Posts

Five floors, forty-eight feet: what section 1512 asks of a construction employer

On most California construction projects, the first aid kit is the only part of the medical plan anyone can point to. Title 8, Section 1512 asks for considerably more: trained people, a posted list of numbers, a way to get an injured worker off the site, and, once a building reaches a certain height or depth, a communication system and a litter that a crew can actually use. Whose program it is Section 1512(a) makes each employer responsible for the availability of emergency medical services for its own employees. On a multi-employer site the employers may agree to a single program, provided it is adequate for the combined workforce, and only one program is needed per site. The agreement is what makes a shared program valid. Without it, every contractor on the site owns its own obligation. Trained people, counted against the whole crew Section 1512(b) requires a sufficient number of appropriately trained persons to render first aid. Where a single program covers several employers, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Construction site sanitation: water, toilets and washing under Sections 1524, 1526 and 1527

This note covers three short sections of California's Construction Safety Orders: Title 8, Section 1524 (Water Supply), Section 1526 (Toilets at Construction Jobsites) and Section 1527 (Washing Facilities, Food Handling, and Temporary Sleeping Quarters). I have set out what each one says about drinking water, toilet counts, the mobile-crew exception and hand washing, with the subsection for each point. Drinking water: Section 1524(a) Section 1524 (a)(1) reads that an adequate supply of potable water shall be provided in all places of employment. A note under that paragraph points to Section 3395 for additional drinking water requirements in outdoor places of employment. Section 1524(a)(2) then has the employer take one or more of four steps so that every employee has access to drinking water: provide drinking fountains; supply single-service cups, with a sanitary container for the unused cups and a receptacle for the used ones; supply sealed one-time use water containers, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Michael Karl McNeil: death investigation coursework, September 2026

Three courses were added to my training record this week. They are listed here the way everything else on this blog is listed: by name, by issuer, and by the number a reader can check. Death Investigation Training Academy Foundations of Environmental Death Investigations , issued 29 September 2026. The Missouri POST Program accepts it for approved-provider training credit under Control Number 31578, 1.5 hours in Technical Studies. The American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators accepts it for 1.5 hours of continuing education, approval number 26-117. Environmental Asphyxiation and Entrapment Deaths , issued 29 September 2026. Missouri POST Control Number 31574, one hour in Technical Studies; ABMDI approval number 26-116, one hour. CDC TRAIN Investigation and Certification of Drug Toxicity Deaths , course WB4884, completed 28 September 2026. The certificate is one of completion. CDC TRAIN prints on its face that it conveys no continuing-education credit, and I list it the sam...
Post a Comment
Read more

Penal Code 387: when a hidden hazard becomes a manager's personal problem

Most safety failures in California end as a citation against the company. Penal Code section 387 is the exception worth knowing, because it is written for the individual manager as well as the corporation, and it turns on one thing: what that person actually knew and did nothing about. What the statute makes a crime Section 387(a) applies to "any corporation, limited liability company, or person who is a manager with respect to a product, facility, equipment, process, place of employment, or business practice." The offense has two parts. First, the defendant has "actual knowledge of a serious concealed danger" that falls under an agency's regulatory authority. Second, the defendant knowingly fails, within 15 days of acquiring that knowledge, or immediately where there is imminent risk of great bodily harm or death, to do two things: inform the Division of Occupational Safety and Health in writing, and warn affected employees in writing. Both duties apply. Te...
Post a Comment
Read more

Emergency eyewash and showers: what section 5162 actually requires

A corrosive splash does not give anyone time to look for help. California's requirement is written around that fact, and it is stricter and more specific than most employers realize. Two separate sections of Title 8 apply, and an employer can satisfy one while violating the other. Section 5162 sets the equipment standard Section 5162 governs emergency eyewash and shower equipment. Subsection (a) requires eyewash facilities meeting ANSI Z358.1-1981 where the eyes of an employee may be exposed to corrosive or toxic substances. The subsection then closes a gap that turns up on inspection after inspection: water hoses, sink faucets, or showers are not acceptable eyewash facilities. Personal eyewash units are permitted, but only as a supplement to the required equipment, never in place of it. Subsection (b) carries the same logic to the body. Where skin may be exposed to corrosive or toxic substances during routine operations or foreseeable emergencies, an emergency shower comply...
Post a Comment
Read more

Cal/OSHA Noise Exposure: The 85-Decibel Line That Starts a Hearing Conservation Program — Michael Karl McNeil

By Michael Karl McNeil, REP, RIH, EPP, QSD Most California employers know that noise is regulated. Fewer know that Title 8 draws two different lines, at two different levels, and that the lower of the two is the one that creates most of the obligations. Article 105 of the General Industry Safety Orders, Sections 5095 through 5100, sets a permissible exposure limit at 90 decibels and an action level at 85. The 90-decibel line governs what you must do about the noise itself. The 85-decibel line governs what you must do about the people exposed to it, and that is the hearing conservation program. The two numbers Section 5095(b) defines the action level as an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels measured on the A-scale, slow response, or the equivalent dose of fifty percent. Section 5096 sets the exposure limits in Table N-1: 90 dBA for eight hours, with the permitted time halving for every five decibels above that, so 95 dBA is limited to four hours and 100 dBA to two. Under ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rebutting the serious-violation presumption under Labor Code 6432

The single word that decides what a Cal/OSHA citation costs is its classification. A general violation and a serious violation can describe the same condition on the same day and differ by an order of magnitude in penalty. Under the penalty schedule operative 1 January 2025, a general or regulatory violation runs up to $16,285, while a serious violation runs up to $25,000 from an $18,000 base, and a willful or repeat violation reaches $162,851. So the classification is where the argument belongs. And the law puts the employer on the back foot before it starts. The presumption Labor Code section 6432(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a serious violation exists if the Division demonstrates that there is a realistic possibility that death or serious physical harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation. Note how little that requires. Not that harm occurred. Not that harm was likely. A realistic possibility that it could result. In practice the Division...
Post a Comment
Read more