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).
Thursday, January 14, 2010
OSHA Proposes $233,500 In Fines Against Long Island Store
OSHA has cited Home Goods (Commack, Long Island, NY) for 16 alleged violations of workplace safety standards. The retailer faces a total of $233,500 in proposed fines, chiefly for exit access, fire and crushing hazards.
Responding to an employee complaint, OSHA found exit routes obstructed by stock and equipment, an exit route too narrow for passage, stacked material that prevented employees from identifying the nearest exit, blocked access to fire extinguishers, workers not trained in fire extinguisher use and boxes stored in unstable 8-foot high tiers.
OSHA had cited Home Goods in 2006 and 2007 for similar conditions at the company's Mount Olive, N.J., and Somers, N.Y., locations. As a result of these recurring conditions, OSHA issued the company five repeat citations, with $200,000 in proposed fines, for the hazards at the Commack store.
"It's been 99 years since the fire at The Triangle Shirtwaist Co. in New York City took the lives of nearly 150 workers and almost 19 years since two workers were killed when they were unable to exit the McCrory's store in Huntington Station, N.Y., during a fire," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Blocked fire exits can be deadly. It is that simple."
OSHA's Commack inspection identified additional hazards, including a defective fire alarm box, a missing exit sign, electrical hazards and inadequate chemical hazard communication. These conditions resulted in nine serious citations, with $32,500 in fines. 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. Finally, the store was issued one other-than-serious citation, with a $1,000 fine, for not providing injury and illness logs.
"There can be no delay in exiting a workplace during a fire or other emergency when the difference between escape and injury or death can be measured in seconds," said Michaels. "Employers must ensure that exit routes are unobstructed at all locations."
"One means of preventing recurring hazards is for employers to establish an effective comprehensive workplace safety and health program through which involve their employees in proactively evaluating, identifying and eliminating hazards," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.
A fact sheet covering emergency exit routes is available at http://www.safe-workplace.com/osha-safety/emergency-exit-routes-osha-factsheet.pdf.
Responding to an employee complaint, OSHA found exit routes obstructed by stock and equipment, an exit route too narrow for passage, stacked material that prevented employees from identifying the nearest exit, blocked access to fire extinguishers, workers not trained in fire extinguisher use and boxes stored in unstable 8-foot high tiers.
OSHA had cited Home Goods in 2006 and 2007 for similar conditions at the company's Mount Olive, N.J., and Somers, N.Y., locations. As a result of these recurring conditions, OSHA issued the company five repeat citations, with $200,000 in proposed fines, for the hazards at the Commack store.
"It's been 99 years since the fire at The Triangle Shirtwaist Co. in New York City took the lives of nearly 150 workers and almost 19 years since two workers were killed when they were unable to exit the McCrory's store in Huntington Station, N.Y., during a fire," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Blocked fire exits can be deadly. It is that simple."
OSHA's Commack inspection identified additional hazards, including a defective fire alarm box, a missing exit sign, electrical hazards and inadequate chemical hazard communication. These conditions resulted in nine serious citations, with $32,500 in fines. 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. Finally, the store was issued one other-than-serious citation, with a $1,000 fine, for not providing injury and illness logs.
"There can be no delay in exiting a workplace during a fire or other emergency when the difference between escape and injury or death can be measured in seconds," said Michaels. "Employers must ensure that exit routes are unobstructed at all locations."
"One means of preventing recurring hazards is for employers to establish an effective comprehensive workplace safety and health program through which involve their employees in proactively evaluating, identifying and eliminating hazards," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.
A fact sheet covering emergency exit routes is available at http://www.safe-workplace.com/osha-safety/emergency-exit-routes-osha-factsheet.pdf.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, November 19, 2009
GAO Reports Workplace Injuries Are Underreported
Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data
Read more about this in the Las Vegas Sun
What The GAO Found:
The Department Of Labor verifies some of the workplace injury and illness data it collects from employers through OSHA’s audits of employers’ records, but these efforts may not be adequate. OSHA overlooks information from workers about injuries and illnesses because it does not routinely interview them as part of its records audits. OSHA annually audits the records of a representative sample of about 250 of the approximately 130,000 worksites in the high hazard industries it surveys to verify the accuracy of the data on injuries and illnesses recorded by employers. However, OSHA does not always require inspectors to interview workers about injuries and illnesses—the only source of data not provided by employers—which could assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the records.
In addition, some OSHA inspectors reported they rarely learn about injuries and illnesses from workers since the records audits are conducted about 2 years after incidents are recorded.
Moreover, many workers are no longer employed at the worksite and therefore cannot be interviewed.
OSHA also does not review the accuracy of injury and illness records for worksites in eight high hazard industries because it has not updated the industry codes used to identify these industries since 2002.
OSHA officials told GAO they have not updated the industry codes because it would require a regulatory change that is not currently an agency priority. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also collects data on work-related injuries and illnesses recorded by employers through its annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), but it does not verify the accuracy of the data. Although BLS is not required to verify the accuracy of the SOII data, it has recognized several limitations in the data, such as its limited scope, and has taken or is planning several actions to improve the quality and completeness of the SOII.
According to stakeholders interviewed and the occupational health practitioners GAO surveyed, many factors affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including disincentives that may discourage workers from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses to their employers and disincentives that may discourage employers from recording them.
For example, workers may not report a work-related injury or illness because they fear job loss or other disciplinary action, or fear jeopardizing rewards based on having low injury and illness rates. In addition, employers may not record injuries or illnesses because they are afraid of increasing their workers’ compensation costs or jeopardizing their chances of winning contract bids for new work.
Disincentives for reporting and recording injuries and illnesses can result in pressure on occupational health practitioners from employers or workers to provide insufficient medical treatment that avoids the need to record the injury or illness.
From its survey of U.S. health practitioners, GAO found that over a third of them had been subjected to such pressure.
In addition, stakeholders and the survey results indicated that other factors may affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including a lack of understanding of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements by individuals responsible for recording injuries and illnesses.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to:
1 -require inspectors to interview workers during records audits, and substitute other workers when those initially selected are unavailable.
2 - minimize the time between the date injuries and illnesses are recorded by employers and the date they are audited
3 - update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for records audits
4 - increase education and training to help employers better understand the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA agreed with these recommendations.
Read more about this in the Las Vegas Sun
What The GAO Found:
The Department Of Labor verifies some of the workplace injury and illness data it collects from employers through OSHA’s audits of employers’ records, but these efforts may not be adequate. OSHA overlooks information from workers about injuries and illnesses because it does not routinely interview them as part of its records audits. OSHA annually audits the records of a representative sample of about 250 of the approximately 130,000 worksites in the high hazard industries it surveys to verify the accuracy of the data on injuries and illnesses recorded by employers. However, OSHA does not always require inspectors to interview workers about injuries and illnesses—the only source of data not provided by employers—which could assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the records.
In addition, some OSHA inspectors reported they rarely learn about injuries and illnesses from workers since the records audits are conducted about 2 years after incidents are recorded.
Moreover, many workers are no longer employed at the worksite and therefore cannot be interviewed.
OSHA also does not review the accuracy of injury and illness records for worksites in eight high hazard industries because it has not updated the industry codes used to identify these industries since 2002.
OSHA officials told GAO they have not updated the industry codes because it would require a regulatory change that is not currently an agency priority. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also collects data on work-related injuries and illnesses recorded by employers through its annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), but it does not verify the accuracy of the data. Although BLS is not required to verify the accuracy of the SOII data, it has recognized several limitations in the data, such as its limited scope, and has taken or is planning several actions to improve the quality and completeness of the SOII.
According to stakeholders interviewed and the occupational health practitioners GAO surveyed, many factors affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including disincentives that may discourage workers from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses to their employers and disincentives that may discourage employers from recording them.
For example, workers may not report a work-related injury or illness because they fear job loss or other disciplinary action, or fear jeopardizing rewards based on having low injury and illness rates. In addition, employers may not record injuries or illnesses because they are afraid of increasing their workers’ compensation costs or jeopardizing their chances of winning contract bids for new work.
Disincentives for reporting and recording injuries and illnesses can result in pressure on occupational health practitioners from employers or workers to provide insufficient medical treatment that avoids the need to record the injury or illness.
From its survey of U.S. health practitioners, GAO found that over a third of them had been subjected to such pressure.
In addition, stakeholders and the survey results indicated that other factors may affect the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness data, including a lack of understanding of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements by individuals responsible for recording injuries and illnesses.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to:
1 -require inspectors to interview workers during records audits, and substitute other workers when those initially selected are unavailable.
2 - minimize the time between the date injuries and illnesses are recorded by employers and the date they are audited
3 - update the list of high hazard industries used to select worksites for records audits
4 - increase education and training to help employers better understand the recordkeeping requirements. OSHA agreed with these recommendations.
Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, July 23, 2009
OSHA Plans July 31 Firing Of Professed Whistleblower
The Charlotte Observer reports that "Bob Whitmore, an OSHA official who has publicly criticized his agency for failing to get tough with companies that try to hide workplace injuries, has lost a key round in his fight to hold on to his job."
Mr. Whitmore has been outspoken about OSHA letting companies under report workplace injuries through careless record keeping. The result was that workplaces appeared to be safer than they really were.
Charlotte Observer "reporters spoke with Whitmore starting in spring 2006 while reporting on injuries inside poultry plants. The newspaper's investigation, published in February 2008, found that many injured employees weren't showing up on company injury logs. That made plants appear safer than they actually were."
Mr. Whitmore has been outspoken about OSHA letting companies under report workplace injuries through careless record keeping. The result was that workplaces appeared to be safer than they really were.
Charlotte Observer "reporters spoke with Whitmore starting in spring 2006 while reporting on injuries inside poultry plants. The newspaper's investigation, published in February 2008, found that many injured employees weren't showing up on company injury logs. That made plants appear safer than they actually were."
Labels: OSHA, osha information, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
What To Consider When Deciding Whether To Contest An OSHA Citation
The following question was asked on Business Management Daily this past Saturday.
"Our company just received a citation from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The proposed penalty is only $120. Is it worth getting a lawyer involved, or should we just go ahead and pay the fine?"
Michael Fox of Ogletree Deakins P.C. in Austin, Texas answered the question by saying, yes it is worth getting a lawyer involved. You can read his answer here.
"Our company just received a citation from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The proposed penalty is only $120. Is it worth getting a lawyer involved, or should we just go ahead and pay the fine?"
Michael Fox of Ogletree Deakins P.C. in Austin, Texas answered the question by saying, yes it is worth getting a lawyer involved. You can read his answer here.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
OSHA Proposes More Than $1.1 Million In Penalties
OSHA has cited Milk Specialties Co. in Whitehall, Wisconsin with violations of federal workplace safety and health standards and proposed $1,145,200 in penalties.
OSHA began a December 2008 inspection in response to a complaint alleging a variety of safety hazards at the company's whey processing plant. Willful citations have been issued for the employer's failure to comply with OSHA's confined space entry and control of hazardous energy requirements. Untrained employees entered confined spaces and performed maintenance and cleaning on powered equipment without protection from various hazards. Proposed penalties for the 17 willful violations total $1,071,000. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
"I am committed to ensuring workers return home to their families safe and healthy at the end of every shift," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Employers must fully address hazards, properly train their employees and plan their work in a safe manner."
Seventeen serious citations, with proposed penalties totaling $52,400, include combustible dust and electrical hazards; lack of exit route lighting and signage; lack of confined space evaluations; uninspected fire extinguishers; and untrained and uncertified powered industrial truck operators, among other issues. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result if an accident were to occur from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Four repeat violations with penalties totaling $21,800 address the guarding of floor and wall openings, ladders and respiratory protection, and other issues addressed in previous inspections of this company. OSHA issues a repeat citation when it finds an employer's violation is substantially similar to a previously cited condition that was affirmed as a violation through a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Milk Specialties has been inspected by OSHA 15 times since 1974, including four inspections in Wisconsin between 2006 and 2008, with citations resulting from many of the same safety and health hazards cited in the most recent inspection.
The company engages in the research, development and manufacture of protein and fat products for nutritional applications and feeding regimes that include products such as pasteurized milk extenders, spray-dried protein encapsulated fats, dried whey permeates, and condensed whey and liquid whey products.
Related Posts:
OSHA Inspector Helps Avert Injury
Top Ten OSHA Violations in 2008
You Can't Win
OSHA began a December 2008 inspection in response to a complaint alleging a variety of safety hazards at the company's whey processing plant. Willful citations have been issued for the employer's failure to comply with OSHA's confined space entry and control of hazardous energy requirements. Untrained employees entered confined spaces and performed maintenance and cleaning on powered equipment without protection from various hazards. Proposed penalties for the 17 willful violations total $1,071,000. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
"I am committed to ensuring workers return home to their families safe and healthy at the end of every shift," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Employers must fully address hazards, properly train their employees and plan their work in a safe manner."
Seventeen serious citations, with proposed penalties totaling $52,400, include combustible dust and electrical hazards; lack of exit route lighting and signage; lack of confined space evaluations; uninspected fire extinguishers; and untrained and uncertified powered industrial truck operators, among other issues. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result if an accident were to occur from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Four repeat violations with penalties totaling $21,800 address the guarding of floor and wall openings, ladders and respiratory protection, and other issues addressed in previous inspections of this company. OSHA issues a repeat citation when it finds an employer's violation is substantially similar to a previously cited condition that was affirmed as a violation through a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Milk Specialties has been inspected by OSHA 15 times since 1974, including four inspections in Wisconsin between 2006 and 2008, with citations resulting from many of the same safety and health hazards cited in the most recent inspection.
The company engages in the research, development and manufacture of protein and fat products for nutritional applications and feeding regimes that include products such as pasteurized milk extenders, spray-dried protein encapsulated fats, dried whey permeates, and condensed whey and liquid whey products.
Related Posts:
OSHA Inspector Helps Avert Injury
Top Ten OSHA Violations in 2008
You Can't Win
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, June 12, 2009
OSHA Proposes More Than $255,000 in Fines Against New Hampshire Firearms Manufacturer
OSHA has proposed $255,150 in fines against Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc. for 60 alleged violations of safety and health standards identified during the agency's inspections of the firearms manufacturer's Newport, N.H., plant conducted between November 2008 and May 2009.
"Our inspections identified a large number of mechanical, respirator protection, electrical, lead, fire, explosive and other hazards that must be effectively and continuously addressed to protect the workers at this plant from potentially deadly or disabling injuries and illnesses now and in the future," said Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA's area director in New Hampshire.
OSHA found that the company failed to guard rotating parts on drill presses, sanding and polishing machines despite its knowledge that employees were exposed to severe or fatal injuries if they came in contact with the rotating parts. As a result, OSHA has issued the company one willful citation with $63,000 in proposed fines. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Additional safety hazards include the lack of spark detectors or suppression systems to minimize fire and explosion hazards in ventilation systems that collect combustible wood and metal dust; allowing combustible dust to accumulate; unguarded floors and platforms; lack of eyewashes and adequate personal protective equipment; inadequate procedures, equipment and training to lock out machines' power sources; improper storage of compressed gas cylinders; damaged, improperly used or ungrounded electrical equipment; additional unguarded machinery; and deficiencies with paint spray booths, confined space rescue, compressed air, forklifts and the transfer of flammable liquids.
The health inspection identified employees exposed to excess levels of lead dust; inadequate lead monitoring, training, hygiene, cleaning and disposal methods; inappropriate selection of respirators for lead; improper respirator fit-testing and use; no medical evaluations for employees using respirators; no refitting and retraining for employees who experienced a hearing threshold shift; and unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals.
These conditions resulted in the issuance of 55 serious citations with $188,550 in fines. 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 also has been fined $3,600 and issued four other-than-serious citations for inadequate recordkeeping.
Sturm Ruger has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with the area director or contest them before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Concord Area Office; telephone 603-225-1629.
"Our inspections identified a large number of mechanical, respirator protection, electrical, lead, fire, explosive and other hazards that must be effectively and continuously addressed to protect the workers at this plant from potentially deadly or disabling injuries and illnesses now and in the future," said Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA's area director in New Hampshire.
OSHA found that the company failed to guard rotating parts on drill presses, sanding and polishing machines despite its knowledge that employees were exposed to severe or fatal injuries if they came in contact with the rotating parts. As a result, OSHA has issued the company one willful citation with $63,000 in proposed fines. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Additional safety hazards include the lack of spark detectors or suppression systems to minimize fire and explosion hazards in ventilation systems that collect combustible wood and metal dust; allowing combustible dust to accumulate; unguarded floors and platforms; lack of eyewashes and adequate personal protective equipment; inadequate procedures, equipment and training to lock out machines' power sources; improper storage of compressed gas cylinders; damaged, improperly used or ungrounded electrical equipment; additional unguarded machinery; and deficiencies with paint spray booths, confined space rescue, compressed air, forklifts and the transfer of flammable liquids.
The health inspection identified employees exposed to excess levels of lead dust; inadequate lead monitoring, training, hygiene, cleaning and disposal methods; inappropriate selection of respirators for lead; improper respirator fit-testing and use; no medical evaluations for employees using respirators; no refitting and retraining for employees who experienced a hearing threshold shift; and unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals.
These conditions resulted in the issuance of 55 serious citations with $188,550 in fines. 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 also has been fined $3,600 and issued four other-than-serious citations for inadequate recordkeeping.
Sturm Ruger has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with the area director or contest them before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Concord Area Office; telephone 603-225-1629.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, May 01, 2009
OSHA Program Suspended By OSHA Head Jordan Barab
A special worker health and safety program that targets employers that repeatedly put their workers in harms way is not working and needs to be refocused, witnesses told the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee today.
"After six years of operation, it’s clear that the Enhanced Enforcement Program original design is flawed, and that OSHA under the Bush administration did not implement the program as intended," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the subcommittee. "We need to know why the program is not working and what we can do to fix it. The EEP has failed hundreds of workers like Jesus Rojas, and that is just not acceptable."
The Enhanced Enforcement Program, created in 2003 by the Bush administration after an exposé into the poor safety and health record of the McWane Corporation, identifies high risk employers by their past behavior and targets them for additional scrutiny. However, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General found the Bush federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not properly carry out the initiative and it failed to effectively deter employers from putting workers’ lives at risk.
"It is essential that OSHA target its limited resources to inspect workplaces with the highest risk of hazardous conditions that have greater potential to cause injuries and fatalities," said Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audits at the U.S. Department of Labor. "While we cannot conclude that the enhanced enforcement would prevent subsequent fatalities, full and proper application of EEP procedures may have deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred."
The Inspector General report also referenced additional businesses that should have been included in the Enhanced Enforcement Program, but never were. The report cited the death of Raul Figueroa, a mechanic at Waste Management in Florida who was killed while repairing a truck. OSHA cited Waste Management for a serious violation that resulted in the death of Figueroa.
"For some time before his death, my stepfather complained about safety problems at the facility,” said Jesus Royas, Figueroa’s stepson. "Companies like Waste Management should not be allowed to cut corners and compromise safety."
Witnesses also said the current program is too limited in scope because it does not focus on corporate-wide investigations and does not focus on the most flagrant violations that occur before workers are killed.
"What is needed is a more systemic, holistic examination of the current OSHA enforcement regime," said Eric Frumin, director of health and safety at Change to Win. "Waste Management's OSHA violations increased by 28 percent over the period 2003 to 2007. If Waste Management had implemented a comprehensive safety program, and held its managers accountable, Raul Figueroa might well be alive today."
The current head of OSHA testified that the agency is working on improving the Enhanced Enforcement Program.
"The Enhanced Enforcement Program was designed…to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers," said Jordan Barab, acting head of OSHA. "OSHA is exploring ways to reinvigorate the EEP, and the OIG report provides a starting point for our efforts to do this in the most effective way."
"After six years of operation, it’s clear that the Enhanced Enforcement Program original design is flawed, and that OSHA under the Bush administration did not implement the program as intended," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the subcommittee. "We need to know why the program is not working and what we can do to fix it. The EEP has failed hundreds of workers like Jesus Rojas, and that is just not acceptable."
The Enhanced Enforcement Program, created in 2003 by the Bush administration after an exposé into the poor safety and health record of the McWane Corporation, identifies high risk employers by their past behavior and targets them for additional scrutiny. However, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General found the Bush federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not properly carry out the initiative and it failed to effectively deter employers from putting workers’ lives at risk.
"It is essential that OSHA target its limited resources to inspect workplaces with the highest risk of hazardous conditions that have greater potential to cause injuries and fatalities," said Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audits at the U.S. Department of Labor. "While we cannot conclude that the enhanced enforcement would prevent subsequent fatalities, full and proper application of EEP procedures may have deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred."
The Inspector General report also referenced additional businesses that should have been included in the Enhanced Enforcement Program, but never were. The report cited the death of Raul Figueroa, a mechanic at Waste Management in Florida who was killed while repairing a truck. OSHA cited Waste Management for a serious violation that resulted in the death of Figueroa.
"For some time before his death, my stepfather complained about safety problems at the facility,” said Jesus Royas, Figueroa’s stepson. "Companies like Waste Management should not be allowed to cut corners and compromise safety."
Witnesses also said the current program is too limited in scope because it does not focus on corporate-wide investigations and does not focus on the most flagrant violations that occur before workers are killed.
"What is needed is a more systemic, holistic examination of the current OSHA enforcement regime," said Eric Frumin, director of health and safety at Change to Win. "Waste Management's OSHA violations increased by 28 percent over the period 2003 to 2007. If Waste Management had implemented a comprehensive safety program, and held its managers accountable, Raul Figueroa might well be alive today."
The current head of OSHA testified that the agency is working on improving the Enhanced Enforcement Program.
"The Enhanced Enforcement Program was designed…to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers," said Jordan Barab, acting head of OSHA. "OSHA is exploring ways to reinvigorate the EEP, and the OIG report provides a starting point for our efforts to do this in the most effective way."
Labels: OSHA, osha information, OSHA Inspections, safety management, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Worker Safety Jeopardized by OSHA Initiative
Reports this week in the Charleston (WV) Gazette and Charlotte (NC) Observer reveal that "The U.S. Labor Department did not properly enforce laws designed to crack down on employers with a history of workplace safety violations..."
A Labor Department audit has concluded that that in 97% of the cases sampled OSHA did not properly follow its own procedures when targeting workplaces with a history of job-related fatalities.
The Charleston Gazetted reports that "The study found that officials failed to gather needed data, conducted uneven inspections and enforcement, and sometimes failed to notice repeat fatalities because records misspelled the companies' names or failed to notice when two subsidiaries with the same owner were involved."
The Charlottre Observer noted that state OSHA programs were not doing any better: "The Carolinas weren't included because they run their own OSHA programs. But regulators in the Carolinas have also missed chances to take stiff action against repeat violators."
Read the complete articles:
The Charleston (WV) Gazette
The Charlotte (NC) Observer
A Labor Department audit has concluded that that in 97% of the cases sampled OSHA did not properly follow its own procedures when targeting workplaces with a history of job-related fatalities.
The Charleston Gazetted reports that "The study found that officials failed to gather needed data, conducted uneven inspections and enforcement, and sometimes failed to notice repeat fatalities because records misspelled the companies' names or failed to notice when two subsidiaries with the same owner were involved."
The Charlottre Observer noted that state OSHA programs were not doing any better: "The Carolinas weren't included because they run their own OSHA programs. But regulators in the Carolinas have also missed chances to take stiff action against repeat violators."
Read the complete articles:
The Charleston (WV) Gazette
The Charlotte (NC) Observer
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
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
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Revised OSHA Field Operations Manual Enhances Compliance Assistance And Enforcement
A revised Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Field Operations Manual now provides OSHA Compliance Officers with a single source of updated information and guidance to more effectively protect employees from occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.
The Field Operations Manual is the guiding document for OSHA's Compliance Officers, whose mission is to assure the safety and health of America's working men and women. The manual assists Compliance Officers in scheduling and conducting inspections, enforcing regulations, and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. The manual also guides Compliance Officers on how to inform employers about cooperative programs—such as On-Site Consultation, Strategic Partnerships, and the Voluntary Protection Program—to help them eliminate potential or existing hazards from the workplace.
"The new Field Operations Manual is a comprehensive resource of existing OSHA policy and procedural documents," said Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "It gives Compliance Officers important guidance in implementing OSHA's balanced approach to workplace safety and health: enforcement, education and training, and cooperative programs. The Field Operations Manual will also be a resource for employees and employers, giving them a consolidated reference on how OSHA expects workplaces to be made safe and healthy. This is part of OSHA's continuing commitment to make its standards and enforcement activities transparent and understandable to all parties."
The Field Operations Manual (FOM), formerly called the Field Inspection Reference Manual, constitutes OSHA's general enforcement policy and procedures for use by the field offices in conducting inspections, issuing citations and proposing penalties.
Read the OSHA Field Operations Manual here (321 pages).
The significant changes in the new FOM are:
• Cancels and replaces the Field Inspection Reference Manual (FIRM).
• Cancels sections D. and E. of Chapter VI of the prior Field Operations Manual.
• Cancels Chapter XII of the prior Field Operations Manual.
• Will consist of the following chapters:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Program Planning
Chapter 3. Inspection Procedures
Chapter 4. Violations
Chapter 5. Case File Preparations and Documentation
Chapter 6. Penalties and Debt Collection
Chapter 7. Post-Citation Procedures and Abatement Verification
Chapter 8. Settlements
Chapter 9. Complaint and Referral Processing
Chapter 10. Industry Sectors
• I. Agriculture
• II. Construction [Reserved]
• III. Maritime [Reserved]
Chapter 11. Imminent Danger, Fatality, Catastrophe and Emergency Response
Abstract-4
Chapter 12. Specialized Inspection Procedures
• I. Multi-Employer Workplace/site Policy [Reserved]
• II. Temporary Labor Camps
Chapter 13. Federal Agency Safety and Health Programs [Reserved]
Chapter 14. Health Inspection Enforcement Policy [Reserved]
Chapter 15. Legal Issues
Chapter 16. Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
The Field Operations Manual is the guiding document for OSHA's Compliance Officers, whose mission is to assure the safety and health of America's working men and women. The manual assists Compliance Officers in scheduling and conducting inspections, enforcing regulations, and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. The manual also guides Compliance Officers on how to inform employers about cooperative programs—such as On-Site Consultation, Strategic Partnerships, and the Voluntary Protection Program—to help them eliminate potential or existing hazards from the workplace.
"The new Field Operations Manual is a comprehensive resource of existing OSHA policy and procedural documents," said Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "It gives Compliance Officers important guidance in implementing OSHA's balanced approach to workplace safety and health: enforcement, education and training, and cooperative programs. The Field Operations Manual will also be a resource for employees and employers, giving them a consolidated reference on how OSHA expects workplaces to be made safe and healthy. This is part of OSHA's continuing commitment to make its standards and enforcement activities transparent and understandable to all parties."
The Field Operations Manual (FOM), formerly called the Field Inspection Reference Manual, constitutes OSHA's general enforcement policy and procedures for use by the field offices in conducting inspections, issuing citations and proposing penalties.
Read the OSHA Field Operations Manual here (321 pages).
The significant changes in the new FOM are:
• Cancels and replaces the Field Inspection Reference Manual (FIRM).
• Cancels sections D. and E. of Chapter VI of the prior Field Operations Manual.
• Cancels Chapter XII of the prior Field Operations Manual.
• Will consist of the following chapters:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Program Planning
Chapter 3. Inspection Procedures
Chapter 4. Violations
Chapter 5. Case File Preparations and Documentation
Chapter 6. Penalties and Debt Collection
Chapter 7. Post-Citation Procedures and Abatement Verification
Chapter 8. Settlements
Chapter 9. Complaint and Referral Processing
Chapter 10. Industry Sectors
• I. Agriculture
• II. Construction [Reserved]
• III. Maritime [Reserved]
Chapter 11. Imminent Danger, Fatality, Catastrophe and Emergency Response
Abstract-4
Chapter 12. Specialized Inspection Procedures
• I. Multi-Employer Workplace/site Policy [Reserved]
• II. Temporary Labor Camps
Chapter 13. Federal Agency Safety and Health Programs [Reserved]
Chapter 14. Health Inspection Enforcement Policy [Reserved]
Chapter 15. Legal Issues
Chapter 16. Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Labels: osha information, OSHA Inspections, OSHA Signs
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
OSHA Highlights A Successful Enforcement Year In 2008
OSHA continued to exceed enforcement goals during Fiscal Year 2008 according to data released last week. The agency's emphasis on identifying and eliminating serious safety and health hazards has resulted in an unprecedented 80 percent of all violations issued being in the most serious categories.
Nationwide, OSHA logged 87,687 violations of its standards and regulations for worker safety and health, with 67,052 of these violations cited as "serious." The proportion of those violations classified as endangering employees is at the highest level ever, and this administration has made more criminal referrals for wrongdoing under the Occupational Safety and Health Act than any previous one, including 12 in 2008 alone. Additionally, in 2008, OSHA conducted close to 39,000 worksite inspections, surpassing the agency's goal for the year by 2.4 percent. On average, 4,000 more workplace inspections were completed each year (38,515) between 2001-2008 as compared to the prior administration 1993-2000 (34,508).
"Workplace inspections and issuing citations are a critical part of OSHA's balanced approach to improving workplace safety, but the real test of success is saving lives and preventing injuries, " said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "According to preliminary numbers for 2007, the workplace fatality rate has declined 14 percent since 2001, and since 2002, the workplace injury and illness rate has dropped 21 percent - with both at all time lows. This year's inspection numbers show that the strategic approach used by OSHA - targeting highest hazard workplaces for aggressive enforcement while also using education, training, and cooperative programs to improve overall compliance - can help achieve significant reductions in workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities."
Innovative approaches such as the Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP), Site Specific Targeting and National Emphasis Programs (NEP) are methods OSHA uses to target the most hazardous workplaces and employers with high injury and illness rates. EEP's purpose is to pursue employers with a history of serious, willful and/or repeat violations with OSHA. During the program's first five years (FY 2004 to 2008), OSHA identified 2,471 inspections that qualified for the EEP. Site-Specific Targeting allows OSHA to focus its enforcement efforts on workplaces with the highest rated injuries and illnesses.
In FY 2008, 3,800 worksites were targeted for unannounced comprehensive safety inspections. The NEPs focus on major health and/or safety hazards of recognized national significance. They also guide OSHA field offices to plan programs and conduct inspections consistently across the nation. Areas of emphasis include combustible dust, lead, process safety management, diacetyl and trenching. During FY 2008, OSHA conducted 8,730 inspections related to an NEP.
Nationwide, OSHA logged 87,687 violations of its standards and regulations for worker safety and health, with 67,052 of these violations cited as "serious." The proportion of those violations classified as endangering employees is at the highest level ever, and this administration has made more criminal referrals for wrongdoing under the Occupational Safety and Health Act than any previous one, including 12 in 2008 alone. Additionally, in 2008, OSHA conducted close to 39,000 worksite inspections, surpassing the agency's goal for the year by 2.4 percent. On average, 4,000 more workplace inspections were completed each year (38,515) between 2001-2008 as compared to the prior administration 1993-2000 (34,508).
"Workplace inspections and issuing citations are a critical part of OSHA's balanced approach to improving workplace safety, but the real test of success is saving lives and preventing injuries, " said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. "According to preliminary numbers for 2007, the workplace fatality rate has declined 14 percent since 2001, and since 2002, the workplace injury and illness rate has dropped 21 percent - with both at all time lows. This year's inspection numbers show that the strategic approach used by OSHA - targeting highest hazard workplaces for aggressive enforcement while also using education, training, and cooperative programs to improve overall compliance - can help achieve significant reductions in workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities."
Innovative approaches such as the Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP), Site Specific Targeting and National Emphasis Programs (NEP) are methods OSHA uses to target the most hazardous workplaces and employers with high injury and illness rates. EEP's purpose is to pursue employers with a history of serious, willful and/or repeat violations with OSHA. During the program's first five years (FY 2004 to 2008), OSHA identified 2,471 inspections that qualified for the EEP. Site-Specific Targeting allows OSHA to focus its enforcement efforts on workplaces with the highest rated injuries and illnesses.
In FY 2008, 3,800 worksites were targeted for unannounced comprehensive safety inspections. The NEPs focus on major health and/or safety hazards of recognized national significance. They also guide OSHA field offices to plan programs and conduct inspections consistently across the nation. Areas of emphasis include combustible dust, lead, process safety management, diacetyl and trenching. During FY 2008, OSHA conducted 8,730 inspections related to an NEP.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Falls, Electrical, Scaffold And Rigging Violations Are Top Cited Hazards In NYC
Fall hazards were the most frequently cited violation found at New York City construction sites by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) during a two-week enhanced enforcement effort this past summer.
As part of its New York City construction safety task force, OSHA detailed 12 inspectors to conduct 96 safety inspections at 46 construction sites throughout the city from June 23 to July 3. The sites were randomly selected to encompass a cross-section of high-risk construction activities including tower cranes, high-rise construction, poured-in-place concrete operations, steel erection, gut-rehab and other high-risk construction activities.
Citations were issued to 60 contractors for 129 violations with a total of $247,400 in proposed fines. The major categories of violations cited included fall hazards (39), electrical safety (29), scaffolds (17), cranes and rigging (13), welding/gas (10) and 20 other categories covering personal protective equipment, tools, material handling, concrete, hoists, stairs and ladders.
"These violations are consistent with the types of hazards we find on far too many jobsites and cannot be written off as the inevitable by-products of an inherently dangerous profession," said Richard Mendelson, OSHA's area director in Manhattan. "OSHA will use this information to further hone its inspection targeting, so we can direct our resources to those areas where we can have the most impact."
On Aug. 7, OSHA conducted a construction stakeholder safety meeting with industry representatives in which the agency analyzed trends in construction safety violations and recommended that all parties involved in New York City construction work to "raise the bar" on safety.
The meeting and the task force are among several OSHA efforts planned or underway to enhance construction safety in the city. These include an ongoing cross-training alliance with the New York City Department of Buildings and sending copies of citations to project owners, developers, employers' insurers, workers' compensation carriers and union training funds to raise awareness of occupational hazards found on city jobsites. In addition, OSHA will conduct a second round of concentrated construction inspections in the future.
"These findings reinforce the need for all parties - employers, developers, building trades, unions and employees - to work aggressively, effectively and continuously to minimize construction hazards," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "An effective approach is implementing and maintaining an effective safety and health management system through which employers and employees work together to identify and eliminate work-related hazards."
As part of its New York City construction safety task force, OSHA detailed 12 inspectors to conduct 96 safety inspections at 46 construction sites throughout the city from June 23 to July 3. The sites were randomly selected to encompass a cross-section of high-risk construction activities including tower cranes, high-rise construction, poured-in-place concrete operations, steel erection, gut-rehab and other high-risk construction activities.
Citations were issued to 60 contractors for 129 violations with a total of $247,400 in proposed fines. The major categories of violations cited included fall hazards (39), electrical safety (29), scaffolds (17), cranes and rigging (13), welding/gas (10) and 20 other categories covering personal protective equipment, tools, material handling, concrete, hoists, stairs and ladders.
"These violations are consistent with the types of hazards we find on far too many jobsites and cannot be written off as the inevitable by-products of an inherently dangerous profession," said Richard Mendelson, OSHA's area director in Manhattan. "OSHA will use this information to further hone its inspection targeting, so we can direct our resources to those areas where we can have the most impact."
On Aug. 7, OSHA conducted a construction stakeholder safety meeting with industry representatives in which the agency analyzed trends in construction safety violations and recommended that all parties involved in New York City construction work to "raise the bar" on safety.
The meeting and the task force are among several OSHA efforts planned or underway to enhance construction safety in the city. These include an ongoing cross-training alliance with the New York City Department of Buildings and sending copies of citations to project owners, developers, employers' insurers, workers' compensation carriers and union training funds to raise awareness of occupational hazards found on city jobsites. In addition, OSHA will conduct a second round of concentrated construction inspections in the future.
"These findings reinforce the need for all parties - employers, developers, building trades, unions and employees - to work aggressively, effectively and continuously to minimize construction hazards," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "An effective approach is implementing and maintaining an effective safety and health management system through which employers and employees work together to identify and eliminate work-related hazards."
Labels: Construction Safety, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 2 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, August 18, 2008
OSHA Establishes Regional Emphasis Program On Cranes In The Construction Industry
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.
"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
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, June 05, 2008
N.Y. Paper Manufacturer Faces 35 Workplace Safety Citations And $116,250 Fine
Brownville Specialty Paper Products Inc. cited following death of employee:
OSHA has cited Brownville Specialty Paper Products Inc., in Brownville, NY, for 35 alleged willful and serious violations of safety standards following the death of an employee at its 1 Bridge St. plant.
The employee was fatally crushed on Dec. 5, 2007, by two large rolls of paper, weighing approximately 2,500 pounds, that rolled out of a rewinding machine. OSHA's inspection found that the machine's barrier guard was not interlocked with its drive mechanism to prevent the rolls from being ejected during rewinding operations, and the company knew of the hazard but did not correct it.
"This accident could have been prevented had this machine been properly guarded against this hazard," said Christopher Adams, OSHA's area director in Syracuse. "This case illustrates in the starkest possible terms why effective safeguards are necessary to prevent death and injury on the job."
OSHA has issued Brownville Specialty Paper Products one willful citation, carrying a $49,000 proposed fine, for the unguarded rewinding machine. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
OSHA's inspection also identified hazards involving blocked and obstructed emergency exit routes; fall hazards from unguarded stairways and work platforms, ladder deficiencies, lack of safety belts and lifelines, and an emergency exit opening onto an unguarded 30-foot-high landing; various unguarded moving machine parts; improper compressed gas storage; uninspected lifting equipment; several electrical hazards; respirator safety deficiencies; inadequate hearing protection; no emergency response plan and training for liquid chlorine spills; lack of training for employees entering confined spaces; unlabeled steam pipes and chlorine lines; and incomplete energy control procedures to prevent the unintended startup of machinery.
These conditions resulted in OSHA issuing the company 34 serious citations, with an additional $67,250 in proposed fines. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. In all, the company faces a total of $116,250 in fines for the willful and serious citations.
Brownville Specialty Paper Products Inc. has 15 business days from receipt of its citations to contest them before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA's Syracuse Area Office; telephone 315-451-0808.
OSHA has cited Brownville Specialty Paper Products Inc., in Brownville, NY, for 35 alleged willful and serious violations of safety standards following the death of an employee at its 1 Bridge St. plant.
The employee was fatally crushed on Dec. 5, 2007, by two large rolls of paper, weighing approximately 2,500 pounds, that rolled out of a rewinding machine. OSHA's inspection found that the machine's barrier guard was not interlocked with its drive mechanism to prevent the rolls from being ejected during rewinding operations, and the company knew of the hazard but did not correct it.
"This accident could have been prevented had this machine been properly guarded against this hazard," said Christopher Adams, OSHA's area director in Syracuse. "This case illustrates in the starkest possible terms why effective safeguards are necessary to prevent death and injury on the job."
OSHA has issued Brownville Specialty Paper Products one willful citation, carrying a $49,000 proposed fine, for the unguarded rewinding machine. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
OSHA's inspection also identified hazards involving blocked and obstructed emergency exit routes; fall hazards from unguarded stairways and work platforms, ladder deficiencies, lack of safety belts and lifelines, and an emergency exit opening onto an unguarded 30-foot-high landing; various unguarded moving machine parts; improper compressed gas storage; uninspected lifting equipment; several electrical hazards; respirator safety deficiencies; inadequate hearing protection; no emergency response plan and training for liquid chlorine spills; lack of training for employees entering confined spaces; unlabeled steam pipes and chlorine lines; and incomplete energy control procedures to prevent the unintended startup of machinery.
These conditions resulted in OSHA issuing the company 34 serious citations, with an additional $67,250 in proposed fines. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. In all, the company faces a total of $116,250 in fines for the willful and serious citations.
Brownville Specialty Paper Products Inc. has 15 business days from receipt of its citations to contest them before 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 Fines, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, May 12, 2008
OSHA: Sunoco Didn't Fix Its Problems
The Toledo Blade reports in last Saturday's edition that Sunoco Inc.'s Woodville Road facility (Oregon, Ohio) was "hit with $330,000 in fines by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration this week allegedly didn't maintain paperwork and failed to fix things it knew needed attention up to six years ago, according to OSHA documents reviewed by The Blade."
The refinery was inspected last November as a part of OSHA's National Emphasis Program for petroleum refineries that resulted from the 2005 explosion at BP's refinery in Texas City, Texas.
Read the Toledo Blade story.
The OSHA press release states:
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $330,000 in fines against Sunoco Inc., an oil refinery in Oregon, Ohio, for alleged willful and serious violations of federal workplace safety standards.
OSHA initiated a safety inspection at the facility in November 2007 as part of the agency's National Emphasis Program for petroleum refineries. OSHA found 27 serious violations and three willful violations during the inspection. The most critical citations issued are for hazards related to the size and design of pressure relief systems, failing to implement a mechanical integrity program for pressure relief devices and fixed equipment, and failing to correct deficiencies associated with vessel and piping wall thicknesses.
"Injuries and fatalities from incidents at refineries are preventable," said Jule Hovi, OSHA's area director in Toledo. "OSHA will not tolerate employers who ignore safety hazards that threaten the lives and well-being of their employees."
Sunoco Inc. has about 500 employees at its Oregon refinery and 13,500 employees company-wide. OSHA has inspected the site five times since 1974. The agency has inspected Sunoco-owned and operated refinery complexes, petrochemical plants and bulk terminals 34 times since 1970. The inspections have resulted in more than 100 citations.
The refinery was inspected last November as a part of OSHA's National Emphasis Program for petroleum refineries that resulted from the 2005 explosion at BP's refinery in Texas City, Texas.
Read the Toledo Blade story.
The OSHA press release states:
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $330,000 in fines against Sunoco Inc., an oil refinery in Oregon, Ohio, for alleged willful and serious violations of federal workplace safety standards.
OSHA initiated a safety inspection at the facility in November 2007 as part of the agency's National Emphasis Program for petroleum refineries. OSHA found 27 serious violations and three willful violations during the inspection. The most critical citations issued are for hazards related to the size and design of pressure relief systems, failing to implement a mechanical integrity program for pressure relief devices and fixed equipment, and failing to correct deficiencies associated with vessel and piping wall thicknesses.
"Injuries and fatalities from incidents at refineries are preventable," said Jule Hovi, OSHA's area director in Toledo. "OSHA will not tolerate employers who ignore safety hazards that threaten the lives and well-being of their employees."
Sunoco Inc. has about 500 employees at its Oregon refinery and 13,500 employees company-wide. OSHA has inspected the site five times since 1974. The agency has inspected Sunoco-owned and operated refinery complexes, petrochemical plants and bulk terminals 34 times since 1970. The inspections have resulted in more than 100 citations.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, May 05, 2008
OSHA Proposes United Airlines Fine Of $215,500
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $215,500 in fines against United Airlines Inc. in Chicago for alleged multiple serious and repeat violations of federal workplace safety standards.
OSHA selected United Airlines for inspection after reviewing occupational injury and illness data, which included ramp services, customer service areas, air freight, aircraft and ground equipment maintenance, building/facility maintenance, business operations, strategic procurement, medical facilities and flight attendant operations. As a result of its inspection, OSHA issued 43 serious violations and four repeat violations.
The serious violations address hazards associated with fall protection, hazardous energy control procedures and training, storage of oxygen and fuel-gas cylinders, platform load ratings and electrical hazards. The four repeat violations, based on citations issued and affirmed in 2006 and 2007, cover machine guarding and electrical issues. Proposed penalties for the repeat violations alone total $57,500.
"Falls, electrical hazards and machine guarding issues, as well as energy lockout/tagout procedures, which are intended to prevent accidental start-up of machinery during maintenance, are problems that should not exist at any worksite," said Diane Turek, director of OSHA's Chicago North Area Office in Des Plaines, Ill. "They are problems that can be avoided if an employer is dedicated to protecting employees. Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the workplace safe and healthful, or face close scrutiny by this agency."
Since 2004, OSHA has inspected United Airlines 22 times at various locations nationwide. United Airlines operations at O'Hare International Airport have been inspected eight times since 2000 with only three of those inspections resulting in citations.
OSHA selected United Airlines for inspection after reviewing occupational injury and illness data, which included ramp services, customer service areas, air freight, aircraft and ground equipment maintenance, building/facility maintenance, business operations, strategic procurement, medical facilities and flight attendant operations. As a result of its inspection, OSHA issued 43 serious violations and four repeat violations.
The serious violations address hazards associated with fall protection, hazardous energy control procedures and training, storage of oxygen and fuel-gas cylinders, platform load ratings and electrical hazards. The four repeat violations, based on citations issued and affirmed in 2006 and 2007, cover machine guarding and electrical issues. Proposed penalties for the repeat violations alone total $57,500.
"Falls, electrical hazards and machine guarding issues, as well as energy lockout/tagout procedures, which are intended to prevent accidental start-up of machinery during maintenance, are problems that should not exist at any worksite," said Diane Turek, director of OSHA's Chicago North Area Office in Des Plaines, Ill. "They are problems that can be avoided if an employer is dedicated to protecting employees. Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the workplace safe and healthful, or face close scrutiny by this agency."
Since 2004, OSHA has inspected United Airlines 22 times at various locations nationwide. United Airlines operations at O'Hare International Airport have been inspected eight times since 2000 with only three of those inspections resulting in citations.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, March 21, 2008
When OSHA Knocks
What should you do when an OSHA inspector shows up at your reception desk? How can you prepare for an OSHA inspector's unannounced visit? The February issue of Occupational Hazards magazine included an article called, "When OSHA Knocks" (click on the link to read the article).
The article is written by attorney Patricia Poole and it offers a legal perspective on preparing for and dealing with a visit from an OSHA inspector. Her opening paragraph states:
"With a plethora of investigative agencies that may show up at your company's door, it is important to understand the purpose of a visit from OSHA. It equally is important for emplloyers to take action during the course of the inspection to place themselves in a favorable legal position."
From a legal perspective, here are some of the things the article says you should do "when OSHA Knocks:"
The article is written by attorney Patricia Poole and it offers a legal perspective on preparing for and dealing with a visit from an OSHA inspector. Her opening paragraph states:
"With a plethora of investigative agencies that may show up at your company's door, it is important to understand the purpose of a visit from OSHA. It equally is important for emplloyers to take action during the course of the inspection to place themselves in a favorable legal position."
From a legal perspective, here are some of the things the article says you should do "when OSHA Knocks:"
- Restrict admittance until management personnel are on site
- Determine the reason for the inspection
- Obtain a copy of the complaint
- Identify whistleblower protection inspections
- Limit the scope of the inspection
- Take the same photographs and videos as the OSHA inspector
- Remember you have a right to refuse to allow an inspection without a search warrant.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Electrical Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask During an Investigation
An article titled, What OSHA Expects: The Electrical Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask During an Investigation by Kenneth Cybart appeared in yesterday's Occupational Hazards Magazine. This is how the article introduces itself:
"OSHA’s goal is for employers to identify all electrical hazards, both potential and actual... For electrical safety in the workplace, OSHA relies on expert consensus bodies such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and its standards published in NFPA 70E. To ensure that employers are following NFPA and OSHA guidelines, OSHA trains its inspectors and compliance officers to ask specific questions in the event of an electrical safety incident."
The article presents 17 questions OSHA inspectors are likely to ask, such as:
Are there detailed descriptions of work practices to be employed?
Were the workers performing the tasks qualified to do so?
Were proper tools and equipment used?
Were required electrical safety analysis performed?
You can read the complete article, including all 17 questions, on Occupational Hazards' web site.
"OSHA’s goal is for employers to identify all electrical hazards, both potential and actual... For electrical safety in the workplace, OSHA relies on expert consensus bodies such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and its standards published in NFPA 70E. To ensure that employers are following NFPA and OSHA guidelines, OSHA trains its inspectors and compliance officers to ask specific questions in the event of an electrical safety incident."
The article presents 17 questions OSHA inspectors are likely to ask, such as:
Are there detailed descriptions of work practices to be employed?
Were the workers performing the tasks qualified to do so?
Were proper tools and equipment used?
Were required electrical safety analysis performed?
You can read the complete article, including all 17 questions, on Occupational Hazards' web site.
Labels: electrical safety, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 2 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
OSHA Uncovers Slew of Refinery Violations
The Houston Chronicle reports that "OSHA inspectors conducting an unprecedented national audit of U.S. refineries have found 146 violations — many described as potentially life-threatening — after reviewing just 17 refineries in a dozen states."
In June 2007 OSHA published a directive implementing a National Emphasis Program to help eliminate workplace hazards associated with the release of highly hazardous chemicals at petroleum refineries. Under this program, OSHA planned to conduct 81 inspections over the next two years. 17 of those inspections have been completed so far.
The Houston Chronicle story reports: "When the refinery program was launched last June, OSHA leaders said they aimed to reduce preventable deaths at refineries, one of the nation's most dangerous industries. Its directive said 52 employees have died in the past 15 years."
You can read the complete story, describing what has been found so far, at the Houston Chronicle web site.
In June 2007 OSHA published a directive implementing a National Emphasis Program to help eliminate workplace hazards associated with the release of highly hazardous chemicals at petroleum refineries. Under this program, OSHA planned to conduct 81 inspections over the next two years. 17 of those inspections have been completed so far.
The Houston Chronicle story reports: "When the refinery program was launched last June, OSHA leaders said they aimed to reduce preventable deaths at refineries, one of the nation's most dangerous industries. Its directive said 52 employees have died in the past 15 years."
You can read the complete story, describing what has been found so far, at the Houston Chronicle web site.
Labels: OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, January 17, 2008
How To Stay Off OSHA's Radar
"Every year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration sends letters to approximately 80,000 employers across the country requesting their injury and illness data from the previous year. This is reported in what's known in the industry as the 300 Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. From this data, OSHA picks 14,000 workplaces with the highest incident rates. Not only are these workplaces listed on OSHA's website, but from the 14,000 workplaces listed, 4,500 are then targeted for wall-to-wall inspections."
This is the introductory paragraph to an article from Reuters. The article is titled "Solid Recordkeeping Advice Can Keep You Off OSHA's Radar".
Accurate record keeping is fundamental. The article recommends the following for accurate OSHA 300 recordkeeping:
#1: Learn about OSHA’s injury and illness recordkeeping exemptions:
#2: Brush up on how to record OSHA recordable days
#3: Know the difference between recordable and non-recordable cases
This is the introductory paragraph to an article from Reuters. The article is titled "Solid Recordkeeping Advice Can Keep You Off OSHA's Radar".
Accurate record keeping is fundamental. The article recommends the following for accurate OSHA 300 recordkeeping:
#1: Learn about OSHA’s injury and illness recordkeeping exemptions:
#2: Brush up on how to record OSHA recordable days
#3: Know the difference between recordable and non-recordable cases
Labels: OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 2 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Bronx, N.Y., Manufacturer Faces $382,500 in OSHA Fines
$382,500 in fines for uncorrected and other safety and health hazards
NEW YORK -- Gen-Cap Industries Inc., a Bronx manufacturer of fireproof doors, faces a total of $382,500 in proposed fines from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for 76 alleged safety and health violations at its 913 Edgewater Road plant, including 14 instances of failing to correct hazards cited in previous OSHA inspections.
"Left uncorrected, this mixture of new, ongoing and uncorrected hazards exposes employees to potential injury or death from fire, explosion, laceration, amputation, electrocution, chemical burns, hearing loss and crushing," said Diana Cortez, director of OSHA's area office in Tarrytown, N.Y., which conducted the inspections. "The sizable fines proposed here reflect the scope and seriousness of these conditions and the need for them to be promptly and effectively addressed."
OSHA opened follow-up inspections in May 2007 to verify correction of hazards cited in November 2004, when the plant operated as JGB LLC, doing business as General Fireproof Doors. As a result of its latest inspections, OSHA issued the company:
NEW YORK -- Gen-Cap Industries Inc., a Bronx manufacturer of fireproof doors, faces a total of $382,500 in proposed fines from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for 76 alleged safety and health violations at its 913 Edgewater Road plant, including 14 instances of failing to correct hazards cited in previous OSHA inspections.
"Left uncorrected, this mixture of new, ongoing and uncorrected hazards exposes employees to potential injury or death from fire, explosion, laceration, amputation, electrocution, chemical burns, hearing loss and crushing," said Diana Cortez, director of OSHA's area office in Tarrytown, N.Y., which conducted the inspections. "The sizable fines proposed here reflect the scope and seriousness of these conditions and the need for them to be promptly and effectively addressed."
OSHA opened follow-up inspections in May 2007 to verify correction of hazards cited in November 2004, when the plant operated as JGB LLC, doing business as General Fireproof Doors. As a result of its latest inspections, OSHA issued the company:
- Fourteen notices for failure to abate, with $288,000 in proposed fines, for failing to develop a program and supply training and equipment to ensure that machines' power sources were shut down and locked out to prevent their accidental startup during maintenance; unguarded press brakes and welding machines; no eyewash facilities where required; no fire extinguisher training; no shielding on a spot welding machine to minimize burn hazards; and no hazard communication program and training. The plant was supposed to have corrected these hazards but did not do so.
- Thirteen repeat citations, with $27,600 in fines, for no hearing conservation program; sprinklers not kept free of paint deposits; failure to clean accumulated combustible debris; improper disposal of combustible material; failure to enforce the use of eye, face and foot protection; unsanitary bathrooms and toilets; no lead cleaning schedule; an unprotected electrical outlet; and unguarded grinders. The plant had been cited for substantially similar hazards in 2004.
- Forty-nine serious citations, with $66,900 in fines, for blocked, unmarked or unilluminated exits; blocked fire extinguisher access; no fire extinguisher for a battery charging area; a defective powered industrial truck; crane safety defects; numerous instances of unguarded machinery; a variety of electrical hazards; unsecured compressed gas cylinders; unbonded containers of flammables; uncleaned paint spray booth walls; defective respirators; inadequate personal protective equipment training and use; no respirator program; and no welding shield.
Labels: OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Employer Rights Following An OSHA Inspection
OSHA's informational guide Employer Rights and Responsibilities Following an OSHA Inspection (PDF) has been updated and is now available for download from the agency's Web site.
The pamphlet contains information on the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, or SBREFA, which gives small businesses assistance in understanding and complying with regulations and more of a voice in the development of new regulations. The revised guide can be printed directly from the agency's Web site; printed copies are available through OSHA's publications office.
The pamphlet contains information on the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, or SBREFA, which gives small businesses assistance in understanding and complying with regulations and more of a voice in the development of new regulations. The revised guide can be printed directly from the agency's Web site; printed copies are available through OSHA's publications office.
Labels: OSHA, OSHA Inspections
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
