analysis of osha’s national emphasis program on injury and

Analysis of OSHArsquos National Emphasis Program on

Injury and Illness Recordkeeping (RK NEP)

Task Order No 10 Option Year 2

Contract No J-099-F-2-8441

FINAL REPORT

November 1 2013

Prepared for

Office of Statistical Analysis Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Washington DC

Prepared by

ERG Lexington MA

Contents

Executive Summary ES-1

SECTION ONE

Key Findings and Conclusions with Summary Data Presentations 1

1 RK NEP Purpose and Background 1

Program Purpose 1 OSHA Requirements for Employer InjuryIllness Recordkeeping and Reporting 1 Program Background and Focus 2 Key Components of RK NEP Inspections 4

2 Objective and Approach to the Analysis 5

Analysis Objective 5 Datasets Used 5 High-Level Data Presentations 6 Additional Detail from the Inspections 6 Inspection Records Used in the Analysis 7 More on Organization of the Analysis 8

3 Key Findings 8

Extent of Underrecording Based on Cases Found (with Targeting Comparisons) 9 Extent of Underrecording Based on Citations Issued (with Targeting Comparisons) 19 InjuriesIllnesses Specified by Interviewed Employees34 Level of Effort to Conduct RK NEP Inspections36

4 Highlights and Recommendations 39

SECTION TWO

Data Presentations Specific to RK NEP Mid-RateRevised Targeting Approach 43 (Directive 10-07)

SECTION THREE

Data Presentations Specific to RK NEP Low-RateOriginal Targeting Approach 58 (Directive 10-02)

APPENDICES

A RK NEP Inspection Interview Questions Used in the Analysis to Identify Establishments with a Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Incentive Disciplinary andor Drug Testing Program (andor Absenteeism Policy) A-1

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP i

B High-Level Analysis of Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Employer Policy Materials Collected in Conjunction with RK Inspections B-1

C Revised RK NEP Directive (Mid-Rate Targeting) Directive 10-07 (reference with web address) C-1

D Original RK NEP Directive (Low-Rate Targeting) Directive 10-02 (reference with web address) D-1

E Self-Targeting of RK Inspections Conducted by State Plan States Selected Examples E-1

F IMIS Inspection Establishments Count of Inspection Establishments Used in Analysis by NAICS Codes F-1

G Preliminary Comparison of RK NEP and Audit Program Results G-1

List of tables on next page

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP ii

List of Tables

SECTION ONE SUMMARY DATA PRESENTATIONS

Table 1-1 Number and Percent of Establishments with Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Cases Found During Inspections with Breakouts by Manufacturing vs Non-Manufacturing and Union vs Non-Union (also with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology and Total Inspections by Federal Jurisdiction and State Plan States) [IMIS data only Counts of Inspection Establishments]

Table 1-2A Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [IMIS data only Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Table 1-2B Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of DART Rate-Lowering Recording Errors (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [ORIA data only Counts of CasesInstances]

Table 1-2C Number and Percent of All Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [ORIA data only Counts of CasesInstances]

Table 1-2(A)1 Nursing Care Facilities Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [IMIS data only Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Table 1-2(A)2 Meat and Poultry Processing Sectors Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [IMIS data only Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Table 1-2(A)3 Nursing Care Facilities vs Meat and Poultry vs All Others Sectors Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) [IMIS data only Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Table 1-3 Number and Percent of Establishments with a High Level of Recordkeeping Violations and Establishments with Violations by Classification (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [IMIS data except ORIA data for incentivedisciplinary programs]

Table 1-31A State Plan State Inspections Conducted with Non-RK NEP Targeting amp Thus Excluded from the Analysis Number and Percent of Establishments with a High Level of Recordkeeping Violations and Establishments with Violations by Classification [IMIS data only]

Table 1-31B State Plan State Inspections Conducted with Non-RK NEP Targeting amp Thus Excluded from the Analysis Number and Percent of Establishments with Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Cases Found During Inspections and Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors with Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) [IMIS data only]

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP iii

Table 1-32A Other Inspections Conducted Using Non-RK NEP Targeting amp Thus Excluded from the Analysis Number and Percent of Establishments with a High Level of Recordkeeping Violations and Establishments with Violations by Classification [IMIS data only]

Table 1-32B Other Inspections Conducted Using Non-RK NEP Targeting amp Thus Excluded from the Analysis Number and Percent of Establishments with Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Cases Found During Inspections and Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors with Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) [IMIS data only]

Table 1-4 Penalty Levels of Recordkeeping Violations (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [IMIS data only]

Table 1-5 Establishments with 10 or More Violations andor Penalties Greater Than $10000 Ranked by Total Initial Penalties [IMIS data only]

Table 1-6 Number and Percent of Establishments with and without a Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Special Program Cross-Tabulated with Establishments Where Not Recorded Cases Were Found (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [ORIA data only]

Table 1-61 Nursing Care Facilities amp Meat and Poultry Processing Sectors Number and Percent of Establishments with and without a Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Special Program Cross-Tabulated with Establishments Where Not Recorded Cases Were Found [ORIA data only]

Table 1-7 Counts of Employees by Effect on InjuryIllness Reporting of Employer Special Programs Based on Employee Responses in Interviews Conducted by CSHOs during Inspections (with Breakouts by Whether Discouraged Employees Worked at Union or Non-Union Establishments) [ORIA data except IMIS data for union status]

Table 1-71 Distribution of Employees Indicating Discouraging Effect of Employer Special Programs on InjuriesIllness Reporting Across Establishments Where Any Employee Indicated the Discouraging Effect of Such Programs (with Average Percent of Employees Indicating Discouraging Effect across All Establishments and UnionNon-Union Establishments Where Any Employee Indicated the Discouraging Effect of Such Programs) [ORIA data except IMIS data for union status]

Table 1-8 Number and Percent of InjuriesIllnesses Specified in Employee Interviews and CSHO Determinations Regarding Specified DART Injuries and Illnesses with Breakouts on UnionNon-Union Establishments (and with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [ORIA data except IMIS data for union status]

Table 1-9 Average Number of Hours (Level of Effort) to Conduct an Inspection by Establishment Size (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [Both ORIA data (employment size) and IMIS data (LOE)]

Table 1-10 Number of Establishments for Which Inspection Record Was Initiated but Inspection Was Not Completed by Reason Entered into OSHA Integrated Management Information System (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [IMIS data only]

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP iv

SECTION TWO DATA PRESENTATIONS SPECIFIC TO MID-RATEREVISED TARGETING (DIRECTIVE 10-07) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping [ORIA data only for all tables in this section]

Table 2-1 Count and Industry Distribution of Inspections Considered for These Data Tables

Table 2-2 Number and Percent of Recordable DART Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of DART Rate-Lowering Recording Errors (Broken Out by Year)

Table 2-2a Distribution of Establishments by the Number of Not Recorded DART Cases Found by Inspectors

Table 2-2b Distribution of Establishments by the Number of Underrecorded DART Cases Found by Inspectors

Table 2-21 Number and Percent of All Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Broken Out by Year)

Table 2-21a Distribution of Establishments by the Number of All Not Recorded Cases Found by Inspectors

Table 2-3a ODI 2008 Comparison Comparison of DART Injury and Illness Case Counts Submitted to OSHA for the Data Collection with DART Case Counts from the Recordkeeping Inspection (ie DART Cases on CY 2007 Log at Time of Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection)

Table 2-3b ODI 2008 Comparison Rank Ordering by Inspection Calculated DART Rate of Establishments with ldquoMorerdquo CY 2008 DART Cases Identified During the Recordkeeping Inspection Than Reported in Establishmentrsquos Submission to OSHA for the Data Collection

Table 2-3c ODI 2008 Comparison Industry Rank Ordering by Average Inspection Calculated DART Rate of Establishments with ldquoMorerdquo CY 2008 DART Cases Identified During the Recordkeeping Inspection Than Reported in Establishmentrsquos Submission to OSHA for the Data Collection

Table 2-3d ODI 2008 Comparison Comparison of DART Injury and Illness Case Counts Submitted to OSHA for the Data Collection with DART Case Counts from the Recordkeeping Inspection (ie DART Cases on CY 2008 Log at Time of Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Establishment Size

Table 2-3e ODI 2008 Comparison Comparison of DART Injury and Illness Case Counts Submitted to OSHA for the Data Collection with DART Case Counts from the Recordkeeping Inspection (ie DART Cases on CY 2008 Log at Time of Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Manufacturing vs Non-Manufacturing

Table 2-3f ODI 2008 Comparison Comparison of DART Injury and Illness Case Counts Submitted to OSHA for the Data Collection with DART Case Counts from the Recordkeeping Inspection (ie DART Cases on CY 2008 Log at Time of Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Federal vs State Plan State Jurisdiction

SECTION THREE DATA PRESENTATIONS SPECIFIC TO LOW-RATEORIGINAL TARGETING (DIRECTIVE 10-02) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY 2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping [ORIA data only for all tables in this section]



Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP v











Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RK NEP Purpose and Background

The purpose of OSHArsquos Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP) was to implement enforcement procedures at establishments in selected industries to inspect the accuracy of employer compliance with occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements With the RK NEP OSHA placed special emphasis on targeting the issue of potential under-recordingreporting through inspections following a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the issue which was prompted by a number of recent academic studies and related congressional interest

The RK NEP was fully implemented with a final directive in February 2010 with the intention that it would run for 2 years During the fall of calendar year 2011 OSHArsquos objective of conducting 350 Federal jurisdiction inspections had been reached In addition State Plan States had conducted some version of the recordkeeping inspections in over 200 establishments in their jurisdictions Based on this OSHA determined that sufficient data were available to initiate this analysis

Establishment targeting under the program was based on the assumption that underrecording is most likely to exist in lower-rate establishments operating in high-rate industries The programrsquos original low-rate targeting focused on such establishments reporting a DART rate from 00 to 42 (DART cases are those involving days away from work restricted work activity or job transfer) The subsequent change to mid-rate targeting focused on such establishments reporting a DART rate from gt42 to lt80 An establishment could be included on a randomized inspection list if it met the programrsquos targeting criteria Inspections involved review of employer recordkeeping for both the target year and the subsequent year

Objective of the Analysis

The objective of the analysis was to compile results from the RK NEP inspections and present OSHA with descriptive information and findings on the accuracy of employer compliance with occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements The findings and recommendations would be presented to support OSHArsquos further consideration of when and how best to implement recordkeeping reviews for monitoring potential recordkeeping problems

To conduct the study ERG analyzed only data that was provided by OSHA from the Agencyrsquos implementation of the RK NEP The analysis team worked with two main datasets provided to compile results from the inspections and develop descriptive information and findings

bull IMIS data Inspection activity information input to OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System by Agency field staff as a record that is initiated prior to conducting an inspection and then completed following the site visit

bull ORIA data Inspection documentation input by Compliance Safety and Health Officers to the OSHA Recordkeeping Inspection Assistant software tool while onsite at an establishment

A first step in conducting this study involved confirming which inspections were available for inclusion in particular aspects of the analysis Because the results of this step differed between the two datasets the units for analysis vary to some extent across the data presentations included in the report

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP ES-1

Findings

Findings on Extent of Underrecording

bull Case analysis Inspectors found some type of not recorded or underrecorded recordable case at close to half of the establishments inspected (based on the 350 inspection records in the IMIS dataset as presented in Table 1-1) Regarding type of cases found slightly over 20 percent (552) of DART cases reconstructed by inspectors during review of employee records were either not recorded or underrecorded by the employer (based on the 303 inspection records in ORIA dataset as presented in Table 1-2B) Yet extensive not recordingunderrecording of DART cases was not widely distributed across establishments For instance of the 552 not recorded or underrecorded DART cases found slightly over 50 percent of the cases came from 20 establishments (ie 66 percent of the 303 inspection establishment) Further of the 311 (out of the 552) that were specifically not-recorded DART cases over 30 percent came from 4 establishments (ie 13 percent of the 303 inspections) and of the 241 that were underrecorded DART cases almost a quarter also came from just 4 establishments Note also that 177 of the 552 not-recorded underrecorded DART cases involved restricted work activity or worker transfer to another job a type of error that can occur as an oversight by the employer since the injured worker is still working in some capacity

Overall (based on the IMIS dataset as shown in Table 1-2A) CSHOs found 37 cases per inspection that were either not recorded cases or DART cases recorded as non-DART cases for all cases with errors overall CSHOs found 67 cases per inspection Based on inspections in the ORIA dataset the number of cases per inspection for total recordable cases found with errors is lower than what was indicated by the IMIS dataset (see Table 1-2C)

bull Violations analysis Inspectors cited 552 violations of the recordkeeping rule across all inspections (see Table 1-4) Total initial penalties exceeded $800000 averaging about $4650 per establishment with penalties Fewer than 10 inspections resulted in 10 or more violations of the rule or initial penalties of $10000 or more (see Table 1-5) One establishment had initial penalties of $224000 representing almost a quarter of total initial penalties levied across 350 inspections (ie inspections available for analysis from the IMIS dataset) Also a total of 6 establishments were cited for willful or repeat violations (see Table 1-3)

bull Comparison of ODI submission with onsite records This analysis compares DART injuryillness case counts from establishmentsrsquo ODI submission (for the year used to target establishments under the RK NEP) with DART case counts resulting from the inspection (ie DART cases on the employers log at time of inspection plus not recorded and underrecorded DART cases discovered during the inspection) Overall inspectors found that more than 50 percent of establishments had exactly the same number of DART cases resulting from the inspection as submitted for the ODI under both targeting approaches (see Tables 2-3a and 3-3a) At about 43 percent of establishments the inspection resulted in more DART cases than what were included in the ODI submission (ie 38 percent more under the low-rate targeting approach and 44 percent more under the mid-rate approach) About 5 percent of establishments had fewer DART cases resulting from the inspection than in their submission (ie overreported) When information from onsite records indicates a different DART rate than what could be calculated based on information submitted to OSHA under the ODI OSHA may have obtained an inaccurate picture of the injuryillness experience at the establishment


bull Determinations about cases specified by employees during interviews Of the 243 DART cases specified by interviewed employees during inspections conducted under the mid-rate targeting approach about 15 percent were determined by CSHOs to be underrecorded as non-DART cases and another 6 percent were determined to be not recorded (see Table 1-8) More than half were determined to be accurately recorded by the employer For some of the 243 specified cases the inspector determined the case was not recordable or the inspector documented that no determination about the case was or could be made (The ORIA softwarersquos mechanism enabling documentation of CSHO determinations about specified cases was implemented when the revised directive with mid-rate targeting was released)

Findings on Effectiveness of NEP Targeting Approaches

bull Inspectors identified more underrecording per inspection using the low-rate targeting approach (see Table 1-2A) which focused on low-rate establishments operating in high-rate industries In particular more underrecorded DART cases were found with the low-rate approach (see Table 1shy2B) Also about 40 percent more violations were identified and 60 percent more in penalties was levied under this approach (see Table 1-4)

Findings on Presence of Potentially RK-Related Programs at Establishments with Underreporting

bull When during onsite interviews inspectors specifically asked employees whether they thought the existence of employer special programs discouraged or encouraged injuryillness reporting disciplinary programs and absenteeism policies yielded the highest percentages of employees who thought such a programpolicy had a discouraging effect (50 and 40 respectively) (see Table 1-7) A smaller proportion of employee respondents to questions about drug testing programs and incentive programs (for both employee-based and managersupervisor-based programs) thought such programs had a discouraging effect on reporting The concentration across establishments where any employee indicated a discouraging effect associated with employer special programs was somewhat more prevalent for disciplinary programs and absenteeism policies (see Table 1-71)

Findings on Level of Effort Involved in Conducting RK NEP Inspections

bull On average across all establishment employment-size groups a recordkeeping inspection took 95 hours to complete (see Table 1-9) In contrast recordkeeping audits conducted under the Agencyrsquos audit program using more streamlined procedures took about a quarter as much time to conduct (23 hours on average according to OSHA data) For general context On average inspections conducted under OSHArsquos Site Specific Targeting program take 36 hours and inspections conducted under the Agencyrsquos NEP on Amputations take 33 hours

Recommendations

Summary points relevant to recommendations

bull Although labor-intensive the recordkeeping inspections were effective in discovering not recorded and underrecorded injuryillness casesmdashmore so per inspection using the low-rate targeting approach


bull Inspections conducted under OSHArsquos Site Specific Targeting (SST) program which include a limited recordkeeping review have in past years included some targeting of low-rate establishments in high-rate industries SST inspection procedures call for reviewing onsite logs recalculating rates and comparing the targeting rate from the ODI with the recalculated rate Inspectors then review OSHA 301 formsmdashinjuryillness incident reportsmdashas deemed appropriate

bull OSHA has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to determining the most effective and efficient approach to monitoring employer compliance with Agency injury and illness recordkeeping requirements (eg its 11-year recordkeeping audit program)

Recommendations

1 OSHA should continue its commitment to monitoring employer compliance with recordkeeping requirements In order to determine the most efficient and effective mechanism that is feasible to implement for maintaining some level of ongoing monitoring of recordkeeping the Agency should draw on the finding from this report as well as its past experience in assessing testing and implementing approaches

2 In making its determination OSHA should include consideration of the following options by weighing the example pros and cons noted along with other potentially related issues

bull Streamline recordkeeping inspection procedures established for the RK NEP OSHA should consider streamlining the recordkeeping inspection procedures implemented under the NEP in order to reduce the level of effort needed to complete a records inspection and to make it more feasible regarding the efficient use of Agency resources to selectively conduct such closer reviews of employer recordkeeping Specifically OSHA should assess whether adjustments to procedures are possible that would sufficiently maintain the ability to detect underrecording but require records review for fewer employees Further OSHA should consider allowing inspectors to conduct fewer and less-extensive interviews for fewer individuals at the establishment Revisiting aspects of the recordkeeping audit program methodology might be a useful starting point for assessing options for streamlining o Pro Leveraging Agency experience from the RK NEP to refine procedures o Con Challenges with sufficiently reducing RK inspection level of effort

bull Records monitoring with certain SST inspections For a portion of the SST inspection list OSHA should consider the possibility of continuing to target establishments that report low injuryillness rates despite operating in high-rate industries SST inspections for these low-rate establishments should also include an enhanced version of the recordkeeping review currently conducted under the SST program The records review should incorporate streamlined procedures from the RK NEP inspections o Pro Targeted use of RK monitoring to further test thinking about low-rate establishments

in high-rate sectors o Con Adding to level of effort for conducting SST inspections

bull Records monitoring with complaint andor referral inspections OSHA should consider the possibility of conducting recordkeeping reviews as part of inspections in response to a complaint made by an employee andor a referral (eg based on media reports) However as recommended above for SST the records review should incorporate streamlined procedures from the RK NEP inspections


o Pro Targeted use of RK monitoring (Some OSHA inspection history indicates utility of such targeting Also a small number of RK NEP inspections conducted as part of a complaint inspection--rather than using RK NEP targeting--suggests complaint inspections may be productive for identifying underrecording)

o Con Adding to level of effort for conducting complaint or referral inspections

bull Records monitoring under a recordkeeping audits program OSHA should consider the possibility of resuming the audit program However in doing so the Agency should revisit the established sampling approach (eg some level of focus on low-rate establishments in high-rate industries also revise industry selection to provide a basis for calculating a nationwide estimate of accuracy) and revisit the existing audit protocol based on the RK NEP experience (eg to require worker interviews) o Pro Well-established implementation approach o Con Historically has involved contractor support


SECTION ONE

Key Findings and Conclusions with Summary Data Presentations

1 RK NEP Purpose and Background

Program Purpose

The purpose of OSHArsquos Injury and Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP) was to implement enforcement procedures at establishments in selected industries to inspect the accuracy of employer compliance with occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements OSHA undertakes special emphasis programs to focus inspections (or outreach efforts) on areas of interest related to industries associated with higher levels of workplace hazards These programs are generally of limited duration For employer recordkeeping historically the vast majority of major violations cited have resulted from inspections prompted by a complaint to OSHA (eg made by an employee) or a referral (eg based on media reports) With the RK NEP OSHA placed special emphasis on targeting the issue of potential under-recordingreporting through inspections following a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the issue which was prompted by a number of recent academic studies and related congressional interest OSHA has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to determining the most effective and efficient approach to monitoring employer compliance with Agency injury and illness recordkeeping requirements This commitment includes its 11-year Audit and Verification Program of Occupational Injury and Illness Records (ie the recordkeeping audit program) which was suspended in 2009

The RK NEP was a federal OSHA program As such while not required participation by State jurisdictions operating their own job safety and health programs under OSHA approval and monitoring (ie OSHA State Plan States) was strongly encouraged by the Agencyrsquos National Office (Note that of the 27 State Plan States 5 States have State plans that are specific to State and local government employees with private industry in the State covered by Federal OSHA) In response all State Plan States notified the National Office of their intent to participate in all or a portion of the program (ie one State chose to participate only under the original RK NEP directive and another chose to participate only under the revised directive) A complete list of State Plan States is available on the OSHA website at httpwwwoshagovdcspospstateshtml

OSHA Requirements for Employer InjuryIllness Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements for employers covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act regarding the recording and reporting of work-related fatalities injuries and illnesses are established by OSHArsquos recordkeeping rule (29 CFR Part 1904) Although many employers are exempted from recordkeeping requirementsmdashin particular small businesses with 10 or fewer employees and business establishments operating in certain low-hazard industries (eg the retail finance insurance and real estate sectors)mdashwell over a million private-sector establishments in manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors are required to fully comply with the requirements

A key form that must be maintained by employers who come under the recordkeeping rule is the OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) Employers are required to keep separate Form 300 Logs for each establishment that is expected to be in operation for one year or longer recording injuries and illnesses both to payrolled employees and to other workers who the employer supervises on a

1

day-to-day basis such as temporary or contract employees (OSHArsquos recordkeeping forms and guidance for filling them out are available for employers to download from the Agencyrsquos website at httpwwwoshagovrecordkeepingnew-osha300form1-1-04pdf)

Under the recordkeeping rule an employer who is required to maintain injuryillness records is only required to submit relevant information to OSHA if requested For instance an employer must provide copies of the records kept under Part 1904 within 4 business hours if requested to do so by an authorized government representative Similarly each year under the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) the Agency solicits preceding-year injuryillness summary information (ie counts of injuries and illnesses and hours worked data) from a sample of approximately 80000 establishments in high-hazard industries that come under the rule OSHA then uses this information for calculating establishment-specific rates Further all employersmdashregardless of recordkeeping exemption statusmdashare required to orally report to the nearest OSHA Area Office within 8 hours of the death of an employee or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees as a result of a work-related incident

The employee injuryillness records required by OSHA also provide the source data for the Bureau of Labor Statisticsrsquo annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) (BLS is an agency of the Department of Labor along with OSHA) Each year the BLS survey is sent to a randomly selected sample of about 200000 establishments nationwide BLS uses the collected data as the basis for developing its statistics on occupational injury and illness

Program Background and Focus

In recent years several academic studies have asserted varying degrees of underreporting of workplace injuries and illnesses on the OSHA Form 3001 Citing these studies the US Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions and the US House Committee on Education and Labor requested that GAO conduct a study on the accuracy of employer injury and illness records That study which was released in the fall of 2009 recommended that OSHA expand aspects of its procedures for conducting onsite review of employer injuryillness records2 OSHA soon announced plans for the RK NEP and issued an initial directiveinstruction to Agency field staff for its implementation establishing enforcement procedures for inspecting recordkeeping and reporting accuracy primarily in high-rate industries identified by BLS3 The RK NEP was then fully implemented with a final directive in February 2010 with the intention that it would run for 2 years During the fall of calendar year 2011 OSHArsquos target of conducting 350 Federal jurisdiction inspections had been reached In addition State Plan States had conducted some version of the recordkeeping inspections in over 200 establishments in their jurisdictions Based on this OSHA determined that sufficient data were available to initiate this analysis

OSHA undertook the RK NEP in an effort to identify and address any under-recordingreporting of workplace injuries and illnesses The Agency regarded the program as an opportunity to address issues raised by the GAO study and to complement BLSrsquos efforts to investigate factors accounting for differences in the number of workplace injuries and illnesses estimated by BLS and in other data sources In addition the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is conducting related

1 For example Boden LI Ozonoff A Capture-Recapture Estimates of Nonfatal Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (2008) and Rosenman KD How Much Work-Related Injury and Illness Is Missed by the Current National Surveillance System (2006) 2 Enhancing OSHArsquos Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data (October 2009) (GAO-10-10)3 See BLS Annual Survey (SOII) Table SNR02 Highest incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases with days away from work restricted work activity or job transfer private industry (BLSrsquos 2007 table for the original OSHA RK NEP targeting a combination of BLSrsquos 2007 and 2008 tables for the revised RK NEP directiversquos targeting)

2

research on underreporting issues (eg among groups that by design are excluded from BLSrsquos SOII and on worker incentives and disincentives to reporting)

The program was implemented with an original and then revised criteria for selecting inspection establishments with both approaches based on the assumption that underrecording is most likely to exist in lower-rate establishments operating in high-rate industries An establishment could be included on a randomized inspection list if it met the programrsquos targeting criteria (ie establishment in a high-rate industry with 40 or more employees that was reporting a rate below the industry average)4 Specifically

bull Original implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02) DART rate from 00 to 42 (DART cases are those involving days away from work restricted work activity or job transfer) In the analysis this approach is referred to as low-rate targeting

bull A revision to the original implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is just below the recent cut-off used by OSHA for its Site Specific Targeting program (OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02) DART rate from gt42 to lt80 In the analysis this approach is referred to as mid-rate targeting

o In the same revision OSHA adjusted the industry focus to manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries For Area Office jurisdictions with less than 5 manufacturing industry establishments that met the rate criterion nursing homes (NAICS 623110) that met the DART rate criterion were randomly selected for inspection

Establishment targeting was based on the ODIrsquos establishment-specific rates (ie rates calculated by OSHA using summary injuryillness information submitted to the Agency under the annual ODI data collection) The original directiversquos targeting methodology focused on DART rates for CY 2007 and the revised directive focused on rates for 2008 As instructed by the directive during the inspection OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) were to review injuryillness records for both the target year and the subsequent year

In addition to focusing on high-rate industries as identified by BLS (in SOII Table SNR02) OSHA also targeted establishments involved in poultry processing (NAICS 311615) and operations involved in the cleaning and sanitation functions associated with meat and poultry slaughtering and processing (NAICS 115210) OSHA included establishments in these additional sectors because questions have been raised about the validity of the low reported injuryillness rates from such operations5 To some extent (as noted above) OSHA also targeted nursing home facilities (NAICS 623110) under the RK NEP For many years now the Agency has focused on this sector and on related personal care facilities where workers historically have experienced high rates of injury and illness despite the availability of feasible controls to address hazards (OSHA also anticipated conducting a pilot test on recordkeeping inspections in a small number of establishments in the construction industry [NAICS 23] However the pilot ultimately was not implemented under the RK NEP)

4 From the randomized list of establishments provided to each Area Office jurisdiction the AO was instructed by the revised directive to automatically select for inspection establishments with the greatest reported employment5 These industries are referred to in GAO report 05-96 Workplace Safety and Health Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry While Improving Could Be Further Strengthened (January 2005)

3

Key Components of RK NEP Inspections

OSHArsquos RK NEP directive to field staff detailed the procedures for conducting an establishment injuryillness recordkeeping inspection As instructed by the directive CSHOs were to confirm the industry code during the opening conference but to conduct the inspection regardless of whether the establishment was operating in a targeted industry sector (unless of course the establishment was exempted from the requirements of the recordkeeping rule)

For conducting the records inspection the basic steps were essentially the same as those established and previously in use by OSHA under its 11-year recordkeeping audit program which was suspended in 2009 Briefly for the RK NEP the steps included

bull Obtain establishment records Obtain from the employer the onsite injuryillness log hours worked information and roster of all employees for the two reference years Obtain other relevant records (eg medical records workersrsquo compensation records insurance records payrollabsentee records and if available company safety incident reports company first-aid logs alternate duty rosters and disciplinary records pertaining to injuries and illnesses)

bull Compare submitted and onsite data for the target year Compare the establishmentrsquos log summary and the hours worked data submitted for the ODI (and used for targeting the establishment under the RK NEP) with the information provided at the establishment Calculate the DART rate for the target year using the onsite records and compare the calculated rate with the rate that was based on information submitted under the ODI If differences are found document the reason for differences provided by the employer

bull Draw sample of employees at establishment for records review Using the establishment roster determine the inspection sample size and then draw the sample of employees whose records will be reviewed in the inspection

bull Review reconstruct and compare cases for sample of employees Review all pertinent records for each employee selected in the audit sample (eg medical and workersrsquo compensation records) and independently reconstruct log entries for the sampled employees Then compare the reconstructed cases with the employers onsite log Also review the employer log for over-recording (ie look for any recording of reconstructed cases that did not meet OSHA recordability criteria)

bull Conduct interviews Interview relevant individuals at the establishment

bull Conclude inspection visit Determine inspection results and conduct closing conference (Subsequently issue appropriate citations and penalties if OSHA recordkeeping violations were identified)

Additional components and expanded aspects of procedures that OSHA incorporated for the RK NEP inspections include

bull Employee interviews The RK NEP instruction made it a requirement to interview a sub-sample of workers in the sample of employees drawn for records review directing inspectors to investigate any specified injuryillness incidents that were not identified in the records review The instruction also expanded the number and types of questions included in the questionnaire

4

provided for recordkeeping audits (eg adding questions for soliciting information about any employer incentivesdisincentives related to reporting an injury or illness)

bull Recordkeeper interview Similarly the instruction expanded the number and types of recordkeeper questions included in the questionnaire used for recordkeeping audits

bull Other interviews The instruction also directed inspectors to interview other individuals at the establishment Management representatives about any policies that might discourage injuryillness recording as well as first-aid providers and healthcare professionals about consistency and any policy influences on injuryillness recording The instruction provided expansive questionnaires for each type of interview subject

bull Limited walkaround inspection The instruction directed that an inspection of the main plant operation areas be conducted to make general observations on consistency with the recorded injuries and illnesses and to address any violations observed that are in plain view

bull Expanded records review The RK NEP also expanded the number of employees to include in the records review (based on total employees at the establishment) beyond what was generally required in a recordkeeping audit6

To assist CSHOs with conducting and documenting recordkeeping inspections and then analyzing results OSHA made enhancements to a software tool previously in use under the Agencyrsquos recordkeeping audit program and made it available to CSHOs for the RK NEP (the OSHA Recordkeeping Inspection Assistant or ORIA) The software tracks each step of the inspection process providing input screens for collecting information and documenting results It also provides CSHOs with the inspection establishmentrsquos ODI submission used in targeting for the RK NEP In addition OSHA provides a web-based mechanism for CSHO use in requesting Agency authorization (a Medical Access Order) to review employee medical records during a recordkeeping inspection OSHA provided training on implementation of the RK NEP inspection procedures and use of the ORIA software

2 Objective and Approach to the Analysis

Analysis Objective

The objective of this analysis was to compile results from the RK NEP inspections and present OSHA with descriptive information and findings on the accuracy of employer compliance with occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements The findings and recommendations would be available to OSHA to support further consideration of when and how best to implement recordkeeping reviews for monitoring potential recordkeeping problems

Datasets Used

To conduct the study ERG analyzed only data that was provided by OSHA from the Agencyrsquos implementation of the RK NEP ERG worked with two main datasets provided to compile results from

6 For employee records review the directive called for the following bull 100 or fewer total employee = review records for all employees (no sampling) bull 101-250 total employees = review records for 50 of employees bull gt250 total employees = review records for 33 of employees

5

the inspections and develop descriptive information and findings The general characteristics of these datasets are as follows

bull IMIS data Inspection activity information input to OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) by Agency field staff as a record that is initiated prior to conducting an inspection and then completed following the site visit For instance the IMIS record for an RK NEP inspection includes information on violations cited and instances of each type of violation classification of violations (eg serious willful) associated penalties and CSHO time spent conducting the inspection

o An activity record was created in IMIS for nearly all RK NEP inspections conducted the exceptions are the small number of inspections recorded in the Agencyrsquos in-progress replacement information management system the OSHA Information System (OIS)

bull ORIA data Inspection documentation input by CSHOs to the inspection assistant software tool while onsite at an establishment For instance CSHOs use the ORIA software to document the reconstruction of cases based on their review of employee records and to note their determination about whether the discovered cases were correctly recorded by the employermdashand if not what type of recording error was found The software is also designed to capture the CSHOrsquos determination regarding employer accuracy in reporting injuriesillnesses to OSHA based on a comparison of the establishmentrsquos ODI submission with the onsite OSHA recordkeeping forms Similarly the software includes input screens for capturing responses from interviews conducted

o Because not all CSHOs use ORIA to compile information during an inspection the ORIA data represents only a subset of all RK NEP inspections conducted Further some ORIA inspection files were created but not submitted from the field to the OSHA National Office in time to be included in the analysis

High-Level Data Presentations

In the first section of the analysis ERG used these datasets individually and in combination to develop data presentations designed to highlight such summary-level information as extent of not recording and underrecording of cases types of DART rate-lowering recording errors found and magnitude of establishments with a high-level of violations by classification of seriousness Most data tables provide results breakouts for low-rate targeting vs mid-rate targeting methodology Additional breakouts focus on a range of characteristics including establishment employee size manufacturing vs non-manufacturing establishments union vs non-union workplaces and inspections conducted in the Federal OSHA jurisdiction vs State Plan State jurisdictions One data presentation looks at CSHO determinations regarding DART cases specified by workers interviewed with breakouts by the union status of establishments Other data table details associate recordkeeping accuracy with whether or not an establishment was said to have a potentially recordkeeping-related incentive program disciplinary program or drug testing program Several tables specifically focus on findings from inspections conducted at nursing care facilities and inspections at establishments operating in the meat and poultry processing sectors

Additional Detail from the Inspections

The second and third sections of the report provide data presentations using only the ORIA data to provide more detailed findings from the documentation on inspections conducted under the two targeting methodologies respectively This allowed for presenting CSHO accuracy findings between the target year and the subsequent reference year

6

Inspection Records Used in the Analysis

A first step in conducting this study involved confirming which inspections were available for inclusion in particular aspects of the analysis Many of the RK NEP inspection records created in IMIS were available for use in the study depending on the date cutoff for extracting the IMIS data file for analysis Due to logistical considerations the small number of RK NEP activity records that were entered into OIS were not included in the analysis unless these inspections were also documented in ORIA (Note that the analysis team did review a sample of data from 10 OIS RK NEP inspection records All of these inspection establishments had total initial penalties below $10000 one was cited for serious willful or repeat violations)

Also some inspections that were in the IMIS andor ORIA datasets were excluded from the analysis because the establishments were selected for inspection using a non-RK NEP targeting methodology Specifically some inspections conducted by State Plan States used State-specific targeting and some inspections conducted by Federal OSHA jurisdiction States were triggered by targeting under other Agency programs (eg Complaint Site Specific Targeting other NEP) Although these inspections were excluded from the overall analysis the Findings section that follows does include a data presentation on each of these two groups (ie non-RK NEP targeted recordkeeping inspections conducted by State Plan States and those conducted by Federal OSHA States respectively) Appendix E presents a few examples of State Plan State targeting used where State directives were readily available

For these reasons the number of RK NEP inspections available for this analysis is different between the two main datasets used Rather than limit the analysis to inspection records that matched between the two datasets the analysis team sought to optimize the use of available data As a result the units for analysis vary to some extent across the data presentations included in the report as follows

bull 350 IMIS inspection files for tables based only on IMIS o IMIS datafile extraction date 12272011 o IMIS file breakouts between targeting methodologies 183 for low-rate targeting 167 for

mid-rate targeting o 33 State Plan State inspections (from CA IN KY MI MN NC NV VA)

bull 303 ORIA inspection files for tables based only on ORIA o Last ORIA inspection file received from OSHA for analysis on 1182012 o ORIA file breakouts between targeting methodologies 166 for low-rate targeting 137 for


bull 291 inspection files for tables based on a combination of IMIS and ORIA o That is not all inspections were input to ORIA and 12 of the ORIA units do not match to

the IMIS dataset (eg because these inspections were input to OIS or were incomplete inspection records in IMIS at the time that the IMIS dataset was created for the analysis)

o File breakouts between targeting methodologies 161 for low-rate targeting 130 for mid-rate targeting

Another way in which the analysis team optimized the use of available data was to include inspections in the analysis even where an establishmentrsquos DART rate as recalculated by the CSHO using the employerrsquos onsite log and employment data was found to be outside the rate range for targeting inspection establishments This inclusive approach in regard to establishment DART rate was in keeping with the revised directive Note also that both directives instructed CSHOs to conduct the inspection regardless of

7

the results of onsite verification of the inspection establishmentrsquos industry code (ie if sector was not specifically targeted by the RK NEP)

The following distinction between the IMIS and ORIA datasets relevant to the analysis is worth noting Because the ORIA software is a tool used onsite during the records inspection ORIA records include extensive documentation of an inspection including details on type of not recorded or underrecorded cases as well as information on cases that were reconstructed during the records review and found to be correctly recorded In contrast IMIS activity records which are initiated prior to an inspection and then completed afterward are violation focused and not intended to capture as much detail about for instance not recorded or underrecorded cases as are the records created in ORIA As a result tables based on the ORIA dataset provide more specificity about DART rate-lowering recordkeeping errors (eg whether a not recorded case is a DART rate-lowering case) than the tables based on the IMIS dataset DART rate-lowering recording errors which include DART cases not recorded and DART cases recorded as non-DART cases are the focus of most data presentations for this analysis in keeping with inspection targeting for the RK NEP that was based on establishment DART rates Also because IMIS is violations focused inspection records identify recording errors in terms of violations and instances of each type of violation For case-level data presentations in this analysis using IMIS data instances are counted as cases

More on Organization of the Analysis

The remainder of this section of the report presents key findings and conclusions from the analysis featuring data presentations that draw on either the ORIA or IMIS data or a combination of both When relevant to particular findings this section references data presentations provided in Section 2 and Section 3 that draw exclusively on the ORIA dataset and provide additional details on inspections conducted under each of the two targeting methodologies

Both the original and revised RK NEP directives are referenced (with a linkweb address to their location on oshagov) in appendices to the report In addition an appendix lists interview questions used to identify establishments with a potentially recordkeeping-related incentive program disciplinary program drug testing program andor absenteeism policy Another appendix provides a high-level analysis of potentially recordkeeping-related employer policy materials collected in conjunction with the recordkeeping inspections Also included is an appendix with examples of non-RK NEP establishment targeting used by State Plan States (ie excluded inspections) and an appendix that provides a count of IMIS inspections establishments by NAICS codes Another appendix presents findings from a preliminary comparison between results from the RK NEP and the audit program in regard to extent of injuryillness underrecording discovered

3 Key Findings

A note about uses of the term ldquounderrecordingrdquo in this analysis In evaluating the results of the RK NEPrsquos focus on the accuracy of employer compliance with occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements the analysis to this point uses ldquounderrecordingrdquo as a term referring to both not recorded injuryillness cases and cases inaccurately recorded in such a way that suggests the cases were not serious (ie did not involve days away transfer or restricted work) With the tables that follow ldquounderrecordingrdquo is used in a more granular sense in considering employer mis-recording of cases specifically DART cases underrecorded as non-DART cases which can lower an establishmentrsquos overall DART rate (ie a rate OSHA generally uses for targeting interventions) (This use of the term underrecording also applies for tables in Sections 2 and 3 of the report)

8

A note about RK NEP finding in regard to OSHArsquos recordkeeping audit program While the focus of this analysis is on findings from the RK NEP it does make occasional comparisons to findings from OSHArsquos 11-year Audit and Verification Program of Occupational Injury and Illness Records (ie the recordkeeping audit program) which was suspended in 20097 Specifically a comparison is made regarding the average level of effort involved in conducting a recordkeeping inspection versus a recordkeeping audit In addition Appendix G presents a preliminary comparison of underrecording discovered under the RK NEP and Audit Program The analysis team considered these comparisons useful while recognizing that the audit program was implemented using a different targeting approach and involved a different methodology that included a sample design for both selection of establishments and the sampling of employees within an establishment for records review in order to apply a significance test to audit results8

Extent of Underrecording Based on Cases Found (with Targeting Comparisons)

The primary objective of the RK NEP was to assess the extent of under-recordingreporting of workplace injuries and illnesses at establishments operating in high-rate industries (primarily sectors identified by the BLS SOII) by OSHA field staff conducting comprehensive recordkeeping inspections OSHA focused the RK NEP targeting on establishments reporting lower rates (through the ODI) despite operating in a high-rate sectormdashbased on the assumption that underrecording is most likely to occur in such establishments During an inspection CSHOs would review 2 years of employer injuryillness recordkeeping Records for the target year and those for the subsequent year (ie which 2 years to focus on was dependent on whether the inspection was being conducted under the original low-rate targeting methodology or the revised approach that focused on mid-rate establishments and that updated which years of recordkeeping should be reviewed)

Table 1-1 broadly assesses the magnitude of recordable case underrecording as found under the RK NEP by providing a count of establishments where at least one not recorded or underrecorded case was discovered The table (based on IMIS data) considers recordable cases of any typemdashnot just DART rate-lowering casesmdashand provides the data on both targeting methodologies as well as breakouts under each approach As shown inspectors found some type of not recorded or underrecorded recordable case at close to half of the inspected establishments with little difference between the two targeting approaches More of the inspection establishments where a case was found were in manufacturing sectors however about 10 percent more inspections overall were conducted in manufacturing establishments Also more of the inspection establishments where a case was found were without union affiliation yet far more inspections were conducted in such establishments (about 40 percent more overall) Also most of the establishments where an inspection was conducted were in the Federal OSHA jurisdiction

Note that counts from IMIS of not recorded and underrecorded cases are based on the following standards cited in the OSHA recordkeeping rule

bull 19044(a) Unrecorded case bull 19047(b)(3) Mis-recorded case involving days away from work bull 19047(b)(4) Mis-recorded case involving restricted work activity

7 ERG provided a range of support to OSHA across all 11 years of the audit program which included developing the software tool that Agency field staff used onsite when conducting an audit helping train Agency field staff in use of the tool and providing them with ongoing technical support and then conducting the analysis of the audit data at the end of each annual audit cycle8 For an example of an analysis report on the audit program see OSHA Data Initiative Collection Quality Control Analysis of Audits on 2006 Employer Injury and Illness Recordkeeping November 25 2009 (Final Report) Eastern Research Group Inc and the National Opinion Research Center

9

Table 1-1 OSHA RK NEP Inspections on Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Number and Percent of Establishments with Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Casesdagger

Found During Inspections with Breakouts by Manufacturing vs Non-Manufacturing and Union vs Non-Union

(also with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology and Total Inspections by Federal Jurisdiction and State Plan States)

[Table data source = IMIS data only Counts of Inspection Establishments]

Inspection Results Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Cases Found

All Inspections Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Establishments Where a NotUnderrecorded Case(s) Was Found

165 4714 85 4645 80 4790

bull Manufacturing 96 5818 50 5882 46 5750

bull Non-Manufacturing 69 4182 35 4118 34 4250

Union 44 2667 24 2824 20 2500

Non-Union 121 7333 61 7176 60 7500 Establishments Where No NotUnderrecorded Case(s) Were Found

185 5286 98 5355 87 5210

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS 350 100 183 100 167 100

Related Inspection Counts bull Manufacturing 192 5486 89 4863 103 6168


Union 105 3000 55 3005 50 2994

Non-Union 245 7000 128 6995 117 7006

Federal Jurisdiction 317 9057 173 9454 144 8623

State Plan Statesdaggerdagger 33 943 10 546 23 1377

Note This analysis is based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis dagger In the IMIS dataset a not recorded case is cited as ldquounrecordedrdquo and an underrecorded case is cited as ldquomisshyrecordedrdquo Also IMIS is violations focused and identifies recording errors in terms of violations and instances For this analysis instances are counted as cases Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) SeeOSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that was somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 The manufacturing and non-manufacturing establishment categories are presented as subsets of all establishments where cases were found For this analysis manufacturing includes establishments operating in

10

NAICS sectors 31 through 33 As noted in footnote above the targeting methodology for the revised directive emphasized manufacturing daggerdagger No RK inspections conducted at public sector establishments by State Plan States with jurisdiction over only State and local government employees are included in this count This is because all such inspections that were potentially available for the analysis were conducted using the Statersquos own establishment targeting approach and thus filtered out

Focusing on the 350 inspection records from IMIS Table 1-2A provides a first-level look at recordable cases with recording errors found during inspections Of the 2350 cases with recording errors over 55 percent were either some type of case that was not recorded or a DART case recorded as non-DART Overall CSHOs found 374 not recorded cases or DART cases recorded as non-DART cases per inspection For all cases with errors CSHOs found 67 cases per inspection overall More cases per inspection were found using the low-rate targeting approach (As noted previously and again in the table footnote IMIS data does not indicate whether not recorded cases found were DART cases)

Table 1-2A OSHA RK NEP Inspections on Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded)dagger

(with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [Table data source = IMIS data only Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Inspection Results Type of Recording Error

All Inspections Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02) Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Case Not Recorded 703 2991 430 3519 273 2420 DART Case Recorded as Non-DART 607 2583 296 2422 311 2757

Total Cases with the Above Recording Errors 1310 5574 726 5941 584 5177

Total Above Cases per Inspection 1310 350 = 374 726 183 = 397 584 167 = 350

Total Cases with Recording Errors Other Than Those Above 1040 4426 496 4059 544 4823

Total Cases Found with Errors 2350 100 1222 100 1128 100 Note This analysis is based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis daggerIn the IMIS dataset a not recorded case is cited as ldquounrecordedrdquo and an underrecorded case is cited as ldquomisshyrecordedrdquo Also IMIS is violations focused and identifies recording errors in terms of violations and instances For this analysis instances are counted as cases Further IMIS inspection records are not intended to capture as much detail about unrecorded or misrecorded cases as are the records created in ORIA during onsite documentation of the inspection (which also include information on cases that were reconstructed during the records review and found to be correctly recorded) As a result tables based on the IMIS dataset provide less specificity about DART rate-lowering recordkeeping errors (eg whether a not recorded case is a DART rate-lowering case) than the tables based on the ORIA dataset Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

11

Using the 303 inspection records in ORIA Table 1-2B focuses specifically on DART cases since underrecording of such cases can lower the key case rate used by OSHA (along with other information) in targeting programmed safety and health inspections as well as outreach and other Agency activities An advantage of this table based on the ORIA data is that it provides information on the extent of DART-rate lowering recording errors relative to DART cases found without rate-lowering errors

As shown in the table inspectors found over 2600 DART cases when reviewing employee injuryillness records of which just over 20 percent (552 cases) were not recorded or underrecorded However extensive not recordingunderrecording of DART cases was not widely distributed across inspection establishments For instance of the 552 not recorded or underrecorded DART cases found slightly over 50 percent of them came from 20 establishments (ie 66 percent of the 303 establishment in the ORIA dataset) Further of the 311 (out of the 552) that were specifically not-recorded DART cases over 30 percent came from 4 establishments (ie 13 percent of the 303 inspections in ORIA) and of the 241 that were underrecorded DART cases almost a quarter also came from just 4 establishments (Also 177 of the 552 not recordedunderrecorded DART cases involved restricted work activity or worker transfer to another job OSHA has long recognized this as a common recordkeeping error that employers make because the injured worker is still working in some capacity for this reason it remains a topic that OSHA addresses in ongoing recordkeeping outreach efforts)

More cases per inspection with DART rate-lowering errors were found under the low-rate targeting approach Again regarding the distribution of cases with rate-lowering errors 10 establishments accounted for slightly over 50 percent of the 368 cases found with such errors using the low-rate targeting approach under the mid-rate targeting approach 12 establishments accounted for 50 percent of the 184 DART cases with rate-lowering errors

In looking beyond DART cases to total recordable cases found by inspectors that were either not recorded or underrecorded Table 1-2C shows that the percentage of all such cases found across inspections is similar to the proportion for DART cases This is also true for the percents under the two targeting approaches Again more such cases per inspection were found using low-rate targeting The number of cases per inspection for total recordable cases found with errors is 28 based on inspections in the ORIA dataset which is lower than what was indicated by the IMIS dataset

12

Table 1-2B OSHA RK NEP Inspections on Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of DART Rate-Lowering Recording Errorsdagger

(with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [Table data source = ORIA data only Counts of CasesInstances]

Inspection Results DART Cases Found



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DART Case Not Recorded 311 1190 213 2228 98 591 DART Case Recorded as Non-DART 241 922 155 1621 86 519

Total DART Cases with the Above Rate-Lowering Recording Errors

552 2112 368 3849 184 1110


Total DART Cases Found without DART-Rate Lowering Recording Errors (none of the above)

2062 7888 588 6151 1474 8890

Total DART Cases 2614 100 956 100 1658 100 dagger DART rate-lowering cases include DART cases not recorded and DART cases recorded as non-DART cases Note that ORIA records include extensive documentation of an inspection including details on type of not recorded or underrecorded cases (In addition ORIA includes information on cases that were reconstructed during the records review and found to be correctly recorded) As a result tables based on the ORIA dataset provide more specificity about DART rate-lowering recordkeeping errors (eg whether a not recorded case is a DART rate-lowering case and a third category of underrecorded cases) than the tables based on the IMIS dataset Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

13

Table 1-2C OSHA RK NEP Inspections on Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Number and Percent of All Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errorsdagger


Inspection Results Cases Found



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Not Recorded 632 1661 366 2590 266 1112 DART Case Recorded as Non-DART 241 633 155 1097 86 359



Total Cases Found without the Above Recording Errors 2933 7706 892 6313 2041 8529

Total Cases 3806 100 1413 100 2393 100 dagger Covers types of cases OSHA uses to calculate an establishmentrsquos Total Case Rate (TCR) from the OSHA Log 300 (ie using columns G H I and J) Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

Additional Findings on Extent of Underrecording from ORIA-Specific Tables in Section 2 and 3 In reviewing 2 years of recordkeeping during the inspections overall CSHOs found more not recorded and underrecorded DART cases in the target year than in the subsequent year of recordkeeping reviewed during the inspection under both targeting approaches Also across both years covered by an inspection twice as many total cases with DART-rate lowering errors were found under the low-rate targeting approach Note however that 18 percent more inspections were in the ORIA dataset for the low-rate approach (See Table 2-2 and Table 3-2) The data also indicate that extensive underrecording of DART cases was not widely distributed At most establishments where DART-related recordkeeping errors were found CSHOs found one or two cases (See Tables 2-2a amp 2b and Tables 3a amp 3b) For example under the low-rate targeting approach and across 2 years of reviewed records inspectors found one or two not reported DART cases at 44 establishments and between three and twelve such cases at 16 establishments (See Table 3-2b) diams

Findings on ODI Submission Comparison from ORIA-Specific Tables in Section 2 and 3 This analysis compares DART injuryillness case counts from establishmentsrsquo ODI submission (for the year used to target establishments under the RK NEP) with DART case counts resulting from the inspection (ie DART cases on the employers log at time of inspection plus not recorded and underrecorded DART cases discovered during the inspection) Overall inspectors found that more than 50 percent of establishments had exactly the same number of DART cases resulting from the inspection as submitted for the ODI under both targeting approaches At about 43 percent of establishments the inspection

14

resulted in more DART cases than what were included in the ODI submission (ie 38 percent more under the low-rate targeting approach and 44 percent more under the mid-rate approach) About 5 percent of establishments had fewer DART cases resulting from the inspection than in their submission (ie overreported) (See Table 2-3a and Table 3-3a) When information from onsite records indicates a different DART rate than what could be calculated based on information submitted to OSHA under the ODI OSHA may have obtained an inaccurate picture of the injuryillness experience at the establishment For a rank ordering by average inspection calculated rate of industry sectors in which the establishments with ldquomorerdquo DART cases operate see Table 2-3c and Table 3-3c The tables show that the distribution of establishments with ldquomorerdquo DART cases is greatest in the nursing care industry under both targeting approaches Industries with the next greatest distribution of establishments with ldquomorerdquo DART cases are iron and steel-related sectors (under mid-rate targeting) and soft drink manufacturing (under low-rate targeting) A similar listing by establishment is presented in Table 2-3b and Table 3-3b with a breakout highlighting meat and poultry processing sectors Submission comparison tables focusing on employment size groups manufacturing versus non-manufacturing establishments and Federal compared to State Plan State jurisdictions respectively show fairly similar results as above (eg establishments with exactly the same information onsite as submitted for DART cases ranged from 43 to 64 percent under both targeting approaches) (See Tables 2-3d e f and Tables 3-3d e f) diams

To address OSHArsquos interest in hazards associated with certain industry sectors Tables 1-2(A)1 and 1shy2(A)2 focus on underrecorded DART cases discovered during inspections at nursing care facilities and at operations involving meat and poultry processing These two tables show counts from IMIS and thus are based on a subset of Table 1-2A above (ie ORIA-specific counts are not presented here for these industry sectors) From inspections at 96 nursing care facilities about 35 percent of the cases found to have recording errors were either some type of recordable case that was not recorded or a DART case recorded as non-DART In meat and poultry processing sectors the 30 inspections that were conducted resulted in fewer cases with any errors But a higher percentage of the cases with recording errors were either some type of not recorded case or a DART case recorded as non-DART (about 78 percent) Again IMIS data does not indicate whether not recorded cases found were DART cases nor does IMIS provide information on how many cases were found to be correctly recorded For nursing homes the proportion of cases with these types of errors was somewhat higher using the low-rate targeting approach and more notably so for inspections in meat and poultry processing sectors In addition inspectors found a somewhat higher average number of cases with errors at establishments in these two industry sectors than across all sectors combined 67 per establishment across all 350 establishments 73 per establishment across 96 nursing home establishments and 112 per establishment across all meat and poultry establishments

Table 1-2(A)3 compares what inspectors found at nursing care facilities and meat and poultry processing establishments respectively against the results of inspections in all other sectors The table shows that the number of not recorded or underrecorded DART cases found per inspection at meat and poultry processing establishments was notably higher than at inspection establishments in the other sectors In contrast the number of cases found per inspection at nursing care facilities was lower than the number per inspection at either meat and poultry processing establishments or at all other inspection establishments

15

Table 1-2(A)1 OSHA RK NEP Inspections on Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

NURSING CARE FACILITIES Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors

by Type of Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded)dagger





(Directive 10-07)





Total Cases Found with Errors 702 100 286 100 416 100 Note This industry-specific table focuses on nursing care facilities (NAICS 623110) Also this analysis is based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis Of 96 inspections in IMIS for this sector 44 were conducted under the low-rate targeting approach and 52 under the mid-rate approach dagger In the IMIS dataset a not recorded case is cited as ldquounrecordedrdquo and an underrecorded case is cited as ldquomisshyrecordedrdquo Also IMIS is violations focused and identifies recording errors in terms of violations and instances For this analysis instances are counted as cases Further IMIS inspection records are not intended to capture as much detail about unrecorded or misrecorded cases as are the records created in ORIA during onsite documentation of the inspection (which also include information on cases that were reconstructed during the records review and found to be correctly recorded) As a result tables based on the IMIS dataset provide less specificity about DART rate-lowering recordkeeping errors (eg whether a not recorded case is a DART rate-lowering case) than the tables based on the ORIA dataset Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) SeeOSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries However if fewer than 5 manufacturing establishments included in an Area Officersquos inspection list met the NEPrsquos rate criterion nursing home establishments that met the criterion were to be randomly selected for inspection See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

16


MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING SECTORS Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors






(Directive 10-07)





Total Cases Found with Errors 334 100 190 100 144 100 Note This industry-specific table focuses on meat and poultry processing sectors including NAICS 311611 (animal slaughtering) 311615 (poultry processing) and 115210 (support activities for animal production) Also this analysis is based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis Of 30 inspections in IMIS for these sectors 13 were conducted under the low-rate targeting approach and 17 under the mid-rate approach dagger In the IMIS dataset a not recorded case is cited as ldquounrecordedrdquo and an underrecorded case is cited as ldquomisshyrecordedrdquo Also IMIS is violations focused and identifies recording errors in terms of violations and instances For this analysis instances are counted as cases Further IMIS inspection records are not intended to capture as much detail about unrecorded or misrecorded cases as are the records created in ORIA during onsite documentation of the inspection (which also include information on cases that were reconstructed during the records review and found to be correctly recorded) As a result tables based on the IMIS dataset provide less specificity about DART rate-lowering recordkeeping errors (eg whether a not recorded case is a DART rate-lowering case) than the tables based on the ORIA dataset Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) SeeOSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

17


NURSING CARE FACILITIES vs MEAT AND POULTRY vs ALL OTHERS SECTORS Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors


[Table data source = IMIS data only Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Inspection Result Type of Recording Error

Nursing Care Facilities

Meat and Poultry Processing Sectors All Other Sectors





Total Cases Found 702 100 334 100 1314 100 This portion of the table focuses on nursing care facilities (NAICS 623110) Of 96 inspections in IMIS for thissector 44 were conducted under the low-rate targeting approach and 52 under the mid-rate approach This portion of the table focuses on meat and poultry processing sectors including NAICS 311611 (animal slaughtering) 311615 (poultry processing) and 115210 (support activities for animal production) Of 30 inspections in IMIS for these sectors 13 were conducted under the low-rate targeting approach and 17 under the mid-rate approach dagger In the IMIS dataset a not recorded case is cited as ldquounrecordedrdquo and an underrecorded case is cited as ldquomisshyrecordedrdquo Also IMIS is violations focused and identifies recording errors in terms of violations and instances For this analysis instances are counted as cases Further IMIS inspection records are not intended to capture as much detail about unrecorded or misrecorded cases as are the records created in ORIA during onsite documentation of the inspection (which also include information on cases that were reconstructed during the records review and found to be correctly recorded) As a result tables based on the IMIS dataset provide less specificity about DART rate-lowering recordkeeping errors (eg whether a not recorded case is a DART rate-lowering case) than the tables based on the ORIA dataset

18

Extent of Underrecording Based on Citations Issued (with Targeting Comparisons)

Another way of assessing the extent and relevance of underrecording is to consider recordkeeping violations cited and monetary penalties proposed under the RK NEP against employers Counts of violations in the tables that follow focus on types of recordkeeping errors found by inspectors (versus counts of instances of each type) Note however that while in an individual inspection a particular violation of the rule would be cited only once during review of a specific year of employer recordkeepingmdashalbeit with the inspector possibly finding and noting multiple instances of cases with the same type of error in that year of recordkeepingmdashover the course of the inspection the CSHO may cite the employer again for the same violation previously cited when reviewing a different year of recordkeeping As a result the IMIS record for an inspection can include multiple citations for violations of the same section of the recordkeeping rule

Table 1-3 looks at inspection establishments that were cited for the greatest number of violations of the recordkeeping rule (29 CFR Part 1904) and those with the highest level of proposed penalties (such data are only available in IMIS) The table also considers inspection establishments in terms of initial classification of violations Also because the RK NEP directive instructed CSHOs to take into account the existence of recordkeeping-related incentive or disciplinary programs at inspection establishments when determining the violation classificationsmdashthat is if the CSHO determined that the program presented the potential for affecting the recording of injuries and illnessmdashthe table includes breakouts on establishments where interviews indicated either of these types of programs existed This breakout on incentive and disciplinary programs is based on the subset of inspections that were documented in ORIA (Note also that the ORIA data and thus these breakouts do not address whether the CSHO determined that the identified program might have an impact on recordkeeping) Again this tablemdashwhich is based on inspection records that matched between the IMIS and ORIA datasetsmdashlooks at total inspections and provides breakouts for each targeting approach

The table shows that fewer than 10 inspections (less than 3) resulted in 10 or more violations of the rule or initial penalties of $10000 or more Also a total of 6 establishments (about 2) were cited for willful or repeat violations The low-rate targeting approach yielded a higher level of violations For instance of the small number of willful and repeat violations all were under the low-rate approach in addition all were at establishments that had an incentive or disciplinary program (See Table 1-4 for information on total violations and total penalties across all inspections as well as average penalties per establishment)

19


Number and Percent of Establishments with a High Level of Violations and Establishments with Violations by Classification

(with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [Table data source = IMIS data

except ORIA data for incentivedisciplinary programs]

Inspection Results Level and Class of Recordkeeping Violationsdagger



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Establishments with a High Level of RK Violations or Penalties 10 or more RK violations 8 275 5 311 3 231 $10000 or more in initial penalties 7 241 4 248 3 231 $10000 or more in penalties after reductions (as of 12272011) 6 206 3 186 3 231

Establishments with an RK Violation by Initial Classification (with Breakouts for IncentiveDisciplinary Program)

Willful 2 069 2 124 0 0 Establishment found to have an incentive or disciplinary program in place

2 100 2 100 0 0

Repeat 4 137 4 248 0 0 Establishment found to have an incentive or disciplinary program in place

4 100 4 100 0 0

Other 187 6426 101 6273 86 6615 Total EstablishmentsInspectionsdaggerdagger 291 100 161 100 130 100

Note This analysis is primarily based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis dagger Counts of violations do not include State Plan State citations to a jurisdiction-specific recordkeeping standard (ie citation to other than Federal OSHArsquos recordkeeping rule 29 CFR Part 1904) Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) SeeOSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 The RK NEP directive instructed inspectors to take into account the potential effect of an incentive or disciplinary program on the recording of injuries and illnesses when determining the classification of a citation

bull An establishment was determined to have a potentially recordkeeping-related incentive program if theanswer to any of the following questions in the questionnaires administered during the inspection was ldquoYesrdquo Question 21 andor 22 of the Recordkeeper Questionnaire Question 7a andor 7b of the Employee Questionnaire Question 23 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12 andor 12b of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire

20

bull An establishment was determined to have a potentially recordkeeping-related disciplinary program if the answer to any of the following questions in the questionnaires administered during the inspection was ldquoYesrdquo Question 7c of the Employee Questionnaire Question 24 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12b of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire

See Appendix A for the particular questions noted in the list above daggerdagger Total for this table includes only establishmentsinspections that matched between the IMIS and ORIA datasets 12 of the units in the ORIA dataset do not match to the IMIS dataset (eg because these inspections were input to OIS or were incomplete inspection records in IMIS at the time that the IMIS dataset was created for the analysis)

Similar to the preceding table Table 1-31A and Table 1-32A also look at inspection establishments with a high level of violations And accompanying Table 1-31B and Table 1-32B provide additional detail by providing counts of inspection establishments where not recorded or underrecorded cases were found However these four data presentations focus on two groups of inspections that were excluded from the overall analysis because the establishments were selected for inspection using a non-RK NEP targeting methodology Tables 1-31AampB are based on State Plan State inspections that used State-specific targeting (see example methodologies in Appendix E) while Tables 1-32AampB are based on inspections conducted in the Federal OSHA jurisdiction that were triggered by targeting under other Agency programs (eg Complaint Site Specific Targeting other NEP)


STATE PLAN STATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED WITH NON-RK NEP TARGETING amp THUS EXCLUDED FROM THE ANALYSIS


[Table data source = IMIS data only]

Inspection Results Level and Class of Recordkeeping Violations

All Inspections Number Percent

Establishments with a High Level of RK Violations or Penalties 10 or more RK violations 0 0 $10000 or more in initial penalties 0 0 $10000 or more in penalties after reductions (as of 12272011) 0 0 Establishments with an RK Violation by Initial Classification Willful 0 0 Repeat 0 0 Other 37 2090 Total EstablishmentsInspections 177 100

Note Because the inspection establishments covered by this table did not target inspections based on the RK NEP they are excluded from other parts of the analysis See Appendix E for a few examples of State Plan State non-RK NEP targeting (Also note that the analysis is primarily based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis) State Plan States with inspections included in this table are AZ (citing to federal 1904) NY (citing to state 801) OR (citing to state 7010700) PR (citing to federal 1904) TN (citing to state 3000) and WA (citing to state 027)

21



Number and Percent of Establishments Where a Recordkeeping Error Was Found During Inspections

(with Breakouts by Manufacturing vs Non-Manufacturing) (Also Number and Percent of Recording Errors Found by Inspectors

[Table data source = IMIS data only Counts of Inspection Establishments and Counts of Instances of the Cited RK Violations]

Inspection Results All Inspections Recordkeeping Errors Found Number Percent Establishments Where an RK Error Was Found 37 2090

bull Manufacturing 8 2162

bull Non-Manufacturing 29 7838

Establishments Where No RK Errors Were Found 140 7910

TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS 177 100

Total Instances of RK Errors 207 100 Note Because the inspection establishments covered by this table did not target inspections based on the RK NEP they are excluded from other parts of the analysis See Appendix E for a few examples of State Plan State non-RK NEP targeting (Also note that the analysis is primarily based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis) State Plan States with inspections included in this table are AZ (citing to federal 1904) NY(citing to state 801) OR (citing to state 7010700) PR (citing to federal 1904) TN (citing to state 3000) and WA (citing to state 027) The manufacturing and non-manufacturing establishment categories are presented as subsets of all establishments where errors were found For this analysis manufacturing includes establishments operating in NAICS sectors 31 through 33 The targeting methodology for the revised directive emphasized manufacturing

22


OTHER INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED USING NON-RK NEP TARGETING amp THUS EXCLUDED FROM THE ANALYSIS






Note Because the inspection establishments covered by this table did not target inspections based on the RK NEP they are excluded from other parts of the analysis Examples of the bases for conducting these inspections include Complaints Site Specific Targeting other NEP (Also note that the analysis is primarily based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis)

23



Number and Percent of Establishments with Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Cases Found During Inspections (with Breakouts by Manufacturing vs Non-Manufacturing)

Also Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors

with Recording Errors (Not Recorded or Underrecorded) [Table data source = IMIS data only Counts of Inspection Establishments and

Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK Violations]

Inspection Results All Inspections Not Recorded andor Underrecorded Cases Found Number Percent Establishments Where a NotUnderrecorded Case(s) Was Found 8 2222



Establishments Where No NotUnderrecorded Case(s) Were Found 28 7778


Total Not Recorded or Underrecorded Cases 70 4294

Total Cases with Other Recording Errors 93 5706

Total Cases Found with Errors 163 100 Note Because the inspection establishments covered by this table did not target inspections based on the RK NEP they are excluded from other parts of the analysis Examples of the bases for conducting these inspections include Complaints Site Specific Targeting other NEP (Also note that the analysis is primarily based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis) The manufacturing and non-manufacturing establishment categories are presented as subsets ofall establishments where cases were found For this analysis manufacturing includes establishments operating in NAICS sectors 31 through 33 The targeting methodology for the revised directive emphasized manufacturing

Table 1-4 provides another perspective on extent and relevance of underrecording by highlighting the total amount of monetary penalties for recordkeeping violations before and after penalty reductions The table shows that 552 violations of the recordkeeping rule were cited across all inspections (ie a count of types of recordkeeping errors found across all years of employer recordkeeping reviewed during inspections) Total initial penalties exceeded $800000 (less after penalty reductions) averaging about $4650 per establishment with penalties Between the two targeting approaches under the low-rate approach about 40 percent more violations were identified and 60 percent more in penalties was levied

24


Penalty Levels of Recordkeeping Violations (with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology)


Inspection Results Penalty Level of Recordkeeping Violations

All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)

Total initial penalties $805415 $578035 $227380 Total penalties after reductions (as of as of 12272011) $678514 $495694 $182820

Average initial penalty $1459 $1652 $1126 Average establishment initial penalty total $4656 $5898 $3032

Average number of violations with initial penalties per establishment

319 357 269

Total number of violations 552 350 202 Note Averages and total violations are based on establishments with penalties (ie establishments without penalties not included in the denominator) (Also this analysis is based on RK NEP inspections entered into OSHArsquos Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) A small number of RK NEP inspections were entered into the new OSHA Information System (OIS) and were not included in the analysis) Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

To highlight the most serious violators of the recordkeeping rule identified under the NEP Table 1-5 lists those with 10 or more violations andor penalties greater than $10000 by total initial penalties The inspection establishment ranked at the top of this list had initial penalties of $224000 representing almost a quarter of total initial penalties levied across the 350 inspection At this one establishment (operating in a meat processing sector) the inspection cited 17 different recordkeeping violations and identified 123 cases with some type of recordkeeping error In contrast the establishment ranked second with $70000 in initial penalties was cited for 1 type of violation and had 2 cases with some type of recordkeeping error (Again note that during an inspection the CSHO may cite the employer for violating the same section of the recordkeeping rule more than once if the violation is found again in a different year of recordkeeping reviewed) Industries appearing most frequently in the list (at three times each) are meat and poultry processing nursing care facilities and iron foundries and iron and steel forging Both targeting approaches are represented in the list with 7 out of the 12 establishments targeted under the low-rate approach

25


Establishments with 10 or More RK Violations andor Initial Penalties Greater Than $10000 Ranked by Total Initial Penalties


Establishment amp Location (NAICS)

Counts of RK

Violations Cited

Counts of CasesInstances of the Cited RK

Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties

Low-Rate Targeting (Directive

10-02)


VPP Group LLC Norwalk WI (311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering)

17 123 $224000

Johnson Controls Battery Group Kernersville NC (335911 Storage Battery Manufacturing)

1 2 $70000

Case Farms Processing Inc Morganton NC (311615 Poultry Processing)

5 80 $35000

St Ignatius Nursing Home Philadelphia PA (623110 Nursing Care Facilities)

14 28 $13000

Caterpillar Inc Mapleton IL (331511 Iron Foundries)

12 67 $12000

Pilgrims Corporation Moorefield WV (311615 Poultry Processing)

5 21 $12000

United Airlines Inc New York NY (481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation)

12 24 $11200

Bravo Care of Peoria Inc Peoria IL (623110 Nursing Care Facilities)

17 42 $8500

Kenbrook Associatesdaggerdagger

DBA BROOKH East Orange NJ (623110 Nursing Care Facilities)

10 35 $7000

Cumberland Dairy Inc Bridgeton NJ (311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing)

10 13 $5400

Canton Drop Forge Inc Canton OH (332111 Iron and Steel Forging)

11 91 $0

26


Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)


Texaloy Foundry Company Floresville TX (331511 Iron Foundries)

13 13 $0

dagger IMIS is violations focused and identifies recording errors in terms of violations and instances For this analysis instances are counted as cases Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 daggerdagger Not included in the count of establishments with 10 or more recordkeeping violations shown in Table 1-3 because that prior table is based on inspection records that matched between the IMIS and ORIA datasets and no ORIA record for this establishment was available for the analysis

Using the subset of inspections that were documented in ORIA Table 1-6 further considers possible associations between underrecording and the existence of a potentially recordkeeping-related incentive program disciplinary program or program requiring post-injury drug testing The existence of any of these at an inspection establishment could potentially influence a workerrsquos decision about whether to report an injury to the employer

The table shows that between establishments that did or did not have a special program in place the percents are fairly close for those where not-recorded cases were found (Note however that the total number of establishments with or without a particular program differ) Specifically the percent of establishments with a disciplinary program where a not-recorded case was found is only slightly higher than the percent for establishments without such a program This difference is greater when looking at incentive programs and more pronounced for drug testing programs These finding are generally reflected in Tables 1-61 which focuses on the subsets of inspections conducted in nursing care and in meat and poultry processing establishments respectively however with the smaller number of inspections involved differences are somewhat more apparent (Note that the All Inspections section of this tablemdashthe gray shaded sectionmdashis repeated from Table 1-6 for comparison) Across both tables findings in regard to targeting approach varied

Note that while the two tables that immediately follow consider the existence of employersrsquo potentially recordkeeping-related special programs Tables 1-7 and 1-71 look specifically at counts of employees who indicated in interviews with CSHOs whether the existence of such programs had an effect on injuryillness reporting

27


Number and Percent of Establishments with and without a Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Special Program Cross-Tabulated with Establishments Where Not Recorded Cases Were Found

(with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [Table data source = ORIA data only]

Inspection Results Not Recorded Case(s) Found



Establishments with Special

Programs

Establishments without Special

Programs

Establishments with Special Programs


Programs



Programs

Number Percentdagger Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Incentive Program

Cases Found 63 3281 28 2523 33 3333 14 2090 30 3226 14 3182 Cases Not Found 129 6719 83 7477 66 6667 53 7910 63 6774 30 6818

Total Establishments 192 100 111 100 99 100 67 100 93 100 44 100 Disciplinary Program


Total Establishments 52 100 251 100 24 100 142 100 28 100 109 100 Post-Injury Drug Testing Program


Total Establishments 222 100 81 100 107 100 59 100 115 100 22 100 Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 An establishment is counted as having cases that were not recorded if the inspector found 1 or more cases in the inspection sample that were not on the Log An establishment was determined to have a potentially recordkeeping-related special program if the answer to any of the following questions in the questionnaires administered during the inspection was ldquoYesrdquo

28

bull Incentive program Question 21 andor 22 of the Recordkeeper Questionnaire Question 7a andor 7b of the Employee Questionnaire Question 23 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12 andor 12b of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire See Appendix A for the particular questions noted bull Disciplinary program Question 7c of the Employee Questionnaire Question 24 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12b of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire See Appendix A for the particular questions noted bull Drug testing program Question 7e of the Employee Questionnaire Question 14 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12c of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire See Appendix A for the particular questions noted

29


NURSING CARE FACILITIES amp MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING SECTORS Number and Percent of Establishments with and without a Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Special Program

Cross-Tabulated with Establishments Where Not Recorded Cases Were Found) [Table data source = ORIA data only]


All Industry Inspections NURSING CARE FACILITIES MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING SECTORS


Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs







Total Establishments 222 100 81 100 47 100 44 100 23 100 5 100 Meat and poultry processing sectors for this analysis include NAICS 311611 (animal slaughtering) 311615 (poultry processing) and 115210 (support activities for animal production) An establishment is counted as having cases that were not recorded if the inspector found 1 or more cases in the inspection sample that were not on the Log An establishment was determined to have a potentially recordkeeping-related special program if the answer to any of the following questions in the questionnaires administered during the inspection was ldquoYesrdquo

bull Incentive program Question 21 andor 22 of the Recordkeeper Questionnaire Question 7a andor 7b of the Employee Questionnaire Question 23 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12 andor 12b of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire See Appendix A for the particular questions noted

30

bull Disciplinary program Question 7c of the Employee Questionnaire Question 24 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12b of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire See Appendix A for the particular questions noted

bull Drug testing program Question 7e of the Employee Questionnaire Question 14 of the Health Care Professional Questionnaire or Question 12c of the ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire See Appendix A for the particular questions noted

As a follow-up on the preceding sequence of tables Table 1-7 looks at counts of employees who indicated in interviews with CSHOs whether they thought the existence of employer special programs discouraged or encouraged injuryillness reporting The table shows that interview questions about disciplinary programs yielded the highest percentage of employees who thought the existence of such a program at their establishment had a discouraging effect on reporting Note that disciplinary programs yielded the smallest number of responses to the question about the effect of various special programs Absenteeism policies had the next highest percentage of employees indicating a discouraging effect on reporting however a higher percentage of employees thought absenteeism policies had no effect on reporting (ie neither discouraged or encouraged reporting) Questions about drug testing programs had the highest number of respondents overall with a smaller proportion indicating that such programs discouraged injuryillness reporting Similarly a smaller proportion of employee respondents to questions on incentive programs (for both employee-based and managersupervisor-based programs) indicated that these programs discouraged reporting

The tablersquos breakout on union affiliation specifically for employees who thought special programs had a discouraging effect shows that a notably higher percentage of employees at union-affiliated establishments had this opinion about incentive programs and disciplinary programs than respondents at non-union workplaces For absenteeism policies only a slightly higher percentage of union employees had this opinion Note that across the 291 inspections used for this table (ie those that matched between the IMIS and ORIA datasets) about 40 percent more inspectionsmdash and thus more employee interviewsmdashwere conducted in non-union establishments Possibly employees at union-affiliated establishments were more inclined to voice an opinion about a discouraging effect Only drug testing programs were viewed by a higher percentage of non-union employees as having a discouraging effect although only somewhat higher than union-affiliated respondents Interview questions on drug testing programs yielded the greatest number of employee responses by far than for questions on any of the other types of special programs considered (Similarly as shown in Table 1-71 responses to questions about drug testing programs came from more establishments than for questions on other types of programs)

Table 1-71 looks at employees who thought the existence of employer special programs discouraged injuryillness reporting in terms of their concentration across establishments where any employee indicated the discouraging effect of such programs The table indicates that this opinion varies across establishments (ie generally from zero to 50 percent of employees at most establishments) with the concentration somewhat more prevalent for disciplinary programs (35 percent of establishments where 100 percent of respondents indicated the discouraging effect) and absenteeism policies (about 15 percent of establishments with the 100 percent employee concentration) Also the average percent of employees indicating the discouraging effect of special programs was highest for disciplinary programs and absenteeism programs

31


Counts of Employees by Effect on InjuryIllness Reporting of Employer Special Programs Based on Employee Responses in Interviews Conducted by CSHOs during Inspections

(with Breakouts by Whether Discouraged Employees Worked at Union or Non-Union Establishments) [Table data source = ORIA data except IMIS data for union affiliation]

Interviewed Employeesrsquo Responses about Effect of Special Programs on Reporting Injuries and Illnesses

Incentive Program Disciplinary Program Drug Testing Program Absenteeism Policy

Employee Incentives Manager Incentives

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Discouraged 113 860 13 1102 44 5000 432 1852 57 4043 Union 71 6283 9 6923 31 7045 188 4352 30 5263

Non-Union 42 3717 4 3077 13 2955 244 5648 27 4737 Encouraged 298 2268 22 1864 22 2500 258 1106 15 1064 Neither 903 6872 83 7034 22 2500 1642 7041 69 4894 TOTAL 1314 100 118 100 88 100 2332 100 141 100 In this table the effect on employee injuryillness reporting of employer special programs was based on employee responses to specific follow-on questions in the Employee Questionnaire administered during the inspection Questions 7a2 andor 7b2 (incentive) 7c2 (disciplinary) 7e2 (drug testing) and 7d2 (absenteeism) Thus this table assesses a subset of establishments assessed in preceding tables where special programs were identified in interviews as existing but without assessing the effect In those tables the total counts of establishments with special programs are as follows incentive programs (192) disciplinary programs (52) and drug testing programs (222) Since a question on employer absenteeism policies was only posed in the employee questionnaire responses are not covered in the preceding tables See Appendix A for the particular questions noted

32


Distribution of Employees Indicating Discouraging Effect of Employer Special Programs on InjuriesIllness Reporting Across Establishments Where Any Employee Indicated the Discouraging Effect of Such Programs

(with Average Percent of Employees Indicating Discouraging Effect across All Establishments and UnionNon-Union Establishments

Where Any Employee Indicated the Discouraging Effect of Such Programs) [Table data source = ORIA data except IMIS data for union affiliation]

Percent of Employees Indicating Discouraging Effect of Special Programs on Reporting

Number (and Percent) of Establishments at That Percent of Employees Level

Incentive Program Disciplinary Program

Drug Testing Program

Absenteeism Program Employee Incentives Manager Incentives

0 percent 98 (6712) 39 (7959) 19 (475) 80 (3791) 28 (5283) gt0 to 25 percent 36 (2466) 3 (612) 0 (0) 82 (3886) 3 (566) gt25 to 50 percent 7 (479) 3 (612) 5 (125) 35 (1659) 10 (1887) gt50 to 75 percent 1 (068) 0 (0) 1 (25) 7 (332) 3 (566) gt75 to lt100 percent 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (25) 2 (095) 1 (189) 100 percent 4 (274) 4 (816) 14 (350) 4 (19) 8 (1509) Total Establishments 146 (100) 49 (100) 40 (100) 211 (100) 53 (100)

Average Percent of Employees Indicating Discouraging Effect All Establishments 782 1208 4444 1679 2990 Union Establishments 1328 1504 5637 2443 2911 Non-Union Establishments 569 967 3250 1421 3034

One establishment had a drug testing program based on responses to Question 7e but since no answer to follow-up question 7e2 was provided (or captured) that establishment is not categorized by percent of employees discouraged from reporting however since that establishment is included in the total the counts and percentages do not sum to 211 (or 100)

33

InjuriesIllnesses Specified by Interviewed Employees

Beyond review of employee records as the primary focus of a recordkeeping inspection another means under the NEP inspection procedures by which a CSHO might discover underrecorded cases was through interviews with a sample of employees at the establishment The RK NEP directive required that CSHOs interview a minimum number of workers based on employment size For establishments with 100 or fewer total employees at least 10 interviews for establishments with 101 to 250 employees at least 15 interviews and for establishments with more than 250 employees at least 20 interviews Rather than selecting interview subjects randomly CSHOs were instructed to focus on employees that work in high hazard areas and thus exposed to greater potential risk of injury or illness Also if during review of absentee records an employee with unexplained absences was noted the CSHO was to interview that employee to determine whether the absence was related to a work-related injury or illness

Since the ORIA software includes a mechanism for documenting interviews Table 1-8 looks at the number of worker interviews conducted based on the ORIA data and provides counts of all injuriesillnesses specified by workers as well as counts for the subset specified as DART injuries or illnesses As available the table also assesses subsequent CSHO determinations about DART injuries and illnesses specified during interviews (ie where a determination was made and then indicated in the ORIA software) In addition the table draws on IMIS data to look at the union status of inspection establishments where underrecorded or not recorded DART cases were found

As shown in the table over 4800 worker interviews conducted by CSHOs were documented in the ORIA software (ie 289 inspection records that include interviews out of the 291 ORIA records that match with the IMIS dataset for this table) Of the 932 injuriesillnesses specified by employees in interviews more than half were specified as DART cases CSHO determinations about these specified cases were only available for those specified in interviews conducted under the mid-rate targeting approach (ie 129 inspection records that included interviews out of the 130 in ORIA under the mid-rate targeting approach that matched between ORIA and IMIS) when a mechanism for capturing the determination was added to the ORIA software For those 243 specified DART cases CSHOs determined that more than half were accurately recorded by the employer Almost 15 percent of the specified DART cases were determined to be underrecorded as non-DART cases and another 6 percent determined to be not recorded More of the specified DART cases determined to be underrecorded or not reported were identified at establishments without a union affiliation

34


Number and Percent of InjuriesIllnesses Specified in Employee Interviews and CSHO Determinations Regarding Specified DART Injuries and Illnesses

with Breakouts on UnionNon-Union Establishments (and with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology)

[Table data source = ORIA data except IMIS data for union status]

Inspection Results Interviews in Which Employee Specified Experiencing an Injury or Illness

All Inspectionsdagger Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02)


Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Employee Interviews Conducted 4828 100 2554 100 2274 100

Employee-Specified InjuryIllness 932 1930 500 1958 432 1900

Employee-Specified DART InjuryIllness

517 1071 274 1073 243 1069

OSHA Compliance Officer (CSHO) Determination about Specified DART InjuryIllness

Accurately Recorded DART Case 136 243 5597

Underrecorded DART Case (DART as non-DART)

35 243 1440

Union Establishment 6 35 1714

Non-Union Establishment 29 35 8286

Not Recorded DART Case 15 243 617



Other (eg case not recordable or CSHO indicated that no deter-mination was or could be made)

57 243 2346

Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) SeeOSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 A mechanism allowing CSHOs to record the determination about an employee-specified injuryillness was implemented in the ORIA software for the revised directive dagger Total for this table includes only inspections that matched between the IMIS and ORIA datasets 12 of the units in the ORIA dataset do not match to the IMIS dataset (eg because these inspections were input to OIS or were incomplete inspection records in IMIS at the time that the IMIS dataset was created for the analysis)

35

Level of Effort to Conduct RK NEP Inspections

IMIS activity data indicate that conducting an RK NEP inspection could be fairly labor intensive Two aspects of the RK NEP inspection procedures may have been prominent factors contributing to the level of effort in particular for inspections conducted at medium and large establishments

bull The number of employees at an establishment for whom the CSHO would review recordsrelevant for discovering injuries and illnesses could be considerable (eg records for allemployees if total employment size of 100 or less and records for 50 of employees ifemployments size between 101 and 250)

bull The minimum number of interviews required to be conducted ranged from 13 (at smallestablishments) to 23 (at large establishments) Individual interviews were comprehensiveCounts for primary questions (ie not including follow-ups) were 28 for the recordkeeper 22 foreach employee 26 for the health care professional and 22 for the managementcompanyrepresentative Based on information obtained during interviews (eg if a worker specified aninjury or illness that might not have been recorded) the CSHO might then need to conductadditional records review

Table 1-9 presents average number of hours needed by CSHOs to conduct an RK NEP inspection with breakouts by size of establishments On average across all establishment employment-size groups a recordkeeping inspection took 95 hours to complete In contrast recordkeeping audits conducted under the Agencyrsquos audit program using more streamlined procedures took about a quarter as much time to conduct (23 hours on average) according to OSHA data9 Procedures used for recordkeeping audits were notably more streamlined than those for RK NEP inspections For instance the audits involved records review for fewer employees fewer interviews for fewer types of establishment staff and no walkaround inspection (For general context On average inspections conducted under OSHArsquos Site Specific Targeting program take 36 hours and inspections conducted under the Agencyrsquos NEP on Amputations take 33 hours OSHA reports Note however that both these types of inspections involve a different focus and thus different procedures than those for a recordkeeping inspection)

In addition Table 1-9 indicates that on average across all establishment employment size groups a recordkeeping inspection took about the same number of hours to complete under both targeting approaches although there is some variation across size groups Inspections at large establishments took twice as long on average as those conducted at medium-size establishments In contrast inspections at medium-size establishments took about 14 percent longer on average to conduct than inspections at small establishments

9 OSHA estimate based on IMIS activity records for 357 recordkeeping audits conducted between 112008 and 12302009 The average level of effort is consistent with findings from a 1997 pilot test of nine establishment audits conducted before initiation of the audit program

36


Average Number of Hours (Level of Effort) to Conduct an Inspection by Establishment Size

(with Breakouts by NEP Targeting Methodology) [Table data source = Both ORIA data (employment size) and IMIS data (LOE)]

Inspection LOE Establishment Size Group (average number of employees)

Average LOE (hours)

All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)

Small (40-100) (113 establishments) 6779 7212 6148

Medium (101-250) (105 establishments) 8138 9435 6598

Large (gt250) (68 establishments) 16509 15988 17000

ALL SIZES (286 establishments)dagger 9520 9767 9215

The revised RK NEP directive instructed that from the randomized list of establishments meeting the NEP criteria Area Offices were to select for inspection the establishments with the largest reported employment size For employee records review the directive called for the following bull 100 or less = review records for all employees (no sampling) bull 101-250 = review records for 50 of employees bull gt250 = review records for 33 of employees Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that is somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 dagger Total for this table includes only inspection establishments that matched between the IMIS and ORIA datasets 12 of the units in the ORIA dataset do not match to the IMIS dataset (eg because these inspections were input to OIS or were incomplete inspection records in IMIS at the time that the IMIS dataset was created for the analysis) In addition data on the number of employees was missing for five establishments and thus these establishments are not included in this table

37

In some instances an RK NEP inspection was planned but not ultimately completed Table 1-10 shows that there were 50 of these in the IMIS dataset Where a reason was specified in IMIS the greatest number of not completed inspections resulted from establishments going out of business for another 4 the CSHO was not able to find the establishment Twenty were not completed for other unspecified reasons


Number of Establishments for Which Inspection Record Was Initiated but Inspection Was Not Completed

by Reason Entered into OSHA Information Management System [Table data source = IMIS data only]

Reason for Not Completing Inspection

Count of Inspections Not Completed

Establishment out of business 15 Wrong SICNAICS code for establishment 7 Establishment not found 4 Process not active at establishment 1 Establishment with 10 or fewer employees 1 Establishment is in OSHArsquos Voluntary Protection Program 1 Establishment has an OSHA Consultation Program safety and health review in progress 1

Denied entry to establishment 0 Other (eg calculated DART rate greater than targeting rate cut-off rate [under original directive] establishment an OSHA Partnership site) 20

TOTAL 50dagger

Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART ratefrom 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that was somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010

38

4 Highlights and Recommendations

Extent of Underrecording





39


Effectiveness of NEP Targeting Approaches


Presence of Potentially RK-Related Programs at Establishments with Underreporting

bull At all establishments that had in place any of the special employer programs considered (ie incentive disciplinary post-injury drug testing) there was a noticeably higher proportion of establishments at which no not-recorded cases were found compared to establishments with not-recorded cases Between establishments that did or did not have a special program in place the percents are fairly close for those where not-recorded cases were found (see Table 1-6)

When during onsite interviews inspectors specifically asked employees whether they thought the existence of employer special programs discouraged or encouraged injuryillness reporting disciplinary programs yielded the highest percentage of employees who thought such a program had a discouraging effect (see Table 1-7) Questions about drug testing programs had the highest number of respondents overall with a smaller proportion indicating that such programs discouraged injuryillness reporting Similarly a smaller proportion of employee respondents to questions on incentive programs (for both employee-based and managersupervisor-based programs) indicated that these programs discouraged reporting The concentration across establishments where any employee indicated a discouraging effect associated with employer special programs was somewhat more prevalent for disciplinary programs and absenteeism policies (see Table 1-71)

Level of Effort Involved in Conducting RK NEP Inspections


40

RECOMMENDATIONS





Recommendations




bull Records monitoring with certain SST inspections For a portion of the SST inspection list OSHA should consider the possibility of continuing to target establishments that report low injuryillness rates despite operating in high-rate industries SST inspections for these low-rate establishments should also include an enhanced version of the recordkeeping review currently conducted under the SST program The records review should incorporate streamlined procedures from the RK NEP inspections

41

o Pro Targeted use of RK monitoring to further test thinking about low-rate establishments in high-rate sectors

o Con Adding to level of effort for conducting SST inspections

bull Records monitoring with complaint andor referral inspections OSHA should consider the possibility of conducting recordkeeping reviews as part of inspections in response to a complaint made by an employee andor a referral (eg based on media reports) However as recommended above for SST the records review should incorporate streamlined procedures from the RK NEP inspections o Pro Targeted use of RK monitoring (Some OSHA inspection history indicates utility of

such targeting Also a small number of RK NEP inspections conducted as part of a complaint inspection--rather than using RK NEP targeting--suggests complaint inspections may be productive for identifying underrecording)



42

OSHA InjuryIllness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (RK NEP)

Section 2

Analysis Data Tables from

Inspections on CY 2008 amp CY 2009 Employer Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

(Mid-RateRevised Targeting Approach)

As conducted under RK NEP 10-07 (CPL 02)

(Effective Date September 28 2010)

FINAL REPORT SECTION

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Mid-Rate Targeting 43

About This Selection of RK NEP Data Tables

This section of the report presents data tables that draw exclusively on the portion of the ORIA dataset that covers inspections conducted under the revised directive RK NEP 10-07 (CPL 02) (Effective Date September 28 2010) That is it focuses on 137 of the 303 ORIA inspection files available for the analysis

As such the tables provide more detailed findings from the documentation input to the ORIA software on inspections conducted using the mid-rate targeting methodology For instance this section presents CSHO accuracy findings between the target year and the subsequent reference year Also included are the results of comparisons between an employerrsquos ODI submission and the onsite records which operate as the data source for the ODI submission (Establishment Days Away Restriction or Transfer [DART] injuryillness rates based on the ODI provided the basis for targeting inspection establishments under the NEP) Section 1 references tables in this section as relevant to particular findings noted there

Table 2-1 Count and Industry Distribution of Inspections Considered for These Data Tables NAICS Inspections

Code Description Number Percent 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 46 3358 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 13 949 311615 Poultry Processing 11 803 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 10 730 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 9 657 331511 Iron Foundries 7 511 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 6 438 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 5 365 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 5 365

424490 Other Grocery and

Related Products Merchant Wholesale 3 219

312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 2 146 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 2 146 327113 Porcelain Electrical Supply Manufacturing 2 146 331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 2 146 331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting) 2 146 331528 Other Nonferrous Foundries (except Die-Casting) 2 146 331222 Steel Wire Drawing 2 146 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 2 146 331525 Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting) 1 073

332999 All Other Miscellaneous

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 1 073

336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 1 073

424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned)

Merchant Wholesale 1 073

621610 Home Health Care Services 1 073

311514 Dry Condensed and Evaporated

Dairy Product Manufacturing 1 073

Total 137 100 Manufacturing industries in this list are those with the highest DART rates in 2007 or 2008 as reported by the BLS Annual Survey (see 92810 RK NEP directive 10-07 Appendix A) unless otherwise indicated by Italics


The focus of the NEPrsquos revised targeting was on manufacturing industries However if fewer than 5 manufacturing establishments included in an Area Officersquos inspection list met the NEPrsquos rate criterion nursing home establishments that met the criterion were to be randomly selected for inspection


Table 2-2 OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Number and Percent of Recordable DART Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors

by Type of DART Rate-Lowering Recording Errors (Broken Out by Year)

Type of Recording Error Recordable Cases CY2008 Recordable Cases CY2009

Number Percent Number Percent

DART Case Not Recorded 56 992 565 42 666 631

DART Case Recorded as Non-DART 54 992 544 32 666 480

Total DART Rate-Lowering Recording Errors (above) 110 992 1109 74 666 1111

Total DART Cases with None of the Above Errors 882 992 8891 592 666 8889

Total DART Cases 992 100 666 100 Note Because of rounding percentages might not add to 100

DART rate-lowering cases include DART cases not recorded and DART cases recorded as non-DART cases Another type of recording error not considered in this analysis is overrecording Includes 25 cases that occurred prior to 112008 which is outside the revised timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810) Includes 32 cases that occurred after 12312009 which is outside the revised timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810)


Table 2-2a OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Distribution of Establishments by the Number of Not Recorded DART Cases Found by Inspectors

Number of Not Recorded DART Cases

Count of Establishments

CY2008 CY2009 0 Cases 115 114 1 Case 7 15 2 Cases 9 3 3 Cases 1 3 4 Cases 1 1 5 Cases 1 0 6 Cases 2 0 7 Cases 1 0 8 Cases 0 1 Total Inspection Establishments 137 137 Total Cases Not Recorded 56 42

Includes 4 cases that occurred prior to 112008 which is outside the revised timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810) Includes 3 cases that occurred after 12312009 which is outside the revised timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810)

Table 2-2b OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Distribution of Establishments by the Number of Underrecorded DART Cases Found by Inspectors

Number of Underrecorded DART Cases


CY2008 CY2009 0 Cases 103 113 1 Case 24 19 2 Cases 6 3 3 Cases 1 1 4 Cases 1 1 5 Cases 1 0 6 Cases 1 0 Total Inspection Establishments 137 137 Total Underrecorded Cases 54 32



Table 2-21 OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Number and Percent of All Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Found by Inspectors by Type of Recording Errors (Broken Out by Year)



Case Not Recorded 162 1415 1149 104 978 1063



Total Cases Found with None of the Above Errors 1199 1415 8473 842 978 8609

Total Cases 1415 100 978 100 Note Because of rounding percentages might not add to 100

Covers types of cases OSHA uses to calculate an establishmentrsquos Total Case Rate (TCR) from the OSHA Log 300 (ie using columns G H I and J) Includes 33 cases that occurred prior to 112008 which is outside the revised timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810) Includes 41 cases that occurred after 12312009 which is outside the revised timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810)



Distribution of Establishments by the Number of All Not Recorded Cases Found by Inspectors

Number of Cases Not Recorded


CY2008 CY2009 0 Cases 98 102 1 Case 15 18 2 Cases 10 6 3 Cases 4 4 4 Cases 2 2 5 Cases 2 0 6 Cases 0 1 8 Cases 1 1 10 Cases 0 1 11 Cases 1 0 13 Cases 1 0 14 Cases 0 1 15 Cases 1 0 16 Cases 1 1 34 Cases 1 0 Total Inspection Establishments 137 137 Total Cases Not Recorded 162 104



Table 2-3a (ODI 2008 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Comparison of DART Injury and Illness Case Counts Submitted to OSHA for the Data Collection with DART Case Counts from the Recordkeeping Inspection (ie DART Cases on CY 2008 Log at Time of

Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection)

Total Inspection Establishments

CY 2008 Establishment Comparison Results DART Injury and Illness Cases

Inspection Less Inspection Same Inspection More


135 7 519 69 5111 59 437

CY 2008 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the revised directive Of the 137 inspections included in this section of the analysis one inspection establishment had changed ownership in 2009 (on 8172009) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2009) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2008 comparison for this establishment Also total hours from the audit are missing for one inspection establishment and thus a log comparison could not be made


Table 2-3b (ODI 2008 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Rank Ordering by Inspection Calculated DART Rate of Establishments with ldquoMorerdquo CY 2008 DART Cases Identified During the Recordkeeping Inspection Than Reported in Establishmentrsquos Submission to OSHA for the Data Collection

(the Inspection Calculated DART Rate is calculated using information from the onsite Log and including not recorded and underrecorded DART cases discovered from the records review)

DUNS NAICS Code NAICS Description

Establishment CY 2007 DART Rate Comparisons

Submitted Inspection Targeting

Check

Inspection Calculated

Ratio of Inspection Calculated

to Submitted 008081499 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 77dagger 77 155 20 016798600 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 45 12 12 27 073987174 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 71 71 119 17 605732721 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 112 111 111 10

808441513 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 74 89 104 14


606934230 331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 72 72 97 13

094353703 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 61 61 97 16 609990965 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 73 73 95 13 940900541 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 47 47 95 20 096776620 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 56 63 95 17 949223317 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 56 74 93 17 807879887 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 72 72 93 13 143048499 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 46 35 92 20 007505001 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 44 44 89 20 074618687 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 66 78 88 13 004465142 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 71 71 87 12 059052431 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 75 75 87 12 825842362 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 76 76 86 11 009157553 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 62 74 86 14 155255862 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 53 53 84 16

005227970 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 56 56 84 15

068282938 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 44 64 84 19

020906454 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 77 77 83 11

090234100 424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesale 54 54 81 15

004329264 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 66 66 79 12 013246939 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 51 51 78 15 041746996 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 71 71 78 11 780083551 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 56 56 75 13





Check



to Submitted 001149798 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 49 49 74 15 797675170 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 59 59 74 13 610632929 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 79 7 7 09 043248350 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 6 6 68 11 053524005 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 57 57 68 12 785324984 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 45 67 67 15 006264915 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 61 61 65 11 055992556 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 59 59 63 11

057886186 331511 Iron Foundries 53 53 63 12

001324904 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 52 52 61 12 003397569 331511 Iron Foundries 59 59 61 10 110260853 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 67 58 58 09 008506370 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 56 56 58 10

622428548 327113 Porcelain Electrical Supply Manufacturing 45 41 54 12

118877687 331511 Iron Foundries 5 53 53 11 052993813 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 49 49 52 11 052664364 331511 Iron Foundries 5 5 51 10 030251243 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 43 43 46 11

780461166 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 08 08 24 30

CY 2008 ODI data was used for targeting list selection under the revised directive The Inspection Targeting Check DART rate is the rate calculated by the CSHO based on a review of the onsite Log prior to initiating the records inspection This step in the protocol checks whether the establishmentrsquos DART rate is great than 42 and less than 80 in keeping with the revised targeting criteria (ie the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810) under which the inspections in this section of the analysis were conducted Industry was not on the NAICS target list in the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810 dagger For this establishment the ORIA analysis data file includes one submitted case that is not included in the establishmentrsquos final ODI submission this table lists the establishmentrsquos submitted rate (77) based on the final ODI data instead of the submitted rate in the ORIA analysis data file (90)

Continuation of Listing above in Table 3-3b but Specific to MEAT AND POULTRY PROCESSING SECTORS




Check



to Submitted 003413564 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 66 66 10 15 609504550 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 76 82 87 11 006160642 311615 Poultry Processing 67 67 84 13





Check



to Submitted 809416456 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 74 76 79 11

002356632 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 73 75 75 10

152053112 311615 Poultry Processing 62 75 73 12 016104978 311615 Poultry Processing 56 66 69 12 006353767 311615 Poultry Processing 67 68 68 10 046305124 311615 Poultry Processing 65 65 66 10 004098216 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 52 52 62 12 101117559 311615 Poultry Processing 60 36 48 08

Note This industry-specific table focuses on meat and poultry processing sectors including NAICS 311611 (animal slaughtering) 311615 (poultry processing) and 115210 (support activities for animal production) NAICS 311612 (meat processed from carcasses) was not on the NAICS target list in the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810


Table 2-3c (ODI 2008 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Industry Rank Ordering by Average Inspection Calculated DART Rate of Establishments with ldquoMorerdquo CY 2008 DART Cases Identified During the Recordkeeping Inspection Than Reported in Establishmentrsquos Submission to OSHA for the Data Collection


NAICS Code NAICS Description

Comparison of Industry Average DART Rates for CY 2008 Count of

Estabshylishments Submitted

Inspection Targeting

Check


327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 63 70 104 2 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 66 66 100 1

331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 72 72 97 1

332111 Iron and Steel Forging 65dagger 65 94 6 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 61 69 87 17

424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesale 54 54 81 1

312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 66 66 79 1 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 54 54 76 3 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 69 71 76 4 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 59 59 75 7 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 64 65 70 4 311615 Poultry Processing 63 63 68 6 331511 Iron Foundries 53 54 57 4

327113 Porcelain Electrical Supply Manufacturing 45 41 54 1

321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 08 08 24 1

CY 2008 ODI data was used for targeting list selection under the revised directive For details on individual inspection establishments covered by this summary table refer to Table 3b The Inspection Targeting Check DART rate is the rate calculated by the CSHO based on a review of the onsite Log prior to initiating the records inspection This step in the protocol confirms that the establishmentrsquos DART rate is greater than 42 and less than 80 in keeping with the revised targeting criteria (ie the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810) under which the inspections in this section of the analysis were conducted Industry was not on the NAICS target list in the RK NEP 10-07 directive of 92810 dagger For one of the establishments included in this average the ORIA analysis data file includes a submitted case that is not included in the establishmentrsquos final ODI submission in the calculation of the average for this NAICS industry sector this table uses the establishmentrsquos submitted rate (77) based on the final ODI data instead of the submitted rate based on the ORIA analysis data file (90)


Table 2-3d (ODI 2008 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping


Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Establishment Size

Establishment Size Group (average number of employees)



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Small (40-100)

(48 establishments) 3 625 26 5417 19 3958

Medium (101-250) (52 establishments) 2 385 28 5385 22 4231

Large (gt250) (35 establishments) 2 571 15 4286 18 5143

ALL SIZES (135 establishments) 7 519 69 5111 59 437

CY 2008 ODI data was used for targeting list selection under the revised directive As directed by the revised directive from the randomized list of establishments meeting the NEP criteria Area Offices were to select for inspection the establishments with the largest reported employment size For employee records review the RK NEP inspection protocol called for the following

bull 100 or less = review records for all employees (no sampling) bull 101-250 = review records for 50 of employees bull gt250 = review records for 33 of employees

As noted above Of the 137 inspections included in this section of the analysis one inspection establishment had changed ownership in 2009 (on 8172009) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2009) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2008 comparison for this establishment Also total hours from the audit are missing for one inspection establishment and thus a log comparison could not be made


Table 2-3e (ODI 2008 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping


Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Manufacturing vs Non-Manufacturing

Industry Category CY 2008 Establishment Comparison Results

DART Injury and Illness Cases


Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Manufacturing

(82 establishments) 2 244 39 4756 41 500

Non-Manufacturing (53 establishments)

5 943 30 566 18 3396

TOTAL (135 establishments) 7 519 69 5111 59 437

CY 2008 ODI data was used for targeting list selection under the revised directive The focus of the revised RK NEP directive was on manufacturing industries As noted above Of the 137 inspections included in this section of the analysis one inspection establishment had changed ownership in 2009 (on 8172009) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2009) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2008 comparison for this establishment Also total hours from the audit are missing for one inspection establishment and thus a log comparison could not be made


Table 2-3f (ODI 2008 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2008 and CY 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping


Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Federal vs State Plan State Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction CY 2008 Establishment Comparison Results



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Federal

(119 establishments) 7 588 62 521 50 4202

State Plan States (16 establishments)

0 0 7 4375 9 5625


CY 2008 ODI data was used for targeting list selection under the revised directive State Plan States were encouraged but not required to participate in the RK NEP The revised RK NEP directive gave participating State Plan States the option of continuing to conduct RK inspections under the earlier CPL Also no RK inspections conducted at public sector establishments by State Plan States with jurisdiction over only State and local government employees are included in this count This is because all such inspections that were potentially available for the analysis were conducted using the Statersquos own establishment targeting approach and thus filtered out As noted above Of the 137 inspections included in this section of the analysis one inspection establishment had changed ownership in 2009 (on 8172009) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2009) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2008 comparison for this establishment Also total hours from the audit are missing for one inspection establishment and thus a log comparison could not be made



Section 3


Inspections on CY 2007 amp CY 2008 Employer Injury and Illness Recordkeeping (Low-RateOriginal Targeting Approach)


(Effective Date February 19 2010)


Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Low-Rate Targeting 58


This section of the report presents data tables that draw exclusively on the portion of the ORIA dataset that covers inspections conducted under the original directive RK NEP 10-02 (CPL 02) (Effective Date February 19 2010) That is it focuses on 166 of the 303 ORIA inspection files available for the analysis

As such the tables provide more detailed findings from the documentation input to the ORIA software on inspections conducted using the low-rate targeting methodology For instance this section presents CSHO accuracy findings between the target year and the subsequent reference year Also included are the results of comparisons between an employerrsquos ODI submission and the onsite records which operate as the data source for the ODI submission (Establishment Days Away Restriction or Transfer [DART] injuryillness rates based on the ODI provided the basis for targeting inspection establishments under the NEP) Section 1 references tables in this section as relevant to particular findings noted there


Code Description Number Percent 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 45 2711 492110 Couriers 18 1084 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 15 904 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 11 663 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 10 602 331511 Iron Foundries 10 602 311615 Poultry Processing 6 361 488320 Marine Cargo Handling 5 301 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 5 301 481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 4 241 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 4 241 333516 Rolling Mill Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 4 241 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 4 241 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 4 241 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 3 181 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 3 181 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 2 120 331528 Other Nonferrous Foundries (except Die-Casting) 2 120 331525 Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting) 2 120 311412 Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing 1 060 115210 Support Activities for Animal Production 1 060 311711 Seafood Canning 1 060 311712 Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing 1 060 112340 Poultry Hatcheries 1 060 323113 Commercial Screen Printing 1 060 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 1 060 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing 1 060 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing 1 060 Total 166 100

Industries in this list are those with a DART rate from 57 to 81 in 2007 as reported by the BLS Annual Survey (see 21910 RK NEP directive 10-02 Appendix A) unless otherwise indicated by Italics











DART rate-lowering cases include DART cases not recorded and DART cases recorded as non-DART cases Another type of recording error not considered in this analysis is overrecording Includes one case that occurred on 6172006 which is outside the original timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910) Includes 48 cases that occurred after 12312008 which is outside the original timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910)


Table 3-2a OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping




CY2007 CY2008 0 Cases 132 130 1 Case 13 19 2 Cases 10 6 3 Cases 6 2 4 Cases 0 6 5 Cases 1 0 6 Cases 0 1 7 Cases 0 1 9 Cases 1 0 10 Cases 1 0 14 Cases 1 0 18 Cases 1 0 32 Cases 0 1 Total Inspection Establishments 166 166 Total Cases Not Recorded 107 106

Includes 12 cases that occurred after 12312008 which is outside the original timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910)

Table 3-2b OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping




CY2007 CY2008 0 Cases 134 138 1 Case 12 12 2 Cases 11 9 3 Cases 1 3 4 Cases 5 0 5 Cases 0 1 7 Cases 0 2 8 Cases 1 0 9 Cases 1 0 11 Cases 1 0 12 Cases 0 1 Total Inspection Establishments 166 166 Total Underrecorded Cases 85 70













Covers types of cases OSHA uses to calculate an establishmentrsquos Total Case Rate (TCR) from the OSHA Log 300 (ie using columns G H I and J) Includes one case that occurred on 6172006 which is outside the original timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910) Includes 75 cases that occurred after 12312008 which is outside the original timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910)




Number of Cases Not Recorded Count of Establishments

CY2007 CY2008 0 Cases 117 119 1 Case 18 26 2 Cases 10 6 3 Cases 8 4 4 Cases 3 2 5 Cases 3 2 6 Cases 1 1 7 Cases 1 3 8 Cases 1 0 9 Cases 0 1 10 Cases 1 0 12 Cases 1 0 13 Cases 0 1 21 Cases 1 0 37 Cases 1 0 57 Cases 0 1 Total Inspection Establishments 166 166 Total Cases Not Recorded 190 174 Includes 25 cases that occurred after 12312008 which is outside the original timeframe for the targeting of inspections (ie under the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910)


Table 3-3a (ODI 2007 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping







160 8 50 92 575 60 375

CY 2007 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the original directive Of the 166 inspections included in this section of the analysis three inspection establishments had changed ownership in 2008 (on 382008 3192008 and on 4122008) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2008) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2007 comparison for these establishments Also two inspection establishments could not locate their 2007 OSHA records by the end of the opening conference day and thus a log comparison could not be made and one inspection establishment never submitted values so comparisons could not be made


Table 3-3b (ODI 2007 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping






Check


Ratio of Inspection

Calculated to Submitted

784725285 492110 Couriers 26 35 212 82 008115651 331511 Iron Foundries 38 38 132 35 004468658 331511 Iron Foundries 4 4 112 28 021269167 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 26 26 106 41 181039975 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 4 4 8 20 628069478 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 38 35 75 20 091460006 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 41 41 74 18 788949840 492110 Couriers 23 24 72 31 620160184 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 28 28 7 25 144185352 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 23 23 7 30

030741714 481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 39 38 65 17

005144324 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 4 4 61 15 090681438 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 2 2 6 30 087108536 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 2 2 6 30 004327482 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 38 38 57 15 075167267 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 38 38 57 15 096855770 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 12 12 56 47 106576580 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 31 31 54 17

072978679 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 0 0 53 -


122100233 331528 Other Nonferrous Foundries (except Die-Casting) 37 37 49 13

161910661 331511 Iron Foundries 32 39 47 15 076164243 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 38 38 47 12 015155849 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 06 06 45 75 047598818 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 36 36 45 13 076117535 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 28 28 45 16 182002444 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 32 32 43 13 608352704 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 37 37 43 12 187972294 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 09 26 43 48





Check


Ratio of Inspection


829947415 488320 Marine Cargo Handling 21 21 42 20 031187029 492110 Couriers 17 21 42 25 006268858 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 35 35 41 12 605716067 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 0 4 4 -149766818 492110 Couriers 26 26 39 15


136876695 492110 Couriers 13 39 39 30 097180400 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 28 28 36 13


102607884 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 21 21 32 15 047959143 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 0 16 32 -021361670 331511 Iron Foundries 0 0 31 -

004526703 333516 Rolling Mill Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 08 15 31 39

041537739 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 17 29 29 17 021860791 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 07 07 27 39 038974713 492110 Couriers 17 25 25 15

085441947 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 0 0 25 -

877828996 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 19 19 25 13

837662378 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 11 11 21 19



362576175 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 09 09 18 20 010780153 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 04 04 12 30 869472639 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 0 12 12 -006230643 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 0 0 1 -

Inspections with Inspection Targeting Check DART Rate Above NEP Target Threshold 118374511 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing 96 96 114 12 036522944 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 3 51 71 24

CY 2007 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the original directive The Inspection Targeting Check DART rate is the rate calculated by the CSHO based on a review of the onsite Log prior to initiating the records inspection This step in the protocol confirms that the establishmentrsquos DART rate is from 00 to 42 in keeping with the original targeting criteria (ie the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910) under which the inspections in this analysis were conducted Industry was not on the NAICS target list in the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910






Check


Percent Change

Submitted to Inspection Calculated

087672978 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 24 24 136 57 066878166 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 19 29 48 25 780579017 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 0 0 33 -786174649 311615 Poultry Processing 12 12 13 11

Note This industry-specific table focuses on meat and poultry processing sectors including NAICS 311611 (animal slaughtering) 311615 (poultry processing) and 115210 (support activities for animal production)


Table 3-3c (ODI 2007 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping







Check


323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing 96 96 114 1

331511 Iron Foundries 28 29 81 4 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 14 18 72 3 492110 Couriers 20 28 72 6

481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 39 38 65 1

327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 20 20 60 1 623110 Nursing Care Facilities 23 27 54 14 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 28 32 52 2 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 10 18 46 2 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 23 26 43 9 488320 Marine Cargo Handling 21 21 42 1 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 20 23 41 6


331528 Other Nonferrous Foundries (except Die-Casting) 27 27 34 2

333516 Rolling Mill Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 08 15 31 1

336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 10 10 25 2

331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 11 11 21 1 311615 Poultry Processing 12 12 13 1 CY 2007 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the original directive For details on individual inspection establishments covered by this summary table refer to Table 3b The Inspection Targeting Check DART rate is the rate calculated by the CSHO based on a review of the onsite Log prior to initiating the records inspection This step in the protocol confirms that the establishmentrsquos DART rate is from 00 to 42 in keeping with the original targeting criteria (ie the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910) under which the inspections in this analysis were conducted Industry was not on the NAICS target list in the RK NEP 10-02 directive of 21910


Table 3-3d (ODI 2007 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping


Inspection Plus Not Recorded and Underrecorded DART Cases Discovered During the Inspection) by Establishment Size)





(70 establishments) 5 714 42 600 23 3286




CY 2007 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the original directive For employee records review the RK NEP inspection protocol called for the following


As noted above Of the 166 inspections included in this section of the analysis three inspection establishments had changed ownership in 2008 (on 382008 3192008 and on 4122008) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2008) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2007 comparison for these establishments Also two inspection establishments could not locate their 2007 OSHA records by the end of the opening conference day and thus a log comparison could not be made and one inspection establishment never submitted values so comparisons could not be made


Table 3-3e (ODI 2007 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping







(77 establishments) 2 26 39 5065 36 4675


6 723 53 6386 24 2892

TOTAL (160 establishments)

8 50 92 575 60 375

CY 2007 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the original directive As noted above Of the 166 inspections included in this section of the analysis three inspection establishments had changed ownership in 2008 (on 382008 3192008 and on 4122008) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2008) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2007 comparison for these establishments Also two inspection establishments could not locate their 2007 OSHA records by the end of the opening conference day and thus a log comparison could not be made and one inspection establishment never submitted values so comparisons could not be made


Table 3-3f (ODI 2007 Comparison) OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 and CY2008 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping







(151 establishments) 8 53 87 5762 56 3709


0 0 5 5556 4 4444


CY 2007 ODI data were used for targeting list selection under the revised directive State Plan States were encouraged but not required to participate in the RK NEP The revised RK NEP directive gave participating State Plan States the option of continuing to conduct RK inspections under the earlier CPL Also no RK inspections conducted at public sector establishments by State Plan States with jurisdiction over only State and local government employees are included in this count This is because all such inspections that were potentially available for the analysis were conducted using the Statersquos own establishment targeting approach and thus filtered out As noted above Of the 166 inspections included in this section of the analysis three inspection establishments had changed ownership in 2008 (on 382008 3192008 and on 4122008) In keeping with the directive the recordkeeping inspection was limited to the period of current ownership (ie 2008) Thus inspection data were not available for this 2007 comparison for these establishments Also two inspection establishments could not locate their 2007 OSHA records by the end of the opening conference day and thus a log comparison could not be made and one inspection establishment never submitted values so comparisons could not be made


Appendices to

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP

FINAL REPORT APPENDICES

Appendix A

RK NEP Inspection Interview Questions Used in the Analysis to Identify Establishments with a

Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Incentive Disciplinary andor Drug Testing Program

(andor Absenteeism Policy)

INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Some or all of the following CSHO-administered interview questions were used in the analysis to identify an establishment with a potentially recordkeeping-related incentive program It was for the CSHO to make a final determination about the potential of such a program to affect the recording of injuries and illness at an establishment (eg an assessment made when determining the classification of recordkeeping violations)

Recordkeeper Questionnaire

21 Are you aware of any safety incentive programs contests or promotions sponsored by the company [ ] Yes [ ] No

22 Do you participate in any bonus or incentive safety system [ ] Yes [ ] No

Employee Questionnaire

7 Are any of the following programs or policies present at your workplace

a Safety incentive programs or programs that provide prizes rewards or bonuses to an individual or groups of workers that is based on the number of injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA log [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know

a2 If yes do you think these programs encourage or discourage the reporting of injuries or illnesses [ ] Encourage [ ] Discourage [ ] Neither

b In your workplace are there prizes rewards or bonuses to supervisors or managers that are linked to the number of injuries or illnesses recorded on the OSHA log [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know

b2 If yes do you think these programs encourage or discourage the reporting of or illnesses to your employer [ ] Encourage [ ] Discourage [ ] Neither

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices A-1

Health Care Professional Questionnaire

23 Are you aware of any safety incentive programs or programs that provide prizes rewards or bonuses to an individual or groups of workers at this worksite that is based on the number of injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA log [ ] Yes [ ] No

ManagementCompany Representative Questionnaire

12 Does the company have safety incentive programs or programs that provide prizes rewards or bonuses to an individual or groups of workers based on the number of injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA log [ ] Yes [ ] No

a Does the company award prizes rewards or bonuses that are linked to the number of injuries or illnesses recorded on the OSHA log to supervisors or managers [ ] Yes [ ] No


DISCIPLINARY PROGRAM

Some or all of the following CSHO-administered interview questions were used in the analysis to identify an establishment with a potentially recordkeeping-related disciplinary program It was for the CSHO to make a final determination about the potential of such a program to affect the recording of injuries and illness at an establishment (eg an assessment made when determining the classification of recordkeeping violations)


7 Are any of the following programs or policies present at your workplace c In your workplace are there demerits punishment or disciplinary policies for reporting injuries or illnesses [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know

c2 If yes do you think these programs discourage the reporting of injuries or illnesses to your employer [ ] Encourage [ ] Discourage [ ] Neither


24 Are you aware of any disciplinary programs or other policies or practices that are tied to injury and illness reporting [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know


12b Are there demerits punishment or disciplinary policies for reporting injuries or illnesses [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know


DRUG TESTING PROGRAM

Some or all of the following CSHO-administered interview questions were used in the analysis to identify an establishment with a potentially recordkeeping-related drug-testing program It was for the CSHO to make a final determination about the potential of such a program to affect the recording of injuries and illness at an establishment (eg an assessment made when determining the classification of recordkeeping violations)


7 Are any of the following programs or policies present at your workplace e In your workplace is there post-injury drug testing for all or most work-related injuries and illnesses [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know

e2 If yes do you think these programs encourage or discourage the reporting of work-related injuries or neither encourage or discourage whether workers report injuries or illnesses to your employer [ ] Encourage [ ] Discourage [ ] Neither


14 Do workers who sustain a worksite injury or illness get drug tested routinely [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know


12c Does the company require post-Injury Drug Testing for all or most work-related injuries and illnesses [ ] Yes [ ] No


ABSENTEEISM POLICY

Some or all of the following CSHO-administered interview questions were used in the analysis to identify an establishment with a potentially recordkeeping-related absenteeism policy It was for the CSHO to make a final determination about the potential of such a program to affect the recording of injuries and illness at an establishment (eg an assessment made when determining the classification of recordkeeping violations) The questionnaires included a question on this topic only for the employee interviews


7 Are any of the following programs or policies present at your workplace d In your workplace are there absenteeism policies that count absences due to work-related injuries as unexcused absences or assign demerits or points if a worker is absent due to a work-related injury [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Donrsquot Know

d2 If yes do you think these programs encourage or discourage the reporting of injuries or illnesses to your employer [ ] Encourage [ ] Discourage [ ] Neither


Appendix B

High-Level Analysis of Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Employer Policy Materials Collected in Conjunction with

RK NEP Inspections

During inspections OSHA personnel attempted to collect paper copies of accident policy literature from employers ERG analyzed those documents for accident prevention policy descriptions noting any presence of descriptions on incentive programs post-accident drug testing programs or post-accident disciplinary programs As shown in Table B-1 out of 31 document samples 23 (or 742 percent) described an incentive program 11 (or 355 percent) described a drug testing program and 6 (or 194 percent) described a disciplinary program

Table B-1 Presence of Written Incentive Drug Testing or Disciplinary Policy

Among Collected Safety Literature

Type of Programs Written Policy

Number Percent Incentive Program 23 742 Drug Testing Program 11 355 Disciplinary Program 6 194

Based on 31 samples of safety literature

Several documents included descriptions of two or more policies For example several documents described both an accident prevention incentive program and a post-accident drug testing program Table B-2 describes the frequency of co-occurrence of two or more policies in a single document Out of the 31 documents in the sample 8 (or 258 percent) mentioned two policy types and 1 (or 32 percent) mentioned all three policy types Incentive policies paired with either a drug testing policy or a disciplinary policy were more common than a drug testing policy paired with a disciplinary policy This result was not surprising since incentive policies were more common throughout the sample

Table B-2 Co-Occurrence of Incentive Drug Testing or Disciplinary Policies

in Collected Safety Literature

Type of Programs Incentive Programs

Percent

Incentive and Drug Testing 5 161 Incentive and Disciplinary 4 129 Drug Testing and Disciplinary 2 65 Any Two Policies 8 258 Incentive Drug Testing and Disciplinary 1 32


Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices B-1

Table B-3 describes common policies and includes information on policy thresholds and outcomes For example the typical incentive policy was a free lunch or small employee bonus (averaging $75) during quarters in which the company was accident-free In some cases accident-free employees were allowed to participate in a ldquolotteryrdquo for a larger bonus amount Almost all post-accident drug testing programs required at-fault employees to undergo drug testing after an accident that resulted in a reportable (OSHA 300) injury Many drug testing programs also required drug testing for employees who caused an accident resulting in property damage though the damage threshold varied widely from ldquoany damagerdquo (the most common threshold) to $4000 The typical disciplinary program was a three-strike program punishing an employee with a warning for a first accident a suspension for a second and dismissal for a third

Table B-3 Description of Common Incentive Drug Testing

or Disciplinary Policy Design

Type of Program Typical Policy Description Other Example Characteristics

Incentive Program Free lunch or small bonus for an employee with accident free quarter

Examples bull $75 for quarter bull $115hr factored into bonus

for no LWDs bull Free lunch


Mandatory drug testing for an employee who causes an accident resulting in a reportable injury or property damage (Refusal of testing can be grounds for termination of employment)

bull Any accident resulting in injury

bull Property damage threshold between $1 and $4000

bull Most common damage threshold $1 (any damage)

bull Average damage threshold $909

Disciplinary Program

An employee who causes an accident is subject to warning suspension or dismissal depending on the severity of the accident and the employeersquos safety history

3 strikes policy (typically warning or coaching suspension dismissal)



Appendix C

Revised RK NEP Directive (Mid-Rate Targeting) Directive 10-07 (reference with web address)

[Available at httpwwwoshagovOshDocDirective_pdfCPL_02_10-07pdf]

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices C-1

Appendix D

Original RK NEP Directive (Low-Rate Targeting) Directive 10-02 (reference with web address)


Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices D-1

Appendix E

Self-Targeting of RK Inspections Conducted by State Plan States (SPS) Participating in the RK NEP

Selected Examples (SPSs not participating in the ODI)

State Plan State (SPS)

Count of Inspections

Key Implementation Differences Additional Implementation Characteristics State Directive Federal Directive

Oregon 84

Targeting bull Targeting focused on

establishments in generalindustry that are on the Statersquoshigh-hazard scheduling lists forprogrammed inspections (Alsoconstruction employers with50+ employees on schedulinglists)

bull Establishments with gt50employees

Other Interviews bull Conduct at least 5 worker

interviews which can becombined with other employeeinterviews Also use of fewerinterviews questionso Recordkeeper (11 vs 28)o Employees (11 vs 22)o Management (11 vs 22)

bull No requirement for interviewof health care professional

Targeting bull The Federal program directive

targeted establishments usingthe DART rate as calculatedfrom the establishmentrsquos ODIsubmission for the respectivetarget year Since OregonOSHA did not participate inthe ODI collection of CY 2007or 2008 date ODI rateinformation was not availablefor targeting in thisjurisdiction

bull Establishments with 40 ormore employees

Other Interviews bull Number of worker interviews

based on employment sizeo 100 or fewer employees

Conduct at least 10interviews

o 101 to 250 employeesConduct at least 15interviews

o gt250 employees Conduct atleast 20 interviews

bull Interview of health careprofessional (26 questions)

Based on Oregonrsquos directive bull Oregon OSHArsquos NEP implementation

ldquodiffers somewhatrdquo from the RK NEPbecause this SPS reviews recordkeepingforms during all inspections

bull During the opening conference theCSHO was to inform the employer andemployee representatives that a moredetailed review of injuryillnessrecordkeeping and reporting procedureswould be conducted

bull No mention in Oregon directive oflimiting records review to a sample ofemployees

bull Specified records for review OSHAForms 300 and 300Arsquos and DCBS Form801 (Workerrsquos and Employerrsquos Report ofOccupational Injury or Disease) orequivalent

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices E-1




Washington 54

Targeting bull Targeting of establishments

using a Workers Comp-basedrate called an ldquoexperiencefactorrdquo The experience factoris the number that indicateshow a companys claimsexperience compares with therest of that industry This factoris used by insurers to raise orlower the premium rate acompany pays to coverworkers compensation claimscosts Washington Statecalculates an experience factorby comparing a companysaccident costs to the averagecosts of other companies in thesame risk classification


targeted establishments usingthe DART rate as calculatedfrom the establishmentrsquos ODIsubmission for the respectivetarget year Since the State ofWashingtonrsquos OSHA did notparticipate in the ODIcollection of CY 2007 or 2008date ODI rate information wasnot available for targeting inthis jurisdiction

bull Beyond using a different rate fortargeting establishments WashingtonOSHArsquos RK NEP directive wasessentially the same as the Federaldirective

Oregon OSHA directive reviewed for this table Revised date of 5122010 See httpwwworoshaorgpdfpdspd-274pdf Washington OSHA directive reviewed for this table Revised date of 8302010 See httpwwwlniwagovsafetyrulespoliciespdfswrd266pdf


Appendix F

IMIS Inspection Establishments Count of Inspection Establishments Used in Analysis

by NAICS Codes (with breakouts by targeting approach)

Counts by NAICS of all 350 IMIS inspections used in the analysis

NAICS (combined targeting)

NAICS Description Count of

Inspection Establishments

Percent

623110 Nursing Care Facilities 96 2743 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 30 857 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 25 714 331511 Iron Foundries 21 600 492110 Couriers 19 543 311615 Poultry Processing 18 514 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 12 343 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 11 314 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 10 286 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 7 200 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 7 200 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 7 200 331525 Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting) 6 171 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 6 171 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 6 171 424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholes 5 143 481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 5 143 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 4 114 488320 Marine Cargo Handling 4 114 621610 Home Health Care Services 4 114 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities 3 086 331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting) 3 086 623312 Homes for the Elderly 3 086 311711 Seafood Canning 3 086 331528 Other Nonferrous Foundries (except Die-Casting) 2 057 331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 2 057 623990 Other Residential Care Facilities 2 057 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product M 2 057 333516 Rolling Mill Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 2 057 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing 2 057

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices F-1




Percent

336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 2 057 327113 Porcelain Electrical Supply Manufacturing 1 029 115210 Support Activities for Animal Production 1 029 532299 All Other Consumer Goods Rental 1 029 492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery 1 029 484110 General Freight Trucking Local 1 029 454210 Vending Machine Operators 1 029 424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesale 1 029 311712 Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing 1 029 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 1 029 336322 Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment 1 029 332311 Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing 1 029 323113 Commercial Screen Printing 1 029 327125 Nonclay Refractory Manufacturing 1 029 335911 Storage Battery Manufacturing 1 029 327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing 1 029 331222 Steel Wire Drawing 1 029 333298 All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing 1 029 333132 Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 1 029 332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing 1 029 112340 Poultry Hatcheries 1 029 322221 Coated and Laminated Packaging Paper and Plastics 1 029

Counts by NAICS of all 183 IMIS low-rate targeted inspections used in the analysis

NAICS (low-rate targeting)



Percent

623110 Nursing Care Facilities 44 2404 492110 Couriers 19 1038 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 15 820 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 12 656 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 10 546 331511 Iron Foundries 9 492 311615 Poultry Processing 7 383 311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 5 273 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 5 273 481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 5 273 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 4 219 488320 Marine Cargo Handling 4 219





Percent

331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 3 164 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 3 164 331525 Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting) 3 164 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 3 164 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 3 164 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing 2 109 333516 Rolling Mill Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 2 109 623312 Homes for the Elderly 2 109 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 2 109 311711 Seafood Canning 2 109 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities 2 109 331528 Other Nonferrous Foundries (except Die-Casting) 2 109 621610 Home Health Care Services 2 109 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 1 055 454210 Vending Machine Operators 1 055 484110 General Freight Trucking Local 1 055 333298 All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing 1 055 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product M 1 055 492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery 1 055

332311 Prefabricated Metal Building and Component

Manufacturing 1 055 532299 All Other Consumer Goods Rental 1 055 112340 Poultry Hatcheries 1 055 335911 Storage Battery Manufacturing 1 055 323113 Commercial Screen Printing 1 055 322221 Coated and Laminated Packaging Paper and Plastics 1 055 115210 Support Activities for Animal Production 1 055

Counts by NAICS of all 167 IMIS mid-rate targeted inspections used in the analysis

NAICS (mid-rate targeting)



Percent

623110 Nursing Care Facilities 52 3114 311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing 15 898 312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing 13 778 331511 Iron Foundries 12 719 311615 Poultry Processing 11 659 332111 Iron and Steel Forging 11 659





Percent

311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 6 359 424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholes 5 299 331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment) 4 240 311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses 4 240 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 4 240 331525 Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting) 3 180 331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting) 3 180 331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 2 120 312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing 2 120 623990 Other Residential Care Facilities 2 120 621610 Home Health Care Services 2 120 623312 Homes for the Elderly 1 060 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities 1 060 311712 Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing 1 060 311711 Seafood Canning 1 060

424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant

Wholesale 1 060

336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment

Manufacturing 1 060 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 1 060 336322 Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment 1 060 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing 1 060

333132 Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment

Manufacturing 1 060 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product M 1 060 332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing 1 060 327125 Nonclay Refractory Manufacturing 1 060 327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing 1 060 331222 Steel Wire Drawing 1 060 327113 Porcelain Electrical Supply Manufacturing 1 060


Appendix G

Preliminary Comparison of RK NEP and Audit Program Results

Findings from a Preliminary Comparison of Extent of Underrecording Discovered under the RK NEP and Audit Program

This appendix presents three data tables for this comparison of aggregated results from the two programs Table G-1 presents summary findings from the last three years of the annual audit analysis specifically assessing underrecorded cases found during audits on CY 2004 2005 and 2006 recordkeeping The table focuses on three types of recording errorsmdashnot recorded cases DART cases recorded as non-DART and non-DART cases as DART (ie this last one a type of overrecording) Then Table G-2 (using the ORIA dataset) looks at cases found under the RK NEP with the same types of recording errors for each of the two years of recordkeeping reviewed under the two targeting approaches (ie CY 2007 and 2008 under the low-rate targeting and CY 2008 and 2009 under the mid-rate targeting) The comparison provided by these two tables shows that the RK NEPrsquos low-rate targeting approach resulted in higher percentages of cases found with recording errors than found under the audit program (3874 and 3549 respectively under the low-rate RK NEP 1729 1743 and 1144 respectively under the audit program) In contrast however RK NEP inspections conducted under the mid-rate targeting approach resulted in somewhat lower percentages of cases found than resulted from two of the three years of results presented from the audit program (1569 and 1431 respectively under the mid-rate RK NEP 1729 1743 and 1144 respectively under the audit program)

Table G-3 (the last table in the series) tests the potential of RK NEP inspections that resulted in particularly high counts of such cases to skew the comparison by filtering out 8 inspections where more than 15 of these types of cases were found The primary observation from this test is that it underscores the close comparison between the mid-rate RK NEP and the audit program (ie lower percentages of cases found under the mid-rate RK NEP than for any of the three years of the audit program presented) The difference noted between results from the low-rate RK NEP and the audit program might be attributable in part to the distinctly different approaches used under each to select establishments for records review (eg the audit program involved a sample design for selection of establishments across a ldquostandard ODI universerdquo which included all establishments in States participating in the ODI along with other criteria related to employee size etc but no rate cut-off other than that used for the ODI itself)

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP Appendices G-1

Table G-1 OSHA Audits on CY 2004 2005 and 2006 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Identified by Auditors by Type of Recordkeeping Errors

[Table data source = ORAA data only 256 245 and 241 audits respectively]

Type of Recording Error Recordable Cases

CY 2004 Recordable Cases


CY 2006 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Not Recorded 56 561 998 60 631 951 32 577 555 DART Recorded as Non-DART

36 561 642 48 631 761 28 577 485

Non-DART Recorded as DART

5 561 089 2 631 032 6 577 104

Total Recording Errors (above) 97 561 1729 110 631 1743 66 577 1144

Total Cases with None of the Above Errors 464 561 8271 521 631 8257 511 577 8856

Total 561 100 631 100 577 100 Reference note This table brings together data presented in Table 7 in each of the last three annual audit analyses (See OSHA Data Initiative Collection Quality Control Analysis of Audits on Employer Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Final Reports June 18 2007 September 5 2008 and November 25 2009 respectively) OSHA field staff used the OSHA Recordkeeping Audit Assistant (ORAA) software to document audits in the same way inspectors used ORIA for the RK NEP


Table G-2 OSHA RK NEP Inspections on CY 2007 2008 and 2009 Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

ACROSS ALL INSPECTIONS ESTABLISHMENT AVAILABLE FOR ANALYSIS IN THE ORIA DATASET Number and Percent of Recordable Injury and Illness Cases Identified by Auditors

by Type of Recordkeeping Errors [Table data source = ORIA data only 303 inspections]

Low-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-02) Mid-Rate Targeting (Directive 10-07)

Type of Recording Error

Recordable Cases CY 2007




Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Not Recorded 190 715 2657 174 696 2500 162 1415 1145 104 978 1063 DART Recorded as Non-DART 85 715 1189 70 696 1006 54 1415 382 32 978 327

Non-DART Recorded as DART 2 715 028 3 696 043 6 1415 042 4 978 041

Total Recording Errors (above) 277 715 3874 247 696 3549 222 1415 1569 140 978 1431

Total Cases with None of the Above Errors 438 715 6126 449 696 6451 1193 1415 8431 838 978 8569

Total 715 100 696 100 1415 100 978 100 Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that was somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 Under the RK NEP OSHA did not cite employers for overrecording of cases Rather inspectors were instructed to inform the employer of any overrecording found and the need to eliminate these identified cases from the employers OSHA Form 300 Log



SAME AS ABOVE EXCEPT ESTABLISHMENTS WITH HIGH COUNTS OF CASES WITH ERRORS FILTERED OUTdagger


[Table data source = ORIA data only 295 inspections]












Total 597 100 567 100 1283 100 862 100 dagger In this table ldquoextreme observationsrdquo (ie establishments with particularly high counts or misrecorded cases) have been filtered out to test their potential for skewing aggregated results Specifically the filtering removed 8 inspections where more than 15 cases were found that were either not recorded cases or DART cases recorded as non-DART Using the filtering 190 such cases across 4 establishments were removed from the low-rate targeting results and 134 such cases across 4 establishments were removed from the mid-rate targeting results Initial implementation targeted low-rate establishments in high-rate industries (DART rate from 00 to 42) See OSHA Directive 10-02 CPL 02 effective date 2192010 A revision to the initial implementation adjusted targeting to focus on establishments in high-rate industries with a reported rate that was somewhat higher than the original cut-off (DART rate from gt42 to lt80) OSHA also adjusted the industry focus to emphasize manufacturing sectors since RK NEP inspections conducted to that point indicated that manufacturing had a higher non-compliance rate than other industries See OSHA Directive 10-07 CPL 02 effective date 9282010 This is a type of overrecording Under the RK NEP OSHA did not cite employers for overrecording cases Rather inspectors were instructed to inform the employer of any overrecording found and the need to eliminate the identified cases from the Form 300 Log


Contents

Executive Summary ES-1

SECTION ONE

Key Findings and Conclusions with Summary Data Presentations 1

1 RK NEP Purpose and Background 1

Program Purpose 1 OSHA Requirements for Employer InjuryIllness Recordkeeping and Reporting 1 Program Background and Focus 2 Key Components of RK NEP Inspections 4

2 Objective and Approach to the Analysis 5

Analysis Objective 5 Datasets Used 5 High-Level Data Presentations 6 Additional Detail from the Inspections 6 Inspection Records Used in the Analysis 7 More on Organization of the Analysis 8

3 Key Findings 8

Extent of Underrecording Based on Cases Found (with Targeting Comparisons) 9 Extent of Underrecording Based on Citations Issued (with Targeting Comparisons) 19 InjuriesIllnesses Specified by Interviewed Employees34 Level of Effort to Conduct RK NEP Inspections36

4 Highlights and Recommendations 39

SECTION TWO

Data Presentations Specific to RK NEP Mid-RateRevised Targeting Approach 43 (Directive 10-07)

SECTION THREE

Data Presentations Specific to RK NEP Low-RateOriginal Targeting Approach 58 (Directive 10-02)

APPENDICES

A RK NEP Inspection Interview Questions Used in the Analysis to Identify Establishments with a Potentially Recordkeeping-Related Incentive Disciplinary andor Drug Testing Program (andor Absenteeism Policy) A-1

Analysis of OSHArsquos RK NEP i









List of Tables





















































EXECUTIVE SUMMARY












Findings














Recommendations






Recommendations












SECTION ONE



Program Purpose






1








2









3












4








Analysis Objective


Datasets Used



5










6













7






3 Key Findings


8








9










165 4714 85 4645 80 4790



Union 44 2667 24 2824 20 2500


185 5286 98 5355 87 5210




Union 105 3000 55 3005 50 2994

Non-Union 245 7000 128 6995 117 7006




10









(Directive 10-07)






11





12









552 2112 368 3849 184 1110



2062 7888 588 6151 1474 8890


13














14




15








(Directive 10-07)






16








(Directive 10-07)






17













18





19











2 100 2 100 0 0


4 100 4 100 0 0




20












21












22









23
















24





All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)




319 357 269



25





Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



17 123 $224000


1 2 $70000


5 80 $35000


14 28 $13000


12 67 $12000


5 21 $12000


12 24 $11200


17 42 $8500



10 35 $7000


10 13 $5400


11 91 $0

26


Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



13 13 $0





27








Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs








28


29







Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs









30






31










32













33





34












517 1071 274 1073 243 1069




35 243 1440







57 243 2346


35








36





Average LOE (hours)

All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)






37









TOTAL 50dagger


38







39









40

RECOMMENDATIONS





Recommendations





41







42


Section 2













































































135 7 519 69 5111 59 437









Check

















Check




057886186 331511 Iron Foundries 53 53 63 12










Check








Check















Check


















(48 establishments) 3 625 26 5417 19 3958















(82 establishments) 2 244 39 4756 41 500


5 943 30 566 18 3396











(119 establishments) 7 588 62 521 50 4202


0 0 7 4375 9 5625





Section 3






























































160 8 50 92 575 60 375









Check


Ratio of Inspection













Check


Ratio of Inspection






















Check


Percent Change












Check



















(70 establishments) 5 714 42 600 23 3286















(77 establishments) 2 26 39 5065 36 4675


6 723 53 6386 24 2892


8 50 92 575 60 375










(151 establishments) 8 53 87 5762 56 3709


0 0 5 5556 4 4444




Appendices to



Appendix A




INCENTIVE PROGRAM






































ABSENTEEISM POLICY






Appendix B


RK NEP Inspections











Percent






















Appendix C




Appendix D




Appendix E






Oregon 84

























Washington 54








Appendix F







Percent






Percent






Percent






Percent








Percent






Percent



Wholesale 1 060






Appendix G














36 561 642 48 631 761 28 577 485


5 561 089 2 631 032 6 577 104














































List of Tables





















































EXECUTIVE SUMMARY












Findings














Recommendations






Recommendations












SECTION ONE



Program Purpose






1








2









3












4








Analysis Objective


Datasets Used



5










6













7






3 Key Findings


8








9










165 4714 85 4645 80 4790



Union 44 2667 24 2824 20 2500


185 5286 98 5355 87 5210




Union 105 3000 55 3005 50 2994

Non-Union 245 7000 128 6995 117 7006




10









(Directive 10-07)






11





12









552 2112 368 3849 184 1110



2062 7888 588 6151 1474 8890


13














14




15








(Directive 10-07)






16








(Directive 10-07)






17













18





19











2 100 2 100 0 0


4 100 4 100 0 0




20












21












22









23
















24





All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)




319 357 269



25





Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



17 123 $224000


1 2 $70000


5 80 $35000


14 28 $13000


12 67 $12000


5 21 $12000


12 24 $11200


17 42 $8500



10 35 $7000


10 13 $5400


11 91 $0

26


Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



13 13 $0





27








Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs








28


29







Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs









30






31










32













33





34












517 1071 274 1073 243 1069




35 243 1440







57 243 2346


35








36





Average LOE (hours)

All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)






37









TOTAL 50dagger


38







39









40

RECOMMENDATIONS





Recommendations





41







42


Section 2













































































135 7 519 69 5111 59 437









Check

















Check




057886186 331511 Iron Foundries 53 53 63 12










Check








Check















Check


















(48 establishments) 3 625 26 5417 19 3958















(82 establishments) 2 244 39 4756 41 500


5 943 30 566 18 3396











(119 establishments) 7 588 62 521 50 4202


0 0 7 4375 9 5625





Section 3






























































160 8 50 92 575 60 375









Check


Ratio of Inspection













Check


Ratio of Inspection






















Check


Percent Change












Check



















(70 establishments) 5 714 42 600 23 3286















(77 establishments) 2 26 39 5065 36 4675


6 723 53 6386 24 2892


8 50 92 575 60 375










(151 establishments) 8 53 87 5762 56 3709


0 0 5 5556 4 4444




Appendices to



Appendix A




INCENTIVE PROGRAM






































ABSENTEEISM POLICY






Appendix B


RK NEP Inspections











Percent






















Appendix C




Appendix D




Appendix E






Oregon 84

























Washington 54








Appendix F







Percent






Percent






Percent






Percent








Percent






Percent



Wholesale 1 060






Appendix G














36 561 642 48 631 761 28 577 485


5 561 089 2 631 032 6 577 104














































































EXECUTIVE SUMMARY












Findings














Recommendations






Recommendations












SECTION ONE



Program Purpose






1








2









3












4








Analysis Objective


Datasets Used



5










6













7






3 Key Findings


8








9










165 4714 85 4645 80 4790



Union 44 2667 24 2824 20 2500


185 5286 98 5355 87 5210




Union 105 3000 55 3005 50 2994

Non-Union 245 7000 128 6995 117 7006




10









(Directive 10-07)






11





12









552 2112 368 3849 184 1110



2062 7888 588 6151 1474 8890


13














14




15








(Directive 10-07)






16








(Directive 10-07)






17













18





19











2 100 2 100 0 0


4 100 4 100 0 0




20












21












22









23
















24





All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)




319 357 269



25





Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



17 123 $224000


1 2 $70000


5 80 $35000


14 28 $13000


12 67 $12000


5 21 $12000


12 24 $11200


17 42 $8500



10 35 $7000


10 13 $5400


11 91 $0

26


Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



13 13 $0





27








Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs








28


29







Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs









30






31










32













33





34












517 1071 274 1073 243 1069




35 243 1440







57 243 2346


35








36





Average LOE (hours)

All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)






37









TOTAL 50dagger


38







39









40

RECOMMENDATIONS





Recommendations





41







42


Section 2













































































135 7 519 69 5111 59 437









Check

















Check




057886186 331511 Iron Foundries 53 53 63 12










Check








Check















Check


















(48 establishments) 3 625 26 5417 19 3958















(82 establishments) 2 244 39 4756 41 500


5 943 30 566 18 3396











(119 establishments) 7 588 62 521 50 4202


0 0 7 4375 9 5625





Section 3






























































160 8 50 92 575 60 375









Check


Ratio of Inspection













Check


Ratio of Inspection






















Check


Percent Change












Check



















(70 establishments) 5 714 42 600 23 3286















(77 establishments) 2 26 39 5065 36 4675


6 723 53 6386 24 2892


8 50 92 575 60 375










(151 establishments) 8 53 87 5762 56 3709


0 0 5 5556 4 4444




Appendices to



Appendix A




INCENTIVE PROGRAM






































ABSENTEEISM POLICY






Appendix B


RK NEP Inspections











Percent






















Appendix C




Appendix D




Appendix E






Oregon 84

























Washington 54








Appendix F







Percent






Percent






Percent






Percent








Percent






Percent



Wholesale 1 060






Appendix G














36 561 642 48 631 761 28 577 485


5 561 089 2 631 032 6 577 104






































Findings














Recommendations






Recommendations












SECTION ONE



Program Purpose






1








2









3












4








Analysis Objective


Datasets Used



5










6













7






3 Key Findings


8








9










165 4714 85 4645 80 4790



Union 44 2667 24 2824 20 2500


185 5286 98 5355 87 5210




Union 105 3000 55 3005 50 2994

Non-Union 245 7000 128 6995 117 7006




10









(Directive 10-07)






11





12









552 2112 368 3849 184 1110



2062 7888 588 6151 1474 8890


13














14




15








(Directive 10-07)






16








(Directive 10-07)






17













18





19











2 100 2 100 0 0


4 100 4 100 0 0




20












21












22









23
















24





All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)




319 357 269



25





Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



17 123 $224000


1 2 $70000


5 80 $35000


14 28 $13000


12 67 $12000


5 21 $12000


12 24 $11200


17 42 $8500



10 35 $7000


10 13 $5400


11 91 $0

26


Counts of RK

Violations Cited


Violationsdagger

Total Initial

Penalties


10-02)



13 13 $0





27








Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs








28


29







Programs


Programs



Programs



Programs









30






31










32













33





34












517 1071 274 1073 243 1069




35 243 1440







57 243 2346


35








36





Average LOE (hours)

All Inspections

Low-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-02)

Mid-Rate Targeting

(Directive 10-07)






37









TOTAL 50dagger


38







39









40

RECOMMENDATIONS





Recommendations





41







42


Section 2













































































135 7 519 69 5111 59 437









Check

















Check




057886186 331511 Iron Foundries 53 53 63 12










Check








Check















Check


















(48 establishments) 3 625 26 5417 19 3958















(82 establishments) 2 244 39 4756 41 500


5 943 30 566 18 3396











(119 establishments) 7 588 62 521 50 4202


0 0 7 4375 9 5625





Section 3






























































160 8 50 92 575 60 375









Check


Ratio of Inspection













Check


Ratio of Inspection






















Check


Percent Change












Check



















(70 establishments) 5 714 42 600 23 3286















(77 establishments) 2 26 39 5065 36 4675


6 723 53 6386 24 2892


8 50 92 575 60 375










(151 establishments) 8 53 87 5762 56 3709


0 0 5 5556 4 4444




Appendices to



Appendix A




INCENTIVE PROGRAM






































ABSENTEEISM POLICY






Appendix B


RK NEP Inspections











Percent






















Appendix C




Appendix D




Appendix E






Oregon 84

























Washington 54








Appendix F







Percent






Percent






Percent






Percent








Percent






Percent



Wholesale 1 060






Appendix G














36 561 642 48 631 761 28 577 485


5 561 089 2 631 032 6 577 104






































analysis of osha’s national emphasis program on injury and

Documents