Safe Workplace and Safety News

Laws, codes, rules and requirements sometimes conflict such that to obey one you most likely will break another. You can end up in a situation in which there is a potential for a lawsuit no matter what you do. Finding the middle ground can be difficult, or impossible.

Last Wednesday's Houston Chronicle has a good example. An employee of an Animal Health Clinic became pregnant. When her employer became aware of the pregnancy they took actions to protect the employee's health. The article states:

"Lisa Davila [the clinic manager] said she went through all the chemicals to identify which ones were dangerous, changed the employee's work duties to eliminate exposure to radiation or cat litter, and checked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Web site to make sure the clinic in College Station was taking the necessary precautions to keep its employee safe."

The result of Ms. Davila's actions was a lawsuit and a settlement to the employee of $15,000.

What went wrong? The manager may have violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which states that you can not treat a pregnant woman any different than anyone else... even if you are trying to protect the health of that person or the baby.

You can read the article at: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/sixel/5956708.html#none

I suggest also reading the comments at the end of the article. Hare2share has a reasonable suggestion for how this situation might have been handled better. Although I still think the door would have been open for a lawsuit or OSHA fine.

Labels: Industrial Health, safety management, safety politics, safety regulations

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday that a total of 5,488 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2007, a decrease of 6 percent from the 5,840 fatal work injuries reported for 2006. While these results are considered preliminary, this figure represents the smallest annual preliminary total since the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program was first conducted in 1992. Final results for 2007 will be released in April 2009.

Thirty States reported lower numbers of fatal work injuries in 2007 than in 2006, 19 States and the District of Columbia reported higher numbers, and one State was unchanged.

Based on these preliminary counts, the rate of fatal injury for U.S. workers in 2007 was 3.7 fatal work injuries per 100,000 workers, down from the final rate of 4.0 per 100,000 workers in 2006, and the lowest annual fatality rate ever reported by the fatality census.

The four occupations with the highest fatality rates were:

• Fishers and related fishing workers with a fatality rate of 111.8 per 100,000 workers


• Logging workers (86.4)


• Aircraft pilots and flight engineers (66.7)


• Structural iron and steel workers (45.5)

Key findings of the 2007 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries:

• The number of fatal falls in 2007 rose to a series high of 835--a 39 percent increase since 1992 when the CFOI program was first conducted.


• Transportation incidents, which typically account for two-fifths of all workplace fatalities, fell to a series low of 2,234 cases in 2007.


• Workplace homicides rose 13 percent to 610 in 2007 after reaching a series low of 540 in 2006.


• The number of fatal workplace injuries among protective service occupations rose 19 percent in 2007 to 337, led by an increase in the number of police officers fatally injured on the job.


• Fatal occupational injuries incurred by non-Hispanic Black or African American workers were at the highest level since 1999, but fatal work injuries among Hispanic workers were lower by 8 percent in 2007.

More information is available on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

Labels: employment, workplace fatalities

OSHA announced yesterday in the Aug. 19 Federal Register that it is accepting public comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and training standards. The proposal clarifies that when an OSHA standard requires an employer to provide PPE, such as respirators, or training to employees, the employer must do so for each employee subject to the requirement. Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation for penalty purposes.

"We want employers to understand the importance of complying with OSHA’s PPE rule for each and every one of their employees," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "Without question, providing PPE for all employees will reduce costs, save money and, most importantly, save lives."

The proposed rule affects OSHA’s general industry, construction, and maritime standards. In many cases, OSHA combines separate violations of a single requirement in a standard into a single penalty. However, under the instance-by-instance penalty policy, OSHA may propose a separate penalty for each specific violation where the employer demonstrates a flagrant disregard for safety and health.

The proposed rule makes clear that failure to provide appropriate PPE or training may result in per-instance penalties in appropriate cases. The proposed rule does not add new compliance obligations, nor are employers required to provide any new type of PPE or training. The amendments merely clarify that a separate penalty may be assessed for each employee not provided the required PPE or training.

The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rule until Sept. 18. Interested parties may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; by sending three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; or by FAX at (202) 693-1678 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages. Comments must include the Agency name and Docket Number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0031).

Labels: OSHA, PPE, safety regulations, Safety Training

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), representing 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental professionals, provided a statement for the record to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions’ Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety for their hearing held July 29 titled “Dangerous Dust – Is OSHA doing enough to protect workers?” ASSE urged caution in moving ahead to address hazardous dust risks legislatively without developing a deeper understanding of current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, their enforcement by OSHA, and the approach taken through national consensus standards.

The ASSE statement said, following the February 2008 combustible dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia, that killed 13 workers and injured 40, it understands the urge to find a legislative solution, as reflected in the “Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008” (HR 5522) introduced by House Committee on Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller. ASSE supports much in Chairman Miller’s approach, including the bill’s assurance that any new OSHA rule concerning combustible dust will not be less effective than the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) voluntary consensus standards.

Several other issues related to managing combustible dust should also be addressed by the legislation, ASSE said. Most important is the lack of adequate OSHA’s resources to conduct inspections, which contribute to missing dangerous workplaces by OSHA and can result in inspections that are hurried or done without an adequate basis in training. ‘If only 50 of OSHA’s 1029 inspectors had “extensive dust training,’ as Assistant Secretary for OSHA Edwin Foulke, Jr., told 60 Minutes recently, ‘then a bill requiring more standards without the adequate capability to enforce them will not be adequate to address this hazard when workers’ lives are at stake.’

Further, ASSE advised that, due to the complex technical and policy issues involved, Congress should require OSHA to address the issue through negotiated rulemaking, which mirrors the voluntary consensus-building process used by industry and the occupational safety and health community to address combustible dust.

ASSE also expressed concern over setting unrealistic dates for OSHA to issue an interim final standard within 90 days of enactment followed by a final standard within 18 months. The complexities posed by the current statutory obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBRFA) and the required regulatory and economic impact analyses lead ASSE to conclude that completion of a final rule within 24 months is a more realistic goal. Reasonably more time would allow Congress working with OSHA and the occupational safety and health community to address what may be the key underlying difficulty with the current regulatory approach to combustible dust. With 17 different OSHA regulations impacting combustible dust risks, it is reasonable to expect difficulties in employers’ efforts to establish a cohesive and effective combustible dust hazard management program in a workplace.

ASSE noted the 17 existing OSHA standards in place to address combustible dust hazards in addition to Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act (General Duty Clause) : 1910.22, housekeeping; 1910.38, emergency action plans; 1910.94, ventilation; 1910.119, process safety management; 1910.132, personal protective equipment; 1910.146, permit-required confined spaces; 1910.157, portable fire extinguishers; 1910.165, employee alarm systems; 1910.176, handling materials – general; 1910.178, powered industrial trucks; 1910.263, bakery equipment; 1910.265, sawmill operations; 1910.269, electric power generation, transmission, and distribution; 1910.272, grain handling facilities; 1910.307, hazardous (classified) locations; and 1910.1200, hazard communication.

While no simple answer to the complexities involved in managing combustible dust exists, a more organized, comprehensive approach by OSHA is needed to facilitate compliance. ASSE’s primary concern is that an answer to the current difficulties involving combustible dust risk management be based on sound science and done in a way that affords all stakeholders due process, without any undue delay.

Founded in 1911, the Des Plaines, IL-based ASSE is the largest and oldest professional safety organization and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment.

Labels: hazard prevention, Industrial Safety, OSHA, SHARP

Research published in the latest edition of Communication Currents has found that:

"The availability of safety information and the willingness of individual workers to seek it out play an important role in safety. In the workplace, employees have to believe that there is reliable and useful safety information available before they can be expected to seek it and act on it. This is important because workplace injuries and fatalities have many ramifications beyond individual suffering."

The articles points out ways that organizations can effectively communication safety information:

1. Organizations should make the safety information personal by using first-line supervisors to deliver safety-related messages, both in word and by example.

2. Safety messages should be simple and to the point.

3. Positive safety behaviors should be encouraged and safety messages should focus on how to initiate safety behavior.

4. Safety messages should be delivered through more than one medium.

The complete article is available on the Communication Currents web site.

Labels: safety, safety management, Safety Training

On Friday Occupational Health and Safety Magazine reported that OSHA "issued an instruction transmitting policies and procedures for implementing a National Emphasis Program to reduce occupational exposures to lead, effective immediataly."

You can read the entire article at: http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/66411/

The new directive, CPL 03-00-009, replaces CPL 02-00-130.

Labels: Industrial Health, OSHA

The OSHA Region VI office in Dallas, Texas, has established a Regional Emphasis Program covering employees in the construction industry who perform crane operations. The program conducts safety inspections of workplaces in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and sites in New Mexico that are under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

"This Regional Emphasis Program (REP) was established as an enforcement initiative for the inspection of cranes used in construction, with the goal of preventing serious and fatal injuries to employees working on and around cranes," said Regional Administrator Dean McDaniel. "The REP will address various hazards associated with cranes, including but not limited to, being struck by objects, electrocution, crane tip-over, being caught in or between machinery, and falls. Past inspection evidence indicates these hazards are the leading causes of accidents where cranes are used in the construction industry."

The emphasis program is intended to supplement existing OSHA targeting programs, focusing additional resources as necessary to monitor job sites, promote compliance, and promote awareness of safety and health hazards during construction activities involving cranes. OSHA will utilize a number of tools to address this issue, including enforcement, outreach, training, on-site consultation, partnerships, alliances and the agency's Voluntary Protection Programs.

Under OSHA's construction crane standard, 29 C.F.R. 1926.550, there is a general requirement for employers to inspect construction cranes prior to each use, during use and annually. OSHA also has specific standards that apply to different types of cranes. The OSHA standard requires that employers conduct tower crane inspections prescribed by the manufacturer.

For more information contact OSHA area offices in the region: Austin, Texas, 512-374-0271; Baton Rouge, La., 225-298-5458; Corpus Christi, Texas, 361-888-3420; Dallas, Texas, 214-320-2400; Fort Worth, Texas, 817-428-2470; Houston North, Texas, 281-591-2438; Houston South, Texas, 281-286-0583; Little Rock, Ark., 501-224-1841; Lubbock, Texas, 806-472-7681; Oklahoma City, Okla., 405-278-9560. OSHA's Region VI also has two district offices: El Paso, Texas, 915-534-6251 and San Antonio, Texas, 210-472-5040.

Labels: Construction Safety, OSHA, OSHA Inspections

When responding to or fighting a fire, firefighters are in a dangerous situation. They know they are in a dangerous situation, yet firefighters do not always follow the proper safety procedures. An article in yesterday's issue of Fire Rescue 1 magazine looks into this behavior and presents conclusions that are useful to all of us.

The article states:

"Working safely makes sense. Firefighter death and injury statistics don't. Within the fire service, activists are well aware of the issues. They have created programs for defensive driving, seat belt awareness, safety officer training, wellness, and a host of others. The programs are internationally supported and recognized. But still death and injury statistics are relatively unchanged. How can that be the case? We have the information we need to prevent many of these situations so what is in the way?"

"One would think that the chance of serious injury or death would be enough to motivate safe practices. Since the stats prove this isn't always the case, we have to explore other reasons for failure to comply with safety recommendations. That brings us to the idea of workplace culture and whether proactive attitudes toward safety planning and action are automatic."

Read the entire article online. It is titled: A Workplace Culture Based on Safety.

Labels: fire safety, Industrial Safety, workplace safety

The following is a press release from OSHA:

FREEHOLD, N.J. -- The U.S. Department of Labor has filed suit against Exclusive Decorators Inc.; Interiors Furniture, LLC; and its vice president, Garrett Ney, on behalf of an employee who was terminated in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.

The complaint alleges that the employee was terminated after complaining to the employer about the lack of ventilation in the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) previously had cited the employer for ventilation violations. OSHA conducted an inspection of the worksite in response to a complaint about safety and health practices.

The former employee filed a complaint with OSHA alleging retaliation by the defendants in violation of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act. OSHA investigated the complaint and determined it had merit. After being notified of OSHA’s findings, the defendants refused to reinstate the employee to the same or a substantially equivalent position of employment, and declined to pay back wages or other employment benefits.

"Every employee should be free to exercise his or her rights under the law without fear of termination or retaliation by their employers," said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York. "The Labor Department is committed to protecting those rights."

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the complaint seeks to reinstate the employee; secure compensatory damages, lost back pay and punitive damages; and require the company to post a notice in a prominent place for 60 days that explains employee rights under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act.

Exclusive Decorators Inc. specializes in manufacturing and installing wood cabinets and furniture.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the OSH Act and 15 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail and securities laws. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets, is available online at: http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html.

Labels: employment, safety management

"Labor officials said Friday they were investigating whether a rash of early season heat waves had caused the deaths of a record number of California workers by summer's peak.

Despite an enforcement push to protect employees toiling in the searing conditions outdoors, 12 people have died of possible heat-related causes in the first seven months of this year alone, according to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health."

The above is from an article in The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, California.

Half of the fatalities were in agriculture, with the other half at construction sites, in oil fields, while hauling chemicals and working at a warehouse.

California recognized the potential for heat related fatalities early in the year. Health and safety inspectors have be conducting increased inspections, as well as running an increased number of workshops for farm labor contractors.

An article in Saturday's Los Angeles Times goes into more detail and points out that just providing adequate drinking water and shade for rest breaks will make a difference.

Labels: argriculture safety, Construction Safety, hot weather safety

Occupational Health and Safety magazine reports that:

"Nevada OSHA began following the decking and netting portions, as well as the placement of shear connections before they are installed, of Subpart R of federal OSHA's steel erection standard rather than the federal agency's Compliance Directive CPL 02-01-034 for those issues."

Nevada OSHA feels that Subpart R is more effective in preventing fall injuries.

Read the article here.

Labels: fall protection

An article in The Independent (United Kingdom) stimulated some thoughts about a subject I had not considered previously. The article is called "The End of Playtime?" Here are the opening paragraphs:

"Play time is over for children, with up to half of youngsters banned from climbing trees, playing conkers or riding their bikes by over-protective parents who are terrified that they might get hurt.

ICM research for Play England shows that half of seven to 12-year-olds are banned from climbing trees. Four in 10 were banned from playing in their local park or recreational area without an adult present and one in three cannot ride a bike without parental supervision."

What does children's playtime have to do with workplace safety?

Children's playtime does more for children than just being a source of fine. During playtime children learn life skills. If kids are kept from challenging situations during playtime, they will not learn skills they need later in life.

I remember, when I was very young, that I climbed a tree and fell out of the tree. There where no broken bones but it was a lesson about gravity that I've remembered for 50 years. I didn't become afraid of heights, but when I was working as an engineer on new power plant construction during my "invincible years" (late teens and early twenties) I was always sure to use the proper safety equipment when working in high places.

The result of children are being protected from all possible harm is that we'll see new workers coming to the workplace without the "fear" and knowledge they would have gotten from playtime. They will not have the safety skills learned in the safe environment of a playground. Skills they will then need to learn them in the workplace.

As safety professionals this is a trend we need be aware of and be prepared to identify and address in our workplaces.

Here is another quote from the article:

"Josie Gleave, of Play England, argued that the low probability of accidents made playgrounds one of the safest places for children to be. The risk of a fatal playground injury is approximately one in 30 million and three-quarters of injuries sustained on the playground consist of minor cuts or bruises.

'The research shows that children need to experience challenging play in order to develop important life skills and to better manage risk and challenge in their daily lives,' she said."

Note: This article mentions the sport of "conkers". See our previous post about safety and the game of conkers.

Labels: fall protection, home safety, Industrial Safety, Safety Training

On Tuesday, July 29, 2008, a hearing was convened in the Dirksen Office Building of the U. S. Senate, by the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The subject of the hearing was “Dangerous Dust: Is OSHA Doing Enough to Protect Workers?” The panel was led by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), joined by Subcommittee Members Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) as an invited panel member.

Among the witnesses who provided expert testimony at the hearing was Richard W. Prugh, Senior Process Safety Specialist, Chilworth Technology, Inc. The testimony of the Chilworth representative may be observed at the following link: http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2008_07_29/2008_07_29.html. A copy of the full written testimony is available from Chilworth by emailing safety@chilworth.com.

The other witnesses at the hearing were Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), John S. Bresland, Chairman and CEO of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board, Amy Spencer, Senior Chemical Engineer, National Fire Protection Association and Graham H. Graham, Vice President for Operations, Imperial Sugar Company.

Below is Richard Prugh’s Testimony at the U.S. Senate Hearing on Dust Explosion Hazards.

Introduction

The “fire triangle” shows the necessary components of a fire. Similarly, the “explosion pentagon” shows the necessary components of a combustible-dust explosion.

The concentration of fuel in the oxidant is very important. For example, the Lower Flammable Limit (the “lean” limit) for gasoline is about 1% in air, and the Upper Flammable Limit (the “rich” limit) is about 6%; if the concentration is not between these limits, the mixture will not burn.

There is also a lower limit for combustible dusts, and it is termed the Minimum Explosible Concentration. For example, the lower limit for many dusts corresponds to two pounds of very-fine dust suspended in a 10’x12’x8’ room, like a small bedroom.

There is a “rule of thumb” for explosible-dust concentrations. If you can see the thumb at the end of your outstretched arm, the concentration of dust is too low to propagate combustion; that is, too low to cause an explosion or a flash-fire.

All materials that are combustible can explode, under “the right” set of conditions.

The Right Concentration

Concentrations above the Minimum Explosible Concentration occur in many items of process equipment, and in dust collectors when the collected dusts are shaken or blown-back from the filters.

Very high concentrations of dust within rooms or buildings can occur when accumulations of dust are dispersed: from mechanical shock, a blast of air, dumping bags of powder, and vigorous sweeping.

Dense dust clouds also can occur when accumulations of dust at high elevations in rooms or buildings are disturbed by a “primary” explosion, and ignition of the descending and suspended dense dust cloud can result in a damaging “secondary” explosion.

High-elevation accumulations of dust can result from use of compressed air for cleaning equipment and surfaces. This results in lofting of very small particles to upper elevations, where they may settle onto horizontal surfaces. Such accumulations are a secondary explosion “waiting to happen”.

A Sufficient Source of Ignition

If the energy of an ignition source is not sufficient, propagating combustion cannot be initiated. For many combustible dusts, the Minimum Ignition Energy is very low, such that the electrostatic energy on the human body can cause propagating combustion. Other ignition sources are electrical arcs, flames, hot surfaces, and the electrostatic energy on ungrounded equipment.

Confinement of Combustion

If the combustion of a mixture of dust and air is confined, the resulting hot combustion gases can generate very high pressures. Such pressures can rupture equipment, destroy walls and ceilings of rooms and buildings, and threaten personnel.

Preventing Explosive Combustion of Dust/Air Mixtures

- The oxidant (the oxygen in air) can be forced out of process equipment by an inert gas (such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide).
- An inert powder or mist can quench or suppress the combustion.
- The process equipment can be constructed to “contain” the maximum pressure that could be developed by a dust/air explosion.
- Local exhaust ventilation can be provided at equipment openings where dust is generated or released.
- The explosion can be vented, to minimize the pressure generated by the combustion gases.

Unconfined Combustion

When combustion of a small dense dust cloud occurs in an unconfined space, the result can be a flash-fire. Persons inside the flash-fire are at risk of serious injury, particularly if they are wearing combustible clothing. Thus, persons who handle dusty combustible powders should be wearing flame-resistant clothing.

Models for Control of Combustible-Dust Hazards

At the present time, there exist several legislated and guidance documents that could serve as models for Federal rules for dust-hazard controls.

- The General Duty Clause is often used by OSHA when there is no specific standard that applies to a recognized hazard in the workplace.
- OSHA frequently cites “housekeeping” standards, but these standards do not address the need for preventing and removing accumulations of dusts on elevated surfaces or address many important ignition sources, such as hot surfaces, static electricity, and open flames or welding sparks.
- The OSHA Process Safety Management Standard does not address combustible dusts. However, this standard provides good guidance and could be applied to control of combustible-dust hazards.
- The OSHA Grain Handling Facilities standard could be modified to serve as guidance for control of combustible-dust hazards.
- The “Combustible Dust” NFPA 654 standard provides very good guidance for controlling combustible-dust hazards.
- The Georgia Rules and Regulations of the Safety Fire Commissioner list 76 NFPA Codes and Standards, many with the statement “Facilities . . . shall comply with this standard as a mandatory requirement.”

Key Points in the Prevention of Combustible-Dust Explosions

A. The Problem

1. A very high percentage of dusts are combustible, including solid hydrocarbons (such as polyethylene), carbohydrates (such as grains), and many metals (such as aluminum).
2. Every combustible material will create an explosion with the right conditions.
3. Limited generic data are available concerning the properties of combustible dusts; data may need to be developed through testing.
4. At present, all 50 states “administer” the International Building Code, which contains extensive requirements for explosion protection for combustible dusts, but there is very modest enforcement of this Code

B. The Solution

1. Companies that produce, process, or handle combustible dusts and powders need to determine the explosibility properties of their materials. These data should then be formally communicated within their organizations and to their customers.
2. Plant operators should assess the hazards that are associated with processes that are operating in their plant.
3. Existing today are the technology and knowledge; codes, standards, and guidelines; and engineering expertise that are needed to protect personnel and property from combustible-dust explosions.
4. An objective of the proposed Federal legislation should be to require plant operators to adopt and abide by the above guidance toward solution of the existing dust-explosion “problem”.

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety management