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, February 15, 2010
OSHA cites C.A. Franc $539,000 For Willful Fall Hazard Violations
OSHA has fined the C.A. Franc construction company $539,000 following the investigation of a roofing worker who fell 40 feet to his death at a Washington worksite. The Valencia, Pa.-based roof installer – whose owner is Christopher A. Franc – was cited for 10 per instance willful citations for failing to protect workers from falls.
"Mr. Franc knowingly and willfully failed to protect his workers from falling to their death," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Despite repeated requests from workers that he provide fall protection, on this step roof, Mr. Franc refused to provide readily available protection. We will not tolerate this type of blatant and egregious disregard for the health and safety of workers."
OSHA began its investigation immediately following the worker's death on Aug. 15, 2009, and found the C.A. Franc company had failed to provide any fall protection to its employees working on a pitched roof 40 feet off the ground. In addition, Mr. Franc failed to train a newly hired college student in hazards and the necessary safety measures for roofing work. As a result of the investigation, the company has been cited for 10 alleged per-instance willful violations, one for each employee working unprotected on the roof, with a proposed penalty of $490,000, and one additional alleged willful violation for failing to train the new employee, with a penalty of $49,000.
General contractor Hospitality Builders Inc. also has been cited with one willful violation and a proposed penalty of $70,000 for failing to ensure that C.A. Franc workers had fall protection.
"This fall fatality was one of five that occurred during a 15-day span in the Pittsburgh area," said John M. Hermanson, OSHA's regional administrator in Philadelphia, Pa. "Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. Failure to provide employees with fall protection is unconscionable. We urge construction companies to take the necessary action to ensure their workers are protected."
OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health. Detailed information about fall hazards and safeguards is available on OSHA’s Web site at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/construction.html.
"Mr. Franc knowingly and willfully failed to protect his workers from falling to their death," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Despite repeated requests from workers that he provide fall protection, on this step roof, Mr. Franc refused to provide readily available protection. We will not tolerate this type of blatant and egregious disregard for the health and safety of workers."
OSHA began its investigation immediately following the worker's death on Aug. 15, 2009, and found the C.A. Franc company had failed to provide any fall protection to its employees working on a pitched roof 40 feet off the ground. In addition, Mr. Franc failed to train a newly hired college student in hazards and the necessary safety measures for roofing work. As a result of the investigation, the company has been cited for 10 alleged per-instance willful violations, one for each employee working unprotected on the roof, with a proposed penalty of $490,000, and one additional alleged willful violation for failing to train the new employee, with a penalty of $49,000.
General contractor Hospitality Builders Inc. also has been cited with one willful violation and a proposed penalty of $70,000 for failing to ensure that C.A. Franc workers had fall protection.
"This fall fatality was one of five that occurred during a 15-day span in the Pittsburgh area," said John M. Hermanson, OSHA's regional administrator in Philadelphia, Pa. "Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. Failure to provide employees with fall protection is unconscionable. We urge construction companies to take the necessary action to ensure their workers are protected."
OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health. Detailed information about fall hazards and safeguards is available on OSHA’s Web site at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/construction.html.
Labels: Construction / Installation, Construction Safety, fall protection, workplace fatalities
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, December 07, 2009
OSHA Levies $321,000 In Fines Against Bridge And Tower Painter UCL Inc.
OSHA has cited bridge and water tower painter UCL Inc. in Cincinnati with alleged willful, egregious and serious violations of federal workplace safety and health standards for exposing workers to lead. Proposed fines total $321,000.
OSHA began its inspection in May where UCL was abrasive blasting paint from two bridge overpasses on I-75 near Middletown, Ohio. The inspection revealed nine alleged willful and two serious violations.
Hazards identified as willful allege a variety of violations of the federal lead in construction standard, including a lack of appropriate respirators and protective clothing, failing to maintain eating areas free of lead contamination and failing to remove lead dust from equipment before workers entered designated eating areas. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Four of the willful violations, relating to the employer's failure to provide clean protective clothing to workers on a daily basis, are also classified as egregious. By designating violations as egregious, OSHA can assess penalties for each time the violation occurs, rather than proposing a single penalty for all violations of a specific agency regulation.
The two serious violations address an inadequate lead compliance program and failing to provide adequate hand washing facilities for employees. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
"Few Americans are aware of lead's deadly effects or the fact that lead taken home on clothing and work tools can infect an entire family," said OSHA Area Director Richard Gilgrist in Cincinnati. "The cost of employee and family health is far too great a price to pay for anyone to ignore this hazard. All of us want to see working men and women go home safe and without carrying toxic substances into their homes at the end of every work shift."
While UCL has been in business since 1999, the company owner previously owned United Painting Co., a business that was cited repeatedly by OSHA for lead standard violations. UCL also has received numerous citations, many of which were for violations of federal lead standards. An Aug. 27 fatal accident at another bridge painting worksite of UCL, along the same I-75 construction corridor, is still under investigation.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
OSHA began its inspection in May where UCL was abrasive blasting paint from two bridge overpasses on I-75 near Middletown, Ohio. The inspection revealed nine alleged willful and two serious violations.
Hazards identified as willful allege a variety of violations of the federal lead in construction standard, including a lack of appropriate respirators and protective clothing, failing to maintain eating areas free of lead contamination and failing to remove lead dust from equipment before workers entered designated eating areas. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Four of the willful violations, relating to the employer's failure to provide clean protective clothing to workers on a daily basis, are also classified as egregious. By designating violations as egregious, OSHA can assess penalties for each time the violation occurs, rather than proposing a single penalty for all violations of a specific agency regulation.
The two serious violations address an inadequate lead compliance program and failing to provide adequate hand washing facilities for employees. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
"Few Americans are aware of lead's deadly effects or the fact that lead taken home on clothing and work tools can infect an entire family," said OSHA Area Director Richard Gilgrist in Cincinnati. "The cost of employee and family health is far too great a price to pay for anyone to ignore this hazard. All of us want to see working men and women go home safe and without carrying toxic substances into their homes at the end of every work shift."
While UCL has been in business since 1999, the company owner previously owned United Painting Co., a business that was cited repeatedly by OSHA for lead standard violations. UCL also has received numerous citations, many of which were for violations of federal lead standards. An Aug. 27 fatal accident at another bridge painting worksite of UCL, along the same I-75 construction corridor, is still under investigation.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Labels: Construction / Installation, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, October 01, 2009
OSHA Revises Enforcement Policies For Fall Protection During Steel Erection
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently revised the steel erection compliance directive for the agency's Steel Erection Standard to change two enforcement policies related to tripping hazards and installation of nets or floors during steel erection.
One of the revised policies addresses the standard's requirement that employers install a floor or net within two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less.
The other policy states that employers must comply with the requirement that steel studs, known as shear connectors, be installed at the worksite. Shear connectors bind concrete to the steel.
"Falls are the leading cause of death among construction workers," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "We are intent on reducing the number of injuries and fatalities in the construction industry and believe these policy revisions will help us attain that goal."
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007 data show that 1,204 fatalities occurred in the construction industry, 447 of which resulted from falls. The steel erection standard sets forth requirements to protect workers from the hazards associated with steel erection activities when constructing, altering, and repairing single and multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where steel erection occurs.
One of the revised policies addresses the standard's requirement that employers install a floor or net within two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less.
The other policy states that employers must comply with the requirement that steel studs, known as shear connectors, be installed at the worksite. Shear connectors bind concrete to the steel.
"Falls are the leading cause of death among construction workers," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "We are intent on reducing the number of injuries and fatalities in the construction industry and believe these policy revisions will help us attain that goal."
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007 data show that 1,204 fatalities occurred in the construction industry, 447 of which resulted from falls. The steel erection standard sets forth requirements to protect workers from the hazards associated with steel erection activities when constructing, altering, and repairing single and multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where steel erection occurs.
Labels: Construction / Installation, Construction Safety, hazard prevention, safety management
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, June 29, 2009
Shanghai Building Tips Over
A thirteen story building in Shanhai, China tipped over on Saturday, remaining almost intact. One worker was killed. The initial investigation found the building tipped over after workers dug underneath it to put in an underground garage.Read about it on Yahoo News' Asia News.
Labels: Construction / Installation, Construction Safety, workplace fatalities
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
RFID Helps Satisfy OSHA Rules for Industrial Respirators
Industrial hygiene service provider Colden Corp. is using passive high-frequency tags (RFID tags) to track the inspection and maintenance of the respirators used by factory workers. As reported in the RFID journal, the tags reduce respirator inspection times by helping Colden employees track when respirators are inspected.
3M was the provider of the respirators. The article quotes Larry Ptastenski, the new business development manager of 3M's Occupational Health & Environmental Safety division as saying: "'The key is that RFID allows the customer to know when something is happening.' The information is stored on 3M's cloud-computing internet-based system, he indicates, and can be customized for the needs of a specific client. Some of 3M's respirator customers are maintenance service providers, while others are the manufacturing sites that use the respirators themselves. In each case, Ptastenski says, the needs for data related to inspections differ slightly. The system enables the customers to create user-defined fields—such as alerting them in advance when, for instance, an air filter cartridge needs to be changed."
Read the complete article in the RFID Journal.
Related Past Blog Posts:
Mandatory Respirator Selection Provisions
Respirator Protection An Important Safety Issue
Respirator Training Scripts Available
3M was the provider of the respirators. The article quotes Larry Ptastenski, the new business development manager of 3M's Occupational Health & Environmental Safety division as saying: "'The key is that RFID allows the customer to know when something is happening.' The information is stored on 3M's cloud-computing internet-based system, he indicates, and can be customized for the needs of a specific client. Some of 3M's respirator customers are maintenance service providers, while others are the manufacturing sites that use the respirators themselves. In each case, Ptastenski says, the needs for data related to inspections differ slightly. The system enables the customers to create user-defined fields—such as alerting them in advance when, for instance, an air filter cartridge needs to be changed."
Read the complete article in the RFID Journal.
Related Past Blog Posts:
Mandatory Respirator Selection Provisions
Respirator Protection An Important Safety Issue
Respirator Training Scripts Available
Labels: Construction / Installation, PPE, Safety Software
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, September 19, 2008
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today announced that a proposed rule for cranes and derricks in construction will be published shortly in the Federal Register.
A current copy of the proposed standard is available on OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/doc/proposedrule/Cranes_Derricks_Proposed_Rule.html for the public to review. The public comment period on the proposed rule will only begin after the proposal has been formally published in the Federal Register.
"The cranes and derricks proposed rule comprehensively addresses the hazards associated with the use of cranes and derricks in construction, including tower cranes," said Edwin G. Foulke Jr., assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. "This draft rule will both protect construction employees and help prevent crane accidents by updating existing protections and requiring crane operators to be trained in the use of construction cranes."
The cranes and derricks proposed rule would apply to the estimated 96,000 construction cranes in the U.S., including 2,000 tower cranes. The proposed standard addresses key safety issues associated with cranes, including ground conditions, the assembly and disassembly of cranes, the operation of cranes near power lines, the certification and training of crane operators, the use of safety devices and signals, and inspections of cranes. It significantly updates existing tower crane requirements and more comprehensively addresses tower crane safety, with respect both to erecting and dismantling, and to crane operations.
The proposed standard would establish four options for the qualification or certification of crane operators:
(1) certification through an accredited third-party testing organization
(2) qualification through an audited employer testing program
(3) qualification issued by the U.S. military
(4) qualification by a state or local licensing authority.
This proposed rule was developed through negotiated rulemaking by the Cranes and Derricks Advisory Committee (C-DAC). The federal Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health subsequently recommended that OSHA use that document for developing its proposed rule. Since then and as required by law, OSHA has conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis, small business review and paperwork burden analysis of the proposed rule. In addition, OSHA was required to write a preamble to the regulatory proposal that explains in detail the purpose and application of the proposed standard. That preamble is almost 1,000 pages. The members of C-DAC were sent an advance copy for review as part of their role in the negotiated rulemaking.
OSHA has improved workplace safety and health over the past 37 years. This success is reflected in the latest data showing the lowest national fatality and injury and illness incidence rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA’s role is to promote the safety and health of America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
Tower Crane Safety
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
OSHA Investigates Crane Accident
OSHA Citations Issued In Connection With Fatal NYC Crane Collapse
A current copy of the proposed standard is available on OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/doc/proposedrule/Cranes_Derricks_Proposed_Rule.html for the public to review. The public comment period on the proposed rule will only begin after the proposal has been formally published in the Federal Register.
"The cranes and derricks proposed rule comprehensively addresses the hazards associated with the use of cranes and derricks in construction, including tower cranes," said Edwin G. Foulke Jr., assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. "This draft rule will both protect construction employees and help prevent crane accidents by updating existing protections and requiring crane operators to be trained in the use of construction cranes."
The cranes and derricks proposed rule would apply to the estimated 96,000 construction cranes in the U.S., including 2,000 tower cranes. The proposed standard addresses key safety issues associated with cranes, including ground conditions, the assembly and disassembly of cranes, the operation of cranes near power lines, the certification and training of crane operators, the use of safety devices and signals, and inspections of cranes. It significantly updates existing tower crane requirements and more comprehensively addresses tower crane safety, with respect both to erecting and dismantling, and to crane operations.
The proposed standard would establish four options for the qualification or certification of crane operators:
(1) certification through an accredited third-party testing organization
(2) qualification through an audited employer testing program
(3) qualification issued by the U.S. military
(4) qualification by a state or local licensing authority.
This proposed rule was developed through negotiated rulemaking by the Cranes and Derricks Advisory Committee (C-DAC). The federal Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health subsequently recommended that OSHA use that document for developing its proposed rule. Since then and as required by law, OSHA has conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis, small business review and paperwork burden analysis of the proposed rule. In addition, OSHA was required to write a preamble to the regulatory proposal that explains in detail the purpose and application of the proposed standard. That preamble is almost 1,000 pages. The members of C-DAC were sent an advance copy for review as part of their role in the negotiated rulemaking.
OSHA has improved workplace safety and health over the past 37 years. This success is reflected in the latest data showing the lowest national fatality and injury and illness incidence rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA’s role is to promote the safety and health of America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
Tower Crane Safety
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
OSHA Investigates Crane Accident
OSHA Citations Issued In Connection With Fatal NYC Crane Collapse
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
OSHA Citations Issued In Connection With Fatal NYC Crane Collapse
NEW YORK -- The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued citations to three contractors with proposed penalties totaling $313,500 for alleged violations of safety standards after investigating the catastrophic March 15 collapse of a tower crane in New York City that killed seven people. The accident took place at 303 E. 51st St. in midtown Manhattan.
Cited were Rapetti Rigging Services Inc., the crane's erector; Reliance Construction Group, the project's general contractor; and Joy Contractors Inc., the project's concrete and superstructure contractor. Rapetti was cited for alleged problems associated with rigging the crane and lack of fall protection, while Reliance and Joy were cited for lack of fall protection, fire protection and other hazards unrelated to the crane collapse.
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. said, "This case illustrates in stark terms that failure to follow required procedures can have wide-ranging and catastrophic consequences."
Rapetti Rigging has been issued three willful citations with penalties totaling $210,000 for allegedly failing, among other things, to comply with the crane manufacturer's specifications and limitations when erecting and raising the tower crane, to protect synthetic rigging slings from damage, to inspect the slings for damage or defects before use, and to remove a defective sling from service.
"Ultimately, the crane collapse was a failure to follow basic, but essential, construction safety processes," said Richard Mendelson, OSHA's area director in Manhattan.
Rapetti also has been issued five serious citations, with $10,000 in proposed fines for fall hazards. Employees working on the crane’s mast and at the edge of the 18th floor level and other areas lacked proper fall protection. Penalties proposed against Rapetti total $220,000.
Joy Contractors has been issued one repeat and 14 serious citations with proposed penalties totaling $74,000. The repeat citation alleges the lack of fall protection for employees working 180 feet above the ground. OSHA cited Joy in March 2007 for a similar hazard at a Mt. Pleasant, N.Y., worksite. The serious citations allege failure to train employees in jobsite hazards, unsafe work area debris, fire hazards, fall hazards, unsafe material storage, and hazards created by the eccentric loading of concrete shoring and formwork.
Reliance Construction Group has been issued 11 serious citations with a total of $19,500 in proposed penalties. The citations allege failure to train employees in jobsite hazards, unsafe work area debris, fire hazards, fall hazards, and hazards created by the eccentric loading of concrete shoring and formwork.
This inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office; telephone 212-620-3200. OSHA’s inspection of the May 30 crane collapse at 91st Street and First Avenue in New York City is still ongoing.
Cited were Rapetti Rigging Services Inc., the crane's erector; Reliance Construction Group, the project's general contractor; and Joy Contractors Inc., the project's concrete and superstructure contractor. Rapetti was cited for alleged problems associated with rigging the crane and lack of fall protection, while Reliance and Joy were cited for lack of fall protection, fire protection and other hazards unrelated to the crane collapse.
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. said, "This case illustrates in stark terms that failure to follow required procedures can have wide-ranging and catastrophic consequences."
Rapetti Rigging has been issued three willful citations with penalties totaling $210,000 for allegedly failing, among other things, to comply with the crane manufacturer's specifications and limitations when erecting and raising the tower crane, to protect synthetic rigging slings from damage, to inspect the slings for damage or defects before use, and to remove a defective sling from service.
"Ultimately, the crane collapse was a failure to follow basic, but essential, construction safety processes," said Richard Mendelson, OSHA's area director in Manhattan.
Rapetti also has been issued five serious citations, with $10,000 in proposed fines for fall hazards. Employees working on the crane’s mast and at the edge of the 18th floor level and other areas lacked proper fall protection. Penalties proposed against Rapetti total $220,000.
Joy Contractors has been issued one repeat and 14 serious citations with proposed penalties totaling $74,000. The repeat citation alleges the lack of fall protection for employees working 180 feet above the ground. OSHA cited Joy in March 2007 for a similar hazard at a Mt. Pleasant, N.Y., worksite. The serious citations allege failure to train employees in jobsite hazards, unsafe work area debris, fire hazards, fall hazards, unsafe material storage, and hazards created by the eccentric loading of concrete shoring and formwork.
Reliance Construction Group has been issued 11 serious citations with a total of $19,500 in proposed penalties. The citations allege failure to train employees in jobsite hazards, unsafe work area debris, fire hazards, fall hazards, and hazards created by the eccentric loading of concrete shoring and formwork.
This inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office; telephone 212-620-3200. OSHA’s inspection of the May 30 crane collapse at 91st Street and First Avenue in New York City is still ongoing.
Labels: Construction / Installation, Construction Safety, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, March 03, 2008
What To Do Before There Is A Fatal Accident
"In the roofing industry, opportunities for crisis—in the form of employee injuries or fatalities—present themselves more often than in most other industries. According to U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, 100 roofing workers were killed in occupation-related incidents during 2006, 80 from falls alone."
The above is the opening paragraph from an article from Professional Roofing Magazine by Ashley St. John, that is called "Roofing contractors share how they handled job-site fatalities." The article describes two fatal accidents and how managers responded.
The last third of the article is dedicated to describing how to create a crisis-management plan for your company. The article states:
"As is evidenced by Baxter's and Gooding's accounts, confronting a severe injury or fatality can be one of the most stressful situations you ever will encounter. Having a written crisis-management plan already in place is key to helping you face the pressures presented during this chaotic time."
The article then presents a summary of the National Roofing Contractors Association recommendations. These are recommendations I think apply in any industry.
The above is the opening paragraph from an article from Professional Roofing Magazine by Ashley St. John, that is called "Roofing contractors share how they handled job-site fatalities." The article describes two fatal accidents and how managers responded.
The last third of the article is dedicated to describing how to create a crisis-management plan for your company. The article states:
"As is evidenced by Baxter's and Gooding's accounts, confronting a severe injury or fatality can be one of the most stressful situations you ever will encounter. Having a written crisis-management plan already in place is key to helping you face the pressures presented during this chaotic time."
The article then presents a summary of the National Roofing Contractors Association recommendations. These are recommendations I think apply in any industry.
Labels: Construction / Installation, Construction Safety, fall protection, workplace fatalities
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Multi-Employer Doctrine
The June 2007 issue of Occupational Hazards magazine reports on an OSHRC decision that invalidates a 1976 ruling that general contractors are responsible for supervising OSHA compliance of their subcontractors.
The opening paragraph of the article states:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decision, in a case involving home builder Summit Contractors, held that citing a general contractor solely because it is a so-called “controlling employer” is inconsistent with 29 CFR 1910.12(a), a regulation that governs the application of OSHA’s construction standards in 29 CFR Part 1926. That regulation states, in part, that “Each employer shall protect … each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with” Part 1926 (emphasis added). The commission held that issuing a citation to a so-called “controlling employer” whose own employees were not exposed to an alleged violation was inconsistent with the phrase “his employees.”
This decision removes the need for general contractors to "patrol" work sites conducting safety inspections covering areas in which the general contractor's employees are not involved. While the general contractor is still responsible for the safety of their own employees, they are no longer responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees. There are some exceptions to this, however. For example OSHA standards in Part 1926 have their own multi-employer requirements related to steel erection in Subpart R.
I recommend reading the entire article, which is titled: End of the Line or a Chance for a Fresh Start?
The opening paragraph of the article states:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decision, in a case involving home builder Summit Contractors, held that citing a general contractor solely because it is a so-called “controlling employer” is inconsistent with 29 CFR 1910.12(a), a regulation that governs the application of OSHA’s construction standards in 29 CFR Part 1926. That regulation states, in part, that “Each employer shall protect … each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with” Part 1926 (emphasis added). The commission held that issuing a citation to a so-called “controlling employer” whose own employees were not exposed to an alleged violation was inconsistent with the phrase “his employees.”
This decision removes the need for general contractors to "patrol" work sites conducting safety inspections covering areas in which the general contractor's employees are not involved. While the general contractor is still responsible for the safety of their own employees, they are no longer responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees. There are some exceptions to this, however. For example OSHA standards in Part 1926 have their own multi-employer requirements related to steel erection in Subpart R.
I recommend reading the entire article, which is titled: End of the Line or a Chance for a Fresh Start?
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, June 04, 2007
Construction Safety Statistics
I've been searching for safety statistics for the construction industry this morning and found it surprisingly difficult to find information. Most of the available information seems to be published by attornies looking to attract clients. If you know of a good source of information on accidents in the construction industry, please add it as a comment to this post.
Lawcore.com had some information that shows that of the 5,915 workplace falities in 2000, 2118 of those were construction related... more than any other occupational group. However, it woud be more useful to know the number of fatalities/injuries per thousand manhours worked. The lawcore.com web site states that falls, trenches and electrical accidents are the most common causes of fatalities on construction sites.
Statistics from Ireland on another legal web site confirm this. This McGarr Solicitors' site reports:
"The study showed, in the case of the sample of incidents reviewed, that 20% involved falls; 20% involved ladders or scaffolds; 11% involved contact with power lines; 9% involved collapse of trenches."
Lawcore.com had some information that shows that of the 5,915 workplace falities in 2000, 2118 of those were construction related... more than any other occupational group. However, it woud be more useful to know the number of fatalities/injuries per thousand manhours worked. The lawcore.com web site states that falls, trenches and electrical accidents are the most common causes of fatalities on construction sites.
Statistics from Ireland on another legal web site confirm this. This McGarr Solicitors' site reports:
"The study showed, in the case of the sample of incidents reviewed, that 20% involved falls; 20% involved ladders or scaffolds; 11% involved contact with power lines; 9% involved collapse of trenches."
Labels: Construction / Installation
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, May 21, 2007
Contractor Faces Maximum Allowed Fine For Cave-in Hazard
I decided to post the following OSHA press release because cave-in injuries and deaths are commom, yet easy to prevent. Even after being cited twice in the past this contractor continued to put workers in dangerous trenches. I don't know their reasons, although my feeling is they are economic... in any case there is no excuse for risking your employees' lives this way. Your comments are welcome.
Portsmouth, R.I., contractor faces maximum allowed fine of $70,000 from U.S. Labor Department's OSHA for cave-in hazard at Newport, R.I., site
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Portsmouth, R.I., contractor with a history of trenching safety violations faces $70,000 in proposed fines – the maximum allowed – from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for an unguarded trench at a Newport, R.I., worksite.
An OSHA inspection of a water main installation project located at the intersection of Parker and Bellevue Avenues found an East Coast Construction employee working in a straight-walled, six-foot deep trench that lacked any protection against a cave-in of its sidewalls.
"All excavations five feet or deeper must be protected against collapse, a requirement this employer knows well, having been cited three times previously for lack of cave-in protection" said Patrick Griffin, OSHA's area director in Rhode Island. "This safeguard is essential since the sidewalls of a trench can collapse and bury workers within seconds. There's no real margin of error and no good excuse for allowing an employee to work in an unprotected trench."
As a result, East Coast Construction was cited for one alleged willful violation of safety standards. OSHA has proposed the maximum allowed fine since the company was cited by OSHA in 2005 and 2006 for similar hazards at worksites in Portsmouth, R.I. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Excavation safety is a top priority for OSHA and the agency's inspectors will stop and open an inspection on the spot if they observe an apparently unprotected trench. Detailed information on excavation safety, including a trenching "Quick Card" and an interactive eTool, is available on OSHA's Web site at www.osha.gov/SLTC/constructiontrenching/index.html.
Portsmouth, R.I., contractor faces maximum allowed fine of $70,000 from U.S. Labor Department's OSHA for cave-in hazard at Newport, R.I., site
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Portsmouth, R.I., contractor with a history of trenching safety violations faces $70,000 in proposed fines – the maximum allowed – from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for an unguarded trench at a Newport, R.I., worksite.
An OSHA inspection of a water main installation project located at the intersection of Parker and Bellevue Avenues found an East Coast Construction employee working in a straight-walled, six-foot deep trench that lacked any protection against a cave-in of its sidewalls.
"All excavations five feet or deeper must be protected against collapse, a requirement this employer knows well, having been cited three times previously for lack of cave-in protection" said Patrick Griffin, OSHA's area director in Rhode Island. "This safeguard is essential since the sidewalls of a trench can collapse and bury workers within seconds. There's no real margin of error and no good excuse for allowing an employee to work in an unprotected trench."
As a result, East Coast Construction was cited for one alleged willful violation of safety standards. OSHA has proposed the maximum allowed fine since the company was cited by OSHA in 2005 and 2006 for similar hazards at worksites in Portsmouth, R.I. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Excavation safety is a top priority for OSHA and the agency's inspectors will stop and open an inspection on the spot if they observe an apparently unprotected trench. Detailed information on excavation safety, including a trenching "Quick Card" and an interactive eTool, is available on OSHA's Web site at www.osha.gov/SLTC/constructiontrenching/index.html.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Free Safety Videos
The Hawaii Occupational and Health Department (HIOSH) offers several safety training videos that are available free online. Employers in Hawaii also have the option of obtaining DVD copies of the videos. The videos are available at: http://www.hawaii.gov/labor/hiosh/videos.shtml
Currently three videos are available, Construction Safety, Fall Protection Safety, and Small Business Safety.
Construction Safety: This video gives a basic overview of construction safety standards including the eight important safety areas related to construction: Fall Arrest, Scaffolding, Heavy Machinery, Electricity, Excavations, Chemicals, Ladders and Personal Protection.
Fall Protection Safety: This video focuses on fall protection in the construction industry. It educates workers about fall protection and the potentially devastating consequences of not adhering to it.
Small Business Safety: This video explains the Five-Point Workplace Program, Starting a Company's Voluntary Activity, Conducting a Self-Inspection and Available Assistance and Resources. This safety video is targeted for small business owners, employers and employees.
Currently three videos are available, Construction Safety, Fall Protection Safety, and Small Business Safety.
Construction Safety: This video gives a basic overview of construction safety standards including the eight important safety areas related to construction: Fall Arrest, Scaffolding, Heavy Machinery, Electricity, Excavations, Chemicals, Ladders and Personal Protection.
Fall Protection Safety: This video focuses on fall protection in the construction industry. It educates workers about fall protection and the potentially devastating consequences of not adhering to it.
Small Business Safety: This video explains the Five-Point Workplace Program, Starting a Company's Voluntary Activity, Conducting a Self-Inspection and Available Assistance and Resources. This safety video is targeted for small business owners, employers and employees.
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, April 05, 2007
OSHA Revises Electrical Installation Standard
The following is from a news report about revisions of OSHA's Electrical Installation Standard (Subpart S of 29 CFR Part 1910) in EC&M Magazine:
"According to OSHA, 'The agency has determined that electrical hazards in the workplace pose a significant risk of injury or death to employees, and that the requirements in the revised standard, which draw heavily from the 2000 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces (NFPA 70E), and the 2002 edition of the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70), are reasonably necessary to provide protection from these hazards.'"
An OSHA press release provides additional information. It states:
"Changes to OSHA's general industry electrical installation standard focus on safety in the design and installation of electric equipment in the workplace. The updated standard includes a new alternative method for classifying and installing equipment in Class I hazardous locations; new requirements for ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) and new provisions on wiring for carnivals and similar installations."
"The final rule updates the general industry electrical installation requirements to the 2000 edition of the NFPA 70E, which was used as the foundation of the revised standard. The final rule also replaces the reference to the 1971 National Electrical Code in the mandatory appendix to the powered platform standard with a reference to OSHA's electrical installation standard."
You'll find the OSHA "Electrical Standard; Final Rule - 72:7135-7221" online at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=19269
"According to OSHA, 'The agency has determined that electrical hazards in the workplace pose a significant risk of injury or death to employees, and that the requirements in the revised standard, which draw heavily from the 2000 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces (NFPA 70E), and the 2002 edition of the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70), are reasonably necessary to provide protection from these hazards.'"
An OSHA press release provides additional information. It states:
"Changes to OSHA's general industry electrical installation standard focus on safety in the design and installation of electric equipment in the workplace. The updated standard includes a new alternative method for classifying and installing equipment in Class I hazardous locations; new requirements for ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) and new provisions on wiring for carnivals and similar installations."
"The final rule updates the general industry electrical installation requirements to the 2000 edition of the NFPA 70E, which was used as the foundation of the revised standard. The final rule also replaces the reference to the 1971 National Electrical Code in the mandatory appendix to the powered platform standard with a reference to OSHA's electrical installation standard."
You'll find the OSHA "Electrical Standard; Final Rule - 72:7135-7221" online at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=19269
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
