Safe Workplace and Safety News
This is the safety news blog for the Safe Workplace web site. We cover workplace safety related news with a focus on how safety, or a lack of safety, impacts employers, employees and their families. We also cover topics such as safety training, safety tools, and legal issues related to safety. For regular safety news and information enter your email address in the box above the Subscribe button to the right (then click on the button).
Monday, March 23, 2009
Get Ready for More Aggressive OSHA
In a webinar held last Friday Edwin Foulke Jr. warned that we can expect OSHA to become more aggressive. An article in Occupational Health and Safety reports:
"OSHA is likely to be more aggressive in various ways, from filing more egregious cases in which an employer is cited on a per-instance basis to pushing harder for employers to pay for and provide PPE and training, filing more General Duty Clause cases, pressuring the 26 state plans to be more aggressive, and putting more emphasis on key areas such as combustible dust, amputations, and recordkeeping."
Faulke was joined by Howard A. Mavity in a 65 minute Fisher & Phillips LLP webinar. A second webinar will be held Thursday, March 26 - 12:00 p.m. EDT / 9:00 a.m. PDT.
This webinar will briefly review the essential elements of OSHA compliance and an effective workplace safety and health program, with an eye to preparing for increased civil and criminal enforcement, as well as the use of safety issues by unions and a growing group of whistleblowers. The webinar will also explain how, when used properly, safety compliance can be a "profit center" and not another administrative cost.
For information about this Thursday webinar contact Gail Rice at 404-231-1400 or grice@laborlawyers.com.
Related previous posts:
Increased Funding For OSHA
Can OSHA Be Fixed?
Obama Administration to Shift Regulatory Approach To Safety
"OSHA is likely to be more aggressive in various ways, from filing more egregious cases in which an employer is cited on a per-instance basis to pushing harder for employers to pay for and provide PPE and training, filing more General Duty Clause cases, pressuring the 26 state plans to be more aggressive, and putting more emphasis on key areas such as combustible dust, amputations, and recordkeeping."
Faulke was joined by Howard A. Mavity in a 65 minute Fisher & Phillips LLP webinar. A second webinar will be held Thursday, March 26 - 12:00 p.m. EDT / 9:00 a.m. PDT.
This webinar will briefly review the essential elements of OSHA compliance and an effective workplace safety and health program, with an eye to preparing for increased civil and criminal enforcement, as well as the use of safety issues by unions and a growing group of whistleblowers. The webinar will also explain how, when used properly, safety compliance can be a "profit center" and not another administrative cost.
For information about this Thursday webinar contact Gail Rice at 404-231-1400 or grice@laborlawyers.com.
Related previous posts:
Increased Funding For OSHA
Can OSHA Be Fixed?
Obama Administration to Shift Regulatory Approach To Safety
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections, safety management
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Minnesota Court of Appeals Reinstates Whistleblower Case
Workday Minnesota reported yesterday that "In a huge victory for two former Minnesota OSHA inspectors, the Minnesota Court of Appeals Tuesday overturned a District Court ruling that had dismissed one of the cases."
The cases are about two whistleblower lawsuits that claim "supervisors changed their signed reports, documents were removed from inspection files, and inspectors were pressured to not find violations against MNSTAR companies..."
You can read the full Workday Minnesota story here. The Workday Minnesota story also provides additional details concerning the Senate's Economic Development and Housing Finance Division Committee investigation and questions OSHA has been asked to answer.
You can read about these cases in a previous post: Minnesota DOLI Accused Of Altering OSHA Reports and Citations
The cases are about two whistleblower lawsuits that claim "supervisors changed their signed reports, documents were removed from inspection files, and inspectors were pressured to not find violations against MNSTAR companies..."
You can read the full Workday Minnesota story here. The Workday Minnesota story also provides additional details concerning the Senate's Economic Development and Housing Finance Division Committee investigation and questions OSHA has been asked to answer.
You can read about these cases in a previous post: Minnesota DOLI Accused Of Altering OSHA Reports and Citations
Labels: OSHA, whistleblower
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
ASSE Expresses Concerns About The New OSHA Cranes And Derricks Construction Rule
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) expressed a variety of concerns focused on the failure to reference widely accepted national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane safety in the proposed updated federal ‘Cranes and Derricks in Construction Rule’ in testimony by ASSE professional member Matt Burkart, a crane safety expert from Southampton, PA, who is a member of the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations Standards standard committee and chairman of the ASCE Construction Site Safety Committee at a public hearing held this week at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
The concerns reflect comments ASSE submitted in January to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Stohler for the record of the cranes and derricks rulemaking. In its comments, ASSE requested a hearing be held to discuss its concern that OSHA failed to reference the A10 or other national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane and derrick safety.
In ASSE’s January comments, ASSE President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHM, of Fairborn, OH, noted ASSE represents 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals who work with employers to protect workers and employers’ property from safety, health and environmental risks.
"Our members are experts in managing workplace safety and health issues in every industry, in every state and across the globe. They belong to sixteen ASSE practice specialties," Brown said. "In fact, ASSE’s Construction Practice Specialty is ASSE’s largest practice specialty. ASSE is also the Secretariat for various ANSI voluntary consensus standards related to safe practices in construction, including the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, the Z359 Fall Protection Code, and Z490.1-2001Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training. The safe operation cranes and derricks on construction sites is of the utmost importance to ASSE’s members."
In his testimony, Burkart brought attention to OSHA’s failure to fulfill its duty under law to consider voluntary consensus standards in rulemaking.
"We cannot help but come to that conclusion when the Proposed Rule fails to reference even once the ASC A10 standard Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. The ASC A10 Committee for Construction and Demolition Operations is one of the oldest ANSI committees, chartered in 1931 and enjoying 78 years of continuous leadership in developing construction safety standards," Burkart said. "The inability of OSHA to identify a key set of standards impacting crane safety is a significant failure by OSHA to perform meaningful background research and indicates the Agency failed to comply fully with Public Law 104-113."
Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1965, requires all federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."
"ASSE’s members have had extensive and successful experience in helping develop occupational safety and health standards through consensus building in the ANSI voluntary standards development process, including national standards impacting the safe operation of cranes and derricks," Burkart explained. "We already work successfully in managing crane safety through these voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, we need clarity and consistency between the existing voluntary standard and a final OSHA standard."
In his testimony, Burkhart also stated ASSE's support for OSHA's general approach to helping ensure that crane operators are qualified or certified to operate the equipment covered here. Burkart went on to say, however, "We urge OSHA to rewrite the proposed provisions to require that operator certifications be accredited by the same nationally recognized accrediting agencies that accredit organizations certifying the professional competence of safety and health professionals. Without this level of rigor, ASSE fears that unknown entities with little experience in professional certification will be able to establish certifications that do not adequately demonstrate professional crane operator competence and put at risk the advances in crane safety we all want."
Burkart also urged OSHA to look closely at the negotiated rulemaking process used to develop this proposed rule to see if lessons can be learned to help improve the negotiated rulemaking process as a tool for engaging the entire safety and health community in OSHA’s rulemaking.
"While no approach to standards setting can be without challenges, negotiated rulemaking best mirrors the success of the voluntary consensus process and holds promise for some of the more difficult occupational safety and health issues," Burkart said on behalf of ASSE.
Other areas of the proposed rule that concern ASSE include hoisting and rigging; confusing equipment definitions such as for fall protection, competent person and ground conditions; concern that OSHA did not reference the national voluntary consensus standard with regard to use of different derricks; selection of manufacturer or employer procedures for assembly/disassembly and general requirements; power line safety; inspections; wire rope inspections; general requirements for signals; overall fall protection; work area control; operator qualification and certification; training; hoisting personnel; multiple-crane/derrick lifts; design, construction and testing; and, overhead and gantry cranes.
The current OSHA safety standard for cranes and derricks was written in 1971. In July 2004, a 23-member industry and union OSHA advisory committee issued a recommendation that OSHA update its outdated standards on crane and derrick safety and proposed a revised standard, including specific rules on crane assembly.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
OSHA Launches National Initiative On Cranes And Derricks
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
The concerns reflect comments ASSE submitted in January to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Stohler for the record of the cranes and derricks rulemaking. In its comments, ASSE requested a hearing be held to discuss its concern that OSHA failed to reference the A10 or other national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane and derrick safety.
In ASSE’s January comments, ASSE President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHM, of Fairborn, OH, noted ASSE represents 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals who work with employers to protect workers and employers’ property from safety, health and environmental risks.
"Our members are experts in managing workplace safety and health issues in every industry, in every state and across the globe. They belong to sixteen ASSE practice specialties," Brown said. "In fact, ASSE’s Construction Practice Specialty is ASSE’s largest practice specialty. ASSE is also the Secretariat for various ANSI voluntary consensus standards related to safe practices in construction, including the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, the Z359 Fall Protection Code, and Z490.1-2001Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training. The safe operation cranes and derricks on construction sites is of the utmost importance to ASSE’s members."
In his testimony, Burkart brought attention to OSHA’s failure to fulfill its duty under law to consider voluntary consensus standards in rulemaking.
"We cannot help but come to that conclusion when the Proposed Rule fails to reference even once the ASC A10 standard Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. The ASC A10 Committee for Construction and Demolition Operations is one of the oldest ANSI committees, chartered in 1931 and enjoying 78 years of continuous leadership in developing construction safety standards," Burkart said. "The inability of OSHA to identify a key set of standards impacting crane safety is a significant failure by OSHA to perform meaningful background research and indicates the Agency failed to comply fully with Public Law 104-113."
Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1965, requires all federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."
"ASSE’s members have had extensive and successful experience in helping develop occupational safety and health standards through consensus building in the ANSI voluntary standards development process, including national standards impacting the safe operation of cranes and derricks," Burkart explained. "We already work successfully in managing crane safety through these voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, we need clarity and consistency between the existing voluntary standard and a final OSHA standard."
In his testimony, Burkhart also stated ASSE's support for OSHA's general approach to helping ensure that crane operators are qualified or certified to operate the equipment covered here. Burkart went on to say, however, "We urge OSHA to rewrite the proposed provisions to require that operator certifications be accredited by the same nationally recognized accrediting agencies that accredit organizations certifying the professional competence of safety and health professionals. Without this level of rigor, ASSE fears that unknown entities with little experience in professional certification will be able to establish certifications that do not adequately demonstrate professional crane operator competence and put at risk the advances in crane safety we all want."
Burkart also urged OSHA to look closely at the negotiated rulemaking process used to develop this proposed rule to see if lessons can be learned to help improve the negotiated rulemaking process as a tool for engaging the entire safety and health community in OSHA’s rulemaking.
"While no approach to standards setting can be without challenges, negotiated rulemaking best mirrors the success of the voluntary consensus process and holds promise for some of the more difficult occupational safety and health issues," Burkart said on behalf of ASSE.
Other areas of the proposed rule that concern ASSE include hoisting and rigging; confusing equipment definitions such as for fall protection, competent person and ground conditions; concern that OSHA did not reference the national voluntary consensus standard with regard to use of different derricks; selection of manufacturer or employer procedures for assembly/disassembly and general requirements; power line safety; inspections; wire rope inspections; general requirements for signals; overall fall protection; work area control; operator qualification and certification; training; hoisting personnel; multiple-crane/derrick lifts; design, construction and testing; and, overhead and gantry cranes.
The current OSHA safety standard for cranes and derricks was written in 1971. In July 2004, a 23-member industry and union OSHA advisory committee issued a recommendation that OSHA update its outdated standards on crane and derrick safety and proposed a revised standard, including specific rules on crane assembly.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
OSHA Launches National Initiative On Cranes And Derricks
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
Labels: ASSE, Construction Safety, OSHA, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Older Workers Mean Greater Safety and Productivity, However Injuries Can Be More Severe
While the increase in older workers in the American workforce could suggest a corresponding decrease in workplace productivity and increase in accident claims, the opposite has proven to be true. Older workers are a benefit to the companies that employ them. However, injuries to older adults tend to be of higher severity, so U.S. companies should consider making workplace modifications that prevent injuries.
Adult ADHD Is A Risk To Workplace Safety
Top Ten Most Disabling Injuries
These conclusions were published in a new white paper by the PMA Companies, "Capitalizing on an Aging Workforce." The paper, which is the first in a quarterly series by the PMA Companies called PMA Insights, can be viewed at www.pmagroup.com.
Authored by Ken Nogan, Risk Control Consultant at PMA Insurance Group, the paper reports that since 1977, the number of people 65 and older in the workforce has increased more than 100 percent. In addition:
- It is estimated that workers in the age groups 65-74 and 75 and up will grow more dramatically than any other workforce age group - more than 80 percent.
- More than half of older workers are working full-time, up from 44 percent in 1995.
"Not surprisingly, as people age, their skills and faculties, including strength, range of motion, motor skills, sensory acuity and ability to heal, diminish," Nogan wrote. "While this may suggest that older workers would have a negative effect on workplace productivity and safety, statistics prove otherwise."
In fact, the paper notes that as over-55 workers increase in the workplace, so does productivity and overall workplace safety. However, when older workers do experience injuries, severity can be significant, which is an issue that must be considered by safety professionals.
These findings lead to two conclusions, according to the paper: one, older workers are a benefit to the company that employs them and, two, it pays to make modifications to work environments to prevent injuries and limit the severity of injuries commonly sustained by older workers.
Key Preventative Measures
The chief risk management concerns that were identified in the paper for older workers are increased falls, increased fatality rates, longer healing times, greater overall severity of injuries and more severe musculoskeletal disorders. The paper recommends that companies consider implementing risk control measures designed for the needs of older workers. Among the specific recommendations are:
- Slip and fall prevention - Falls alone account for more than one-third of all injuries sustained by workers 65 and older, and it takes an older worker two to three times longer to recover from an injury than a younger counterpart.
- Ergonomics - Ergonomic evaluations of workstations and workspaces can identify causes of fatigue and strain for older workers.
- Safe driving - Death rates for work-related roadway crashes increase steadily beginning at around age 55, and older drivers (55 and above) are more likely than other drivers to have a crash at an intersection or when merging or changing lanes on a highway.
- Return to work - Because claim statistics reflect a connection between increased healing time and age, there is a need for highly responsive return to work efforts for older workers.
Adult ADHD Is A Risk To Workplace Safety
Top Ten Most Disabling Injuries
Labels: fall protection, Industrial Safety, safety management, Vehicle Safety
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, March 09, 2009
OSHA Proposes More Than $293,000 In Penalties Against Phenix Lumber Co
OSHA is proposing $293,700 in penalties for 36 safety and health violations found at Phenix Lumber Co. in Phenix City, Ala.
The total proposed penalties include $202,500 for four safety citations and one health citation resulting from the company's failure to correct violations identified during a previous OSHA inspection. Those citations include the company's failure to obtain audiograms for employees exposed to noise hazards, not implementing specific lockout/tagout procedures to prevent accidental start-up of machinery and three instances where machine guards had not been installed in a timely manner.
In addition, OSHA is proposing $23,100 in penalties for one repeat and seven serious health violations; and $68,100 for 17 serious, five repeat and one other-than-serious safety violations. The health violations relate to poor housekeeping of combustible dust, lack of safety signs, lack of safety equipment, and using incorrect electrical and forklift equipment. The safety violations include unguarded machinery and pit openings, not utilizing lockout/tagout procedures, dangers to employees from unstable piles of lumber, lack of signage and improper use of electrical equipment.
"These financial penalties are the direct result of the company's failure to correct violations found in 2007," said Kurt Petermeyer, OSHA's area director in Mobile. "Even when OSHA staff pointed out problems during previous inspections and management agreed to correct them, the company did not follow through on its obligations."
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Mobile or contest the proposed citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The sites were inspected by staff from OSHA's Mobile Area Office, 1141 Montlimar Drive, Suite 1006; telephone 251-441-6131.
Other posts about OSHA citations:
OSHA Proposes $41,000 in Fines Against Sauerkraut Manufacturer
OSHA Proposes $273,000 In Fines For Lack Of Asbestos Safeguards
Contractor To Pay $750,000 OSHA Fine
The total proposed penalties include $202,500 for four safety citations and one health citation resulting from the company's failure to correct violations identified during a previous OSHA inspection. Those citations include the company's failure to obtain audiograms for employees exposed to noise hazards, not implementing specific lockout/tagout procedures to prevent accidental start-up of machinery and three instances where machine guards had not been installed in a timely manner.
In addition, OSHA is proposing $23,100 in penalties for one repeat and seven serious health violations; and $68,100 for 17 serious, five repeat and one other-than-serious safety violations. The health violations relate to poor housekeeping of combustible dust, lack of safety signs, lack of safety equipment, and using incorrect electrical and forklift equipment. The safety violations include unguarded machinery and pit openings, not utilizing lockout/tagout procedures, dangers to employees from unstable piles of lumber, lack of signage and improper use of electrical equipment.
"These financial penalties are the direct result of the company's failure to correct violations found in 2007," said Kurt Petermeyer, OSHA's area director in Mobile. "Even when OSHA staff pointed out problems during previous inspections and management agreed to correct them, the company did not follow through on its obligations."
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Mobile or contest the proposed citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The sites were inspected by staff from OSHA's Mobile Area Office, 1141 Montlimar Drive, Suite 1006; telephone 251-441-6131.
Other posts about OSHA citations:
OSHA Proposes $41,000 in Fines Against Sauerkraut Manufacturer
OSHA Proposes $273,000 In Fines For Lack Of Asbestos Safeguards
Contractor To Pay $750,000 OSHA Fine
Labels: LOTO, OSHA Citations, OSHA Signs
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
OSHA Above Ground
A new blog, written by an OSHA employee, started up on Janary15th. It provides some interesting insights, and level-headed commentary about what OSHA does and how things work inside OSHA. It is called OSHA Aboveground.
I particularly found the post from last Friday, title Clowns To The Left... to be interesting. It is about the OSHA rule making process.
Although it is just getting started, this blog looks like it is going to be very good reading.
I particularly found the post from last Friday, title Clowns To The Left... to be interesting. It is about the OSHA rule making process.
Although it is just getting started, this blog looks like it is going to be very good reading.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, Safety Blog
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Eighth Circuit Court Overrules Review Commission in OSHA Multi-Employer Case
An article in yesterday's online edition of EHS Today reports on a February 26th decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled on the validity of OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. The ruling stated that:
"The Department of Labor's regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to employers for violations when their own employees are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations; even if the regulation was ambiguous, the court would defer to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the regulation; as a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission abused its discretion in determining that the controlling employer citation policy conflicted with the regulation." (Read the court decision here.)
Summit Contractors Inc. was cited for a safety violation by a subcontractor based on the "controlling employer" aspect of OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. This court ruling supports the multi-employer citation policy as being valid.
You can read the complete EHS Today article here.
"The Department of Labor's regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to employers for violations when their own employees are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations; even if the regulation was ambiguous, the court would defer to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the regulation; as a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission abused its discretion in determining that the controlling employer citation policy conflicted with the regulation." (Read the court decision here.)
Summit Contractors Inc. was cited for a safety violation by a subcontractor based on the "controlling employer" aspect of OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. This court ruling supports the multi-employer citation policy as being valid.
You can read the complete EHS Today article here.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Citations, safety management
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Minnesota DOLI Accused Of Altering OSHA Reports and Citations
Workday Minnesota reports that former MNOSHA inspectors testified yesterday that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry alters OSHA reports and citations. The article reports that:
"...two former Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors testified that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has engaged in a number of fraudulent activities. Among the charges brought by the whistle-blowers are:
• Changes have been made to final OSHA inspection reports even after the OSHA inspector has signed the report;
• Documents have been removed from inspection files:
• Inspectors have been pressured to not find violations against MNSTAR companies or issue citations to them."
You can read the complete article here.
"...two former Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors testified that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has engaged in a number of fraudulent activities. Among the charges brought by the whistle-blowers are:
• Changes have been made to final OSHA inspection reports even after the OSHA inspector has signed the report;
• Documents have been removed from inspection files:
• Inspectors have been pressured to not find violations against MNSTAR companies or issue citations to them."
You can read the complete article here.
Labels: safety management, safety politics, safety statistics
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, March 02, 2009
OSHA proposes $41,000 in Fines Against Sauerkraut Manufacturer
OSHA has cited Great Lakes Sauerkraut Co. LLC with $41,400 in proposed fines following inspections conducted under OSHA's Site Specific Targeting Plan. The agency cited the Shortsville, N.Y., sauerkraut maker with 16 alleged serious violations of safety and health standards at its manufacturing facility.
"These citations encompass a cross-section of mechanical, electrical, fall, noise, confined space and other hazards that should have been addressed prior to the inspection," said Christopher Adams, OSHA's area director in Syracuse.
Specifically, OSHA's inspection found numerous instances of moving machine parts not guarded against accidental employee contact; lack of a hazardous energy control program, training and equipment to prevent the accidental startup of machinery; unguarded live electrical parts; improper storage of compressed gas cylinders; and fall hazards stemming from a lack of fall protection, inadequate ladder safety, uncovered floor openings and unguarded open-sided work platforms and stairways.
Additional hazards included the lack of a confined space training program for employees whose duties involve entering sauerkraut tanks; lack of a hearing conservation program for employees exposed to excessive noise levels; and lack of training in fire extinguisher use and hazards associated with incipient stage fire fighting.
"One way of helping ensure and maintain a safe and healthful workplace is through the establishment of an effective safety and health management system in which employees and management work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazardous conditions," said Adams.
OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known. Great Lakes Sauerkraut has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply or contest them to the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA's Syracuse Area Office; telephone 315-451-0808.
"These citations encompass a cross-section of mechanical, electrical, fall, noise, confined space and other hazards that should have been addressed prior to the inspection," said Christopher Adams, OSHA's area director in Syracuse.
Specifically, OSHA's inspection found numerous instances of moving machine parts not guarded against accidental employee contact; lack of a hazardous energy control program, training and equipment to prevent the accidental startup of machinery; unguarded live electrical parts; improper storage of compressed gas cylinders; and fall hazards stemming from a lack of fall protection, inadequate ladder safety, uncovered floor openings and unguarded open-sided work platforms and stairways.
Additional hazards included the lack of a confined space training program for employees whose duties involve entering sauerkraut tanks; lack of a hearing conservation program for employees exposed to excessive noise levels; and lack of training in fire extinguisher use and hazards associated with incipient stage fire fighting.
"One way of helping ensure and maintain a safe and healthful workplace is through the establishment of an effective safety and health management system in which employees and management work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazardous conditions," said Adams.
OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known. Great Lakes Sauerkraut has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply or contest them to the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA's Syracuse Area Office; telephone 315-451-0808.
Labels: OSHA Citations, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 3 Comments |
Add Comment | links
OSHA Proposes $273,000 In Fines For Lack Of Asbestos Safeguards
OSHA cited Blackstone Business Enterprises Inc. of Jamestown, N.Y., for 18 alleged willful and serious violations of OSHA standards for failing to protect contract employees against asbestos hazards.
The sheet metal and structural steel fabricator faces $273,000 in proposed fines for failing to provide required safeguards for temporary employees who were hired to remove asbestos-containing insulation from steam pipes at the company's Blackstone Avenue plant.
"The sizable fines proposed here reflect the fact that this company knew several of these critical safeguards were necessary yet chose not to provide them," said Arthur Dube, OSHA's area director in Buffalo. "Inhalation of asbestos fibers by workers may lead to lung disease and other disorders. That is why it is essential that effective protective measures be in place and in use whenever necessary. One means of identifying and preventing hazards such as these is to develop and maintain an effective safety and health management system."
Specifically, Blackstone did not perform air monitoring to determine the level of asbestos exposure nor did it provide workers with respirators, protective clothing and asbestos training. These conditions resulted in four willful citations, carrying $224,000 in proposed fines. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
The company also has been issued 14 serious citations, with $49,000 in fines, for failing to determine the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing material; establish a regulated work area; properly clean and dispose of asbestos-containing material and contaminated clothing; inform employees and tenants of the asbestos removal; label asbestos-containing insulation and trash bags; and have the work overseen by a competent person. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Buffalo or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Detailed information on asbestos is available on OSHA's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/index.html and http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/construction.html. Employers and employees with questions about workplace safety may call the agency's Buffalo Area Office at 716-551-3053; a toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742 may be used to report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers.
The sheet metal and structural steel fabricator faces $273,000 in proposed fines for failing to provide required safeguards for temporary employees who were hired to remove asbestos-containing insulation from steam pipes at the company's Blackstone Avenue plant.
"The sizable fines proposed here reflect the fact that this company knew several of these critical safeguards were necessary yet chose not to provide them," said Arthur Dube, OSHA's area director in Buffalo. "Inhalation of asbestos fibers by workers may lead to lung disease and other disorders. That is why it is essential that effective protective measures be in place and in use whenever necessary. One means of identifying and preventing hazards such as these is to develop and maintain an effective safety and health management system."
Specifically, Blackstone did not perform air monitoring to determine the level of asbestos exposure nor did it provide workers with respirators, protective clothing and asbestos training. These conditions resulted in four willful citations, carrying $224,000 in proposed fines. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
The company also has been issued 14 serious citations, with $49,000 in fines, for failing to determine the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing material; establish a regulated work area; properly clean and dispose of asbestos-containing material and contaminated clothing; inform employees and tenants of the asbestos removal; label asbestos-containing insulation and trash bags; and have the work overseen by a competent person. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Buffalo or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Detailed information on asbestos is available on OSHA's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/index.html and http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/construction.html. Employers and employees with questions about workplace safety may call the agency's Buffalo Area Office at 716-551-3053; a toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742 may be used to report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers.
Labels: OSHA Citations, osha information
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
The Fight Project
This is from the Florence, Alabama Times Daily.
In 1993 Patrick Hayes died in a grain silo accident while working in an area for which he was not trained. The Times Daily article reports describes what happened.
The article reports:
"Hayes formed the Fight Project in 1996. The effort helps families receive reports ranging from autopsies to OSHA investigations. The project also gives families the option to speak with other families who have had loved ones killed or injured at work."
In 1993 Patrick Hayes died in a grain silo accident while working in an area for which he was not trained. The Times Daily article reports describes what happened.
"Sixty tons of corn had collapsed on him," Ronald Hayes [his father] said. "When they called and told us about the accident, we thought there had been a mistake in identifying who it was. He didn't work in the silo. He was a warehouseman. As it turns out, someone had quit the previous day, and Patrick was ordered to walk the corn."
Ronald Hayes' response was to do something good.The article reports:
"Hayes formed the Fight Project in 1996. The effort helps families receive reports ranging from autopsies to OSHA investigations. The project also gives families the option to speak with other families who have had loved ones killed or injured at work."
"Since 1996, the agency has helped more than 500 families."
"Not one person in any family has ever called me and said, 'I'm going to sue the company,' " Hayes said. "Those who end up suing do so because they can't get the company to cooperate, but all they want is for this never to happen again to anyone else."
Labels: safety, Safety Training
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
