminated in the areas of confined space, falls, electrical, lockout/tagout and machine guarding. As an example, see the fall protection photo accompanying this article. The program has also spurred increased safety awareness in the industry. Employers are involving their employees more in the safety process, e.g., one large employer is having employees perform safety inspections at facilities they aren't normally assigned to, to facilitate hazard recognition. Also, since each grain storage elevator has contact with many small farm operations, the potential exists for positive impact on a even greater number of employees. We thank the Feed and Grain Association of Illinois for their commitment to improving worker safety and health, as well as all employers who have already addressed hazards or are in the process of doing so. Hope you had a safe and bountiful harvest season!


Grain Bin Fall Hazard Control

Over the years, falls have been the #1cause of fatalities in Illinois grain elevators. A potential fall hazard at this grain bin was addressed by the use of body harness and two lanyard tie off system. For ladder climbing protection, the short lanyard from the chest D ring is connected to a rail mounted on the ladder. Upon reaching the top of the ladder and prior to disconnecting the first lanyard, the employee uses the lanyard connected to the back of the harness to tie off at to the top of the bin. In this way, the employee is always tied off and protected from falling.

Standards and Directives

Safety and Health Programs OSHA plans to send the package for OMB review by the end of CY 1999 and thus the proposal would be published in 2000.

Recordkeeping The new recordkeeping regulations have not been published yet. The plan is to issue the standard in late 1999/early 2000, with an effective date of January 1, 2001. After the final rule is published, outreach sessions will be scheduled.

Bloodborne directive On 11/5/99, a new Bloodborne Pathogens Directive was released. It is on the OSHA web site. 75% of the 263 pages are appendices.


Waubonsee Safety Day will be held at Waubonsee Community College in Sugar Grove, Illinois on March 28, 2000. This all day meeting features OSHA and safety consultant speakers. The cost is $25.00 for the day, and the price includes lunch and refreshments. This is a great deal, and quite often a firm will send their entire safety committee. Registration will be limited to 350 students due to space limitations (non-registered walk-ins will not be accepted this year).

We will mail the course matrix flyer by early February. If interested in receiving this mailing, please call us at 630-896-8700 or e-mail julie.evans@aurora.osha.gov. Registration and fees will be handled by the college. If you would like to suggest a topic or present a 1 hour session, please e-mail us ASAP at julie.evans@aurora.osha.gov .

Construction Safety Conference Protecting Our Future, 2000, will be held on February 15-17, 2000 at the Rosemont Convention Center, Rosemont, Illinois. Coinciding with safety conference educational sessions is the Construction Safety Expo, a huge vendor display with more than 100 exhibitors of safety products and services . For more information, contact the Chicagoland Construction Safety Council at 800-552-7744, or by sending e-mail to CCSC@aol.com

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 courses are scheduled for:

April 6 and 13, 2000 Midas International Palatine, Illinois

Aug. 3 & 10, 2000 Borg Warner Bellwood, Illinois

Sept. 12 & 19, 2000 Borg Warner Dixon, Illinois

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

Aurora Staff

Team Leader - We welcome Ron Stephens as a Team Leader in the Aurora office. From 1978 - 1990 Ron worked as a compliance officer in Aurora. For the past 9 years he has been an instructor at the OSHA Training Institute, specializing in machine guarding and materials handling. We are glad to have him back.

Compliance Assistant - The Aurora office also welcomes back Nancy Quick. Nancy has a wealth of experience and expertise, having worked as a compliance officer and manager in the Niles, Aurora, downtown Chicago, and Chicago North offices. She is a Certified Safety Professional and a Certified Industrial Hygienist. Nancy has been selected to staff the completely new Compliance Assistant position, and her purpose will be to perform liaison, outreach, and compliance assistance functions for the area office. For example, one of her duties will be to take over administration of this newsletter! We would like to hear any great compliance assistance project ideas you might have, or ideas on how Nancy can work with your group or association. Please contact us with your ideas at charlie.shields@aurora.osha.gov

15 Reasons to Wear Eye Protection

  • An employee was trimming branches from a tree when the wind blew the branch into the employee's eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection and the employee lost his eye.

  • An employee was adding monoethanolamine (MEA) to an add-mixture for concrete. The handle on the 5-gallon bucket broke and the MEA splashed into the employee's eyes. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee working in a mattress manufacturing facility was repairing the dust cover of a box spring using an air-powered staple gun. The employee noted that a staple had one leg up and he tried to hammer it down using the inverted staple gun. His finger was on the trigger and upon impact, the gun fired a staple into the employee's eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was using a high-speed air sander as a portable grinder with an abrasive grinding wheel attached. The wheel shattered sending fragments of the wheel into the eye. The employee lost his right eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection under his face shield.

  • An employee was working at a car repair shop removing an outer axle joint from an axle shaft by hitting the joint with a 4-lb blue-point steel hammer. A piece of steel punctured his eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee working in an wood furniture assembly facility was using an air gun and a pin nailer. The nail shot up and injured the employee's eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was setting up electrical and pneumatic controls in a building when he was struck in the eye by an air hose that blew off. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was preparing to clean ink from the press rollers on a printing press. The employee was required to pour a solvent based cleaning agent from a 1-gallon container to a 1 quart container. The cleaning agent splashed into the employee's eye causing a burn to the cornea. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was grinding/polishing a metal piece when the metal piece slipped out of his hands striking him in the eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee working at a soda bottling plant was handling a filled soda bottle when the bottle exploded. Flying glass cut the employee's left eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was transferring propionic acid from a 55 gallon drum to a 5-gallon can and was kneeling next to the drum when the transfer hose broke. The acid sprayed over his face, neck and chest causing minor burns. Because the employee was wearing eye protection, there was no injury to the employee's eyes.

  • A machine operator was working on a cutting tool holder. He was trying to get the part out to change it and when the machine hung up, the employee hit the steel tool holder with a steel hammer. A steel chip from the holder flew up and lodged in his eye lens. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was making a bulk delivery of ammonia etchant to a customer. When the employee finished the unloading, he proceeded to disconnect the hose from the customer's tank. The pressure in the tank had not been completely relieved and as he opened one end of the camlock, the hose separated, releasing ammonia etchant. The ammonia etchant splashed the employee on the face and eyes. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • A maintenance mechanic was attaching bailing wire to some loose pipes when the wire he cut sprung back, hitting his right eye. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

  • An employee was attempting to remove a bearing from an edger housing. The employee was using a punch and hammer when a piece broke off and flew into his eye. Surgery was required to repair the damage. The employee was not wearing eye protection.

Frequently Cited Serious Violations By Program Area

Interim Targeting Inspection and Site Specific Targeting Programs Only

Aurora Area Office, 4/10/98 -10/1/99

This is about a year and a half of data for ITP/SST evaluations from the Aurora office, updating the information provided in the last newsletter.
No. Standard Violation
1 1910.147 Lockout/Tagout
2 1910.212



Machine Guarding
3 1910.303



Electrical Hazards
4 1910.132



Personal Protective Equipment
5 1910.184 Slings
6 1910.1200 Hazard Communication
7 1910.22


Walking/Working Surfaces
8 Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause
9 1910.95 Noise/Hearing Conservation
10 1910.146 Confined Space Entry

Comments on Frequent Serious Targeting Inspection Program Violations

  • Lockout/Tagout - deficient written program, not using locks, not completing inspections.
  • Machine Guarding - unguarded point of operation, unadjusted work rests and tongue guards, unguarded belts and pulleys.
  • Electrical Hazards - frayed wires, defective cords, reversed polarity, covers not in place, improper use of flexible cords, inadequate clearance around electrical equipment.
  • PPE - no hazard assessment, incorrect PPE, deficient respirator program, incorrect respirator.
  • Slings - lack of tags, inspection, removal
  • Hazard Communication - deficient written program, lack of training, missing labels.
  • Walking/Working Surfaces - unguarded floor openings, missing guardrails, defective ladders.
  • General Duty Clause - unguarded conveyor, defective cranes, deficient medical surveillance programs for employees exposed to silica, deficient lighting, riding on back bumper of golf carts, not marking capacity on custom made hooks, overhead conveyers not properly guarded.
  • Industrial Noise - employees exposed to noise above 90 dBA, no hearing conservation program, not performing annual audiograms, not using hearing protection.
  • Confined Space - deficient written program, not following written procedures during an entry.

Frequently Cited Serious Violations By Program Area

All Industrial Inspections - Second Half Federal FY-1999

Aurora Area Office

4/1/99 - 9/30/99
No. Standard Violation
1 1910.147 Lockout/Tagout
2 1910.212


Machine Guarding
3 1910.1200 Hazard Communication
4 Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause
5 1910.303


6 1910.134 Respiratory Protection
7 1910.132 Personal Protective Equipment
8 1910.217 Mechanical Power Press
9 1910.151(c) Eyewash Station
10 1910.95 Hearing Conservation Program

Comments on Frequent Serious Violations

1. 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. On at least an annual basis, an on-the-job evaluation of energy control procedures is required.

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 existing guarding.

3. Hazard Communication - 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. 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. See the next section of the newsletter for a description of various 5(a)(1) violations issued in the past six months.

5. Electrical - Ungrounded electrical equipment was found. The ground prong was found to have been removed.

6. Respirator Program - The new respirator standard has been in place for one year. Many companies have not updated their medical evaluation programs or their written programs. If the employer allows voluntary use of respirators other than face filtering respirators (dust masks) the employer must meet the requirements of this standard.

7. Personal Protective Equipment - Employers are still not completing the required hazard assessment and therefore, the proper personal protective equipment is not available to employees. The hazard assessment needs to be reviewed any time there is a change in the work process.

8. Mechanical Power Presses - Points of operations were in some cases not properly guarded. Inspection records were either not found or were deficient.

9. Eyewash - Any time employees are required to work with chemicals that can cause eye damage, an eye wash must be located in the work area. We do not accept squeeze bottles, as they do not provide 15 minutes of continuous flushing per ANSI Z358.1 Section 5.1.5.

10. Hearing Conservation Program - If employees are exposed to noise levels that exceed 85 dB for 8 hours time-weighed average, the employer must protect those employees by implementing a hearing conservation program. This program includes baseline/annual audiograms, training, and providing a variety of hearing protection.

General Duty Clause

Aurora Area Office, 4/1/99 - 9/30/99


Not securing trailers to dock while loading and unloading

Not providing conveyor protection to prevent packages from falling off of overhead conveyors

Not inspecting hoists

Not providing fall protection for employees working on excavators that are over 8 ft high

Inadequate/damaged lifting devices

No capacity markings (multiple instances)

No capacity rating on magnets

No markings on plate clamp for plate thickness capacities

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

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

Using a pry bar to lift steel plates measuring ½ X 38" X 36", bar could slip and plate would fall on employee's fingers


Tuberculosis/Medical Evaluation program for employees exposed to silica

Powered Industrial Trucks

Not using seat belts when provided on forklift

Lack of Training

Not training employees on safe operation of specialized materials handling equipment used to move rail cars

FY-1999 Most Penalized Violations

Aurora Area Office

General Industry

Penalty listed is aggregate proposed penalty for the year.
 No. Standard Violation Aggregate Amount
1 1910.1000(c) Air Contaminants $152K
2 Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause $125K
3  1910.212(a)(1)  Machine Guarding $67K
4 1910.147(c)(1) Lockout Program $63K
5 1910.179(n)(1) Overloading Crane $63K
6 1910.22(a)(1) Housekeeping $60K
7 1910.95(g)(6) Annual Audiogram $59K
8 1910.134(e)(4) Respirator Medical Eval. $55K
9 1910.146(e)(1) Confined Space Permit System $49K
10 1910.1200(h) Hazard Communication Training $43K
11 1910.212(a)(3) Point of Operation Guarding $33K
12 1910.23(c)(1) Work Platform Guardrails $32K
13 1910.147(c)(4)(ii) Written Lockout Procedures $31K
14 1910.217(e)(1)(i) Power Press Inspection/ Records $30K
15 1910.147(d)(4) Locks not used in lockout situations $29K

FY-1999 Most Frequently Cited Serious Violations

Region 5

(Data is from Serious violations only)
No. Standard Violation
1 1910.212(a)(1) Machine guarding
2 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) Machine point of operation guarding
3 1910.23(c)(1) Guardrails for open-sided floors
4 1910.1200(e)(1) Written Hazard Communication Program
5 Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause
6 1910.147(c)(7)(i) Lockout training
7 1910.215(b)(9) Grinder tongue guard not adjusted within 1/4"
8 1910.147(c)(4)(i) Lockout procedures
9 1910.1200(h) Hazard communication training
10 1910.132(a) Personal protection
11 1910.147(c)(1) Lockout program
12 1910.151(c) Body flush/eyewash

FY-1999 Most Frequently Cited Serious Violations

National Data

(Data is from Serious violations only)
No. Standard Violation
1 1910.212(a)(1) Machine guarding
2 1910.23(c)(1) Open sided floors/no guardrails
3 Section 5(a)(1) General Duty Clause
4 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) Point of operation not guarded
5 1910.151(c) Body flush/eyewash station
6 1910.1200(e)(1) Hazard Communication Program
7 1910.215(b)(9)  Grinder tongue guard not adjusted within 1/4" 
8 1910.219(d)(1) Pulley guard
9 1910.1200(h) Hazard communication training
10 1910.147(c)(4)(i)  Lockout procedures 
11 1910.147(c)(1)  Lockout/Tagout program 
12 1910.303(g)(2)(i) Exposed live electrical parts

About Our Newsletters

OSHA News for Industry is issued twice a year. Aurora OSHA Construction News is issued three 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.

For uninterrupted service, please let us know when you change your e-mail address.



Original articles © WorkCare™; Orange, California.