Challenging OSHA

The defense of the lack of the employer s knowledge can be argued in specific situations. Although this is often a difficult defense to prove because the employer should know the activities and operations within its facility, safety professionals may utilize this defense in unique situations to challenge OSHA s proof of the violation. 

The Supreme Court has also spoken on the issue of risk assessment in ways that are troublesome and confusing. The occasion for the High Court s involvement with chemical risks was a lawsuit by the petroleum industry challenging the new workplace standard for benzene promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)... 

The standeird as published declares Federal preemption as one purpose of the standard, and opinion is divided over whether there will be challenges to OSHA s stand. 

Elevated urine manganese concentrations (> 2 mcg/L) may confinn recent acute exposure. Exposures at the OSHA PEL usually do not raise urinary levels above 8 mcg/L. Chelation challenge does not have a role in diagnosis. 

California is one state that chose to develop its own version of 29 CFR 1910.119. Their program, which is administered by CAL OSHA, was challenged by federal OSHA as being less rigorous than the federal standard. Implementation of the CaUfomia standards was then blocked until they had been brought up to the level of the federal regulation. 

If the OSHA inspector believes that a violation of the standard has taken place, he or she may choose to issue one or more citations. (Management then has to decide whether or not to challenge the citation.)... 

Once a regulation is in force, it is constantly being tested, interpreted, and challenged by specific cases that are borderline in some manner, and that were not anticipated when the regulation was written. Typically, there are two principal sources of information regarding updates OSHA Letters of Interpretation and the findings of Courts who have jurisdiction over process safety. 

OSHA s original intent was that these facilities should be covered, but they were excluded after a challenge by the API. OSHA now wants to cover these facilities under the PSM rule. Their test case was an incident leading to fatalities occurred at a Sonat facility in Pitkin, LA, in 1998. The incident involved deficiencies in two elements of PSM Process Hazards Analysis and Operating Procedures. 

The API challenge was based on the lack of an economic analysis. OSHA proposes to now conduct that analysis. 

In next month s column we will look at how evolving standards of care in the occupational health and safety profession may lead to OSHA General Duty Clause violations, increased tort liability, and challenges to professional ethics. ... 

Osha T (ed.) (1998) New Challenges in Organic Electrochemistry. Amsterdam Gordon and Breach. 

Show me the OSHA regulation that says that, Tom challenged. 

This multiemployer worksite doctrine first arose in the construction industry, where the presence of numerous contractors and subcontractors on one site sometimes made it difficult to determine who was responsible for safety violations. In response to this problem, OSHA established a rule that basically imposed responsibility on any employer who had control of the site. The rule has been and continues to be challenged in courts across the country, and recent rulings tend to support individual employer-employee responsibility. 

OSHA recordable injuries do not indicate if you have an effective management system, or if you were just lucky for that year. Rgure 5-4 will give you an example of what we have discussed. There have been reports of companies that have a rather low injury rate, yet would be challenged even to demonstrate compliance with some of the most basic general industry standards [2]. 

---