Earlier this month the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register its plans to require improved worker protection from tripping, slipping and falling hazards on walking and working surfaces currently in subparts D and I of 29 CFR 1910. A public hearing on the revised changes will be held after the public comment period is over.

The NPRM describes revisions to the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards to help prevent an estimated annual 20 workplace fatalities and more than 3,500 injuries serious enough to cause people to miss work.  A leading cause of worker-related injury and death comes from employees slipping, tripping, or falling from work surfaces such as floors, platforms, portable and fixed ladders, stairs, and ramps. Employees may be exposed and unprotected from these hazards or may have a protection system in place but are using that system incorrectly.

According to OSHA the current walking-working surfaces regulations allow employers to provide outdated and dangerous fall protection equipment such as lanyards and body belts that can result in workers suffering greater injury from falls. Construction and maritime workers already receive safer, more effective fall protection devices such as self-retracting lanyards and ladder safety and rope descent systems, which these proposed revisions would also require for general industry workers.

The current walking-working surfaces standards also do not allow OSHA to fine employers who let workers climb certain ladders without fall protection. Under the revised standards, this restriction would be lifted in virtually all industries, allowing OSHA inspectors to fine employers who jeopardize their workers’ safety and lives by climbing these ladders without proper fall protection.

Here is a little background:

• Subpart D contains standards for walking-working surfaces and was adopted in April of 1971 in accordance with Section 6(a) of the OSH Act. The primary sources for subpart D were several pre-1971 editions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standards. There has been little change to the standard in subpart D since its initial adoption.
• Some early OSHA walking-working surfaces standards were developed with little consideration given to the consistency among the requirements applicable to general industry, shipyards, and construction. As a result, there are different requirements for similar, and sometimes identical, hazards in different industries.
• Existing subpart D is organized such that its sections are often redundant and difficult to use. Reducing redundancy makes subpart D clearer and easier to read, facilitating workers’ and employers’ understanding and application of the rule.
• In 1973, OSHA published a proposed revision of subpart D that was withdrawn in 1976 because, in the Agency’s view, it had become outdated and did not reflect then-current information. In 1990, OSHA published another proposed rule to reorganize, update, and clarify the subpart and add personal fall protection requirements to subpart I, which regulates personal protective equipment. In 2003, the rulemaking record was reopened and several issues were raised. Comments to the record indicated that the 1990 proposed rule was outdated and did not give adequate consideration to newer technology. In 2005, the decision was made to completely redraft the proposed rule. The 1990 proposal was not withdrawn, and therefore is still on record today as a proposed rule
• Subpart I contains standards for personal protective equipment, but it does not currently address personal fall protection systems.

Overview of Proposed Subparts D and I:

• OSHA estimates the proposed rule would prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year, and over 3,700 injuries per year that are serious enough to result in days away from work.
• Subpart D would be reorganized in a clear, logical manner, thereby facilitating compliance and enhancing employee protection.
• The proposed rule would eliminate duplication and extensive specification of requirements, while emphasizing performance-based criteria; for example, the proposal would incorporate the construction scaffolding standards, which would eliminate the need for most scaffold specifications in general industry.
• A new section would be added to subpart I that provides criteria for fall protection equipment. This new section would make the general industry standards consistent with existing construction and maritime standards regulating fall protection, as well as current industry practice, and give clear standards on fall protection PPE to employers.
• Compliance flexibility would be provided for the mitigation of fall hazards; for example, proposed subpart D would require fall protection, but would provide options for compliance such as travel restraint systems and designated areas for fall protection when appropriate. Subpart I would provide criteria on the proper use of personal fall protection systems when used by the employer.

Click here to view video comments by Dr. Michaels
 

BRAINTREE, Mass. - The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Misdea Enterprises LLC, a Weymouth, Mass., masonry contractor, for alleged willful and serious violations of safety standards after an employee fell 30 feet while climbing a scaffold at a jobsite located on Summit Street in Brookline, Mass. The company faces a total of $61,600 in proposed fines.

OSHA’s inspection found that the scaffold lacked a ladder or other safe means of accessing its upper levels and the workers were not supplied with fall protection while working on the scaffold. Employers must provide fall protection for each employee on a scaffold more than 10 feet above a lower level.

These conditions resulted in OSHA issuing two willful citations, with $56,000 in proposed fines, against the masonry company. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

“Falls are the leading cause of death in construction work, and employers must take all required steps to prevent and minimize this potentially deadly hazard,” said Brenda Gordon, OSHA’s area director for Boston and southeastern Massachusetts. “Safe working conditions must not and can never be a matter of luck.”

In addition, OSHA determined that the scaffold was not fully planked, which created an additional fall hazard. Furthermore, the agency found that workers were threatened by electrocution, since the scaffold was located less than 18 inches from uninsulated and energized power lines. These conditions resulted in two serious citations with $5,600 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.

Detailed information on construction fall and scaffolding hazards and safeguards is available online at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/index.html and http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/scaffolding/construction.html.

Misdea Enterprises has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with the OSHA area director or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Braintree Area Office; telephone 617-565-6924.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

OSHA Fines Small Employer nearly $1,000 per employee. 

WAUKESHA, Wis. — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited KBRK Inc., doing business as Baird Display in Waukesha, with $60,750 in proposed penalties for alleged willful and serious violations of federal workplace safety standards.

As a result of a January 2010 inspection, OSHA has issued a willful citation to the company with a proposed penalty of $35,000. OSHA discovered that employees were bypassing safety switches in order to reach into running machinery to un-jam it without shutting down the machine. 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.

OSHA also has issued the company 18 serious citations with proposed penalties of $25,750. Some of the alleged violations include: failure to provide guardrails and other fall protection from platforms; to establish a lockout/tagout energy control program; to produce procedures for controlling potentially hazardous energy sources on equipment or provide proper training; and to have proper guarding on machinery or rotating shafts. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.

“There is no excuse for a company to disregard the safety and welfare of its workers by not following the OSHA safety guidelines,” said OSHA Area Director George Yoksas in Milwaukee, Wis. “Those who ignore safe practices and OSHA regulations are inviting tragedy into the lives of their workers.”

The company, which manufactures displays and employs 68 people at its Waukesha factory, has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. To report workplace accidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Federal OSHA has cited Scovill Fasteners in Clarksville, Ga., for 60 safety and health violations. Penalties total $133,350.

OSHA began its inspection in October 2009 after receiving a complaint concerning a partial amputation of an employee’s index finger. Inspectors found a number of deficiencies at the plant including unguarded power presses, failing to develop lockout/tagout procedures for energy sources, lack of training for forklift operators, improper personal protection equipment for employees handling acids and caustics, and failing to provide a written hazard communications plan. The investigation was expanded to all areas of the facility when inspectors observed a high number of safety hazards.

The company is being cited with 40 serious safety violations with $99,050 in proposed penalties. The violations are associated with several instances where mechanical power presses were unguarded, exposing employees to amputation hazards. Other violations are related to fall hazards, damaged storage racks, crane and overhead hoists exposing employees to struck-by hazards, lack of adequate lighting and signage for emergency egress, and several electrical deficiencies.

A separate health inspection revealed 14 serious violations with $34,300 in proposed penalties. They include hazards associated with abrasive blasting, noise overexposure, lack of noise training for employees, failing to address all the required elements in the emergency response plan, failing to provide an appropriate eye wash and shower station, failing to perform a personal protection equipment assessment, as well as deficiencies in the respiratory protection program and the permit required confined space program. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.

The facility is also being cited with six other-than-serious violations with no proposed penalty. The violations concern dip tank ventilation deficiencies, improper use of respirators, lack of a written exposure control plan and failing to label containers. 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.

“These types of violations show the kind of disregard this company has for the safety and welfare of its employees and why it needs to make the required improvements to prevent needless injuries,” said Gei-Thae Breezley, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-East Area Office.”

MOBILE, Ala. — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration is proposing $63,700 in penalties against Daehan Solution Alabama LLC in Hope Hull, Ala., for safety violations.

An inspection in October 2009 began after an employee sustained an amputation of three fingers on one hand. The investigation revealed that the company had violated OSHA standards by failing to provide proper machine guarding. The employer allowed the light curtains, an invisible infra-red beam used for employee protection, to be overridden and remain inoperable for a period of two years. If the light curtain had been operating correctly, the amputation could have been avoided.

As a result, OSHA is proposing one willful violation carrying $49,000 in proposed penalties. The agency defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

Seven serious violations, with proposed penalties of $14,700, included open-sided floors, electrical hazards, other machine guarding deficiencies and failure to label stop buttons.

“If the employer had implemented the recommended safety procedures by having proper machine guarding on equipment, these needless injuries could have been avoided,” said Kurt Petermeyer, OSHA’s area director in Mobile.

SEATTLE – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Boise Area Office has cited AmeriCold Logistics LLC for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act related to unsafe working conditions at the company’s Nampa, Idaho, facility.

“Many of the alleged violations cited were for deficiencies in AmeriCold Logistics’ process safety management, or PSM, program,” said Richard S. Terrill, OSHA’s regional administrator in Seattle. “When properly implemented, PSM programs help ensure that operations involving hazardous chemicals are performed in a safe manner.”

OSHA conducted an inspection under its Chemical Industry National Emphasis Program at the AmeriCold Logistics Nampa facility and found seven alleged serious, four alleged repeat violations and one other-than-serious violation carrying a total of $153,000 in proposed penalties.

The serious violations involve worker exposure to hazards due to: failure to protect ammonia piping from forklift impact; failure to locate discharge pipes in a safe location; failure to implement recommendations from the process hazard team; failure to replace pressure relief valves as recommended; failure to design the PSM covered system; unguarded exposed parts of horizontal shafting and lack of an adequate respirator for employees. Serious citations are issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.

The repeat violations include unguarded open sided floors or platforms; a lack of piping and instrument diagrams for equipment in safety information; a lack of written procedures to maintain equipment and of inspection and testing of equipment and wiring methods; and equipment and installations of equipment in hazardous locations that are not safe or approved for such areas. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously was cited for the same or similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facilities in federal enforcement states within the last three years.

The other-than-serious violation involves unguarded stairway floor openings.

Penalties total $153,000. AmeriCold Logistics LLC has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director in Boise, Idaho, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Last month OSHA issued a letter of interpretation clarifying the use of a stepladder as a straight (non-self-supporting) ladder even if the bottom of the ladder is footed.

Letter #200801220-8196

Re: Using a stepladder as a non-self-supporting ladder

Question: 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4) requires ladders to be used only for the purpose for which they were designed. Some manufacturers have indicated a concern that a self-supporting ladder might slip out and cause someone to fall if it is used as a non-self-supporting ladder.

Scenario: A stepladder (which is a type of’ self-supporting ladder) is used as a non-self-supporting ladder, but the bottom of the ladder is either “footed” (that is, another person keeps their foot on the bottom to keep the ladder from slipping) or the ladder is tied off at the bottom to prevent the bottom from slipping out.

Would the use of a stepladder as described above violate 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4)? If so, would such use be a de minimis violation?

Answer: In 29 CFR 1926 Subpart X, 1926.1053(b)(4) states:

Ladders shall be used only for the purpose for which they were designed. [Emphasis added]
Thus, using a stepladder as a non-self-supporting ladder would violate §1926.1053(b)(4) if the ladder were not designed for that purpose. The particular design of a stepladder varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, whether or not the scenario you describe constitutes a violation of §1926.1053(b)(4) would depend on whether such use is consistent with the purpose intended by the manufacturer.

It is our understanding that self-supporting ladders, including stepladders, typically, are not designed to be used as non-self-supporting ladders unless otherwise indicated by the manufacturer. For example, note that paragraph 8.3.1.2 of ANSI A14.1-1982 and ANSI-ASC A14.1-2007 state that, “[s]elf-supporting ladders shall not be used as single ladders or in the partially closed position” [emphasis added].1 Note, also, that ANSI-ASC A14.1-2007 defines “single ladder” as a “non-self-supporting portable ladder, nonadjustable in length, consisting of one section.” Statements from manufacturers indicating a concern that a self-supporting ladder might slip out and cause someone to fall, if used as a non-self-supporting ladder, would be consistent with these ANSI provisions.

Typically, having a coworker hold the ladder, or using rope to attempt to restrain the ladder at its base, would not be considered substitutes for this requirement. We note that, for example, slip-out is not the only hazard that can result from using a ladder differently than in accordance with its design.

Furthermore, 1926.1053(a)(2) states:

Ladder rungs, cleats, and steps shall be . . . level . . . when the ladder is in position for use. [Emphasis added]
Stepladders are typically designed so that the rungs are level when the ladder is in the open and locked position and the ladder is placed on a stable and level surface. Consequently, it is likely that positioning a stepladder for use as a non-self-supporting ladder would result in the ladder’s rungs being out-of-level, which would violate 1926.1053(a)(2).

Sincerely,

Richard E. Fairfax, Acting Director
Directorate of Construction

Top Stories

PITTSBURGH — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Mariani & Richards Inc. for failing to protect workers from falls on a construction site following the investigation of a worker who fell 225 feet to his death.

OSHA began its investigation on Aug. 18, 2009, and found that Mariani & Richards did not provide workers with any fall protection while they were performing maintenance on The Pennsylvanian Building, a historic landmark in downtown Pittsburgh. As a result of the investigation, the company has been cited with one willful violation and a proposed penalty of $70,000.

“This company was cited for the same violation in November 2007 but never took the proper steps to ensure workers were safe at this worksite, resulting in this tragedy,” said Robert Szymanski, director of OSHA’s Pittsburgh office. “OSHA will not tolerate employers who flagrantly ignore the regulations designed to protect workers on the job.”

Top Stories

Owner pleads guilty to related criminal charge

Federal OSHA has fined the C.A. Franc construction company $539,000 following the investigation of a roofing worker who fell 40 feet to his death at a Washington worksite. The Valencia, Pa.-based roof installer – whose owner is Christopher A. Franc – was cited for 10 per instance willful citations for failing to protect workers from falls.

“Mr. Franc knowingly and willfully failed to protect his workers from falling to their death,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “Despite repeated requests from workers that he provide fall protection, on this steep roof, Mr. Franc refused to provide readily available protection. We will not tolerate this type of blatant and egregious disregard for the health and safety of workers.”

OSHA began its investigation immediately following the worker’s death on Aug. 15, 2009, and found the C.A. Franc company had failed to provide any fall protection to its employees working on a pitched roof 40 feet off the ground. In addition, Mr. Franc failed to train a newly hired college student in hazards and the necessary safety measures for roofing work. As a result of the investigation, the company has been cited for 10 alleged per-instance willful violations, one for each employee working unprotected on the roof, with a proposed penalty of $490,000, and one additional alleged willful violation for failing to train the new employee, with a penalty of $49,000.

General contractor Hospitality Builders Inc. also has been cited with one willful violation and a proposed penalty of $70,000 for failing to ensure that C.A. Franc workers had fall protection.

“This fall fatality was one of five that occurred during a 15-day span in the Pittsburgh area,” said John M. Hermanson, OSHA’s regional administrator in Philadelphia, Pa. “Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. Failure to provide employees with fall protection is unconscionable. We urge construction companies to take the necessary action to ensure their workers are protected.”

OSHA Believes that they have detailed information about fall hazards and safeguards is available on it’s Web site at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/construction.html.

In a related criminal charge, Christopher A. Franc today entered a guilty plea in federal court to a violation of 29 U. S. C. Section 666(e). Sentencing is scheduled for June 18.

Top Stories

Investigations reveal combustible dust, noise, lack of machine guards, and guardrails producing over $250,000 in fines

Federal OSHA is proposing 41 safety and health violations against Birdsong Corp.’s facilities in Sylvester and Blakely, Ga.

According to Robert Vazzi (OSHA Area Director) “Our inspections, and a worker fatality at the Blakely plant, show the need for management to get serious about the safety and health of its employees.”

OSHA began an inspection of Birdsong’s Sylvester plant in June 2009. Compliance officers found 21 serious safety violations and one other-than-serious safety violation, including lack of machine guards, fall hazards, electrical hazards, a lack of emergency lighting and unmarked exit doors. In July 2009, a separate inspection was opened to address possible noise hazards at the plant, resulting in three serious and one other-than-serious health violations.

In September 2009, OSHA moved on to the company’s Blakely, Ga., facility following a fatality at the site in which a worker was caught in a conveyor belt. That investigation led to the issuance of three serious safety violations and one other-than-serious safety violation, including lack of machine guarding and lack of guardrails.

During the course of the fatality investigation, the compliance officer grew concerned about possible combustible dust hazards at the plant. A separate combustible dust inspection was begun and resulted in the issuance of 11 serious violations.

The inspections resulted in proposed penalties of $137,250, $88,200 for the Sylvester plant and $49,050 for the Blakely plant.

Birdsong Corp. is headquartered in Suffolk, Va., and has facilities in Georgia, Texas and Virginia.

Top Stories