47 COR 40-8287 [¶23,040]
REPORTING WORK-CONNECTED INJURIES – REPORTING WORK-CONNECTED FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 342(a); Labor Code § 6317 (2020) – Although Employer failed to report an employee’s serious illness, the Division did not issue a citation for the violation within the six-month statute of limitations. OCCUPATIONAL INJURY OR ILLNESS REPORTS AND RECORDS – EMPLOYER RECORDS OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY OR ILLNESS, DETERMINATION OF WORK-RELATEDNESS, IMPLEMENTATION Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 14300.5(b)(3) (2020) – Employer did not violate the regulation because it had reliable medical information that two employees’ illnesses or injuries were not work-related. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES – DUSTS, FUMES, MISTS, VAPORS AND GASES, RESPIRATORY PROTECTION SELECTION OF RESPIRATORS Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 5144(d)(1) (2020) – Employer failed to properly evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace because it did not determine employee exposure to a concentration of an airborne contaminant that would occur if the employee were not using respiratory protection, a general violation. SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION – MISCELLANEOUS SAFE PRACTICES, HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3302(a) (2020) – The Division did not establish a violation because there was no evidence of employee exposure to hazardous liquids capable of inflicting physical injury upon contact with the skin. SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION – PERSONAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SAFEGUARDS, PERSONAL PROTECTIVE DEVICES, HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND EQUIPMENT SELECTION Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3380(f) (2020) – Employer violated the safety order because it did not have each affected employee use gloves that would protect them from hazards identified in hazard assessments. The ALJ reclassified the violation from serious to general and modified the penalty. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES – DUSTS, FUMES, MISTS, VAPORS AND GASES, AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS, WORKPLACE MONITORING Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 5155(e)(1) (2020) – The Division did not establish a violation because Employer monitored the work environment when there was a reasonable suspicion that employees may be exposed to concentrations of airborne contaminants in excess of permissible levels. The Division did not show any instances of which Employer should have reasonably suspected excessive concentrations within the six months before issuance of the citation, or suspected instances that were unresolved to the extent they would be considered a continuing violation of the obligation to monitor. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES – FORMALDEHYDE, EXPOSURE MONITORING Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 5217(d)(1) (2020) – The Division did not establish a violation because Employer documented, using objective data, that the presence of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing products in the workplace could not result in concentrations of airborne formaldehyde that would cause any employee to be exposed at or above the action level or the short-term exposure limit under foreseeable conditions of use. Employer, as a result, was not required to measure employee exposure to formaldehyde.Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated March 10, 2020, Inspection No. 1195278 (Bakersfield, CA).
Read More...