North Carolina occupational safety and health annual comparison report |
Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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]
Object Description
Description
Title | North Carolina occupational safety and health annual comparison report |
Other Title | Annual comparison report; Comparison report |
Date | 2007-09 |
Description | October 2003-September 2006 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 271 KB; 81 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | 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] |
OCLC number | 123225582 |