NORTH CAROLINA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

ANNUAL COMPARISON REPORT

October 2003– September 2006

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Cherie Berry

Commissioner of Labor

NORTH CAROLINA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

ANNUAL COMPARISON REPORT

October 2003– September 2006

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Cherie Berry

Commissioner of Labor

ii

SOURCES OF INFORMATION REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH IN NORTH CAROLINA

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Cherie Berry

Commissioner of Labor

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 733- 7166

Allen McNeely Kevin Beauregard

Deputy Commissioner Assistant Deputy Commissioner

for Occupational Safety and Health for Occupational Safety and Health

1101 Mail Service Center 1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101 Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 807- 2900 Telephone: ( 919) 807- 2900

For information concerning occupational safety

and health compliance contact:

Bureau of Compliance East

Tom Hayes, Bureau Chief

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

N. C. Department of Labor

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 779- 8570

Bureau of Compliance West

Tim Childers, Bureau Chief

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

N. C. Department of Labor

4964 University Parkway, Suite 202

Winston- Salem, NC 27106- 2800

Telephone: ( 336) 776- 4420

For occupational safety and health information

concerning education, training, presentations, and

the development or interpretation of standards or

OSH publications contact:

Bureau of Education, Training and

Technical Assistance

Wanda Lagoe, Bureau Chief

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

N. C. Department of Labor

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 807- 2875

For information concerning occupational safety

and health consultative services, safety awards,

and the Carolina Star program contact:

Bureau of Consultative Services

John R. Bogner Jr., Bureau Chief

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

N. C. Department of Labor

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 807- 2899

For statistical information concerning occupation-al

safety and health program activities and the

release of investigative case file documents from

occupational safety and health files covered by

the North Carolina Public Records Act contact:

Bureau of Planning, Statistics and

Information Management

Anne P. Weaver, Bureau Chief

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

N. C. Department of Labor

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 807- 2950

For information concerning agriculturally related

occupational safety and health contact:

Bureau of Agricultural Safety and Health

Regina Luginbuhl, Bureau Chief

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

N. C. Department of Labor

1101 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1101

Telephone: ( 919) 807- 2923

All of the above officials may be contacted by calling 1- 800- NC- LABOR

iii

Printed 9/ 07

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by the Planning, Statistics and Information Management Bureau of the Division

of Occupational Safety and Health and the Publications Bureau of the N. C. Department of Labor.

Photocopying and wide dissemination of this report are encouraged.

iv

Pursuant to Section 18 of the Williams- Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the General

Assembly of North Carolina in 1973 selected the N. C. Department of Labor, under the commissioner of

labor, as the designated agency to administer the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Act. The North

Carolina program is monitored and funded, in part, by the U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration. The expressed purpose of the state act is to assure, so far as possible, every work-ing

man and woman in the state of North Carolina safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve

human resources. The General Assembly created the Division of Occupational Safety and Health within the

Department of Labor to carry out the provisions of the act. On Dec. 10, 1997, the U. S. Department of Labor

awarded North Carolina final approval under Section 18( e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970 as having a “ fully effective” state OSHA program, the highest level of approval possible.

The NCDOL Division of Occupational Safety and Health covers all industries in North Carolina except: the

federal government; employees subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Federal Coal Mine Safety

and Health Act of 1969, the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act, and the Federal Railroad

Safety Act of 1970; maritime industries; and those employees whose employer is within that class and type

of employment that does not permit federal funding on a matching basis to the state in return for state

enforcement of all occupational safety and health issues. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health

endeavors to focus its resources toward identifying and eliminating safety and health hazards in industries

with the highest injury and illness rates.

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health consists of the director’s administrative staff and six orga-nizational

bureaus. The bureaus are East Compliance; West Compliance; Education, Training and Technical

Assistance; Consultative Services; Planning, Statistics and Information Management; and Agricultural Safety

and Health. The state Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health provides the commissioner of

labor with advice in regard to the administration of the act. The N. C. Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission, appointed by the governor, provides an appellate opportunity to people adversely affected by

safety and health citations.

The primary activities of the division are as follows:

• To conduct public and private sector safety and health inspections to ensure compliance with the act.

• To provide technical assistance and information to employers, employees and organizations on all aspects

of safety and health program development and administration.

• To provide on- site consultative services to small public and private sector employers.

• To provide education and training on safety and health to public and private sector employees.

• To review, develop and promulgate standards, rules, procedures and program directives as they apply to

the proper administration of the act.

NORTH CAROLINA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

State Demographic Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Inspection Series

Inspections by Category

1. Statistical Reference— Inspections by

Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Inspections by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Inspections by Type

3. Statistical Reference— Inspections by

Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Inspections by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Inspections by Industry Type

5. Statistical Reference— Inspections by

Industry Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6. Inspections by Industry Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7. Average Lapse Time for All Inspections ... 16

Violation Series

Violations by Type

8. Statistical Reference— Violations in

Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

9. Statistical Reference— Violations by

Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

10. Violations by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Violations per Inspection

11. Inspections In- Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

12. Violations per Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

13. Violations per Followup Inspection. . . . . . . . . 24

14. Violations Reclassified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

15. Top 25 Most Frequently Cited “ Serious”

Construction Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

16. Top 25 Most Frequently Cited “ Serious”

General Industry Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Penalty Series

17. Statistical Reference— Penalty

Assessment in Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . 30

18. Statistical Reference— Penalty

Assessment by Violation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

19. Penalty Assessment by Violation Type . . . . . 32

20. Statistical Reference— Penalty

Assessment per Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

21. Statistical Reference— Penalty

Assessment by Violation Type

( Public Sector Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

22. Statistical Reference— Penalty

Assessment per Violation

( Public Sector Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

23. Penalty Retention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Litigation Series

24. Statistical Reference— Contested Cases

and Percentages Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . 38

25. Number of Inspections Contested. . . . . . . . . . . 39

26. Percent of Inspections With Citations

Contested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Consultation Series

27. Statistical Reference— Total Visits by

Category, Type and Industry Type . . . . . . . . . . 44

28. Total Visits in Fiscal Years 04– 06. . . . . . . . . . . 45

29. Total Visits by Type in

Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

30. Total Visits by Industry in

Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

31. Hazards by Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Education, Training and Technical Assistance

Series

32. Distribution of OSH- Related

Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Fatality Series

33. Fatalities Investigated by Event in

Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

34. Total Fatalities Investigated in

Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

35. Leading Causes of Investigated

Fatalities in Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

36. N. C. Fatal Events by District Office

Fiscal Years 04– 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

37. Fatalities by Industry Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

38. Fatalities by Office Location FY 06 . . . . . . . . 59

39. Fatalities by Race FY 06. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Construction Series

40. Inspections by Category FY 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

41. Inspections by Field Office FY 06 . . . . . . . . . . 65

42. Inspections by Type FY 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

43. Inspections by Type and Percentage . . . . . . . . 67

44. SEP Inspections by Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

45. Ratio for SWRV Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates

46. Total Case Rates by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

47. Lost Workday Case Rates by Industry. . . . . . 73

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chart

No. Page

Chart

No. Page

v

[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Background: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) of the U. S. Department of

Labor monitors state programs by making comparisons of state data versus federal data. The purpose of this

report is to highlight North Carolina’s occupational safety and health program experience through a com-parison

of the past three federal fiscal years, Oct. 1, 2003– Sept. 30, 2006.

North Carolina is one of 22 jurisdictions ( 21 states and one territory— see text table 1) with an approved

state program for occupational safety and health. Twenty- nine states plus the District of Columbia operate

under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal OSHA, with the exception of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey

and the Virgin Islands, which have state plans for the public sector only ( see text table 1).

Methodology: Report data on total numbers and dollar amounts were generated from “ United States

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Inspection Report, October 1, 2003–

September 30, 2006.” Averages and percentages were calculated by the Planning, Statistics and Information

Management Bureau, and the graphs and charts were prepared by the Publications Bureau, N. C. Department

of Labor.

Highlights: The following summary highlights some of the comparisons contained in this report.

1

N. C. Department of Labor

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Annual Comparison Report

October 2003– September 2006

Executive Summary

Alabama

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut 1

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey 1

New York 1

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Texas

Virgin Islands 1

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Text Table 1

STATES AND TERRITORIES

WITH APPROVED PLANS FOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

STATES AND TERRITORIES

OPERATED UNDER

EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION

NOTE: 1 Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands state plans are

public sector only.

Alaska

Arizona

California

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

New Mexico

North Carolina

Oregon

Puerto Rico

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

2

N. C. Department of Labor

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Annual Comparison Report

October 2003– September 2006

Executive Summary ( continued)

Inspections

During fiscal year 2006 ( October 2005– September 2006), North Carolina conducted 5,055 establishment

inspections, 81 more than FY 2005 and 564 less than FY 2004. This represents a 2 percent increase from

FY 2005 and an 11 percent decrease from FY 2004. Of North Carolina’s 5,055 inspections, 3,533 ( 70 per-cent)

were safety and 1,522 ( 30 percent) were health.

In the inspection type category, North Carolina programmed inspections accounted for 64 percent of inspec-tion

activity in FY 2006, compared to 57 percent in FY 2005 and 61 percent in FY 2004. Complaint inspec-tions

accounted for 17 percent of inspections in North Carolina for FY 2006, compared to 23 percent in FY

2005 and 19 percent in FY 2004. In the inspections by industry group, North Carolina conducted 19 percent

of the inspections in manufacturing in FY 2006, compared to 21 percent in FY 2005 and 17 percent in FY

2004. However, North Carolina conducted 48 percent of inspections in construction in FY 2006, compared

to 51 percent in FY 2005 and 53 percent in FY 2004. North Carolina conducted 7 percent of the inspections

in the public sector for FY 2006, compared to 4 percent in FY 2005 and 5 percent in FY 2004.

Violations

North Carolina cited 12,412 total violations in FY 2006, a 4 percent increase from FY 2005 and a 2 percent

increase from FY 2004. North Carolina cited more violations per inspection in FY 2006 ( 3.5) than in FY

2005 ( 3.4) and in FY 2004 ( 3.0). North Carolina cited more serious violations ( 5,296) in FY 2006 than in

FY 2005 ( 5,084) and in FY 2004 ( 5,210). North Carolina cited more nonserious violations ( 6,990) in FY

2006 than in FY 2005 ( 6,761) and FY 2004 ( 6,900).

Penalty Assessments

Total penalty assessments in North Carolina were $ 3,816,527 in FY 2006, which was more than in FY 2005

($ 3,026,099) and FY 2004 ($ 2,886,471). North Carolina assessed a total of $ 148,270 in penalties for viola-tions

in the public sector in FY 2006. North Carolina’s average penalty per violation was higher in FY 2006

than in FY 2005 per serious violation ($ 525 vs. $ 471), per willful violation ($ 27,355 vs. $ 20,900), per non-serious

violation ($ 9 vs. $ 8), and per repeat violation ($ 1,407 vs. $ 1,359). However, it was lower per fail-ure-

to- abate violation ($ 1,747 vs. $ 2,750). In FY 2004 the average penalty per violation was lower than in

FY 2006 per serious violation ($ 460 vs. $ 525), per willful violation ($ 11,400 vs. $ 27,355), per nonserious

violation ($ 8 vs. $ 9), per repeat violation ($ 1,371 vs. $ 1,407), and per failure- to- abate violation ($ 566 vs.

$ 1,747).

Litigation

In North Carolina, 2.8 percent of the inspections with citations were contested in fiscal years 2004, 2005

and 2006.

Consultation

The North Carolina consultation program conducted 1,255 total visits in FY 2006. This was a 13 percent

increase from FY 2005. Of the 1,255 traditional visits, 83 percent were initial visits, 9 percent were train-ing/

assistance visits, and 8 percent were followup visits. There were 19 special emphasis tree felling visits

in FY 2006. The industry mix for the traditional consultative visits in FY 2006 was 30 percent manufactur-ing,

28 percent construction, 27 percent other and 15 percent public sector.

The consultation program continues to participate in a Region 4 pilot project that uses workers’ compensa-tion

data to target companies for consultation. Participation in this project requires a safety and health pro-gram

assessment and that the company agree to a three- year commitment with the Department of Labor. The

Carolina Star Program awarded Star program status to 16 new companies and awarded three- year recertifi-cation

to 21 existing companies in FY 2006. There are currently a total of 94 companies in the Star pro-grams.

Education, Training and Technical Assistance

The Bureau of Education, Training and Technical Assistance responded to more than 5,271 telephone calls

and e- mail requests for information on occupational safety and health issues and distributed 55,498 OSHA-related

publications in FY 2006, a 2 percent decrease from FY 2005 with 56,429 and an increase of 2 per-cent

from FY 2004 with 54,635. In 2006, the Bureau of Education, Training and Technical Assistance pro-vided

training for 16,627 employers and employees. During FY 2006 the bureau expanded its offerings of

10- and 30- hour courses tailored to the strategic emphasis items in North Carolina and its use of the bureau’s

mobile classroom.

Fatalities

The NCDOL Division of Occupational Safety and Health evaluated and investigated a total of 91 occupa-tional

fatalities that occurred during FY 2006. Of the 91 investigated fatalities in FY 2006, 12 percent were

related to being “ crushed by” an object, 25 percent were related to “ falls,” 25 percent were related to being

“ struck by” an object, 6 percent were related to “ electrocutions,” and 32 percent were related to “ other.”

Construction Industry Special Emphasis Program

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health established this Special Emphasis Program ( SEP) to

decrease fatalities related to the construction industry ( SIC 15- 17 and NAICS 23). The North Carolina coun-ties

included in the program are Cabarrus, Dare, Forsyth, Guilford, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Wake.

The Construction Industry Special Emphasis Program accounted for 2,425 inspections during FY 2006 in

North Carolina. Of the 2,425 inspections, 81 percent were safety and 19 percent were health. In- compliance

inspections totaled 27 percent of all activity within the SEP, and 71 percent of all inspections had citations

issued. The construction industry was cited for 2,823 serious, willful and repeat violations during FY 2006.

A total of 1,727 inspections were conducted in the SEP counties.

3

N. C. Department of Labor

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Annual Comparison Report

October 2003– September 2006

Executive Summary ( continued)

4

N. C. Department of Labor

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Annual Comparison Report

October 2003– September 2006

Introduction

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of North Carolina is “ to assure so far as possible

every working man and woman in the State of North Carolina safe and healthful working conditions and to

preserve our human resources.” The state’s five- year Strategic Plan is designated to promote the achieve-ment

of this purpose through the specific goals and objectives established by the NCDOL Division of

Occupational Safety and Health and its employees.

The division has established two primary strategic goals as part of the five- year Strategic Plan. Goal One is

the reduce occupational hazards through direct interventions. Goal Two is to promote a safe and health cul-ture

through compliance assistance, cooperative programs and strong leadership.

From these two broad strategic goals, specific outcome goals and annual performance goals are included in

the Strategic Plan. Methylene chloride is not included in the FY 2006 Strategic Plan as an outcome goal even

though its five- year end date is FY 2006. As a result of increased knowledge of the hazards associated with

methylene chloride, many employers have discontinued its use. Due to its minimal impact on a 15 percent

reduction of the overall industry injury and illness rate, a continued commitment of resources to this effort

is not strategically appropriate.

5

N. C. Department of Labor

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Annual Comparison Report

October 2005– September 2006

State Demographic Profile

Private Sector

State Demographic Profile

Public Sector

* Source: Employment and Wages in North Carolina, Employment Security Commission, N. C.

Department of Commerce, Second Quarter 2006.

Private Sector NAIC SIC Establishments* Employees*

Construction 23 15- 17 27,993 244,896

Manufacturing 31- 33 20- 39 10,714 555,346

Transportation 48- 49 40- 59 6,380 137,851

Wholesale and Retail Trade 42- 45 50- 59 51,163 628,624

Finance, Insurance

and Real Estate 51- 53 60- 67 26,184 275,007

Services 54- 81 70- 89 97,655 1,826,461

All Other 17,917 64,246

Total Private Sector 238,006 3,732,431

Public Sector Establishments* Employees*

State 2,053 174,595

Local 4,168 428,875

Total Public Sector 6,221 603,470

6

N. C. Department of Labor

Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Annual Comparison Report

October 2005– September 2006

State Demographic Profile

By Private Sector Employees*

* Source: Employment and Wages in North Carolina, Employment Security Commission, N. C.

Department of Commerce, Second Quarter 2006.



      

      

      

      

        

        

        

        

        

        

        	


   
  



 

  	     

   
 
   
 

  

       

ember 2006


State Demographic Profile


By Private Sector Employees*


* Source: Employment and Wages in North Carolina, Employment Security Commission, N. C.


Department of Commerce, Second Quarter 2006.





      


      


      


      


        


        


        


        


        


        


        	




   
  





 


  	     


   
 

   

 


  


       


    	        


          



     ! ! 


 


"  #          


       $ 	   




 
   

 
 


  


$ 	    % # 	     # 


 &      


 


'    (     	   )


       &  




   


* #    	     # 



      






 


Number of Employees


Inspection Series


8


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Definitions of Types of Inspections


* Federal OSHA also classifies fatalities and catastrophes as accidents or events. However, in North


Carolina other significant incidents of injuries are classified by source. Information about injuries


obtained through the media are referrals; incidents reported by co- workers or relatives are complaints.


I. General Schedule Inspections:


A. Programmed Planned— An inspection randomly selected and scheduled from a master list of all


employers, or selected from lists of employers in specific industries as part of a national or local


occupational safety and health emphasis program.


B. Programmed Related— An inspection of an employer at a multi- employer worksite who was not


included in the programmed planned assignment that initiated the worksite visit.


II. Unprogrammed Inspections:


A. Accident:


An accident inspection results from the reporting of the following:


1. Fatality— An employee death resulting from an employment accident or illness caused by or


related to a workplace hazard.


2. Catastrophe— The hospitalization of three or more employees resulting from an employment


accident or illness; in general, from an accident or illness caused by a workplace hazard.


Hospitalization is defined as being admitted as an inpatient to a hospital or equivalent medical


facility for examination or treatment.


3. Other Significant Incident*— Any other significant incident that actually or potentially resulted


in a serious injury or illness.


B. Complaint:


A complaint is a notice given by an employee, a representative of employees, or any other source


not identified as a referral source of a hazard or a violation of the act believed to exist in a work-place.


A complaint is normally distinguished from a referral by the source providing information on


the alleged hazard.


C. Referral:


Notices of hazards or alleged violations originated by the following sources are classified as refer-rals:


1. safety or health compliance officer


2. safety and health agency


3. other government agency


4. media report


5. employer report


D. Followup:


A followup inspection is an inspection conducted to determine whether the employer has abated


violations previously cited on an OSH inspection.


E. Unprogrammed Related:


An unprogrammed related inspection is an inspection of an employer of a multi- employer worksite


who was not identified as an exposing employer in the original unprogrammed inspection assign-ment


( e. g., complaint, accident, referral) that initiated the visit to the worksite.


9


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections Series Highlights


• The number of total establishment inspections in North Carolina increased from 4,974 in FY 2005 to


5,055 in FY 2006, an increase of 2 percent.


• The number of safety establishment inspections in North Carolina increased from 3,336 in FY 2005 to


3,533 in FY 2006, an increase of 6 percent.


• The number of health establishment inspections in North Carolina decreased from 1,638 in FY 2005 to


1,522 in FY 2006, a decrease of 8 percent.


• The percentage of inspections conducted in FY 2006 for manufacturing was 19 percent of the total inspec-tions


for North Carolina, compared to 21 percent for FY 2005 and 17 percent for FY 2004.


• The percentage of inspections conducted in FY 2006 for construction was 48 percent of the total inspec-tions


for North Carolina, compared to 51 percent for FY 2005 and 53 percent for FY 2004.


• The percentage of inspections conducted in FY 2006 for public sector was 7 percent of the total inspec-tions


for North Carolina, compared to 4 percent for FY 2005 and 5 percent for FY 2004.


• The average number of days from the opening conference until citations were issued for FY 2006 was 22


days for North Carolina, compared to 21 days in FY 2005 and 19 days in FY 2004.


10


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections, All Types


Inspections by Category


CHART 1


Fiscal Year Total


2004 5,619


2005 4,974


2006 5,055


Fiscal Year Safety Total Safety Percent Health Total Health Percent


2004 3,887 69 1,732 31


2005 3,336 67 1,638 33


2006 3,533 70 1,522 30


11


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections by Category*


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.





    


    


	    


    




    


    


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




   

  


        !    


  
   


   	 


	 	 


  
   


  

  


	  


  
   


   	 


	  


 
    


	    


    
    


	  

 	 	


  


 
    


	  	 	 


  


CHART 2


Number of Inspections


12


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections by Type


CHART 3


Accident Complaint Programmed


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 126 2 1,064 19 3,439 61


2005 153 3 1,127 23 2,841 57


2006 172 3 866 17 3,227 64


Followup Referral Unprogrammed Related


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 59 1 602 11 329 6


2005 32 1 503 10 318 6


2006 62 1 485 10 243 5


13


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections by Type*


CHART 4


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


FY 2004


Total 5,619


FY 2005


Total 4,974


FY 2006


Accident


172


Unprog. Rel. 3%


243


5%


Referral


485


10%


Followup


62


1%


Programmed


3,227


64%


Complaint


866


17%


Total 5,055


Accident


126


2%


Unprog. Rel.


329


6%


Referral


602


11%


Followup


59


1%


Programmed


3,439


61%


Complaint


1,064


19%


Accident


153


Unprog. Rel. 3%


318


6%


Referral


503


10%


Followup


32


1%


Programmed


2,841


57%


Complaint


1,127


23%


14


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections by Industry Type


CHART 5


Construction Manufacturing


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent


2004 3,006 53 939 17


2005 2,519 51 1,033 21


2006 2,425 48 970 19


Other Public Sector


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent


2004 1,416 25 258 5


2005 1,205 24 217 4


2006 1,314* 26 346 7


** FY 06 other total includes maritime inspections.


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


** FY 06 other total includes maritime inspections.


15


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections by Industry Type*


CHART 6


FY 2004


Total 5,619


FY 2005


Total 4,794


FY 2006


Total 5,055


Manufacturing


970


19%


Public Sector


346


7%


Other**


1,314


26%


Construction


2,425


48%


Manufacturing


939


17%


Public Sector


258


5%


Other


1,416


25%


Construction


3,006


53%


Manufacturing


1,033


21%


Public Sector


217


4%


Other


1,205


24%


Construction


2,519


51%


16


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Average Lapse Time** for All Inspections*


CHART 7


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


** Lapse time is the number of days from the opening conference until citations are issued.










 


 




 


 





 


 


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 





 



Average Number of Days


Violation Series


18


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Definitions of Types of Violations


SOURCE: North Carolina Field Operations Manual, Chapter 4, “ Violations,” and Chapter 6, “ Penalties.”


1. WILLFUL— A “ willful” violation may exist under the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health


Act where the evidence shows that the employer committed an intentional and knowing, as contrasted with


inadvertent, violation of the act and the employer is conscious of the fact that what he is doing constitutes


a violation of the act; or even though the employer was not consciously violating the act, he was aware that


a hazardous condition existed and made no reasonable effort to eliminate the condition. It is not necessary


that the violation be committed with malice or an evil intent to be deemed “ willful” under the act. It is suf-ficient


that the act was deliberate, voluntary or intentional as distinguished from those that were inadvertent,


accidental or ordinarily negligent.


2. SERIOUS— A serious violation exists in a place of employment if there is a substantial probability that


death or serious physical harm could result from a condition that exists, or from one or more practices,


means, methods, operations or processes that have been adopted or are in use at such place of employment,


unless the employer did not know and could not, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the pres-ence


of the violation. A citation for serious violations may be issued for a group of individual violations


which, when taken by themselves, would not be serious, but when considered together would be serious in


the sense that in combination they present a substantial probability of injury resulting in death or serious


physical harm to employees.


3. OTHER- THAN- SERIOUS ( NONSERIOUS)— This type of violation is cited where an accident or


occupational illness resulting from violation of a standard would probably not cause death or serious phys-ical


harm but would have a direct or immediate relationship to the safety or health of employees. An exam-ple


of an “ other” violation is the lack of guardrails at a height from which a fall would more probably result


in only a mild sprain or cut and abrasions, i. e., something less than serious physical harm.


4. REPEAT— A citation for a repeat violation may be issued where upon reinspection a second violation of


the previous cited section of a standard, regulation, rule, order or condition violating the general duty clause


is found and:


( a) The citation is issued within three years of the final order of the previous citation; or


( b) The citation is issued within three years of the final abatement date of that citation, whichever is later.


Repeat violations differ from willful violations in that they may result from an inadvertent, accidental or


ordinarily negligent act. A willful violation need not be one for which the employer has been previously


cited. If a repeat violation is also willful, a citation for the latter violation will be issued.


Repeat violations are also to be distinguished from a failure- to- abate violation. If upon reinspection a vio-lation


of a previously cited standard is found, if such violation does not involve the same piece of equip-ment


or the same location within an establishment or worksite, the violation may be a repeat. If upon rein-spection


a violation of a previously cited standard is found on the same piece of equipment or in the same


location, and the evidence indicates that the violation has continued uncorrected since the original inspec-tion,


then there has been a failure- to- abate. If, however, the violation was not continuous, i. e., if it has been


corrected and reoccurred, the subsequent reoccurrence is a repeat violation.


The violation can be classified as repeat- serious or repeat other- than- serious using the criteria normally


applied for serious and other- than- serious violations.


5. FAILURE- TO- ABATE— If an employer has not corrected an alleged violation for which a citation has


been issued, the violation can be classified as failure- to- abate serious or other- than- serious using the crite-ria


normally applied for serious and other- than- serious violations.


• The total number of violations cited by North Carolina increased from 12,412 in FY 2004 to 12,637 in


FY 2006, a 2 percent increase. The total number of violations also increased 4 percent from 12,163 in FY


2005 to 12,637 in FY 2006.


• North Carolina cited 5,296 serious violations in FY 2006, a 4 percent increase from 5,084 serious viola-tions


in FY 2005 and a 2 percent increase from FY 2004 with 5,210 serious violations.


• North Carolina cited more nonserious violations in FY 2006 ( 6,990) than in FY 2005 ( 6,761) and FY 2004


( 6,900).


• The North Carolina percent of violations per inspection in FY 2006 ( 3.5) increased from FY 2005 ( 3.4)


and FY 2004 ( 3.0).


• In FY 2006, North Carolina reclassified 1.9 of the violations compared to 1.6 percent of violations reclas-sified


in FY 2005 and 1.8 percent in FY 2004.


19


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Violation Series Highlights


Fiscal Year Total


2004 12,412


2005 12,163


2006 12,637


CHART 8


Violations in Fiscal Years 2004– 2006


20


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Violations by Type


CHART 9


Serious Nonserious Repeat


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 5,210 42 6,900 56 271 2


2005 5,084 42 6,761 56 296 2


2006 5,296 42 6,990 55 314 3


Willful Failure- to- Abate Unclassified


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 4 0 27 0 0 0


2005 6 0 16 0 0 0


2006 18 0 19 0 0 0


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


**“ Other” violations include repeat, willful, failure- to- abate and unclassified violations.


21


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Violations by Type*


CHART 10


FY 2004


Total 12,412


FY 2005


Total 12,163


FY 2006


Total 12,637


Nonserious


6,990


55%


Other**


351


3%


Serious


5,296


42%


Nonserious


6,900


56%


Other**


302


2%


Serious


5,210


42%


Nonserious


6,761


56%


Other**


318


2%


Serious


5,084


42%


22


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Inspections In- Compliance*


( Excluding Followup Inspections)


CHART 11


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


FY 2004


In- Compliance


1,631


29%


Not In- Compliance


3,929


71%


Total 5,560


FY 2005


Total 4,945


FY 2006


Total 4,993


In- Compliance


1,386


28%


Not In- Compliance


3,607


72%


In- Compliance


1,374


28%


Not In- Compliance


3,571


72%


23


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Violations per Inspection*


( Excluding Followup Inspections)


CHART 12


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.





  




  


  




  


  




	  


	  




  


& ,  


& , 


& , !


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




Violations per Inspection


24


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Violations per Followup Inspection*


CHART 13


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.





   


   


	   


   




   


   


,  


 , & 


  ,  



 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




Violations per Inspection


25


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Violations Reclassified*


CHART 14


** Data from Interim State Indicator Report ( SIR), 1- 16- 07.





  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


  


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




 , 




 , 


 , 


Percent


26


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Top 25 Most Frequently Cited “ Serious”


Construction Standards*


CHART 15


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Freq. Violated Stds. Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


Standards Total Serious Willful Repeat Other


Violated Violations Violations Violations Violations Violations Brief Description


1926.501( b)( 13) 457 400 0 51 6 Fall protection— Unprotected sides and edges/ residential construction


1926.102( a)( 1) 296 264 0 17 15 Eye and face protection


1926.20( b)( 2) 295 243 0 17 35 General safety and health provisions— Accident prevention inspections


1926.503( a)( 1) 217 206 0 6 5 Fall protection— Training program


1926.501( b)( 1) 193 179 0 7 7 Fall protection— Unprotected sides and edges


1926.1053( b)( 1) 183 155 0 5 23 Ladders— Use of portable ladders to access upper landing surface


1926.100( a) 186 149 0 11 26 Head protection


1926.501( b)( 11) 168 148 0 19 1 Fall protection— Unprotected sides and edges/ steep roof


1926.451( e)( 1) 111 98 0 5 8 Scaffolds— Access— Platforms above or below access point


1926.451( g)( 1)( vii) 93 84 0 6 3 Scaffolds— Employees protected by personal fall arrest/ guardrail system


1926.21( b)( 2) 102 83 0 1 18 Safety training and education— Recognition of unsafe conditions


1926.451( g)( 1) 85 82 0 2 1 Scaffolds— Employees protected by personal fall arrest/ guardrail system


1926.20( b)( 1) 90 81 0 0 9 General safety and health provisions— Accident prevention program


1926.1053( b)( 4) 82 65 0 1 16 Ladders— Use— Used only for the purpose for which designed


1926.451( g)( 4)( i) 71 65 0 6 0 Scaffolds— Installation of guardrails systems


1926.501( b)( 10) 71 62 0 7 1 Fall protection— Roofing work on low slope roofs


1926.503( c)( 3) 65 55 0 4 6 Fall protection— Retraining employees


1926.454( a) 59 55 0 1 3 Scaffolds— Training


95.129( 1) 56 54 0 2 0 General duty clause


1926.1060( a) 60 51 0 0 9 Ladders and stairways— Training program


1926.451( b)( 1)( i) 50 46 0 2 2 Scaffolds— Platform construction— Platform unit installation


1923.503( b)( 1) 70 45 0 1 24 Fall protection— Certification of Training


1926.501( b)( 14) 51 44 0 2 5 Fall protection— Wall openings— Employee working on, at, near,


above openings shall be protected from falls


1926.451( f)( 3) 46 42 0 1 3 Scaffolds— Use— Inspection by competent person


1926.453( b)( 2)( v) 41 41 0 0 0 Scaffolds— Aerial lifts— Extensible and articulating boom platforms—


Body belts and lanyards worn/ used


27


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Top 25 Most Frequently Cited “ Serious”


General Industry Standards*


CHART 16


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Freq. Violated Stds. Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


Standards Total Serious Willful Repeat Other


Violated Violations Violations Violations Violations Violations Brief Description


1910.212( a)( 1) 195 166 0 1 28 Machine guarding— Types of guarding


NCGS 95- 129( 1) 149 143 4 0 2 General duty clause


1910.304( f)( 4) 244 142 0 4 98 Electrical— Grounding requirements— Path to ground


1910.215( b)( 9) 214 132 0 1 81 Machine guarding— Abrasive wheel machinery— Exposure adjustment


1910.215( a)( 4) 127 99 0 1 57 Machine guarding— Abrasive wheel machinery— Work rests


1910.151( c) 130 91 0 1 38 Medical and first aid— Eyewash and emergency showers


1910.133( a)( 1) 117 87 0 0 30 Eye and face protection— General requirements


1910.305( b)( 1) 219 78 0 6 135 Electrical— Cabinets, boxes and fittings— Conductors protected from


abrasion


1910.23( c)( 1) 100 69 0 3 28 Walking and working surfaces— Protect open sided floors, platforms


and runways


1910.212( b) 134 55 0 1 78 Machine guarding— Fixed machinery— Anchored to prevent


moving/ walking


1910.212( a)( 3)( ii) 63 55 0 0 8 Machine guarding— Point of operation guarding


1910.305( g)( 2)( iii) 183 49 0 4 130 Electrical— Flexible cords and cables— Strain relief


1910.132( a) 58 43 0 0 15 Personal protective equipment— General requirements— Provided


when necessary


1910.132( d)( 1) 83 42 0 0 41 Personal protective equipment— Hazard assessment


1910.305( b)( 2) 152 41 0 1 110 Electrical— Covers and canopies— Pull and junction boxes and fittings


with approved covers


1910.147( c)( 1) 65 40 0 0 25 Lockout/ Tagout— Energy control program


1910.304( f)( 5)( v) 52 40 0 0 12 Electrical— Grounding— Cord and plug connected equipment


1910.147( c)( 4)( i) 51 39 0 0 12 Lockout/ Tagout— Energy control procedures


1910.219( d)( 1) 39 35 0 0 4 Machinery and machine guarding— Pulleys


1910.1200( e)( 1) 329 34 1 6 288 Hazard communication— Written program


1910.305( j)( 2)( ii) 41 34 0 0 7 Electrical— Receptacles— Suitable for wet locations


1910.303( b)( 2) 143 30 0 3 110 Electrical— Installation and use— Listed and labeled equipment used


or installed in accordance with instructions


1910.307( b) 34 30 1 1 2 Electrical— Approved for hazardous locations


1910.178( l)( 1)( i) 66 28 0 0 38 Powered industrial trucks— Operator training— Ensure operator


competency


1910.147( c)( 6)( i) 50 28 0 2 20 Lockout/ Tagout— Annual/ periodic inspection


[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


Penalty Series


30


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Series Highlights


• North Carolina assessed a total of $ 3,816,527 in penalties for violations cited in FY 2006, compared to a


total of $ 3,026,099 assessed in FY 2005 and $ 2,883,471 assessed in FY 2004.


• The average penalty per serious violation was $ 525 in FY 2006, higher than $ 471 in FY 2005 and $ 460


in FY 2004.


• North Carolina assessed a total of $ 148,270 in penalties for violations cited in the public sector in FY


2006, a 12 percent increase from $ 130,344 assessed in FY 2005 and a 53 percent increase from $ 69,497


assessed in FY 2004.


• In FY 2006, North Carolina retained 62.5 percent of penalties assessed, compared to 67.7 percent of


penalties assessed in FY 2005 and 58.3 percent assessed in FY 2004.


Fiscal Year Total


2004 $ 2,886,471


2005 $ 3,026,099


2006 $ 3,816,527


CHART 17


Penalty Assessment, All Types


31


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Assessment by Violation Type


CHART 18


** Unclassified penalties are assessed as part of settlement agreements.


Serious Nonserious Repeat


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 $ 2,398,393 83 $ 55,588 2 $ 371,590 13


2005 $ 2,395,764 79 $ 58,499 2 $ 402,436 13


2006 $ 2,782,648 73 $ 66,393 2 $ 441,886 11


Willful Failure- to- Abate Unclassified*


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 $ 145,600 1 $ 15,300 1 $ 0 0


2005 $ 125,400 4 $ 44,000 2 $ 0 0


2006 $ 492,400 13 $ 33,200 1 $ 0 0


32


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Assessment by Violation Type*


CHART 19


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.


FY 2004


Total $ 2,886,471


FY 2005


Total $ 3,026,099


FY 2006


Total $ 3,816,527


Failure- to- Abate


$ 33,200


1%


Serious


$ 2,782,648


73%


Willful


$ 492,400


13%


Nonserious


$ 66,393


2%


Repeat


$ 441,886


11%


Failure- to- Abate


$ 15,300


1%


Serious


$ 2,398,393


83%


Willful


$ 45,600


1%


Nonserious


$ 55,588


2%


Repeat


$ 371,590


13%


Failure- to- Abate


$ 44,000


2%


Serious


$ 2,395,764


79%


Willful


$ 125,400


4%


Nonserious


$ 58,499


2%


Repeat


$ 402,436


13%


33


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Assessment per Violation


CHART 20


Failure- to-


Fiscal Year


Serious Nonserious Repeat Willful Abate Unclassified


2004 $ 460 $ 8 $ 1,371 $ 11,400 $ 7,566 $ 0


2005 $ 471 $ 8 $ 1,359 $ 20,900 $ 2,750 $ 0


2006 $ 525 $ 9 $ 1,407 $ 27,355 $ 1,747 $ 0


34


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Assessment per Violation Type


Public Sector


CHART 21


Fiscal Year Penalty Assessment


( all types)


Total


2004 $ 169,497


2005 $ 130,344


2006 $ 148,270


Serious Nonserious Repeat


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 $ 161,097 88 $ 2,600 1 $ 6,300 9


2005 $ 120,964 93 $ 1,350 1 $ 8,030 6


2006 $ 146,090 99 $ 2,700 0 $ 2,980 1


Willful Failure- to- Abate Unclassified


Fiscal Year


Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent


2004 $ 0 0 $ 1,500 2 $ 0 0


2005 $ 0 0 $ 1,110 0 $ 0 0


2006 $ 0 0 $ 1,500 0 $ 0 0


35


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Assessment per Violation


Public Sector


CHART 22


Failure- to-


Fiscal Year


Serious Nonserious Repeat Willful Abate Unclassified


2004 $ 560 $ 2 $ 3,150 $ 0 $ 1,500 $ 0


2005 $ 742 $ 3 $ 3,669 $ 0 $ 1,110 $ 0


2006 $ 516 $ 1 $ 3,175 $ 0 $ 1,500 $ 0


36


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Penalty Retention*


CHART 23


** Data from Interim State Indicator Report ( SIR), run 12- 15- 06.





   


   


	   


   




   


   


   


   


   


    


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




   , &




  , 




 
 ,  


Percent


Litigation Series


38


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Litigation Series Highlights


• The number of inspections with citations contested in North Carolina was higher in FY 2006 ( 101) than


in FY 2005 ( 100). However, it was lower than in FY 2004 ( 110).


• The percentage of inspections contested in North Carolina continues to be 2.8 percent in fiscal years 2004,


2005 and 2006.


Fiscal Year Inspections Contested Percent Inspections


Total Contested


2004 110 2.8


2005 100 2.8


2006 101 2.8


CHART 24


Percent of Contested Cases


39


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Number of Inspections Contested*


CHART 25


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.





 


 


 


 


  


  


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




  !


 ! !  ! 


Inspections Contested


40


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Percent of Inspections With Citations Contested*


CHART 26


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Inspection Report,” run 1- 16- 07.





  




  


  




  


  




	  


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 





 ,  
 ,  
 , 


Percent Inspections Contested


Consultation Series


42


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Consultation Series Highlights


• The Bureau of Consultative Services conducted 1,255 total consultative visits:


• 953 ( 76%) safety visits and 302 ( 24%) health visits.


• 1,035 ( 83%) initial visits, 112 ( 9%) training assistance visits and 108 ( 8%) followup visits.


• 1,062 ( 85%) private sector visits and 193 ( 15%) public sector visits.


• 382 ( 30%) manufacturing visits, 346 ( 28%) construction visits, 334 ( 27%) other type visits and 193


( 15%) public sector visits.


• Hazards identified and eliminated as a result of consultative visits totaled 7,151 in FY 2006, higher than


in FY 2005 ( 6,483) and lower than in FY 2004 ( 8,384).


• Of the identified hazards, 5,514 ( 77%) were serious hazards and 1,637 ( 23%) were other- than- seri-ous


hazards.


• In FY 2006 consultants also conducted 828 safety and health interventions, which included speeches,


training programs, program assistance, interpretations, conference/ seminars, outreach and other interven-tions.


• The Safety Awards Program celebrated its 60th year with another successful season. The Gold Award was


presented to employer sites with a total lost workday case rate ( lost and restricted workdays included) at


least 50 percent below the state average. The Silver Award went to employer sites with a lost workday


rate at least 50 percent below the state average. Twenty- nine safety award banquets were held— with a


record 3,376 in attendance. There were 2,285 safety awards applications, 1,616 Gold Awards, 315 Silver


Awards, and 100 Million- Hour Safety Awards for a total of 2,031 annual safety awards that were distrib-uted


in FY 2006.


• The Recognition Program also enjoyed another year of growth and success. Sixteen new Star sites were


recognized; 21 Star sites were recertified; and 64 first- time Star interventions were conducted. There are


currently a total of 94 companies in the Star Programs.


• During FY 2006 the recognition programs, while managed by the Bureau of Consultative Services, con-tinue


to utilize resources provided by the Compliance Bureau for on- site evaluations, with Compliance


and Education, Training and Technical Assistance helping to promote participation in the recognition pro-grams.


• The bureau continues to reach small employers and encourage participation in the Safety and Health


Achievement Recognition Program. In FY 2006 the bureau recognized 34 SHARP- related worksites.


There are currently 48 SHARP- related worksites.


43


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Carolina Star Program


The Carolina Star Program encourages employers and employees in their efforts to reduce hazards, institute


new programs, and perfect existing programs for providing safe and healthy working conditions. The


Carolina Star Program is the state’s most prestigious way to provide official recognition of excellent safety


and health programs, assistance to employers in their efforts to reach that level of excellence, and the ben-efits


of a cooperative approach to resolve potential safety and health problems. Not only do Star sites affect


major industry in the state, these sites are mentors and help all businesses of all sizes in improving their safe-ty


and health programs. During FY 2006 the following companies were awarded the Carolina Star, Rising


Star, Building Star, or Public Sector Star status or were recertified.


Star Site Name and Location Site Approval Date Recertification Date


City of Mount Airy April 21, 2006


Glen Raven Technical Fabrics— Finishing Facility May 1, 2006


BlueLinx Corp.— Whiteville Distribution Center Dec. 15, 2005


Alcan Composites USA June 14, 2006


International Paper Co.— Amour Lumber Mill— Riegelwood May 11, 2006


Shaw Global Energy Services Inc.— Elementis Plant Aug. 1, 2006


Jelliff Corporation— LGM Division June 14, 2006


Milliken & Co.— Hatch Plant Sept. 27, 2006


Pactiv Corp.— Greensboro July 5, 2006


John S. Clark Co. Inc. Sept. 27, 2006


Samet Corp.— Greensboro Sept. 27, 2006


Milliken & Co.— Golden Valley Plant Sept. 27, 2006


Progress Energy CP& L Information Center Aug. 30, 2006


International Paper Co. Inc.— Snow Hill Chip Mill July 13, 2006


Georgia- Pacific Corp.— Dudley Plywood Plant Sept. 27, 2006


Westmoreland- LG& E— Roanoke Valley Energy Sept. 27, 2006


Mundy- INVISTA, Wilmington April 19, 2006


Security Forces- INVISTA, Wilmington Jan. 31, 2006


Town of Emerald Isle Jan. 27, 2006


Shorewood Packaging Jan. 24, 2006


Kimberly Clark— Hendersonville July 5, 2006


Davidson Co. Integrated Solid Waste June 20, 2006


Valspar July 13, 2006


NCDENR— Division of Waste Management July 11, 2006


INVISTA— Salisbury Sept. 27, 2006


Person County Public Works— Roxboro Sept. 27, 2006


Georgia Pacific— Asheboro Container Sept. 20, 2006


Glen Raven Custom Fabrics— Plant # 1 Sept. 20, 2006


Wacken- Hut Security— GE Wilmington Site June 14, 2006


Fluor/ Progress Energy Alliance— Arden Sept. 27, 2006


44


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Total Visits by Category


CHART 27


Category


Safety


Health


Total


FY 04


817


351


1,168


FY 05


725


368


1,093


FY 06


953


302


1,255


Total Visits by Type


Total Visits by Industry Type


Type


Initial


Training and Assistance


Followup


Total


FY 04


959


109


100


1,168


FY 05


896


101


96


1,093


FY 06


1,035


112


108


1,255


Industry


Manufacturing


Construction


Other


Public Sector


Total


FY 04


272


220


407


269


1,168


FY 05


254


271


363


205


1,093


FY 06


382


346


334


193


1,255


45


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Total Visits*


CHART 28


** FY 06 data from IMIS internal reports prepared 12- 15- 06.





  


  


	  


  




  


  


  


  


  


    


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




 
    


  


  


 
    


  




  


 
    


 

 	


  


  
   


	  


  


  
   


	  


	  


  
   


	 

 


	  


Number of Consultative Visits


46


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Total Traditional Visits by Type


CHART 29


FY 2004


Total 1,168


FY 2005


Total 1,093


FY 2006*


Total 1,255


** FY 06 data from IMIS internal reports prepared 12- 15- 06.


Training and


Assistance


112


9%


Initial


1,035


82%


Followup


108


9%


Training and


Assistance


109


9%


Initial


959


82%


Followup


100


9%


Training and


Assistance


101


9%


Initial


896


82%


Followup


96


9%


47


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Total Traditional Visits by Industry


CHART 30


** FY 06 data from IMIS internal reports prepared 12- 16- 06.


FY 2004


Total 1,168


FY 2005


Total 1,093


FY 2006*


Total 1,255


Public Sector


193


15%


Construction


346


28%


Other


334


27%


Manufacturing


382


30%


Public Sector


269


23%


Construction


220


19%


Other


407


35%


Manufacturing


272


23%


Manufacturing


254


23%


Public Sector


205


19%


Other


363


33%


Construction


271


25%


48


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Hazards by Type*


CHART 31


** FY 06 data from IMIS internal reports prepared 12- 16- 06.


Private Sector


Nonserious


1,363


23%


Serious


4,621


77%


Total 5,984


Public Sector


Nonserious


274


23%


Serious


893


77%


Total 1,167


Education, Training and


Technical Assistance Series


50


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Education, Training and Technical Assistance Series Highlights


• In FY 2006, the ETTA Bureau continued its focus on increasing efficiency in providing outreach training


to workers in high- risk industries and affirming its role in the area of homeland security and emergency


preparedness. The work of the bureau included areas in rulemaking, partnerships, training, outreach,


homeland security and publications.


• The bureau work plan included rules clarifying and specifying safety and training requirements for work-ers


as well as the review, evaluation and adoption of other OSHA standards. Final rules that were adopt-ed


during this report period included the following: revocation of a provision within the Steel Erection


standard that addresses slip resistance of structural steel; setting a new standard containing an action level


and a lower permissible exposure level for occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium; revision of


standards that regulate testing of rollover protective structures ( ROPS) used to protect employees who


operate wheel- type tractors; and revision of the existing respiratory protection standard that added defi-nitions


and requirements for assigned protection factors ( APFs) and maximum use concentrations.


• The bureau has a number of partnerships that benefit North Carolina workers. The division signed or


renewed 10 of these partnerships and/ or alliances in FY 2006.


• During FY 2006 the bureau further expanded its offerings of 10- and 30- hour courses tailored to the


strategic emphasis programs in North Carolina. Outreach continued to provide training to workers in


high- risk industries such as construction, logging and agriculture at or near their worksites. The OSH


Division provided training for 16,627 employers and employees in FY 2006. The division is well on the


way to exceeding its former amended goal of 100,000 people trained by FY 2009.


• All areas of ETTA are involved in outreach efforts. The standards section responded to 5,271 electronic


or telephone inquiries in FY 2006.


• The bureau has two major emergency responses in state and also assisted in out- of- state efforts. The roles,


responsibilities and needs relative to emergency response and homeland security have been better defined


and expanded; internal training has been offered or planned. The department’s State Emergency


Management Plan ( SEMP), one of the first of its type in the country, is being improved, and the addition-al


equipment required to meet objectives has been purchased.


• In FY 2006, the bureau distributed 56,479 hard copy publications in support of the division’s outreach and


regulatory goals. Safety and health publications are available for purchase or electronic download from


the department’s Web site and from the state’s portal through the N. C. Department of Labor e- store.


• The ETTA bureau maintained an exceptional turnaround rate in FY 2006, averaging one workday from


the receipt of an order to the day of shipment.


** Data from the Bureau of Education, Training and Technical Assistance.


Distribution of OSH- Related Publications*


FY 2004


Total 54,635


General Industry


Standards


2,307


4%


Combined


Industry


Guides


6,387


11%


Construction


Industry


Standards


5,603


10%


Other


2,622


5%


Labor Law


Posters


39,560


70%


51


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


CHART 32


FY 2005


Total 56,429


FY 2006


Total 56,479


General Industry Standards


3,217


6%


Combined


Industry Guides


8,022


15%


Construction Industry


Standards


5,186


9%


Other


4,997


9%


Labor Law


Posters


33,213


61%


General Industry


Standards


2,623


5%


Combined


Industry


Guides


7,107


12%


Construction


Industry


Standards


5,205


9%


Other


3,329


6%


Labor Law


Posters


38,165


68%


[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


Fatality Series


54


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Fatality Series Highlights


North Carolina Fatality Comparison


• The NCDOL Division of Occupational Safety and Health evaluated and investigated a total of 91 fatali-ties


in FY 2006, an increase from the 72 fatalities in FY 2005 and from 90 in FY 2004.


• Of the 91 fatalities in FY 2006, 25 percent were related to “ struck by”; 25 percent were related to “ falls”;


12 percent were related to “ crushed by object”; 6 percent were related to “ electrocutions”; and 32 percent


were related to “ other.”


• In FY 2006, 32 percent of the fatalities were related to “ construction”; 20 percent were related to “ man-ufacturing”;


14 percent were related to “ services”; 11 percent were related to “ agriculture, forestry, fish-ing”;


9 percent were related to “ transportation and public utilities”; 2 percent were related to “ govern-ment”;


7 percent were related to “ retail trade”; and 5 percent were related to “ wholesale trade.”


• The N. C. Department of Labor’s OSH Division consists of three major districts ( Raleigh/ Wilmington


Area, Charlotte/ Asheville Area and Winston- Salem Area). Of the 91 investigated fatalities in FY 2006, 46


percent were conducted in the Raleigh/ Wilmington Area, 32 percent were in the Charlotte/ Asheville Area,


and 22 percent were in the Winston- Salem Area.


• In FY 2006, the OSH Division fatality rate by race was 64 percent white, 20 percent Hispanic, 15 percent


black and 1 percent other.


Cause of Death FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Totals by Event


Crushed by Object/ Equipment 18 6 11 35


Electrocution 11 8 5 24


Explosion/ Fire 1 3 7 11


Falls 15 10 23 48


Struck by Object 32 26 23 81


Other 13 19 22 54


Total Fatalities 90 72 91 253


CHART 33


55


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Fatalities Investigated*


CHART 34


** Data from an IMIS local report, “ Fatcat,” run 10- 5- 06.





 


 


	 


 




 


 


 


 


 


  


 +  
 ! !   +  
 ! !    +  
 ! ! 




 !


 



 


Number of Fatalities


56


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


Leading Causes of Investigated Fatalities*


CHART 35


** Data from an IMIS local report, “ Fatcat,” run 10- 5- 06.


** Other total includes “ fire/ explosion” and other events.


FY 2004


Total 90


FY 2005


Total 72


FY 2006


Total 91


Electrocutions


5


6%


Crushed By


11


12% Other**


29


32%


Struck By


23


25%


Falls


23


25%


Electrocutions


11


12%


Crushed By


18


20%


Other**


14


16%


Struck By


32


35%


Falls


15


17%


Electrocutions


8


11%


Crushed By


6


8%


Other**


22


31%


Struck By


26


36%


Falls


10


14%


FY 2006


Charlotte/ Asheville Raleigh/ Wilmington Winston- Salem Totals by


Event Type


Office Office Office Event Type


Crushed by Object/ Equipment 4 7 0 11


Electrocution 0 4 1 5


Explosion/ Fire 4 1 2 7


Falls 7 8 8 23


Struck by Object 11 11 1 23


Other 3 11 8 22


Totals by Office 29 42 20 91


57


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2003– September 2006


North Carolina Fatal Events by District Office*


CHART 36


** Data from an IMIS local report, “ Fatcat,” run 10- 5- 06.


FY 2004


Charlotte/ Asheville Raleigh/ Wilmington Winston- Salem Totals by


Event Type


Office Office Office Event Type


Crushed by Object/ Equipment 6 8 4 18


Electrocution 4 6 1 11


Explosion/ Fire 1 0 0 1


Falls 5 3 6 14


Struck by Object 14 15 4 33


Other 4 7 2 13


Totals by Office 34 39 17 90


FY 2005


Charlotte/ Asheville Raleigh/ Wilmington Winston- Salem Totals by


Event Type


Office Office Office Event Type


Crushed by Object/ Equipment 4 1 1 6


Electrocution 2 6 0 8


Explosion/ Fire 1 2 0 3


Falls 4 6 0 10


Struck by Object 4 18 4 26


Other 2 10 7 19


Totals by Office 17 43 12 72


58


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Fatalities by Industry Type*


CHART 37


** Data from an IMIS local report, “ Fatcat,” run 10- 5- 06.


FY 2006


Total 91


Agriculture, Forestry,


Fishing


10


11%


Government


3


2%


Services


13


14%


Construction


29


32%


Wholesale Trade


5


5%


Retail Trade


6


7%


Manufacturing


17


20%


Transportation and


Public Utilities


8


9%


59


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Fatalities by Office Location*


CHART 38


** Data from an IMIS local report, “ Fatcat,” run 10- 5- 06.


Charlotte/ Asheville


( West Compliance Bureau)


29


32%


Winston- Salem


( West Compliance Bureau)


20


22%


Raleigh/ Wilmington


( East Compliance Bureau)


42


46%


FY 2006


Total 91


60


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Fatalities by Race*


CHART 39


** Data from an IMIS local report, “ Fatcat,” run 10- 5- 06.


FY 2006


Total 91


Hispanic


18


20%


Black


15


15%


Other


1


1%


White


57


64%


Construction Series


62


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Definition of the Construction Special Emphasis Program


The Occupational Safety and Health Division has a Special Emphasis Program ( SEP) for the construction


industry that began in FY 1998. This SEP was implemented because the construction industry accounts for


45 percent of workplace fatalities statewide and only 6 percent of the workforce in North Carolina. SEPs


are implemented as a strategy for reducing occupational fatalities. A county is included in this SEP if it has


experienced more than one construction- related fatality during a fiscal year. If so, the county will come


under this emphasis program of compliance, consultation, education and training outreach from the


Department of Labor’s OSH Division.


The following counties constituted the SEP for FY 2006:


• Cabarrus


• Dare


• Forsyth


• Guilford


• Iredell


• Mecklenburg


• Rowan


• Wake


63


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Construction Series Highlights


• There were 2,425 construction industry inspections conducted in North Carolina in FY 2006.


• Out of the 2,425 inspections conducted, 1,959 were safety inspections, which accounted for 81 percent of


the total inspections in the construction industry.


• North Carolina conducted 466 health inspections in the construction industry, which accounted for 19 per-cent


of the total for FY 2006.


• 29 percent ( 704) of all construction industry inspections statewide were in- compliance, compared to 71


percent ( 1,721) of the inspections with citations for FY 2006.


• The construction industry was cited for 2,823 serious, willful and repeat violations during FY 2006.


• Out of the 2,425 inspections conducted, 1,727 were based on the Construction Special Emphasis Program


in FY 2006.


• Carpentry, roofing, siding and sheet metal contractors accounted for 36 percent of all FY 2006 construc-tion


industry inspections in North Carolina.


64


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Construction Inspections by Category*


CHART 40


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Scan Report,” run 1- 30- 07.


FY 2006


Health


466


19%


Safety


1,959


81%


Total 2,425


65


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Construction Inspections by OSH Field Office*


CHART 41


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Scan Report,” run 1- 30- 07.





  


  


  


  


    


    


  


  !  !


  & 


  
   


 

 


  


  
   


 


 


  
   


 	 


  


 
    




  	


  


 
    


    


 	 


 
    


	  


  


*   	  #    -               )  - "   .   )  #  "     #  /     .


Number of Inspections


Number of


Type Inspections Percent


Accident 67 3


Complaint 135 5


Referral 352 14


Followup 11 1


Unprogrammed Related 161 7


Programmed Planned 1,420 59


Programmed Related 276 11


Programmed Other 3 0


Monitoring 0 0


Total 2,425 100


66


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Construction Inspections by Type*


CHART 42


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Scan Report,” run 1- 30- 07.


67


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Construction Inspections by Type and Percentage*


CHART 43


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Scan Report,” run 1- 30- 07.


** Other total includes programmed other, followup and monitoring construction inspections.





  


  


  


  


    


    


    


    


       


 


	 


      
   


 	 






 


!    " " 
 


	 

 


  


#    "  $ " 
    


!   
   


  


 


% "  $ " 
    


%  
    


    




  


% "  $ " 
    


!   
   


  


  


&    " ' '


 


 


Number of Inspections


68


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


SEP County Construction Inspections by Type*


CHART 44


** Special Emphasis County data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Scan Report,” run 1- 30- 07.


** Programmed other total also includes monitoring inspections.


County Accident Complaint Referral Followup


Cabarrus 1 5 1 0


Dare 1 1 0 0


Forsyth 3 4 3 0


Guilford 6 7 4 1


Iredell 2 3 0 0


Mecklenburg 12 16 25 1


Rowan 0 1 1 0


Wake 4 15 21 2


Total 29 52 55 4


Unprogrammed Programmed Programmed Programmed


County Related Planned Related Other**


Cabarrus 3 102 1 0


Dare 0 25 34 0


Forsyth 6 182 28 0


Guilford 8 167 57 0


Iredell 2 73 2 0


Mecklenburg 20 307 31 0


Rowan 1 24 0 0


Wake 19 441 54 0


Total 59 1,321 207 0


69


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


October 2005– September 2006


Ratio for SWRV** Construction Inspections


( Safety and Health Combined)*


Construction Inspections by SEP County


CHART 45


** Data from an IMIS micro- to- host report, “ Scan Report,” run 1- 30- 07.


** Serious, willful, and repeat violations ( SWRV).


Numberof SWRV’s SWRV Ratio


Inspections Cited per Inspection


2,425 2,823 1.2


County Number of Inspections In- Compliance Rate SWRV Ratio


Cabarrus 113 24% 1.1


Dare 61 39% 1.0


Forsyth 226 37% 0.9


Guilford 250 35% 1.0


Iredell 82 37% 1.2


Mecklenburg 412 35% 1.1


Rowan 27 30% 0.5


Wake 556 22% 1.4


Total Inspections 1,727


[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


Occupational Injury and Illness


Incident Rates


72


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


Calendar Years 1998– 2005


CHART 46


Total Case Rates*


Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry


A Comparison Between North Carolina and the United States**


** Total Case Rates represent the number of recordable injuries and illnesses per 100 full- time employees.


** U. S. data are from the USDOL Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,


1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. N. C. data are from the NCDOL Research and Policy


Division, Safety and Health Survey Section’s Injuries and Illnesses in North Carolina, conducted as part


of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ survey, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.


1998 1999 2000 2001


Industry U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C.


Private Sector 6.7 6.1 6.3 5.7 6.1 5.3 5.7 4.8


Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 7.9 7.8 6.1 6.8 7.1 9.0 7.3 7.3


Mining 4.9 2.8 4.4 2.8 4.7 3.6 4.0 2.8


Construction 8.8 8.2 8.6 6.2 8.3 5.2 7.9 6.2


Manufacturing 9.7 7.6 9.2 7.6 9.0 7.2 8.1 6.4


Transportation 7.3 7.2 7.3 6.9 6.9 5.6 6.9 5.5


Wholesale Trade 6.5 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.8 5.0 5.3 4.6


Retail Trade 6.5 5.9 6.1 5.1 5.9 4.3 5.7 4.5


Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.0


Services 5.2 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.6 3.4


State and Local Government


( Public Sector) N/ A 5.4 N/ A 5.4 N/ A 5.5 N/ A 5.3


2002 2003 2004 2005


Industry U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C.


Private Sector 5.3 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.8 4.1 4.6 4.0


Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 6.4 4.6 6.2 3.7 6.4 6.7 6.1 7.6


Mining 4.0 2.5 3.3 2.9 3.8 2.5 3.6 2.7


Construction 7.1 4.7 6.8 4.4 6.4 4.4 6.3 4.6


Manufacturing 7.2 5.4 6.8 5.1 6.6 5.3 6.3 5.1


Transportation 6.1 4.7 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.8 5.2 4.6


Wholesale Trade 5.2 3.9 4.7 3.2 4.5 4.1 4.5 3.8


Retail Trade 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.6 5.3 4.6 5.0 4.6


Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.3


Services 4.6 3.3 4.4 3.7 4.2 3.6 4.1 3.6


State and Local Government


( Public Sector) N/ A 5.1 N/ A 5.7 N/ A 4.9 N/ A 4.7


73


N. C. Department of Labor


Division of Occupational Safety and Health


Annual Comparison Report


Calendar Years 1998– 2005


CHART 47


Lost Workday Case Rates* by Industry


A Comparison Between North Carolina and the United States**


** Lost Workday Case Rates represent those cases that involved one or more days an employee is away from


work or limited to restricted work activity due to an occupational injury or illness. The rate is calculated


per 100 full- time employees.


** U. S. data are from the USDOL Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,


1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. N. C. data are from the NCDOL Research and Policy


Division, Safety and Health Survey Section’s Injuries and Illnesses in North Carolina, conducted as part


of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ survey, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.


1998 1999 2000 2001


Industry U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C.


Private Sector 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.2


Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 3.9 4.2 3.4 2.5 3.6 3.9 3.6 2.2


Mining 2.9 1.4 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.1 2.4 1.5


Construction 4.0 3.5 4.2 2.6 4.1 2.8 4.0 3.1


Manufacturing 4.7 3.6 4.6 3.7 4.5 3.4 4.1 3.1


Transportation 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.3 3.8 4.3 3.0


Wholesale Trade 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.3 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.4


Retail Trade 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.4 1.7


Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.4


Services 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.6


State and Local Government


( Public Sector) N/ A 2.2 N/ A 2.2 N/ A 2.3 N/ A 2.3


2002 2003 2004 2005


Industry U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C. U. S. N. C.


Private Sector 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.1


Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 3.3 1.2 3.3 2.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 4.5


Mining 2.6 1.5 2.0 1.9 2.3 1.7 2.2 1.5


Construction 3.8 2.3 3.6 2.6 3.4 2.5 3.4 2.5


Manufacturing 4.1 2.9 3.8 2.8 3.6 2.9 3.5 2.8


Transportation 4.0 2.9 3.2 2.5 3.1 2.7 3.0 2.7


Wholesale Trade 3.1 2.5 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.2


Retail Trade 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.6


Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6


Services 2.2 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.8


State and Local Government


( Public Sector) N/ A 2.4 N/ A 2.3 N/ A 2.3 N/ A 2.3


[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]