More than $146,000 in Proposed Penalties

OSHA cited American Felt & Filter Co. for 35 alleged violations of workplace safety and health standards at its New Windsor plant. The company, which manufactures woolen felt for a variety of products, faces a total of $146,300 in proposed fines following an inspection by OSHA’s Albany Area Office.

“Our inspections identified numerous safety and health hazards, including several similar to those cited during earlier OSHA inspections of this facility,” said Arthur Dube, the agency’s acting area director in Albany.” Left uncorrected, these hazards expose employees to possible electrocution, crushing and struck-by injuries, being caught in moving machine parts, hearing loss, falls, eye and hand injuries, asbestos and lead.”

In addition to identifying machine guarding and electrical hazards, OSHA found that the plant failed to inspect cranes and lifting devices; remove an unsafe powered industrial truck from service; properly stack materials; monitor noise levels, and test and train employees exposed to excessive noise levels; provide first-aid supplies, eye and hand protection, and an emergency eyewash; ensure appropriate respiratory protection and other safeguards for employees exposed to lead; perform asbestos exposure monitoring; identify and label asbestos-containing materials; and provide training for employees on asbestos hazards. These conditions resulted in citations for 32 serious violations carrying $118,580 in penalties. 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.

Three repeat violations carrying $27,720 in fines involve unguarded lathes and failure to implement an effective respiratory protection program. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. OSHA cited the plant for similar hazards in 2007.

“One means of preventing new and recurring hazards is to implement and maintain an effective illness and injury prevention program in which management and employees work together to proactively identify and eliminate hazardous conditions,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

The citations can be viewed at

http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/AmericanFeltandFilterCo-315750224-12282011.pdf  http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/AmericanFeltandFilterCo-313764250-12282011.pdf

What is Considered “Timely Manner” When it Comes to Confined Space Rescue?

Scenario: You have started a new job as a safety manager for a company that has chemical storage tanks on its property. From time to time employees must enter these vessels to conduct routine maintenance and cleaning. When it comes to rescue involving these entries, your predecessor evaluated and selected the local fire department using the guidance provided in Appendix F of the PRCS standard, Rescue Team or Rescue Service Evaluation Criteria (Non-mandatory). Your predecessor determined that the local fire department was adequately trained and equipped to perform permit space rescues of the kind needed at your facility. He even had the fire department in at least once a year to make a performance evaluation of the service during a practice rescue. Your concerns are that the local fire department many be unable to perform their rescue duties in a timely manner and cannot guarantee that they will not be sent on another call during your permit space entry operations.

You raise this issue with your superior and are told: “We have relied on the fire department here for years, and we aren’t going to change this practice unless you can prove we need to.”

Question: If your employer has selected this local fire department as its off-site rescue service, is your employer in compliance with 29 CFR 1910.146(k)(1) when it comes to the “timely manner” requirement? Is there another OSHA standard that may be more helpful in answering this question?

Answer: The standard at 29 CFR 1910.146(k)(1) provides:

(1) An employer who designates rescue and emergency services, pursuant to paragraph (d)(9) of this section, shall:

(i) Evaluate a prospective rescuer’s ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner, considering the hazard(s) identified;

Note to paragraph (k)(1)(i): What will be considered timely will vary according to the specific hazards involved in each entry. For example, §1910.134, Respiratory Protection, requires that employers provide a standby person or persons capable of immediate action to rescue employee(s) wearing respiratory protection while in work areas defined as IDLH atmospheres.

The standard goes on to say in (k)(1)(iii)(A) to select a rescue team or service that has the capability to reach the victim(s) within a time frame that is appropriate for the permit space hazard(s) identified. 

In the Preamble to the revisions made to this standard in 1998, there is some additional language that may be helpful. Just as stated in the note to (k)(1)(i) OSHA is going to utilize the respiratory protection standard in 1910.134(g)(3) that requires standby rescue personnel when employees are working in atmospheres that are immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH).

Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) in the respiratory protection standard means an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual’s ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.

Whereas “Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH)” in the Permit Required Confined Space goes into a little more detail stating it means any condition that poses an immediate or delayed threat to life or that would cause irreversible adverse health effects or that would interfere with an individual’s ability to escape unaided from a permit space. Which is followed by a note stating some materials — hydrogen fluoride gas and cadmium vapor, for example — may produce immediate transient effects that, even if severe, may pass without medical attention, but are followed by sudden, possibly fatal collapse 12-72 hours after exposure. The victim “feels normal” from recovery from transient effects until collapse. Such materials in hazardous quantities are considered to be “immediately” dangerous to life or health.

Keep in mind an oxygen deficient atmosphere would also be considered an IDLH atmosphere.OSHA believes it is clear that the atmosphere in a permit space where an entrant could suffer irreversible impairment within four to six minutes would meet the definition of an IDLH atmosphere: According to the Respiratory Protection standard1910.134(g)(3) it states when employees enter such a space, the employer must ensure that one employee, or when needed, more than one employee is located outside the IDLH atmosphere and the employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere are trained and equipped to provide effective emergency rescue. Or, the employer must be able to provide non-entry rescue of the entrant.

The preamble goes on to state OSHA believes that compliance with these requirements will enable the employer to begin rescue operations more quickly than rescue team members arriving from another location.

Remember that whether inside or outside the plant, responding rescuers would need to gather appropriate equipment, prepare to use that equipment, and be briefed on the emergency situation before beginning rescue operations. Because the standby personnel must be appropriately trained and equipped to perform rescue operations, other inadequately prepared employees will be less likely to endanger themselves by attempting hasty and dangerous rescues while the employer is waiting for outside rescuers to arrive. OSHA does recognize that because the Respiratory Protection standard requirement only applies to IDLH atmospheres, a less resource-intensive and more measured response capability may be used for those situations where there is not the same need for virtually instant response. So, the word “timely” is not clearly defined, but will be based on the particular circumstances and hazards of each confined space which the employer enters.

OSHA cites Marietta Industrial Enterprises in Marietta, Ohio for $186,000 after worker’s death at recycling facility.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Marietta Industrial Enterprises Inc., which operates Refuse Recycling in Marietta Ohio for 21 safety, including two willful, violations. OSHA opened an inspection after a worker was found dead inside the rotating drum assembly of a machine used to screen recyclables from other refuse on March 30.

“Marietta Industrial Enterprises showed an intentional disregard for employee safety by failing to provide lockout/tagout training to workers performing maintenance inside rotating drums, which could easily be restarted if their energy sources were not properly cut off,” said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA’s area director in Columbus. “No one should ever lose his or her life because safety procedures were not followed. It is the employer’s responsibility to train workers and ensure that the workplace is free from unnecessary hazards.”

Two willful violations involve failing to implement lockout/tagout procedures to prevent equipment from becoming unexpectedly energized and to train workers in lockout/tagout procedures. 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.

Additionally, 14 serious violations involve failing to provide machine guarding, provide adequate guardrails, mark and illuminate emergency and exit signs, evaluate the workplace to determine if there were any confined spaces that would require permits, examine powered industrial trucks prior to each shift, ensure that employees used electrical protective equipment, provide electrically insulated tools, develop an exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens, offer hepatitis B vaccines and label biohazard containers. 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.

Finally, five other-than-serious violations involve using work areas for storage, as well as failing to record work-related injuries, maintain clean conditions, provide a written respiratory protection program and provide employees with information for voluntary respirator use. 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 injury.

As a result of the investigation, Marietta Industrial Enterprises has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Initiated in June 2010, SVEP is intended to focus on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations in one or more of the following circumstances: a fatality or catastrophe, industry operations or processes that expose workers to severe occupational hazards, employee exposure to hazards related to the potential releases of highly hazardous chemicals and all per-instance citation (egregious) enforcement actions. For more information on SVEP, visit http://www.osha.gov/dep/svep-directive.pdf*.

Proposed penalties total $186,300. The citations can be viewed at: http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/MARIETTA_INDUSTRIAL_ENTERPRISES_314593690_0922_11.pdf

Buckeye Radiation Oncology, an outpatient radiation therapy treatment facility in Columbus Ohio was hit with 14 serious safety citations for failing to ensure employees who worked with lead-cadmium alloy were protected from respiratory, ingestion and absorption hazards. The company faces penalties of $58,200 as a result of a December 2010 inspection.

“Employers have a responsibility to ensure employees have safe working environments, which includes taking all necessary precautions to protect them from exposure to hazardous materials such as lead and cadmium alloy,” said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA’s area director in Columbus. “OSHA is committed to protecting workers, especially when employers fail to do so.”

The violations for which the company has been cited include failing to implement a written respirator program with specific worksite procedures; provide protective work clothing and equipment to prevent potential lead and cadmium contamination of employees and their clothing; provide for the cleaning and laundering or disposal of protective equipment and clothing exposed to lead and cadmium; inform, in writing, employees and those who clean protective clothing of the harmful effects of exposure to lead and cadmium; maintain all surfaces as free as practicable of accumulations of lead and cadmium; use effective vacuum and filtration methods to remove lead and cadmium dust, and prevent their re-entry into the workplace. The company also was cited for failing to accurately record air monitoring for these substances, and to have a training program for employees educating them on the hazards of potential exposure to cadmium and lead. 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.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed two guidance documents, one for workers and one for employers, which describe the use of spirometry testing to help reduce and prevent worker exposure to respiratory hazards.

Spirometry is a common pulmonary function test that measures how well a person moves air in and out of the lungs. Workers who inhale some types of dusts, gases or other air contaminants can, over time, experience lung damage. The spirometry test may detect breathing problems or significant changes in a worker’s lung function at an early stage. The information in these new guidance documents assists employers with identifying and eliminating hazardous workplace exposures and helping reduce or prevent the chances of workers developing lung disease.

The new OSHA-NIOSH-produced Infosheet for employers clarifies what spirometry is, when it is needed, and critical elements that employers can use to evaluate the quality of spirometry services provided to their workers. The Infosheet also describes how monitoring workers’ lung function over time can help individuals by identifying problems early and make the workplace safer by identifying when workplace respiratory hazards are causing problems that must be corrected. The companion document, OSHA-NIOSH Worker Info, explains to workers the importance of taking a spirometry test, what to do during the test, and their right to receive an explanation and copy of test results.

“Spirometry is the best available test for early detection of decreasing or abnormal lung function,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “Our joint effort with NIOSH in developing these products will help broaden outreach and enhance knowledge of preventive measures aimed at protecting worker health and safety.”

“We are pleased to join with OSHA in emphasizing the important role of spirometry in preventing costly, debilitating, and potentially fatal occupational lung diseases,” said NIOSH Director John Howard, M.D. “These tests are a vital component of health and safety programs in workplaces where workers may be exposed to hazardous airborne contaminants.”

OSHA also recommends spirometry testing for workers exposed to diacetyl and diacetyl substitutes. The agency recently issued a Safety and Health Information Bulletin on Occupational Exposure to Flavoring Substances: Health Effects and Hazard Controls and a companion Worker Alert on Diacetyl and Substitutes. These documents recommend that employers include spirometry testing in their medical surveillance programs to identify workers experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to flavorings, including food flavorings containing diacetyl.

E.N. Range Inc. in Miami, Fla., has been cited for more than $2 million for exposing workers to lead and other hazards.

 OSHA has issued citations to E.N. Range Inc. in Miami, Fla., alleging the company knowingly neglected to protect employees who clean gun ranges from serious overexposure to lead. It also provided, without medical supervision, non-FDA-approved treatments for lead exposure. The company was cited for more than 50 violations of the lead standard and others, with total proposed penalties of $2,099,600.

“This company was well aware of what it needed to do to protect its workers from a well known hazard. It not only failed to provide that protection, it misled employees - most of whom had limited knowledge of English - into believing that it was providing them with appropriate medical treatment,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Such a blatant disregard for the health of workers will not be tolerated under this administration.”

E.N. Range has been cited for 42 willful and serious violations of the lead standard with proposed penalties of $1,884,000. OSHA’s lead standard requires employers to protect their workers from lead exposure which can cause many serious health issues including brain damage, paralysis, kidney disease, and even death.

OSHA’s lead standard also addresses the use of chelating agents, which are medicines intended to reduce blood levels that can have significant adverse side effects. The standard prohibits the use of these agents prophylactically, and permits their therapeutic use only under the supervision of a physician in an appropriate clinical setting. Willful citations were issued alleging that E.N. Range violated this provision by giving its workers non-FDA-approved chelating agents without medical supervision.

“This is an egregious situation where the employer deliberately refused to provide the necessary protections to keep workers safe from overexposure to lead,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “The company even knew its workers suffered from lead poisoning, yet avoided proper medical attention in favor of providing an unapproved and potentially unsafe treatment.”

The citations allege that E.N. Range did not use engineering controls to prevent overexposure to lead, perform air sampling to determine the extent of its workers’ exposure, provide showers for workers who had been exposed to lead, or provide blood testing to exposed workers every six months, all of which are required by the lead standard.

The company was also found in violation of the respiratory protection standard for failing to provide medical evaluations and fit testing for respirators. Additionally, the company is being cited for failing to abate a previously-cited violation discovered during an inspection in February 2009. That failure-to-abate notice charges that the employer had neglected to implement a job rotation schedule to reduce lead exposures. The company is also being cited for additional serious violations, including a spliced electrical cable and failure to ensure the blades of a box fan were adequately guarded.

OSHA cites AAR Summa Technology in Huntsville, Ala., with proposed penalties of $191,500 for 22 safety and health violations

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued 22 citations against AAR Summa Technology for exposing workers to safety and health hazards at its Huntsville plant. Proposed penalties total $191,500.

“Management needs to show a commitment to worker safety and health consistent with this company’s ranking as one of the top defense contractors in the world,” said Roberto Sanchez, OSHA’s area director in Birmingham, Ala.

OSHA began its inspection in February after receiving a complaint about hazards at the facility, which produces military aircraft parts. Two willful safety violations were issued for failing to provide proper lockout/tagout procedures of energy sources for workers performing maintenance and service functions on machinery, and for failing to provide protective machine guards on equipment.

Sixteen serious safety violations were issued for failing to repair or replace hooks used to lift and hold shop fabricated lifting devices, allowing materials to obstruct the exit pathways, failing to properly maintain machinery, exposing workers to electrical hazards, failing to train workers on hazards associated with aluminum dust, and using excessively pressurized compressed air to clean off parts.

Three serious health violations were issued for exposing workers to noise hazards, failing to perform audiometric tests on employees and failing to train workers on hazards related to noise.

A repeat health violation was issued for failing to provide a site-specific written respiratory protection program. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last three years.

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.

Atlanta Intown Granite Company has been cited by Federal OSHA for continuing to expose its employees to health hazards more than a year after OSHA had cited the company for similar violations.

OSHA is proposing $133,875 in penalties against the company for exposing workers to excess amounts of silica by not fully implementing a respiratory protection program, failing to fully implement a hearing conservation program and failing to establish a written hazard communication program on exposure to hazardous substances.

Exposure to silica can lead to silicosis, a disabling, nonreversible and sometimes fatal lung disease. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that each year more than 250 people die from and hundreds more are disabled by silicosis.

“Silica and noise exposure remain serious hazards to employees at work, but both hazards are 100 percent preventable if employers fully implement protection programs,” said Andre Richards, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-West Area Office.
OSHA inspected this company in September 2008 and cited it with five serious violations for similar hazards. The current inspection followed up on the earlier one to determine if the hazards had been corrected.

The agency also is citing the stone countertop manufacturer with one serious safety violation and a proposed penalty of $2,000 for not equipping portable tools with machine guards.

Top Stories

Federal OSHA issued three Mueller Industries Inc. subsidiaries in Fulton Mississippi 128 citations for allegedly exposing workers to safety and health hazards. The privately-held corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tenn., owns and operates 20 facilities located in eight states and two foreign countries.

OSHA began its investigation in July 2009 after a maintenance worker employed by Mueller Copper Tube Co. Inc., a subsidiary of Mueller Industries, was killed, and two other workers were injured when naphtha, a flammable liquid of hydrocarbon mixtures, leaked from an electric pump and ignited.

“Mueller Industries subsidiaries’ dangerous practices exposed workers at their facilities to a variety of hazards that ultimately took one worker’s life,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “The significant fines of $683,000 cannot replace this worker’s life or bring peace to the family, but they will go a long way in letting this employer know disregarding worker safety and health will not be tolerated.”

Mueller Copper Tube has been issued willful, repeat and serious citations. A willful citation with a penalty of $40,000 alleges the failure to repair a corroded live electrical disconnect, which exposed workers to electrical shock. Ten repeat citations with penalties of $150,000 allege failure to guard machinery; unsafe electrical equipment and practices; and failure to label hazardous chemicals. Sixty-nine serious citations, with proposed penalties of $223,500, allege unsafe cranes; fall hazards; unsafe ladders; blocked and inadequate exits; unsafe flammable liquid and compressed gas use and storage; locking out hazardous energy sources during maintenance and service; a lack of machine guards; unsafe electrical equipment and practices; and failure to establish a respiratory protection program.

The initial safety inspection at Mueller Cooper Tube was expanded to include Mueller Fittings LLC and Mueller Packaging LLC, two additional subsidiaries of Mueller Industries. Mueller Fittings has been issued 22 serious citations, with penalties of $64,000, alleging the failure to lock out energy sources, unsafe propane storage and handling, overexposure to noise, unsafe material storage, and the likelihood of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Eight repeat citations also have been issued, with penalties of $102,500, alleging a lack of machine guarding, electrical hazards and the inadequate labeling of hazardous chemicals.

Mueller Packaging has been issued 12 serious citations, with penalties of $28,000, alleging unsafe crane operation, failing to lock out sources of hazardous energy, hazardous chemical exposures, and overexposure to noise; five repeat citations, with penalties of $75,000, alleging an unsafe forklift modification, electrical hazards and inadequate labeling under the hazard communication standard; and one other-than-serious violation, with no penalty, for an electrical deficiency.

Top Stories