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.
The Dodge Co. Inc. cited for 41 safety and health hazards. Formaldehyde and other hazards lead to $138,000 in U.S. Labor Department OSHA fines for embalming fluid manufacturer.
OSHA has cited The Dodge Co. Inc. for 41 alleged violations of workplace safety and health standards at its Cambridge, Mass., production plant. The embalming fluid manufacturer faces $138,000 in fines for inadequate safeguards involving formaldehyde stored and used in manufacturing processes at the plant as well as for various chemical, mechanical, and electrical hazards. These were identified during comprehensive OSHA inspections conducted over the past several months.
OSHA found that the plant lacked a process safety management (PSM) program. They also discovered that the plants procedures to proactively assess and address hazards associated with processes and equipment using large amounts of formaldehyde. It was also noted that the plant also lacked controls and other safeguards to reduce the levels of formaldehyde to which some workers were overexposed.
OSHA also identified numerous deficiencies in the plant’s respiratory protection, emergency response, hazardous energy control, chemical hygiene and chemical hazard communication programs as well as electrical hazards, unguarded moving machine parts, untrained forklift operators, failure to maintain work floors in a clean condition, and the use of unapproved forklifts where flammables are used.
“Workers’ exposure to excess formaldehyde levels can impact their health, while the other conditions cited here pose more acute safety hazards,” said Paul Mangiafico, OSHA’s area director for Middlesex and Essex counties. “All of these hazards must be effectively corrected for the safety and health of the plant’s workers.”
As a result, OSHA has issued the company 38 serious citations for these hazards plus, four other-than-serious citations for incomplete and inadequate recordkeeping. 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.
Detailed information about process safety management and formaldehyde is available online at:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
OSHA has cited El Dorado Metals with 26 serious safety and health violation and has proposed penalties of $69,500.
The alleged failure to protect its employees from potential safety and health hazards followed an inspection at the company’s worksite on Pellizzari Place in El Dorado, Arkansas.
“Failure to implement OSHA’s standards and regulations to prevent potential hazards associated with lead exposure is unacceptable,” said Carlos Reynolds, OSHA’s area director in Little Rock. “We are hopeful that corrective action will be taken immediately to prevent injuries or accidents.”
El Dorado Metals employs about 26 workers, 10 of whom were present at the time of the inspection.
OSHA’s Little Rock area office began its investigation Feb. 9 as part of OSHA’s National Emphasis Program on Lead and found 26 alleged serious violations.
The serious violations include failing to ensure employees are not exposed to lead levels greater than the permissible exposure limit, provide medical evaluations for employees exposed to lead levels greater than the permissible exposure limit, develop and implement a written compliance program to reduce employee exposure to lead, ensure medical evaluations were performed on employees required to wear respirators and provide training for forklift operators.
OSHA has proposed more than $1.1 million in penalties to Milk Specialties Co.
OSHA has cited Milk Specialties Co. in Whitehall with numerous violations of the OSHA standards and proposed $1,145,200 in penalties. OSHA began a December 2008 inspection in response to a complaint alleging a variety of safety hazards at the company’s whey processing plant. Willful citations have been issued for the employer’s failure to comply with OSHA’s confined space entry and Lockout/Tagout requirements. Untrained employees entered confined spaces and performed maintenance and cleaning on powered equipment without protection from various hazards. Proposed penalties for the 17 willful violations total $1,071,000. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
“I am committed to ensuring workers return home to their families safe and healthy at the end of every shift,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Employers must fully address hazards, properly train their employees and plan their work in a safe manner.”
Seventeen serious citations, with proposed penalties totaling $52,400, include combustible dust and electrical hazards; lack of exit route lighting and signage; lack of confined space evaluations; uninspected fire extinguishers; and untrained and uncertified powered industrial truck operators, among other issues.
Four repeat violations with penalties totaling $21,800 address the guarding of floor and wall openings, ladders and respiratory protection, and other issues addressed in previous inspections of this company. OSHA issues a repeat citation when it finds an employer’s violation is substantially similar to a previously cited condition that was affirmed as a violation through a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Milk Specialties has been inspected by OSHA 15 times since 1974, including four inspections in Wisconsin between 2006 and 2008, with citations resulting from many of the same safety and health hazards cited in the most recent inspection.
The company engages in the research, development and manufacture of protein and fat products for nutritional applications and feeding regimes that include products such as pasteurized milk extenders, spray-dried protein encapsulated fats, dried whey permeates, and condensed whey and liquid whey products.
From Combustible dust to inadequate machine guarding OSHA throws the book at Strum Ruger & Co. Inc.
Federal OSHA has proposed $255,150 in fines against Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc. for a total of 60 alleged violations of safety and health standards identified during the agency’s multiple inspections of the firearms manufacturer’s Newport, N.H., plant conducted between November 2008 and May 2009.
“Our inspections identified a large number of mechanical, respirator protection, electrical, lead, fire, explosive and other hazards that must be effectively and continuously addressed to protect the workers at this plant from potentially deadly or disabling injuries and illnesses now and in the future,” said Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA’s area director in New Hampshire.
OSHA found that the company failed to guard rotating parts on drill presses, sanding and polishing machines despite its knowledge that employees were exposed to severe or fatal injuries if they came in contact with the rotating parts. As a result, OSHA has issued the company one willful citation with $63,000 in proposed fines. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
Additional safety hazards include the lack of spark detectors or suppression systems to minimize fire and explosion hazards in ventilation systems that collect combustible wood and metal dust; allowing combustible dust to accumulate; unguarded floors and platforms; lack of eyewashes and adequate personal protective equipment; inadequate procedures, equipment and training to lock out machines’ power sources; improper storage of compressed gas cylinders; damaged, improperly used or ungrounded electrical equipment; additional unguarded machinery; and deficiencies with paint spray booths, confined space rescue, compressed air, forklifts and the transfer of flammable liquids.
The health inspection identified employees exposed to excess levels of lead dust; inadequate lead monitoring, training, hygiene, cleaning and disposal methods; inappropriate selection of respirators for lead; improper respirator fit-testing and use; no medical evaluations for employees using respirators; no refitting and retraining for employees who experienced a hearing threshold shift; and unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals.
These conditions resulted in the issuance of 55 serious citations with $188,550 in fines. 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.
The company also has been fined $3,600 and issued four other-than-serious citations for inadequate recordkeeping.
According to a search of OSHA’s own website it doesn’t appear this facility had been previously inspected by OSHA until this series of inspections that occurred in late 2008 and early 2009.
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.
St. Louis area chemical repackaging and distribution company in big trouble
OSHA has cited St. Louis, Mo.-based G.S. Robins & Co., doing business as Ro-Corp Inc., for alleged willful, repeat and serious violations of federal workplace safety standards, proposing more than $1.2 million in penalties for numerous violations relating to the handling of hazardous chemicals at the company’s facility in East St. Louis.
OSHA began an inspection at the East St. Louis site after learning that employees had been admitted to several local hospitals after being contaminated with an unknown powder. The eight hospitalized individuals, OSHA later learned, were exposed to the chemical para-nitroaniline (PNA), a poison that causes methemoglobinemia, resulting in the reduction of the blood’s ability to transport oxygen. The employees had been performing a chemical transfer operation at the East St. Louis worksite when chemical dust was released, settling on work surfaces and the employees.
“There are means available to safely handle deadly chemicals such as this, and those means were ignored,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Donald G. Shalhoub. “Those who ignore safe practices and OSHA regulations are inviting tragedy into the lives of their employees and their families, and this cannot be tolerated.” PNA is highly toxic and can be fatal if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. All the employees exposed showed ill effects from their exposure and recovered after treatment.As a result of its investigation, OSHA issued 21 willful citations, 20 of which were cited on a per-instance basis, relating to eight instances of failing to provide employees with the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) for transferring PNA; four instances of failing to provide training on the use of PPE and on working with hazardous chemicals; three instances of failing to provide PPE training and training on specific PNA-transfer procedures; and five instances of failing to fit-test employees using respirators.OSHA also issued a repeat citation for failing to provide an eyewash/shower in corrosive chemicals areas, and an additional 16 serious citations for hazards associated with the transfer of PNA and other workplace practices. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with intentional disregard of or plain indifference to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Repeat violations are issued when an employer has been previously cited for the same, or a substantially similar, violation within three years of the final order date.
In late December, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for a new fit-testing protocol — the Abbreviated Bitrex Qualitative Fit-Testing (ABQLFT) protocol — under Appendix A of OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard. The agency is accepting public comments until February 25, 2008.
“This proposed rule will add a new fit-test method that has a shorter exercise duration than the current methods,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. “This method will give employers additional flexibility in selecting procedures for conducting fit-testing.”The proposed rule would add the ABQLFT as an alternative to the four existing OSHA-allowed qualitative fit-test protocols. The ABQLFT protocol currently listed in the existing OSHA Bitrex fit-test protocol in the Respiratory Protection standard would shorten the duration for each of the seven fit-test exercises from one minute to 15 seconds.
The proposed protocol would apply to employers in general industry, shipyard employment, and the construction industry.Interested parties may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov, the federal eRulemaking Portal, by sending three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, DC, 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350; or if the written submission is ten pages or less, FAX to (202) 693-1648. All comments on the NPRM must include the docket number for this Federal Register notice, OSHA 2007-0006. See the Federal Register notice for more information on submitting comments.
Trade Release