On Safety

The On Safety blog has moved.

OSHA Roundup for July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013


New OSHA campaign will target MSDs in the health care industry.

Notable proposed fines

$170,000 to an Arkansas poultry plant for allegedly exposing workers to hazardous chemicals

$150,000 to a Wisconsin frozen food production plant for alleged ammonia hazards

$128,700 to an Ohio manufacturing plant for process safety management violations related to an explosion that injured three workers

$126,900 to an Arkansas refinery for process safety management violations

$74,600 to an Ohio glassware supplier for personal protective equipment violations, among others, stemming from an inspection prompted by a worker’s burn injury

$22,800 to a Nebraska farming co-op in connection with the death of a worker killed when a truck backed into him

Happening this week

July 30 – Aug. 1 – Federal Agency Training Week, in which the Illinois-based OSHA Training Institute conducts a series of half-day seminars for government agency personnel

Review Counter

Below is a count of how many days recent OSHA proposals have been under review, as of July 29:

# of Days OSHA Proposal
896 Silica (proposed rule)
615 Modernizing OSHA’s reporting system for injuries and illnesses (proposed rule)
397 Electric power transmission and distribution; electrical protective equipment (final rule)

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – part of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget – reviews proposed regulations. The process is required for most rules before they can move forward, and typically takes 90 days.

The opinions expressed in "Washington Wire" do not necessarily reflect those of the National Safety Council or affiliated local Chapters.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)