OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #8

Scenario:  One of your employees suffered a very serious broken leg due to an accident at work.  She had surgery and is in rehabilitation.  Her physician cannot give a definite date or even an estimate of when she will be able to return to work.  She may be out of work for many months, but is expected to fully recover and be able to work in her job again.

Question: Is there a maximum number of days that should be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log for cases such as this one?

Answer:  The maximum number of calendar days to be recorded for any injury or illness is 180.  This includes days away from work and/or days of job transfer or restriction.

29 CFR 1904.7 (b) (3) (vii) states: Is there a limit to the number of days away from work I must count?
Yes, you may “cap” the total days away at 180 calendar days.  You are not required to keep track of the number of calendar days away from work if the injury or illness resulted in more than 180 calendar days away from work and/or days of job transfer or restriction.  In such a case, entering 180 in the total day’s away column will be considered adequate.

For further clarification regarding this area of recordkeeping, we should consider another scenario.  Your employee has been away from work due a work-related injury for 100 calendar days.  The employee is then allowed to return to work on restrictions that will last for more than 80 calendar days.  Since the total time for both days away from work and days of restricted work will exceed 180 calendar days, the days in both columns may be combined and you can quit counting once they reach 180 days.

Top Stories

According to OSHA what is an effective hearing conservation program for construction?

Employers who are required to follow General Industry standards for Occupational Noise Exposure have pages and pages of requirements and guidelines that are published by OSHA.  It lays out specific requirements and responsibilities for employers, employees, and audiometric testing personnel along with other details. 

What if you are in the construction industry and you know you have a noise problem?  The standard is pretty simple: determine your noise level and if it exceeds Table D2 then feasible engineering & administrative controls must be implemented and an effective and continuing hearing conservation program must be administered.  If these are not effective in bringing the noise to acceptable levels then hearing protection must be fitted and worn to reduce the noise.  If the person in charge of the construction safety program did not read anything more than the half page standard, things would seem pretty simple.  But what is an “effective hearing conservation program?”   Discussions have occurred about proposed revisions to this standard, but no official changes yet. However, OSHA has been asked this question before.

There are some standard interpretations published by OSHA which lay out additional requirements that are similar to the General Industry Requirements.  One letter states an effective hearing conservation program consists of the following elements:

1. Monitoring of employee noise exposures.
2. The institution of engineering, work practice, and administrative controls for excessive noise.
3. The provision of each overexposed employee with an individually fitted hearing protector with an adequate noise reduction rating.
4. Employee training and education regarding noise hazard and protection measures.
5. Baseline and annual audiometry.
6. Procedures for preventing further occupational hearing loss by an employee whenever such and event has been identified.
7. Record keeping.

If you would like assistance or guidance on the implementation of an effective hearing conservation program feel free to contact Advanced Safety & Health at (502) 240-6910.

Top Stories

In early October the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) released a new nine-minute safety video on the combustible dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia, which claimed the lives of 14 workers, injured 36, and caused extensive property damage on February 7, 2008.

Entitled “Inferno: Dust Explosion at Imperial Sugar,” the video includes a new four-minute 3-D computer animation depicting the first explosion – known as a “primary event” – that likely occurred inside a recently enclosed sugar conveyor, which was followed by massive secondary dust explosions that destroyed the plant’s sugar packing buildings.

As CSB Chairman John Bresland noted in the video, “The accident at Imperial Sugar was the deadliest industrial dust explosion in the United States in decades. It illustrates the extremely serious nature of combustible dust hazards.”

View Video:

Top Stories

Sony Recalls Computer AC Adapters Due to Shock Hazard

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

69,000 of the Sony VAIO AC  Adapters out of San Diego, California were recalled.  It appears that the insulation inside the adapter can fail over time, posing an electrical shock hazard. There have been four reports of the adapters short circuiting.  None of these occurred in the US and no injuries have been reported.

Consumers should turn off their computer, unplug it and stop using the recalled AC adapters immediately and contact Sony to arrange for a free replacement of the affected AC adapter.The recalled AC adapter model is the Sony VGP-AC19V17, which was supplied for use with the following Sony products:

Product Types Using the AC Adapters

• All-in-one VAIO Desktop Computers
• VAIO Docking Stations

Product Models Using the AC Adapters

• VGC-LT series and VGC-JS2 series
• VGP-PRBX1 and VGP-PRFE1

These adapters were sold at SonyStyle stores and Web site, authorized electronics retailers and authorized business- to- business dealers nationwide from September 2005 through October 2009 for between $900 and $3300 for desktop computers and $250 and $300 for docking stations.

Consumer Contact: For more information, contact Sony toll-free at (877) 361-4481 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at esupport.sony.com/ac19adapter

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. Please tell us about it by visiting

https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC’s work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC’s Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC’s teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC’s Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

Top Stories

OSHA cites Little Falls, N.Y., paper mill for 33 safety and health violations after worker is caught in machine Burrows Paper Corp. faces $136,500 in fines

OSHA has cited Burrows Paper Corp. for 33 alleged violations of workplace health and safety standards after a worker sustained serious arm injuries following being partially pulled into the roller of a paper machine at the company’s Little Falls, N.Y., paper mill on April 28. The paper manufacturer faces a total of $136,500 in proposed fines.

OSHA’s inspection found that the roller had not been guarded against contact, and the machine’s power source had not been locked out to prevent contact with moving parts while the worker was cleaning paper off the rolls. OSHA identified several other instances of unguarded machinery, fall hazards, a locked exit, a blocked exit access, uninspected and untested lifting equipment, improper storage of compressed gas cylinders, electrical hazards, a failure to monitor employees for chromium hazards, an inadequate hearing conservation program and several deficiencies with the mill’s confined space entry program.

“These conditions, which exposed the mill’s workers to risk of lacerations, amputation, crushing injuries, falls, electrocution and burns, as well as injuries due to being unable to swiftly exit the mill in the event of a fire or other emergency, must be addressed completely and effectively to protect safety and health,” said Christopher Adams, OSHA’s area director in Syracuse.

OSHA has issued the company two repeat citations for the unguarded roller and for unguarded open-sided work platforms, as it had cited the employer in January 2008 for similar hazards at another worksite. In addition, the mill has been issued 29 serious citations for the remaining hazards, and two other-than-serious citations for incomplete illness and injury reporting and not posting a copy of OSHA’s noise standard. 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.

“One means of preventing accidents and injuries is through an effective safety and health management system in which employers and employees work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazards,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Syracuse Area Office; telephone 315-451-0808.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit:

http://www.osha.gov.

Top Stories

OSHA moving forward with advanced notice of proposed rule making for new combustible dust standard.

As indicated for the past several months OSHA has publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Oct. 21 edition of the Federal Register.   This is the initial step in the development of a full blown standard to address the hazards of combustible dust.

This has been a hot button issue for both the U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis and the acting OSHA Chief Jordan Barab.  There is also strong support for a combustible dust standard coming from the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.  In 2006 and again in 2008 during a congressional hearing the board said a new standard, combined with enforcement and education, could save workers’ lives.

“Last year, 14 workers lost their lives in a combustible dust explosion at Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, Ga. Since 1980, more than 130 workers have been killed and more than 780 injured in combustible dust explosions,” added acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab.

OSHA has been conducting a Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) since October 2007; a very in-depth status report is available on OSHA’s Combustible Dust Safety and Health Topics page.  However OSHA doesn’t feel the NEP is enough.  They feel there is a need for a comprehensive standard.

Combustible dusts are solids ground into fine particles, fibers, chips, chunks or flakes that can cause a fire or explosion when suspended in air under certain conditions. Types of dust likely to combust include metal (aluminum and magnesium), wood, plastic or rubber, coal, flour, sugar and paper.

The public has 90 days to comment on the proposed ANPR. The agency also will conduct stakeholder meetings and will analyze all information and comments received from the public in developing a proposed rule on combustible dust.  Expect this standard to continue to be a high priority for the current administration.

Top Stories

Does the Current Use of the Globally Harmonized System Comply with OSHA’s HazCom Standard?

In line with the recent OSHA announcement to move toward adopting Globally Harmonized System (GHS) OSHA released a letter of interpretation on its current policy on GHS complying with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS).
A writer asked specific questions regarding the use of the GHS of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals.  The following responses constitute OSHA’s interpretation of only the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated outside of the listed scenarios and questions.  The paraphrased scenario and questions are below, followed by OSHA’s responses.

Scenario:
Your company manufactures various ink products for industrial inkjet printers and some of these ink products are considered hazardous within the context of:

OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200;
Canada Hazardous Products Act;
European Union (EU) Regulation EC/1272/2008 (EU GHS);
United Nations (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (UN GHS).

Question 1: Would you consider an EU GHS label sufficient to meet the spirit and intent of OSHA’s current HCS?

Reply 1:   A qualified yes, as long as the label complies with the provisions of the HCS as discussed herein.  The HCS was promulgated to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced in or imported into the U.S. are evaluated and that information concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers and employees.  The transmittal of information is to be accomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs which include container labeling and other forms of warning covered under 29 CFR 1910.1200(f).

The HCS requires that labels contain the identity of the chemical; appropriate hazard warnings; and the name and addresses for the chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party [29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)].  The identity of a chemical is the chemical name or common name that is also used on the material safety data sheet (MSDS), and a hazard warning means words, pictures, symbols, or a combination thereof which conveys the specific physical and health hazards, including the target organ effects [29 CFR 1010.1200(c)].  Manufacturers, importers, and distributors must ensure that containers of hazardous chemicals leaving their facilities have labels which contain these elements.

Classification schemes in the EU and other countries may be different from those in OSHA’s HCS.  These classification schemes may affect the information provided on both the safety data sheet and the label.  However, as long as the EU GHS label contains the information required by the HCS, OSHA will consider the EU GHS label sufficient.

OSHA is proposing to amend the HCS to incorporate the GHS.  If these changes are ultimately adopted, then EU GHS labels should generally meet the requirements of the HCS.

Question 2:  Would you take enforcement action under your current regulations against manufacturers, importers or distributors that market products that have been appropriately labeled according to EU GHS requirements?

Reply 2:  OSHA would not issue any citations so long as the chemical label and other forms of warning include the information required by OSHA’s HCS, as discussed above.

Question 3: Would you take enforcement action under your current regulations against employers or users of a product that has been appropriately labeled according to EU GHS requirements?

Reply 3:  Employers obligations under the HCS are distinct from those of manufacturers, importers, or distributors.  According to the Hazard Communication Directive, CPL 02-02-038, Paragraph (E)(1)(d)(1), available on OSHA’s website:  “Employers are not to be held responsible for inaccurate information on the MSDS/label which they did not prepare and they have accepted in good faith from the chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor.  The “responsible party” named on the MSDS and the label would be held responsible for the accuracy of the information and potentially subject to citation if a violation of the HCS was determined to exist.”

Manufacturers, importers and distributors of hazardous chemicals are required to determine the hazards of the chemical(s) they produce or import and provide that information downstream to employers and employees through MSDSs and labels that comply with 29 CFR 1910.1200.

Top Stories

New Place Carpentry faces $308,500 in US Labor Department OSHA fines for fall hazards at 2 Massachusetts work sites.

New Place Carpentry, a New Haven, Conn., contractor with a long history of fall protection violations, faces a total of $308,500 in new fines from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for willful and repeat fall hazards following the agency’s inspections at worksites in Plymouth and Methuen, Mass.

The contractor, which primarily performs residential framing work, has been cited by OSHA eight times since July 2003. Fines from earlier investigations total $171,700 for failing to provide fall protection and other required safeguards for workers at job sites in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

“The sizable fines proposed here reflect the gravity of these hazards and this employer’s ongoing refusal to comply with basic, commonsense and legally required protections for its workers,” said Marthe Kent, OSHA’s New England regional administrator. “Falls remain the number one killer in construction work. Employers who repeatedly fail to provide and ensure fall protection continue to place their workers’ lives at needless risk.”

Both of the latest inspections found workers engaged in residential construction work at heights greater than six feet without any form of fall protection. In addition, workers at the Plymouth site were working on unguarded, inadequately constructed and uninspected scaffolds, and were not trained to recognize scaffold hazards, while workers at the Methuen site were installing roof trusses without fall protection, lacked fall protection training and accessed an upper work surface via a ladder that did not extend above the surface for required stability.

Additional hazards identified at the job sites include gasoline-powered equipment left running while being refueled, power tools lowered to the ground by their cords, untrained fork truck operators, no fire extinguishers, debris with protruding nails in work areas, no hardhats where overhead hazards were present and no eye protection for workers using nail guns.

All told, based on the recent inspections, New Place Carpentry has been issued one willful, six repeat and 13 serious citations. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health, while 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 company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspections were conducted by OSHA’s Braintree and Andover, Mass., area offices.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit:

http://www.osha.gov

Top Stories

US Department of Labor’s OSHA cites Miami companies with willful and serious safety violations after fatality at Bernuth Marine Terminal.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is proposing penalties against four Miami, Fla., companies for safety violations following a fatality at the Bernuth Marine Terminal.

In May, an investigation was initiated following notification to OSHA of a possible occupational death when a longshoreman was missing for two days. The employee of Miami Stevedoring Services (MSS) apparently fell overboard from the top of a container that was onboard a cargo vessel.

Miami Stevedoring is receiving willful citations related to the fatality for exposing workers to fall hazards while working from the ship’s intermodal containers and failing to provide workers with personal floatation devices while working onboard ships. The company is also receiving a willful citation for operating powered industrial trucks that had broken and missing equipment, along with two repeat, six serious, and one other-than-serious violation.

Inspections of the other three companies – Island Stevedoring LLC, Bernuth Agencies Inc. and Marine Diesel Inc. – were started during the fatality investigation based on violations observed by the OSHA compliance officer. Bernuth Agencies owns the marine terminal where MSS was contracted to provide stevedoring services. Marine Diesel provides equipment repair at the terminal. Island Stevedoring currently provides the stevedoring services, replacing MSS after the fatality.

Island Stevedoring is being cited with two willful and nine serious violations. Bernuth Agencies is being cited with four serious and one other-than-serious violation. Marine Diesel is receiving five serious violations.

“Working around containers is dangerous. However, it can be done safely if employees are provided the required equipment to perform their duties, and management enforces the OSHA standards,” said Darlene Fossum, OSHA’s area director in Fort Lauderdale. “The cost of human life is far too great a price to pay for anyone to ignore these hazards. All of us want to see working men and women go home safe at the end of every work shift.”

The agency is proposing $318,900 in penalties against the four companies. The penalties for Miami Stevedoring Services total $196,600; Island Stevedoring $90,000; Bernuth Agencies $24,800 and Marine Diesel $7,500.

The companies have 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The site was inspected by staff from OSHA’s Fort Lauderdale Area Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 100; telephone 954-424-0242.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit:

http://www.osha.gov.

Top Stories

OSHA issues record-breaking fines to BP.

Earlier this week OSHA today announced it has issued $87,430,000 in proposed penalties to BP Products North America Inc. for the company’s failure to correct potential hazards faced by employees.

The fine is the largest in OSHA’s history. The prior largest total penalty, $21 million, was issued in 2005, also against BP.

Safety violations at BP’s Texas City, Texas, refinery resulted in a massive explosion — with 15 deaths and 170 people injured – in March of 2005. BP entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA in September of that year, under which the company agreed to corrective actions to eliminate potential hazards similar to those that caused the 2005 tragedy.

Today’s announcement comes at the conclusion of a six-month inspection by OSHA, designed to evaluate the extent to which BP has complied with its obligations under the 2005 agreement and OSHA standards.

“When BP signed the OSHA settlement from the March 2005 explosion, it agreed to take comprehensive action to protect employees. Instead of living up to that commitment, BP has allowed hundreds of potential hazards to continue unabated,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Fifteen people lost their lives as a result of the 2005 tragedy, and 170 others were injured. An $87 million fine won’t restore those lives, but we can’t let this happen again. Workplace safety is more than a slogan. It’s the law. The U.S. Department of Labor will not tolerate the preventable exposure of workers to hazardous conditions.”

For noncompliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the BP Texas City Refinery has been issued 270 “notifications of failure to abate” with fines totaling $56.7 million. Each notification represents a penalty of $7,000 times 30 days, the period that the conditions have remained unabated. OSHA also identified 439 new willful violations for failures to follow industry-accepted controls on the pressure relief safety systems and other process safety management violations with penalties totaling $30.7 million.

“BP was given four years to correct the safety issues identified pursuant to the settlement agreement, yet OSHA has found hundreds of violations of the agreement and hundreds of new violations. BP still has a great deal of work to do to assure the safety and health of the employees who work at this refinery,” said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab.

The BP Texas City Refinery is the third largest refinery in the United States with a refining capacity of 475,000 barrels of crude per day. It is located on a 1,200-acre facility in Texas City, southeast of Houston in Galveston County.

A willful violation exists where an employer has knowledge of a violation and demonstrates either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970, or shows plain indifference to employee safety and health. A penalty of up to $70,000 may be assessed for each willful violation.

A notification of failure to abate can be issued if an employer fails to correct a cited condition and the citation is a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. A penalty of up to $7,000 may be assessed for each day that the violation remains uncorrected.

Under the OSH Act, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit:

http://www.osha.gov.

Top Stories