Inspection templete

Source excerpt

- 3. If the creating employer does not have the ability or authority to correct or remove the hazard, it may be cited if it did not notify the controlling or correcting employer of the hazard. - 4. EXAMPLE 1: Employer Host operates a factory. It contracts with Company S to service machinery. Host fails to cover drums of a chemical despite S's repeated requests that it do so. This results in airborne levels of the chemical that exceed the Permissible Exposure Limit. Analysis: Step 1: Host is a creating employer because it caused employees of S to be exposed to the air contaminant above the PEL. - Step 2: Host failed to implement measures to prevent the accumulation of the air contaminant. It could have met its obligation by implementing the simple engineering control of covering the drums. Having failed to implement a feasible engineering control to meet the PEL, Host is citable for the hazard. - 5. EXAMPLE 2: Employer M hoists materials onto Floor 8, damaging perimeter guardrails. Neither its own employees nor employees of other employers are exposed to the hazard. It takes effective steps to keep all employees, including those of other employers, away from the unprotected edge and informs the controlling employer of the problem. Employer M lacks authority to fix the guardrails itself. Analysis: - Step 1: Employer M is a creating employer because it caused a hazardous condition by damaging the guardrails. - Step 2: While it lacked the authority to fix the guardrails, it took immediate and effective steps to keep all employees away from the hazard and notified the controlling employer of the hazard. Employer M is not citable since it took effective measures to prevent employee exposure to the fall hazard. ## C. Exposing Employer - 1. Step 1: Definition: An exposing employer is one that exposed its own employees to a hazard. If the exposing employer created the hazard, it is citable as the creating employer, not the exposing employer. - 2. Step 2: A…

Source excerpt

- h. Approximate duration of time the hazard has existed and frequency of exposure to the hazard; - i. Employer knowledge; - · Any and all facts which establish the employer actually knew of the hazardous condition, or what reasonable steps the employer failed to take (including regular inspections of the worksite) that could have revealed the presence of the hazardous condition. The mere presence of the employer in the workplace is not sufficient evidence of knowledge. There must be evidence that demonstrate why the employer reasonably could have recognized the presence of the hazardous condition. Avoid relying on conclusory statements such as 'reasonable diligence' to establish employer knowledge. See Chapter 4, Section II.C.4., Knowledge of the Hazardous Condition, for additional information. - · In order to establish that a violation may be potentially classified as willful, facts shall be documented to show either that the employer knew of the applicable legal requirements and intentionally violated them or that the employer showed plain indifference to employee safety or health (See Section V. of Chapter 4, Willful Violations). For example, document facts that the employer knew the condition existed and that the employer was required to take additional steps to abate the hazard. Such evidence could include prior UOSH citations, previous notices by a CSHO, insurance company or city/state inspector documentation regarding the requirements of the standard(s), the employer's familiarity with the standard(s), contract specifications requiring compliance with applicable standards, or warnings by employees or employee safety representatives of the presence of a hazardous condition and what protections are required by UOSH standards. - · Also include facts showing that even if the employer was not consciously or intentionally violating the Utah OSH Act, the employer acted with such plain indifference for employee safety that had the employer known of the standard…

Source excerpt

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ intervals between inspections as defined below: - (i) Frequent inspection - daily to monthly intervals. - (ii) Periodic inspection - One to 12-month intervals, or as specified by the manufacturer. - (2) Frequent inspection . You must inspect items such as the following for defects at intervals as defined in (1)(b)(i) of this section or as specifically indicated, including observation during operation for any defects which might appear between regular inspections. You must carefully examine deficiencies for any safety hazard. - (a) All control mechanisms: Inspect daily for adjustment, wear, and lubrication. - (b) All chords and lacing: Inspect daily, visually. - (c) Tension in guys: Daily. - (d) Plumb of the mast. - (e) Deterioration or leakage in air or hydraulic systems: Daily. - (f) Derrick hooks for deformations or cracks; for hooks with cracks or having more than 15% in excess of normal throat opening or more than 10 twist from the plane of the  unbent hook, refer to WAC 296-24-[redacted postal code] (3)(c). - (g) Rope reeving; visual inspection for noncompliance with derrick manufacturer's recommendations. - (h) Hoist brakes, clutches, and operating levers: Check daily for proper functioning before beginning operations. - (i) Electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of excessive deterioration, dirt, and moisture accumulation. ## (3) Periodic inspection . - (a) You must perform complete inspections of the derrick at intervals as generally defined in (1)(b)(ii) of this section depending upon its activity, severity of service, and environment, or as specifically indicated below. These inspections must include the requirements of (2) of this section and in addition, items such as the following. You must carefully examine deficiencies and …

Source excerpt

- 10. Any other relevant comments/information CSHOs believe may be helpful, based on his/her professional judgment; - 11. Names, addresses and phone numbers of other persons contacted during the inspection, such as the police, coroner, attorney, etc.; - 12. Names and job titles of any individuals who accompanied the CSHO on the inspection; - 13. Calculation of the DART rate (at least three full calendar years and the current year); - 14. Discussion clearly addressing all items on the Complaint or Referral; - 15. Type of legal entity. Indicate whether the employer is a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc., do not use the word 'owner.' If the employer named is a subsidiary of another firm, indicate that; and - 16. Scope and purpose of inspection. ## C. Violation Worksheet - 1. A separate violation worksheet should normally be completed for each alleged violation. Describe the observed hazardous conditions or practices, including all relevant facts, and all information pertaining to how and/or why a standard is violated. Specifically identify the hazard to which employees have been or could be exposed. Describe the type of injury or illness which the violated standard was designed to prevent in this situation or note the name and exposure level of any contaminant or harmful physical agent to which employees are, have been, or could be potentially exposed. If employee exposure was not actually observed during the inspection, state the facts on which the determination was made (i.e., tools left inside an unprotected trench) that an employee has been or could have been exposed to a safety or health hazard. - 2. The following information shall be documented: - a. Explanation of the hazard(s) or hazardous condition(s); - b. Identification of the machinery or equipment (such as equipment type, manufacturer, model number, serial number); - c. Specific location of the hazard and employee exposure to the hazard; - d. Injury or illness likely to result from …