37 Violations Received after Fatality

OSHA cited Resource Management Cos. at its Earth City, MO recycling facility for 37 safety and health violations. An inspection was opened after a worker died from injuries sustained on June 12 when he entered a baling machine to clear a jam and it became energized.  Proposed fines total $195,930.

“Resource Management Cos. has a responsibility to ensure that its workers are protected from hazardous working conditions, especially ones related to dangerous equipment such as baling machines,” said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo. “Employers are required by law to ensure that work environments are safe and healthful. OSHA is committed to protecting workers on the job, especially when employers fail to do so.”

Twenty-two serious safety violations have been cited, including failing to lock out and tag out the energy sources of equipment and install adequate machine guarding. They also involve hazards related to fall protection, exits, flammable liquids, fire extinguishers, powered industrial trucks, and welding and electrical equipment. Additionally, eight serious health violations involve inadequate housekeeping, excessive noise, improper personal protective equipment, permit required space program, and blood borne pathogens hazards. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

One repeat safety violation has been cited relating to defective powered industrial trucks that were not taken out of service. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. The company was cited in April 2010 for a similar violation.

Six other-than-serious safety and health violations have been cited, involving egress, fire extinguisher, personal protective equipment and hazard communications deficiencies. 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.

The citations can be viewed at:
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/ResourceMgt_315652776_1206_11.pdf*
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/ResourceMgt_315464289_1206_11.pdf*

Market Basket Store Failed to Call Emergency Services after Employee Fall Injury

CONCORD, NH – OSHA cited DeMoulas Supermarkets Inc., doing business as Market Basket, for 30 alleged willful, repeat and serious violations of workplace safety standards at its stores in Rindge and Concord, N.H. The Tewksbury, Mass., grocery chain, which has stores in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, faces a total of $589,200 in proposed fines, chiefly for recurring fall and laceration hazards and also for improperly responding to a worker’s serious injury.

“Employers with multiple locations have a responsibility to ensure safe and healthful working conditions at all of their workplaces,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “This employer has been cited for similar conditions at numerous other stores. Although those individual hazards were abated, this employer has not taken effective steps to correct these hazards across the board.”

The inspection of the Market Basket store in Rindge on U.S. Route 202 began after an employee sustained broken bones and head trauma on April 17 when he fell 11 feet to a concrete floor from an inadequately guarded storage mezzanine. Instead of calling for emergency help, store management lifted the injured worker from the floor, put him in a wheelchair and pushed him to the store’s receiving dock to wait for a relative to take him to the hospital. The Concord store inspection began May 16 after an OSHA supervisor observed the same type of fall hazard as the one at the Rindge store while shopping at the Market Basket store on Fort Eddy Road.

OSHA found that employees at both stores were exposed to falls from heights greater than 11 feet while working on top of produce coolers, freezers and storage lofts that lacked adequate guardrails. OSHA previously had cited DeMoulas for the same hazard at the Concord store as well as stores in Fitchburg, Lawrence and Tewksbury, Mass.

Employees who worked in the produce, deli and bakery departments at the Rindge and Concord stores also were exposed to laceration hazards from knives due to the grocery chain’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment and provide hand protection. DeMoulas previously was cited by OSHA for the same types of hazards at its Tewksbury and Westford, MA locations. Due to the company’s knowledge of the fall and laceration hazards and its systemic failure to correct them, OSHA cited four willful violations with $261,000 in proposed penalties. A willful violation exists when an employer has demonstrated either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the law or plain indifference to employee safety and health.

Additionally, DeMoulas Supermarkets has been cited for seven repeat violations with $225,500 in fines for hazardous conditions similar to those previously cited at its Ashland, Andover, Fitchburg, Salem, Tewksbury and Westford, Mass., locations. These citations encompass amputation hazards stemming from a lack of procedures, training and equipment to ensure that a meat saw and seafood cooler would not be activated while employees were cleaning them, as well as hazards from exposed portions of the saw’s blade; inadequate training of powered industrial truck operators; and a lack of bloodborne pathogen training for an employee required to clean equipment and work areas contaminated with human blood. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.

Finally, the company has been cited for 19 serious violations with $102,700 in proposed penalties. One violation was cited under OSHA’s general duty clause for failing to contact emergency services and for moving the injured employee. The remaining 18 violations involve obstructed exit routes; a lack of eye and hand protection and an emergency eyewash for employees working with or near battery acid; a lack of chemical hazard communication training for workers; and other hazards related to electrical equipment, machine guarding and bloodborne pathogens. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

The citations can be viewed here.

http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/DemoulasSuperMarketsIncdbaMarketBasket_63192_1007_11.pdf

http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/DemoulasSuperMarketsIncdbaMarketBasket_29247_1007_11.pdf

OSHA cites Marietta Industrial Enterprises in Marietta, Ohio for $186,000 after worker’s death at recycling facility.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Marietta Industrial Enterprises Inc., which operates Refuse Recycling in Marietta Ohio for 21 safety, including two willful, violations. OSHA opened an inspection after a worker was found dead inside the rotating drum assembly of a machine used to screen recyclables from other refuse on March 30.

“Marietta Industrial Enterprises showed an intentional disregard for employee safety by failing to provide lockout/tagout training to workers performing maintenance inside rotating drums, which could easily be restarted if their energy sources were not properly cut off,” said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA’s area director in Columbus. “No one should ever lose his or her life because safety procedures were not followed. It is the employer’s responsibility to train workers and ensure that the workplace is free from unnecessary hazards.”

Two willful violations involve failing to implement lockout/tagout procedures to prevent equipment from becoming unexpectedly energized and to train workers in lockout/tagout procedures. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement or plain indifference to employee safety and health.

Additionally, 14 serious violations involve failing to provide machine guarding, provide adequate guardrails, mark and illuminate emergency and exit signs, evaluate the workplace to determine if there were any confined spaces that would require permits, examine powered industrial trucks prior to each shift, ensure that employees used electrical protective equipment, provide electrically insulated tools, develop an exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens, offer hepatitis B vaccines and label biohazard containers. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Finally, five other-than-serious violations involve using work areas for storage, as well as failing to record work-related injuries, maintain clean conditions, provide a written respiratory protection program and provide employees with information for voluntary respirator use. 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 injury.

As a result of the investigation, Marietta Industrial Enterprises has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Initiated in June 2010, SVEP is intended to focus on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations in one or more of the following circumstances: a fatality or catastrophe, industry operations or processes that expose workers to severe occupational hazards, employee exposure to hazards related to the potential releases of highly hazardous chemicals and all per-instance citation (egregious) enforcement actions. For more information on SVEP, visit http://www.osha.gov/dep/svep-directive.pdf*.

Proposed penalties total $186,300. The citations can be viewed at: http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/MARIETTA_INDUSTRIAL_ENTERPRISES_314593690_0922_11.pdf

Scenario:  You are the safety manager for a large manufacturing plant.  Your company maintains a medical department at your plant where it is staffed with full time nurses.  You manage this operation.  You just hired a new nurse who seems very knowledgeable and quite the go-getter.  A few days into her employment she asks you where for the Sharps injury log for the plant.  You tell her that as far as you know, there isn’t one.  She gets very concerned, pulls out the OSHA standards book, and flips to the bloodborne pathogen section.  She shows you 1910.1030(h)(5), which clearly states the employer must maintain a sharps injury log.  You get into a discussion with her that you feel the OSHA 300 log could serve that purpose, but she is adamant that a separate log is necessary.

Question: Who is right?

Answer:   “1910.1030(h)(5) Sharps injury log” clearly states that the employer shall establish and maintain a sharps injury log for the recording of percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. The information in the sharps injury log shall be recorded and maintained in such manner as to protect the confidentiality of the injured employee. The sharps injury log shall contain, at a minimum:

• The type and brand of device involved in the incident,
• The department or work area where the exposure incident occurred, and
• An explanation of how the incident occurred.

The requirement to establish and maintain a sharps injury log shall apply to any employer who is required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses under 29 CFR 1904.

The sharps injury log shall be maintained for the period required by 29 CFR 1904.6.

However if you check the “Detailed Frequently Asked Questions for OSHA’s Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Rule” at http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/detailedfaq.html  and look at question Question 8-2. Can I use the OSHA 300 Log to meet the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard’s requirement for a sharps injury log? The answer is “yes” you may use the 300 Log to meet the requirements of the sharps injury log provided you enter the type and brand of the device causing the sharps injury on the Log.  You must maintain your records in a way that segregates sharps injuries from other types of work-related injuries and illnesses, or allows sharps injuries to be easily separated.

OSHA requires several documents and written programs to be accessible to all employees.  This includes Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), Bloodborne Pathogens, and Permit Required Confined Spaces.  In the past, documents were required to be printed out and stored in a binder.  Frequently, multiple copies needed to be printed for different buildings or locations creating document control problems, like pages being out of order or ripped out by employees.  Other frustrations included outdated documents in circulation, extensive time required to update all the copies, and being known as the “tree killer” when approaching the copy machine. Now that we are well into the digital age, OSHA has thankfully recognized the need for some businesses to shift away from paper.  In a Standard Interpretation Letter dated September 16, 2008, OSHA states that employee access to written programs may be in paper or electronic format.  Where a standard requires that the written program be made available to employees, they must know how to easily access the documents without any barriers.  The program must meet all other requirements of the standard.   

However, it may not be that simple!  An OSHA Letter of Interpretation dated 10/28/1996 states that when computers are used for MSDS access, employees must be trained on how to obtain the information, and the employer must integrate the system into their overall hazard communication program.  This could be a major hurdle for some employers if their workforce is uncomfortable or unfamiliar with computers.   The same letter also states that employers should provide a backup computer system when the main system is down for short periods of time for maintenance, repair, or power disruption.  Providing a backup system to the main computer or printing a hard copy set of MSDS’s before shutting down the system would meet the standard’s intent.  To comply with these requirements, an employer would still be required to print a complete set of MSDS sheets or create a computer system which has an independent power source, such as a generator, and have databases stored on a server and local drive!                     

Allcare Dental’s Nashua, N.H., dental office faces $76,500 in U.S. Labor Department OSHA fines following employee needlestick injury

Allcare Dental has been cited by OSHA for alleged willful and serious violations of occupational health standards at its Nashua, N.H., dental office after an employee suffered a needlestick injury. The office faces $76,500 in proposed fines.

OSHA’s inspection found that the office did not provide the injured employee with no-cost, post-exposure medical evaluation and follow-up, and did not have the blood of the source individual tested, as required under OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standard.

In addition, the office’s training program did not include the proper method of removing the capped needle from a syringe, did not explain procedures to be followed in the event of an exposure and did not provide an opportunity for employees to ask questions about the training. The office’s exposure control program also was incomplete and not updated annually. Finally, the office did not use needles with engineered safety devices for user protection.

“OSHA standards spell out the steps that an employer must take to safeguard the health of employees whose duties may involve contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials,” said Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA’s area director in Concord. “It’s vital that these safeguards be effectively implemented, communicated and kept up-to-date so that employees and managers know how to both minimize hazards and respond in the event of an exposure.”

OSHA has issued Allcare one willful citation, with a $63,000 proposed fine, for not testing the source individual’s blood for infection even after OSHA notified the office that this was required. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

Six serious citations, with $13,500 in proposed fines, have been issued for not providing the post-exposure evaluation and follow-up; not annually reviewing and updating the exposure control program; training deficiencies; and not using sharps with engineered sharps protection. 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.

OSHA’s Web site provides more in-depth information about bloodborne pathogens and needlestick prevention on a page dedicated to that topic at www.osha.gov/SLTC/bloodbornepathogens.