OSHA to review all states’ occupational safety and health programs

On October 29, 2009, Jordan Barab, acting Assistant Secretary for the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) told a Congressional committee that the serious shortcomings discovered during his agency’s evaluation of the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s safety program have raised concerns about federal OSHA's monitoring of all state plan states.

Barab said in testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor that, as a result of deficiencies found in Nevada OSHA’s program and this administration’s goal to move from reaction to prevention, OSHA will implement a number of changes to strengthen the oversight, monitoring and evaluation of all state programs.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, a state can operate their own workplace health and safety program as long as they meet basic federal minimum standards. OSHA approves and monitors the state plans and provides up to 50 percent of an approved plan's operating costs. Twenty-seven states and territories operate such programs and are partially funded by the federal government.

A federal review of Nevada’s OSHA program found that the state failed to cite employers for clear hazards, didn’t properly train inspectors on construction hazards, didn't follow up to ensure that dangerous conditions were fixed, failed to include worker representatives in inspections, and even failed to notify families of deceased workers of investigations or give them the chance to speak to investigators.

Last year only 29 percent of Nevada’s citations were classified as "serious" compared to 44 percent for other state plans and 77 percent for federal OSHA.

The review of Nevada OSHA was prompted after 12 construction deaths on the Las Vegas Strip over an 18-month period during the city’s latest construction boom and a Pulitzer Prize-winning series by the Las Vegas Sun.

"State plan standards and enforcement must be at least as effective as federal OSHA in providing safe and healthful employment to workers in the state," said Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. "Federal OSHA identified a number of serious concerns about the Nevada plan."

"To improve oversight immediately, I sent interim guidance to OSHA regional administrators about the monitoring tools available to them and encouraged more in-depth investigation of potential problems," said Barab. "To ensure that deficiencies similar to those found in Nevada do not exist in any of the other state plans, OSHA will conduct a baseline evaluation, similar to what we conducted in Nevada, for every state that administers its own program. These evaluations will lead to better program performance and consistency throughout all state plans."

Although federal OSHA is strengthening its oversight of state plan programs, Barab also pointed out the benefits of state programs. They add resources to the federal program and cover state and local government employees not covered by federal OSHA.

Federal OSHA strongly supports the initiative and dedication of state programs. "We want to work together with the states and provide assistance before a state's program becomes deficient and causes worker deaths, injuries and illness," said Barab. "We are not trying to change the nature of our relationship between federal and state OSHA, but we need to speak with one voice and assure American workers they will receive adequate protection regardless of the state in which they work."

"Basic oversight of state plans is not only important in Nevada, but it is vital to the 57 million American workers whose health and safety protections are enforced by a state plan," said Representative George Miller (D-Cal), chairman of the committee. "While some states are running innovative programs, it is clear that additional reviews of state plans are warranted." Miller said that he is planning additional oversight activities into this issue.

Reprinted with permission. © CCH
(Submitted Nov. 3, 2009)

Rate this content:
 
The information contained in this document is for general, informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. This information is not a substitute for the guidance of a professional and should not be relied upon in reference to any specific situation without first seeking the advice of a qualified HR professional and/or legal counsel regarding applicable federal, state or local laws. HRTools, Administaff and their respective employees make no warranties, express or implied, and make no judgments regarding the accuracy of this content and/or its applicability to a specific situation. A reference or link to another website is not an endorsement of that site or service.