Federal agencies Statistics Fines/penalties OSHA Infographics
OSHA's Top 10 most frequently cited violations

OSHA's Top 10: The more things change ...

OSHA may implement new rules and enforcement changes, but the agency's list of the Top 10 most frequently cited violations stays the same

OSHA's Top 10 2014

Penalty Box

The list of OSHA’s proposed monetary penalties in fiscal year 2014 comprises penalties stemming from a single incident or related incidents in which one or more companies allegedly failed to adhere to safe work practices. This failure puts workers at risk – in some cases fatally. The following information was provided by OSHA.

Note: These fines represent proposed penalties issued by federal OSHA between Oct. 1, 2013, and Sept. 30, 2014. Dollar amounts may be reduced as part of a settlement agreement or litigation.

$2.36 million

Company: Olivet Management, LLC
Location: Dover Plains, NY (OSHA Region 2)
Business Type: Real estate development and management
Inspection Trigger: Complaint
Event: OSHA inspectors found that employees and contractors were exposed to asbestos and lead during renovation and cleanup activities overseen by Olivet supervisors. Despite knowing about the existence of both asbestos and lead in the worksite, the company did not inform the employees or contractors of the hazard, provide them with appropriate protection, or monitor exposure levels.
Major Citations: Olivet was cited for 45 willful violations, including 24 addressing instance-by-instance exposure of workers to the hazards. It also was cited for one serious violation regarding failure to inform waste haulers of the presence of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials.

$816,500

Company: Formed Fiber Technologies LLC
Location: Sidney, OH (OSHA Region 5)
Business Type: Automotive fabric manufacturer
Inspection Trigger: Follow-up inspection
Event: Formed Fiber Technologies was accused of providing false documentation regarding the abatement of previously cited hazards related to hydraulic presses. During the follow-up inspection, OSHA found that employees remained exposed to unguarded machines and unsafe procedures despite abatement claims.
Major Citations: Formed Fiber Technologies was cited for four repeat violations for failure to train workers on how to properly stop machines before service and maintenance, as well as nine willful violations for failure to prevent startup on machines while workers were performing setup, service and maintenance inside the devices, and failure to develop lockout/ tagout procedures.

$697,700

Company: Wire Mesh Sales LLC
Location: Jacksonville, FL (OSHA Region 4)
Business Type: Wire mesh manufacturer
Inspection Trigger: Worker death
Event: A worker entered a large wire mesh manufacturing machine to retrieve a metal bar, and was fatally struck by a machine part. Inspectors found a curtain had been disabled that would have automatically turned off the machine before the worker entered.
Major Citations: The company was cited for eight per-instance willful violations for failure to guard and 22 serious violations that included housekeeping and electrical hazards.

$560,000

Company: Custom Rubber Products LLC
Location: Houston (OSHA Region 6)
Business Type: Oil and gas industry product manufacturer
Inspection Trigger: Complaint of a worker injury
Event: OSHA initiated an inspection following an incident in which a machine operator’s arms were crushed. During the inspection, the agency learned of two other similar incidents at the facility – both of which led to severe injuries.
Major Citations: Custom Rubber Products was cited for eight willful violations regarding failure to provide machine guarding.

$497,000

Company: Behr Iron & Steel Inc.
Location: South Beloit, IL (OSHA Region 5)
Business Type: Recycling plant
Inspection Trigger: Worker death
Event: A worker suffered multiple external and internal injuries, and later died, after his arm was caught in a conveyor belt at the scrap metal shredding and sorting facility.
Major Citations: The company was cited for seven willful confined space violations, including failure to implement training and failure to inform employees of the dangers present. One serious violation was issued for failure to evaluate the ability of emergency services to respond to emergencies in a permit-required confined space.

$460,350

Company: Painting & Decorating Inc.
Location: Manhasset, NY (OSHA Region 2)
Business Type: Painting and stucco contractor
Inspection Trigger: Local Emphasis Program on falls
Event: Under the LEP, inspectors found numerous fall and scaffolding hazards, many of which were similar to those identified by OSHA in previous inspections at the employer’s other worksites.
Major Citations: The company was cited for 10 repeat violations for lack of fall protection on a scaffold, an unrestrained scaffold, lack of protective helmets and lack of protection from falling objects, among other hazards. Also identified were five serious hazards for unsound footing, workers climbing on the scaffold’s cross bracing during erection and lack of eye protection.

$449,680

Company: Fontarome Chemical Inc.
Location: St. Francis, WI (OSHA Region 5)
Business Type: Pharmaceutical manufacturing facility
Inspection Trigger: Follow-up inspection
Event: OSHA initiated an inspection after the company failed to correct hazards following a 2012 fire at the facility. Since initiating the inspection, the company – which manufactured a chemical used for pharmaceuticals and the flavor and fragrance industries – has been sold.
Major Citations: Fontarome Chemical was cited with 23 willful violations that involved process safety management regulations, such as failure to establish safe operating procedures and develop safety information for equipment, and failure to develop procedures to protect workers from machines during maintenance. Fifteen serious violations were cited that involved forklift training, storage and availability of fire extinguishers, obstructed exit routes, lockout/ tagout, and training employees on personal protective equipment.

$397,000

Company: Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting
Location: Philadelphia (OSHA Region 3)
Business Type: Demolition contractors
Inspection Trigger: Wall collapse
Event: During the demolition of a four-story building, a wall collapsed on an adjacent Salvation Army store, killing six people and injuring 14. OSHA investigators later found that Campbell Construction had removed critical structural supports from that wall.
Major Citations: Campbell Construction was cited for three willful violations for each day the wall was without sufficient lateral support; two willful violations for failure to demolish the building from the top down and for a lack of an engineering survey; and several serious violations for failure to provide employees with hard hats, fall protection and fall hazard training. S&R Contracting received one willful violation and two serious violations for failure to protect employees from falling through holes and to provide fall hazard training.

$341,550

Company: Pride Plating Inc.
Location: Grove, OK (OSHA Region 6)
Business Type: Coating and metal processing
Inspection Trigger: Not provided
Event: Workers were exposed to hexavalent chromium at the worksite through inhalation, absorption and ingestion.
Major Citations: Pride Plating was cited for nine repeat violations for chromium violations, including failure to provide personal protective equipment and failure to properly train workers; 28 serious violations involving failure to provide adequate walking and working surfaces, lack of separate lock space and storage for street and protective clothing, failure to perform PPE hazard assessments, failure to implement respiratory program and fit testing, and inadequate washing facilities.

$305,100

Company: Sterling Shipyard LP
Location: Port Neches, TX (OSHA Region 6)
Business Type: Barge builder
Inspection Trigger: Follow-up inspection
Event: OSHA originally cited the employer in 2013 for various hazards, but the agency received no response to the citations. A followup inspection found that the employer had not corrected the previously cited hazards.
Major Citations: The company was cited for three failure-to-abate violations regarding machine, struck-by and fall hazards; four repeat violations for electrical hazards and lack of guardrails; and nine serious violations for failure to train workers on forklift operations, provide hearing protection and perform regular crane inspections.


Brady Worldwide, Inc.

This year's "OSHA's Top 10" feature article is sponsored by Brady Worldwide, Inc.

Next: Q&A: OSHA's perspective

Safety+Health interviews Patrick Kapust,
deputy director of OSHA's Directorate
of Enforcement Programs

Post a comment to this article

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

Title

Jack Otting
November 25, 2014
Please let us know when the Mfg. must have the MSDS changed to SDS. What is the final date?

Title

Dennis Richardson
November 25, 2014
As I read the above, I wonder how many workers were killed or maimed when they were not adequately trained due to English Not being their primary language

Title

Dennis Richardson
November 25, 2014
With the instant legalization of 5(+) million Hispanic workers, how will OSHA assist in the training of workers with a limited grasp of English language

Title

Dennis Richardson
November 25, 2014
When OSHA admits to only 40,000 inspections per year, how will they be able to focus on residential building where the majority of falls occur

Title

Jack Brassell
December 10, 2014
I hear over and over again that safety increases cost because it takes longer to do a job safely. Safety needs to turn into a habit instead of a nuisance. The GC needs to make it known that short cuts on safety will not be tolerated. Class "A" violation as Tie off, lock out tag out, scaffolding, and excavation, etc will result in removal of the violator from the job, no question asked. Not only class "A" violation need to be enforced but all safety rules, like safety glasses, hardhats, ear plugs, glove uses, ect. You cannot deviate from your program. Another helpful hint is to have a safety program that is stricter than OSHA's. Your contractors need to understand your expectations in the bid process in case he wants to decline from a bid. Is it easy, by no means. But if you stick to your guns eventually it will get easier. One more thing, you client needs to back you 100%.

Title

Dale Smith
December 10, 2014
It would have been useful to include an estimate of the cost to implement the changes that would have prevented the above incidents. Then a true comparison could be seen. Cost of fine Vs cost to initiate safety requirements.

Title

Ron Whited
December 12, 2014
The fact that the "Top Ten" list doesn't change very much should be an alarming statistic to OSHA.It clearly demonstrates that rules,penalties,and inspections do not serve the intended purpose of reducing the numbers of citations.That is because all of these things do not and cannot change the culture of a workplace that permits such practices to continue to occur. Until there is a culture shift in this country towards recognizing that the worker is the most valuable asset in any company,there will never be appreciable reductions in these redundant citations.

Title

SafetyBob
December 13, 2014
Sorry, I couldnot figure out how to put a comments on the osha hearing article http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/11539-michaels-psm-update-years-away-stronger-penalties-needed Check out a anecdoke(sp?) by Dr Michaels at 40 minutes in about upping penalties. Delaware refinery worker death fined $175,000 by osha, crab and fish death from I think the same accident fined $10million by epa. what's wrong with this picture????

Title

Jeff Largen - USMC Vet
December 24, 2014
As a safety professional I find it deeply troubling that there are machine guarding injuries that happen that are 100% preventable. I urge each employer to partner with a machine safety expert so we can provide the appropriate risk reduction action plan that will get your equipment compliant. I have seen far too many times a employer dedicating reaources for machine safety and improperly implemting mitigation techniques. Don't waste valuable time and money trying to implement risk reduction techniques without seeking out expert guidance. Visit larsafe.com for expert help.

Title

Lettie Gunning
February 5, 2016
Hey discussion , I was fascinated by the specifics ! Does someone know if my company could possibly get ahold of a fillable 338th Army Band version to edit ?

Title

TK Raddatz
December 20, 2016
We try extremely hard to educate all workers,but have found that sometimes its not always a language issues. Sometimes the worker themselves are only there for the Paycheck. It makes it hard to watch workers constantly when they themselves have no regard for safety or Life itself. I am constantly reminding workers that the Family they leave every day is the most important and they need there Father/Mother to come home at night with all fingers/toes and eyesight. Some listen and others pretend,so how does OSHA help with this issue. We try very hard to convey safety everyday but that's not enough. If anybody has a helpful solution I am all ears.