OREGON, Ohio — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited BP North American Inc. and BP-Husky Refining LLC’s refinery in Oregon, Ohio, with 42 alleged willful violations, including 39 on a per-instance basis, and 20 alleged serious violations for exposing workers to a variety of hazards including failure to provide adequate pressure relief for process units. Proposed penalties total $3,042,000.

“OSHA has found that BP often ignored or severely delayed fixing known hazards in its refineries,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “There is no excuse for taking chances with people’s lives. BP must fix the hazards now.”

OSHA began its inspection at the refinery located near Toledo, Ohio, in September 2009 as part of the agency’s Refinery National Emphasis Program and as a follow-up to a 2006 inspection and a 2007 settlement agreement between OSHA and BP at this location. Although the 2009 inspection found that BP had complied with the settlement agreement, OSHA found numerous violations at the plant not previously covered by the agreement.

The inspection revealed that workers were exposed to serious injury and death in the event of a release of flammable and explosive materials in the refinery because of numerous conditions constituting violations of OSHA’s process safety management standard. OSHA has issued willful citations for numerous failures to provide adequate pressure relief for process units, failures to provide safeguards to prevent the hazardous accumulation of fuel in process heaters, and exposing workers to injury and death from collapse of or damage, in the event of a fire, to nine buildings in the refinery. Additional willful citations allege various other violations of OSHA’s standard addressing process safety management. These citations carry proposed penalties totaling $2,940,000.

The serious citations address a variety of other hazards, including violations of other requirements of the process safety management standard. These carry proposed penalties totaling $102,000.

Since 1991, this refinery has been inspected 12 times. Nationally, BP Products North American has been inspected by OSHA 44 times at various sites and is facing pending cases in which 439 willful citations and failure-to-abate notices were issued to its Texas City Refinery as a result of a 2009 inspection. Proposed penalties in those pending cases total $87 million, the largest penalties by far ever proposed by OSHA. BP’s Texas City Refinery experienced a devastating explosion and fire in 2005 that killed 15 workers and injured 170. A large portion of the penalties proposed for the Texas City Refinery results from OSHA’s allegations that BP failed to fully live up to a settlement agreement entered into after the explosion. BP has contested the citations, notifications of failure-to-abate and the proposed penalties in those cases.

BP North American Inc. operates and jointly owns the refinery with Canadian-based Husky Energy Inc. The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an information conference with the OSHA area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Toledo Refinery Citations and Proposed Penalties

Forty-two willful citations with proposed penalties totaling $2,940,000 are proposed as follows:

1. Thirty-eight (38) per-instance, willful citations with penalties totaling $2,660,000 allege as follows:

a. Twenty-six instances allege deficient pressure relief, a violation of 29 CFR parts 1910.119(d)(3) and 1910.119(j)(5), with total penalties of $1,820,000;

b. Three instances allege the lack of flame-out protection on heaters and a furnace, a violation of 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3), with total penalties of $210,000; and

c. Nine instances allege facility-siting hazards, a violation of 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5), with total penalties of $630,000.

2. Four willful citations with penalties totaling $280,000, allege as follows:

a. Lack of pressure vessel information, a violation of 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3), with a penalty of $70,000;

b. Cross-connections between fire-emergency water supplies and process systems, a violation of 29 CFR parts 1910.119(d)(3) and 1910.119(e)(5), with a penalty of $70,000;

c. Failure to conduct thickness measurements at designated test sites and as required at the flare header, a violation of 29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii), with a penalty of $70,000; and

d. Failure to conduct thickness measurements in accordance with RAGAGEP, a violation of 29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii), with a penalty of $70,000.

Twenty serious citations with total penalties of $102,000 allege the following failures: to support pipes properly; to maintain heat transfer information for refractory-lined vessels; to assure the accuracy of P&IDs, the maintenance of pressure vessel nameplates, and proper documentation of pressure relief design information; to document implementation of the vessel grounding program; to assure that car-sealing practices were used for intervening valves; to password protect safety instrumented systems; to assure that PHAs addressed combustion safeguards, pressure relief, and human factors, and reflected updated layer of protection analysis and safety integrity levels; to establish and to implement a written program for refinery valve car-seal procedures; to consult employees on the frequency of refresher training; to implement procedures for operating limits changes and other matters; to investigate contamination of the fire-water system; to include contributing factors and recommendations in accident investigation reports; to audit a statistically significant number of pressure vessels, piping and instrument controls during compliance audits; to assure that LOTO procedures were implemented during burner maintenance; to assure that LOTO devices were applied during service and maintenance; and to assure that electric lighting equipment was appropriate for hazardous atmosphere classifications.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Hua Sheng International Group Corp. in Barrigada, Guam, for $139,500 in proposed penalties for hazardous working and living conditions at a jobsite and barracks in Harmon, Guam.

“The failure of employers to provide clean water to workers they are required to house can lead to serious infections and dehydration,” said Ken Nishiyama Atha, OSHA’s regional administrator in San Francisco. “We are vigorously enforcing the standards for adequate housing and safety for all workers, including H-2B temporary workers, especially as construction and other industries ramp up in support of the planned relocation of Marine Corps personnel and their dependents from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam.

OSHA has cited the company for one alleged willful violation and 28 alleged serious violations. The willful violation is for failing to provide workers with an adequate water supply for drinking, cooking, bathing, flushing and laundry. The proposed penalty for the willful violation is $70,000. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.

The serious violations are for safety and health hazards related to poor living conditions at the employees’ barracks as well as at the worksite. Some include failing to maintain the fire alarm system; maintain toilet rooms in sanitary condition; install cooking and heating equipment to meet local ordinances codes and regulations; provide proper food-handling facilities and garbage containers; and provide first aid facilities and maintain a trained first aid person. The proposed penalty for the serious violations is $69,500 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.

OSHA cited this company six times in the two years prior to this inspection. Four of the inspections resulted in a total of nine serious violations.

Federal OSHA has cited the Allen Family Foods Inc. poultry processing facility in Harbeson Delaware for exposing workers to a variety of workplace safety hazards. Proposed penalties total $182,200.

OSHA initiated an investigation on Sept. 9, 2009, in response to a referral made by Maryland Occupational Safety and Health after numerous serious and willful violations were issued at a similar processing facility in Maryland.

OSHA has cited the company with 45 serious violations and proposed a penalty of $182,000, and two other-than-serious violations with a proposed penalty of $200. The serious violations address hazards with industrial trucks, falls, personal protective equipment, machine guarding, electrical hazards, process safety management, respirators and emergency response.

“It is vital that the company abate these hazards as quickly as possible to ensure that safety and health of workers at that facility are not at risk,” said Domenick Salvatore, director of OSHA’s Wilmington, Del., office.

The Maryland inspection netted three proposed “willful” violations involving Lockout/Tagout and machine guarding.  Proposed penalties of $109,750.

MSA North America Announces a Recall of High Impact Propionate Visors

MSA North America announced on February 9 a Stop-Use and Recall Notice for some high impact propionate visors.  Through their supplier Paulson Manufacturing and through internal and third party tests, the visors did not to meet the high velocity and high mass impact tests required by ANSI Z87.1-2003.  All other performance requirements of the standard were met.

The visors in question were manufactured from February, 2004 to January, 2010.  The part number, material type, and date of manufacture are identified on each visor label.  These are the following part numbers to look for: 10005883, 10005885, 10006024, 10086994, 10086998, 10087000, and 10087022.  Visor part number 10005883 is also being recalled from Canadian customers due to incorrect labeling.

If you receive a Stop-Use and Recall Notice http://media.msanet.com/www/PDFs/MSANorthAmerica/SafetyNotices/10001-02(stop_use_notice).pdf from MSA, locate all affected visors and remove them from service.  The company is offering alternate visors to replace these products at no cost to their customers.  Complete directions for returning the visors are outlined in the notice.

MSA has not received any complaints or returns of these visors, but is issuing the notice as a precautionary measure.  They are working with the manufacturer to correct all problems.  You may contact MSA at their North America headquarters in Pittsburgh at 800-672-2222 or via their website at www.msanet.com.

Top Stories

Scenario:  You have a 48 year old male employee who reports to work on Wednesday morning and two hours into his work shift he experiences some sort of seizure and falls to the floor.  During this event when the employee falls he strikes his head on a work table and receives a laceration on his head that requires six stitches.  Further investigation determines the employee has epilepsy and a history of epileptic seizures.  The doctor verifies that what this employee experienced was indeed an epileptic seizure.   So you determined the event was due to a preexisting non-work related medical condition.  But since the employee struck his head while at work performing work, does the geographical presumption make this event an OSHA recordable? 

Answer:  Neither the seizures nor the laceration are recordable. Injuries and illnesses that result solely from non-work-related events or exposures are not recordable under the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(ii). Epileptic seizures are a symptom of a disease of non-occupational origin, and the fact that they occur at work does not make them work-related. Because epileptic seizures are not work-related, injuries resulting solely from the seizures, such as the laceration in the case in question, are not recordable.

Top Stories

OSHA has cited Endres Processing LLC of Kansas City for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act following an inspection alleging fire and explosion hazards from combustible dust. Proposed penalties total $137,250.

“There is no excuse for the lack of attention to accumulation of combustible dusts in any mill or grain elevator, especially given our nation’s history of such horrific combustible dust explosions resulting in a high number of employee fatalities,” said Charles Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo. “It is imperative that employers take the necessary steps to eliminate hazards and provide a safe working environment for all their employees to prevent accidents from occurring.”

OSHA’s inspection of the Endres facility resulted in three alleged willful and four alleged serious violations. The willful violations address the inappropriate location of an air material separator that lacked explosion venting; an inadequate housekeeping program; and allowing combustible dusts to collect at depths greater than one-eighth of an inch. OSHA issues a willful violation when an employer exhibits plain indifference to, or intentional disregard for, employee safety and health.

The serious violations stem from the company’s failure to have an adequate number of exit routes; the lack of a written emergency action plan; an improperly rated powered industrial truck being operated in a hazardous atmosphere; and preventative maintenance records not being maintained. OSHA issues a serious citation when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which an employer knew or should have known.

The company is engaged in recycling inedible food products by milling them into feed for pigs and chickens.

Top Stories

TSP Co., Inc. of Lexington Kentucky receives $420,000 in fines for safety violations discovered by Kentucky OSHA from a construction site inspection that occurred in October of 2009 at 100 Trojan Way in Vine Grove Kentucky.

The employer received nine Willful citations related to scaffolding violations.  Citations included employee was working on scaffolding that was more than 25 inches from wall with no fall protection.   Employees were seen climbing scaffolding to access work area; scaffold did not have proper means of access.  The employer did not ensure competent person inspected scaffolding before each work shift. Employees were working on scaffolding that was not erected under supervision of competent person. There were Masonry employees working on scaffolding at least 13 feet above lower level with no fall protection. There was an employee working near unguarded platform edge with no fall protection and Scaffolding did not have proper toe boards or other safety measures to protect three employees working below.  OSHA also observed scaffolding that was not properly joined together vertically by coupling or stacking pins or other means.

The final two willful citations involved the employer not providing training for employees working on scaffolds in fall and other hazards and not properly training employees on hazards associated with erecting, dismantling and working from scaffolds.

TSP also received an inspection in 2007 that is still listed as open by Kentucky OSHA that involves six similar citations with one being a repeat violation and five serious violations.  The current proposed fines for this inspection are $26,600.

Top Stories

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

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

New Spray Applicator/Painter Training Requirements

New environmental regulations went into effect establishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for companies not currently associated with a “major source of HAP emissions”.  Manufacturing processes affected by the new regulations include paint stripping operations and spray applications of coatings which contain any of the following HAP’s: chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, or cadmium.  Some exemptions are part of the regulation, but many smaller businesses that were exempted before may be subject to this standard because there are no minimum usage quantities.  It may be advisable to check your MSDS sheets and manufacturing processes to see if your company’s spraying or paint stripping operation uses any chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, or cadmium.   

Some highlights of the requirements include an initial notification requirement for all existing and new startup operations and evaluations of paint stripping practices.  One significant change affects all spray application painters who apply surface coatings containing the previously mentioned HAP’s; they must now receive training and certification for the proper spray application of surface coatings in addition to the proper setup and maintenance of spray equipment.   The training includes items such as hands-on and classroom training, spray techniques, spray booth maintenance, and other environmental requirements.  Spray application by individuals who are not certified will be prohibited.  All spray-applied coatings must be in a spray booth, prep station, or mobile enclosure that meets the standards requirements.  Painter training must be completed prior to January 10, 2011 and recurring at least every five years. 

For more information: 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHHH

Top Stories