Company Placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program

OSHA has cited Midsouth Steel Inc. of Atlanta for four safety violations following an inspection that found workers exposed to fall hazards while performing roofing work on Roosevelt Highway in Union City, GA. Proposed penalties total $184,800.

OSHA initiated the inspection as part of a local emphasis program protecting workers in the construction industry from falls. Midsouth Steel, a general contractor performing steel fabrication and roof decking, had been contracted by MBA Waste Service of Atlanta to build a 44,000-square-foot recycling facility in Union City.Three willful violations with $184,800 in fines were cited for exposing workers to fall hazards by allowing them to work at heights of 35 feet in an aerial lift without requiring the use of fall protection, exceeding an aerial lift’s load capacity and failing to provide fall protection for employees working on a steep pitched roof.

A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. Additionally, one other-than-serious violation with no monetary penalty was cited for failing to provide certification that the site supervisor received proper forklift operator training and evaluation. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

“Management knowingly exposed its workers to fall hazards because they were more concerned with completing the job faster than providing a safe work site,” said Andre C. Richards, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-West Area Office. “It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that workers are safe on the job.”

OSHA has placed Midsouth Steel in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. Initiated in June 2010, the program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations.

For more information on SVEP, visit here. View the company’s citations.

Top Stories

INDIANAPOLIS (March 15, 2011) – The Indiana Department of Labor announced today it is citing the University of Notre Dame with the most serious safety violation allowable under Indiana law for the fatal-injury death of student employee Declan Sullivan.

Sullivan, 20 years old at the time of his death, was killed while he was videotaping a Notre Dame football practice from a scissor lift that was toppled in high winds on Oct. 27, 2010.

“We’ve issued a knowing citation, which indicates the most serious safety violation,” said Department of Labor Commissioner Lori Torres during a morning news briefing at the Statehouse in Indianapolis. “The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the university made a decision to utilize its scissor lifts in known adverse weather conditions.”

The agency also cited Notre Dame with five other serious safety violations, including failure to properly train the student employees in how to operate a scissor lift. In all, fines amounting to $77,500 were levied against the university.

Torres said her agency also will launch a statewide education and outreach initiative directed toward universities, colleges and high schools. “Scissor and other lifts are used by many athletic and band programs nationwide to videotape practices and broadcast events. We want to ensure that they are only being used by trained operators in safe conditions.”

Today, the Indiana Department of Labor issued a letter to a number of associations around the state to urge high schools, colleges and universities to review their use of scissor lifts in athletic and band events.

Notre Dame was informed of the investigation findings on Tuesday morning prior to the news briefing. The university will have 15 business days, by Indiana law, to pay the fines and correct the violations cited in the investigation report, or to contest them to the Indiana Board of Safety Review.

A copy of the safety order is available on the Indiana Department of Labor’s website at: www.in.gov/dol/2367.htm

OSHA has proposed $118,650 in fines against 4 Brothers Stucco Co., a Cleveland, Tenn., stucco contractor, for 15 alleged repeat and serious violations of safety standards at a Torrington, Conn., worksite.OSHA’s inspection found employees working on scaffolding, in an aerial lift and on the roof at the 492 East Main St. worksite, were exposed to falls of up to 22 feet. The inspection also identified electrical, overhead and chemical hazard communication deficiencies at the worksite.

“These sizable fines reflect both the seriousness and recurring nature of several of the conditions cited here,” said C. William Freeman III, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “Keep in mind that falls are the number one killer in construction work and can occur in an instant. Be it a scaffold, an aerial lift or a roof, proper and effective fall protection must be in place and in use at all times.”Specifically, 4 Brothers, which also operates as VP Stucco Co. Inc., was issued six repeat citations, with $84,000 in proposed penalties, for no fall protection for employees in an aerial lift; lack of guardrails on the scaffold; employees climbing the scaffold’s side and cross braces; employees not trained to recognize scaffold hazards; no protective helmets; and failing to have the scaffold erected and dismantled under the supervision of a competent person. A review of the OSHA website shows OSHA had cited the company in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 for similar hazards at other worksites. Some of these inspections resulted in repeat violations as well.

The Torrington inspection also resulted in nine serious citations, with $34,650 in proposed penalties, for employees working on a roof without fall protection; an improperly supported scaffold; unguarded walkways between scaffolds; using an ungrounded extension cord to power a mixing drill; and lack of a hazard communication program, training, material safety data sheets, and protective gloves for employees working with cement and hazardous chemicals. 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.

OSHA posted a Letter of Interpretation to its website on February 10th clarifying the use of shock-absorbing lanyards in the construction industry when used in conjunction with an aerial lift. OSHA’s Directorate of Construction Acting Director Noah Connell said in the letter dated January 14, 2009 that some shock-absorbing lanyards do not provide adequate fall protection as required by 29 CFR Section 1926.502.

The questioner wrote in a letter to OSHA asking about a particular shock-absorbing lanyard with a manufacturer-required minimum anchor point elevation of 18.5 feet. The writer asked, “My concern centers around the fact that, when raising an employee from a work surface, or upon returning an employee to a work surface, the employee at times will be at elevations that are less than [18.5] feet. . . . Since at times the distance between a lift’s work platform and a lower level will be less than [18.5] feet, does the manufacturer’s instruction regarding the minimum anchor point elevation preclude its use as part of a fall protection system in an aerial lift?”

Connell answered that 29 CFR Section 1926.502(d)(16(iii) requires a personal fall arrest system to prevent employees from contacting a lower level, which the lanyard in question would not do at heights less than 18.5 feet. In addition, 29 CFR Section 1926.453(b)(2)(v) requires fall protection for employees in aerial lifts at lesser heights as well. “Since the fall protection system you describe would not meet the requirements of [Section] 1926.502(d)(16)(iii) under these conditions, it would be prohibited,” he wrote.

Connell said that there are a variety of self-retracting lanyards available for fall protection, some with an operating range of more than 100 feet and a capability of limiting a free-fall distance to less than two feet. If one of these type lanyards were used in the scenario described, with the lanyard rigged so that the free-fall distance of the employee in the aerial lift was limited to two feet, the system would meet the requirements of Section 1926.502(d)(16)(iii), he said.Connell issued a caution noting the vertical and lateral loads that may be placed on an aerial lift in the event of an arrested fall must be considered. Load requirements for anchorages come into play when fall arrest systems in aerial lifts are anchored to the lift’s boom or basket, and the length of the free fall permitted by a self-retracting lanyard may affect whether a personal fall arrest system complies with Section 1926.502(d)(15).

Connell wrote, “The longer the fall, the greater the impact forces imparted to the system”. “Thus, the more free-fall allowed by the self-retracting lanyard, the greater the load imposed upon the aerial lift. Some aerial lifts may lack the capacity to withstand the vertical and lateral loads caused by an arrested fall. Therefore, the length of free fall permitted by the self-retracting lanyard must be such that the aerial lift is capable of maintaining a safety factor of at least two when it arrests a fall.”

It should be noted that a restraint system using a body belt or body harness could be used instead of a personal fall arrest system if a self-retracting lanyard cannot be rigged to satisfy Section 1926.502(d)(15), as long as the system is rigged to prevent the employee from falling.Employers have a responsibility to ensure that workers are protected by performing periodic inspections of fall protection equipment, performing job hazard analysis prior to engaging in dangerous worksite activities, and to train workers on the proper use of fall-protection equipment. Fall protection is the second most frequently violated standard and is the standard for which OSHA assessed the highest penalties for fiscal year 2008.To see the letter of interpretion go to http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27382

The membership of the International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) has agreed upon a universal symbol that highlights the location of the emergency descent controls on mobile elevating work platforms. Manufacturers are being encouraged to fit this symbol on new equipment and rental companies are being asked to utilize this decal on their rental fleet. “Even experienced operators sometimes have difficulty locating the emergency descent controls that every mobile elevating work platform is fitted with,” said Tim Whiteman, IPAF managing director. “This new symbol is a practical visual aid and a prime example of an industry initiative to make access equipment even safer.”Emergency descent systems can be found on all types of mobile elevating work platforms. They differ in terms of where they are located on specific machines and how they operate. The decal should be positioned to clearly indicate the location of the emergency descent controls. Operators should ensure that somebody at ground level is properly trained on how to use the controls in an emergency.