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

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 has cited Industrial Pipe Fittings LLC (IPF) for 47 alleged serious violations following an inspection at the company’s facility in Corsicana.

OSHA’s Fort Worth Area Office began its inspection on April 20 when a worker had his hand crushed in-between a rotating, unguarded drum drive wheel and pipe while performing an overwrapping operation at the drum drive wheel machine station. The serious violations include failing to provide machine guarding on lathes, drum drive wheels and saws; provide fall protective equipment, ensure workers are protected from electrical hazards, provide training for forklift operations and hazard communication.

“This company failed to provide a safe and healthful working environment for its workers,” said Zachary Barnett, OSHA’s area director in Fort Worth. “If OSHA’s standards were followed, it is possible this serious injury could have been avoided.”

The other-than-serious violations included failing to meet OSHA’s respiratory requirements by informing workers of the precautions and use of wearing a respirator and failing to provide a written personal protective equipment hazard assessment.

Top Stories

OSHA levies hefty $518,520 fine on All-Feed Processing and packaging Inc. for willfully violating OSHA standards.

GALVA, Ill. — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited All-Feed Processing and Packaging Inc. in Galva, Ill., with alleged serious, repeat, willful and failure to abate citations of federal workplace safety and health standards. Proposed fines total $518,520.

OSHA began its safety and health inspections at the pet food research and packaging facility in response to a fire in April that sent three workers to a local hospital. The resulting inspection revealed nine alleged willful, four serious, two repeat and two failure to abate violations.

Hazards identified as willful violations addressed the lack of explosion prevention systems for combustible dust, inadequate housekeeping where dust could accumulate, insufficient personal protective equipment, training deficiencies, failure to lockout energy sources during maintenance and other lockout/tagout issues, and the lack of warning signs where combustible dust was being processed. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

Serious violations included fall hazards and issues pertaining to employees entering or working in confined spaces where a variety of hazards could be present. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

The repeat violation cites the company’s failure to compile a list of hazardous chemicals used at the plant and the failure to include such a list in the hazardous communication program, and for the lack of proper employee training. The company had been previously cited for these violations and had agreed to correct the problems but had not done so. The failure to abate violations included use of flexible cords as a substitute for fixed wiring and equipment and wiring was not approved for hazardous locations.

“Recent events have shown the damage that can result from the failure to control dust and dust explosions,” said OSHA Area Director Nick Walters, Peoria, Ill. “The cost of human life and health is far too great a price to pay for anyone to ignore this hazard. All of us want to see working men and women go home safe at the end of every work shift.”

In business since 1997, the company has been inspected by OSHA on seven occasions since January 2000. These inspections have resulted in the issuance of 31 serious, nine willful, four repeat and seven other-than-serious citations.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with the OSHA area director in Peoria or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 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

Top Stories

October 14, 2009

OSHA Statement re: H1N1-related Inspections

WASHINGTON - To ensure the protection of frontline healthcare and emergency medical workers at high risk of infection with H1N1 virus, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will soon issue a compliance directive to ensure uniform procedures when conducting inspections to identify and minimize or eliminate high to very high risk occupational exposures to the 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus.

The Directive will closely follow the CDC’s Interim Guidance on Infection Control Measures for 2009 H1N1 Influenza in Healthcare Settings, Including Protection of Healthcare Personnel.

In response to complaints, OSHA inspectors will ensure that healthcare employers implement a hierarchy of controls, including source control, engineering, and administrative measures, encourage vaccination and other work practices recommended by the CDC. Where respirators are required to be used, the OSHA Respiratory Protection standard must be followed, including worker training and fit testing.

The CDC recommends the use of respiratory protection that is at least as protective as a fit tested disposable N95 respirator for healthcare personnel who are in close contact (within 6 feet) with patients with suspected or confirmed 2009 H1N1 influenza.

“Employers should do everything possible to protect their employees,” Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor Jordan Barab said. Barab emphasized, however, that where respirators are not commercially available, an employer will be considered to be in compliance if the employer can show that a good faith effort has been made to acquire respirators. The employer will also need to implement a hierarchy of controls such as feasible engineering controls, administrative controls, and the use, as appropriate, of personal protective equipment, such as gloves and respirators to protect workers while providing close-contact care.

Since a shortage of disposable N95 respirators is possible, employers are advised to monitor their supply, prioritize their use of disposable N95 respirators according to guidance provided by CDC, and to consider the use of elastomeric respirators and facemasks if severe shortages occur. Healthcare workers performing high hazard aerosol-generating procedures (e.g., bronchoscopy, open suctioning of airways, etc.) on a suspected or confirmed H1N1 patient must always use respirators at least as protective as a fit-tested N95, even where a respirator shortage exists. In addition, an employer must prioritize use of respirators to ensure that sufficient respirators are available for providing close-contact care for patients with aerosol-transmitted diseases such as tuberculosis.

Where OSHA inspectors determine that a facility has not violated any OSHA requirements but that additional measures could enhance the protection of employees, OSHA may provide the employer with a Hazard Alert Letter outlining suggested measures to further protect workers.

Top Stories

OSHA has proposed $148,000 in fines against C.W. Pond Contractors Inc., a Norwalk, Conn., electrical contractor, in connection with a March 4 electrical fire at the Old YMCA at 980 Washington Blvd. in Stamford, Conn.

Two apprentice electricians were working on and around an energized 480 volt electrical distribution panel when an electrical arc flash and blast occurred, burning one of the workers. OSHA’s investigation found that the panel had not first been de-energized before being worked on, as required, and the employees had not been supplied with the required personal protective equipment.

As a result of these conditions, OSHA has issued C.W. Pond Contractors two willful citations, carrying $140,000 in proposed penalties. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

The contractor also has been issued one serious citation, with a $7,000 fine, for not training employees on safety-related electrical work practices, and one other-than-serious citation with a $1,000 fine for an incomplete illness and injury log.

“The lethal potential of electricity cannot be underestimated. This accident could easily have resulted in a double fatality, as electricity moves - and can kill - at the speed of light,” said Robert Kowalski, OSHA’s area director in Bridgeport. “Due to the grave nature of these hazards, we are proposing the maximum fines allowed under the law.”

Detailed information on safety issues and resources for electrical contractors is available online at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/electricalcontractors/index.html

Top Stories

OSHA has cited Fluid Management Systems Inc. for 29 alleged willful, serious and other-than-serious violations of safety and health standards at its Watertown, Mass., production plant. The manufacturer of analytical instruments faces a total of $125,000 in proposed penalties, chiefly for electrical, chemical and respirator hazards.

“Our inspection found employees working in close proximity to energized electrical circuits without proper training or personal protective equipment,” said Paul Mangiafico, OSHA’s area director for Middlesex and Essex counties. “OSHA standards require that circuits be de-energized before employees work on them and that appropriate personal protective equipment be supplied and used in those rare instances where de-energizing is not feasible.”

Among the other electrical-related hazards found during the inspection were instances of unguarded or uncovered live electrical parts, equipment and openings; failing to de-energize live electrical parts before working on them; not training employees in safe electrical work practices; and allowing unqualified employees to work on energized equipment.

Additional hazards included unmarked exit routes; improperly stored compressed gas cylinders; inadequate lockout/tagout safeguards; improper training and lack of eyewashes for employees working with methylene chloride; unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals; and inadequate respiratory protection safeguards.

As a result, OSHA has issued Fluid Management Systems Inc. two willful citations, with $70,000 in proposed fines, for the lack of personal protective equipment and for work in close proximity to energized electrical circuits. OSHA has issued 26 serious citations, with $53,500 in fines for the remaining items. The company also has been issued one other-than-serious citation with a $1,500 fine for not recording injuries and illnesses in the OSHA 300 log or equivalent.

Top Stories

Scenario: An employer requires ordinary safety-toe footwear throughout their facilities and pays for the first $100 of the footwear cost. As part of a recent company-wide static electricity control program, employees working with flammable liquids and products are now required to have static dissipative safety-toe footwear.

Question 1: Would the static dissipative safety-toe footwear be considered specialty footwear? Is the employer required to provide the static dissipative safety-toe footwear at no cost to its employees?

Reply: Static dissipative safety-toe footwear that meets the specifications and test methods for static dissipative (SD) footwear in ANSI 241-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection – Protective Footwear,” would be considered specialty footwear. This footwear provides additional protection to the employee beyond that of an ordinary safety-toe shoe and is designed for special use on the job. Therefore, the employer would be required to provide this footwear at no cost to employees.

The PPE standard provides that “[t]he employer is not required to pay for non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear (including steel-toe shoes or steel-toe boots) … provided that the employer permits such items to be worn off the job-site.” 29 CFR 1910.132(h)(2). As OSHA explained in the Final Rule for Employer Payment for PPE, “Exempted footwear provides the protection of an ordinary safety-toe shoe or boot, while footwear with additional safety attributes beyond this (e.g., shoes and boots with special soles) fall under the employer payment requirement.” The Agency also said that, “[t]he term ‘non-specialty’ is used to indicate that the footwear … being exempted is not of a type designed for special use on the job (e.g. rubber steel-toe shoes).” 72 Federal Register 64342, 64348 (Nov. 15, 2007).

Question 2: If the employer allows its employees to wear the static dissipative safety-toe footwear off-site (for personal use), would the employer be exempt from full payment for this footwear?

Reply: No. Since this specialty footwear is required for the job, the employer is required to provide it at no cost to the employee. This is still the case if the employer allows employees to use the footwear off the job.

Top Stories

Trade Release
April 1, 2009
Contact: Office of Communications
Phone: 202-693-1999

WASHINGTON — Assigned Protection Factors (APF), a new guidance document published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), provides employers with vital information for selecting respirators for employees exposed to contaminants in the air.

OSHA revised its existing Respiratory Protection standard in 2006 to add APFs and Maximum Use Concentration (MUC) provisions. APF means the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is able to provide to workers. The higher the APF number (5 to 10,000), the greater the level of protection provided to the user. APFs are used to select the appropriate class of respirators that will provide the necessary level of protection against airborne contaminants. Such exposures can come from particles or a gas or vapor.

MUC represents the limit at which the class of respirator is expected to provide protection. Whenever a hazard’s exposure level exceeds MUC, employers should select a respirator with a higher APF. MUC means the maximum atmospheric concentration of a hazardous substance for which a worker can be expected to be protected when wearing a respirator.

“Proper respirator selection prevents exposure to hazardous contaminants and is an important component of an effective respiratory protection program,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Donald G. Shalhoub. “This guidance document serves as another useful resource for protecting the health and safety of workers at risk for respiratory illnesses.”

APF and MUC are mandatory respirator selection requirements that can only be used after respirators are properly selected and are used in compliance with the entire standard. The Respiratory Protection standard requires fit testing, medical evaluations, specific training and proper respirator use. The standard applies to general industry, construction, longshoring, shipyard and marine terminal workplaces.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA’s role is to promote the safety and health of America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Top Stories

OSHA has cited Oxbow Calcining LLC of Kremlin for $75,600 and Kansas City, Mo.-based Geo. P. Reintjes Co. Inc. for $49,050 for alleged safety and health violations following the death of a worker on North 30th Street in Kremlin.OSHA’s Oklahoma City Area Office began its inspection Sept. 22, 2008, following a release of steam and heated petroleum coke - materials heated in an industrial process - that occurred the day before while workers were removing refractory brick used for lining furnaces in kiln chambers. Three workers employed by Geo. P. Reintjes Co. Inc., the subcontractor, were severely burned, one of whom later died.

Oxbow Calcining, a subsidiary of the Oxbow Group headquartered in West Palm Beach, Fla., was cited with one willful violation for failing to follow written procedures for demolition of a refractory kiln. Citations also included two serious violations for failing to ensure employees were informed about the hazards associated with hot petroleum coke and failing to ensure workers were using the required personal protective equipment.

Geo. P. Reintjes Co. Inc., doing business as Reintjes Refractory Contractors, was cited with nine serious violations, including failing to use safe operating procedures for normal shut-down and tear-out of refractory materials at the kiln chamber, failing to provide necessary machine guarding and failing to adequately erect scaffolding.