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.

Top Stories

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

Business Owners being charged with contempt order and payment of over $250,000 in fines and growing.

Federal OSHA announced on February 11th the issuance of contempt of court orders against Brian Andre, former owner of Andre Tuckpointing and Brickwork (AT&B), Andre Stone and Mason Work Inc. (AS&MW) and Regina Shaw, owner of AS&MW. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued the contempt orders against the St. Louis-area company and individuals for failing to comply with court orders enforcing citations of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC).

“Companies that expose employees to hazards, and then blatantly ignore citations requiring correction of those hazards, will not be overlooked,” said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo. “Employers must fulfill their responsibility to keep employees safe, as well as satisfy any sanctions levied for failing to do so.”

The cases stem from numerous citations OSHA issued to AT&B and its successor, AS&MW, for willful, repeat and serious violations related to fall hazards, scaffolding erection deficiencies, power tool guarding and other hazards in connection with multiple projects in the St. Louis area.

When the companies failed to comply with the court’s order enforcing OSHRC’s final order, the secretary of labor filed petitions for contempt. As a result, a special master of the Court of Appeals concluded that Brian Andre, AS&MW and Regina Shaw were in contempt of the order, and recommended various sanctions. The Eighth Circuit substantially accepted the master’s recommendations, found all three parties in contempt, and imposed sanctions, including: Brian Andre, AS&MW and Regina Shaw must pay outstanding monetary penalties, which continue to accrue interest, and other miscellaneous fees, in the current amount of $258,582.08; AS&MW and Regina Shaw must pay a $100 daily penalty, calculated from the time of default, in early 2008, on the OSHRC final order; AS&MW must provide OSHA weekly notification of all current jobs, and known future jobs, at least 72 hours prior to commencement of work for a period of three years; and, AS&MW must provide “competent person” training to all people currently and subsequently designated as jobsite “competent persons,” prior to beginning any work, and provide the secretary records of such training.

Top Stories

Federal OSHA has has cited O.S. Interior Systems Inc. for alleged workplace safety violations following a fatality at the company’s worksite at 20555 State Highway 249 in Houston. Proposed penalties total $112,000.

“This employer failed to advise its employees on the locations of electrical lines,” said Dean McDaniel, OSHA’s regional administrator in Dallas. “If the company had followed OSHA’s standards, it is possible this tragic accident could have been avoided.”

OSHA’s Houston North Area Office began its inspection on Aug. 14 when an employee who was removing a demountable wall made contact with a live wire and died. The company was cited for two alleged willful violations for failing to adequately protect employees from energized electrical circuits and failing to inform employees about the hazards involved with energized electrical circuits.

Top Stories