OSHA to Order Company to Comply with Safety Standards

The U.S. Department of Labor’s regional solicitor’s office in Boston has filed a complaint against DeMoulas Super Markets Inc., doing business as Market Basket, with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The complaint asks the commission to order the Tewksbury, Mass.-based chain to comply with the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s safety standards designed to protect employees from fall and laceration hazards at the employer’s more than 60 stores in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

This request for enterprisewide relief is based upon hazards OSHA found during inspections of various DeMoulas stores, including the agency’s most recent inspections at Market Basket stores in Rindge and Concord, N.H. Those inspections resulted in citations and proposed OSHA fines totaling $589,200, which DeMoulas has contested to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

“Hazardous conditions at multiple locations that expose employees to serious injuries demand a swift and comprehensive corrective response at the corporate level,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA insists that this employer completely and effectively eliminate the hazards it never should have allowed to exist in the first place.”

The department’s complaint alleges that employees at multiple Market Basket stores were exposed or likely to be exposed to fall hazards from unguarded, open-sided work and storage areas, including storage lofts and atop produce coolers and freezers. An employee of the Market Basket store in Rindge was seriously injured in April 2011 when he fell 11 feet onto a concrete floor from an inadequately guarded storage mezzanine, and an employee at a Billerica, Mass., store was seriously injured under similar conditions in 2007.

The company also allegedly failed to protect employees in produce, deli and bakery departments against laceration hazards from knives and cutting instruments by not conducting job hazard analyses that would have identified the need for hand protection, and by not providing such hand protection to workers exposed to the hazards. In 2006, after being cited by OSHA, the company agreed to complete job hazard analyses in all stores but failed to do so. Between 2008 and 2011, employees at the Rindge and Concord stores sustained at least 40 recorded hand lacerations.

“Worker safety is not optional, and it cannot be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. It must be addressed across the board,” said Michaels. “This employer has the responsibility to safeguard all its employees at all its locations, something it has failed to do.”

DeMoulas Super Markets has 20 days from receipt of the complaint to file an answer. Details of OSHA’s inspections of the Rindge and Concord stores and copies of the citations can be found at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/DemoulasSuperMarketsIncdbaMarketBasket_63192_1007_11.pdf.

This complaint filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission marks the second such time that the department has expressly sought enterprisewide relief from an employer. The first time was against the U.S. Postal Service in July 2010 for correction of electrical work safety violations at 350 postal facilities throughout the nation. That matter is pending.

Last month OSHA issued a hazard alert about the dangers of using scissor lifts to film events and functions. Scissor lifts are portable, hydraulic-powered lifts that are commonly used by colleges and high schools to film athletic and band activities.

Last October, a 20-year-old University of Notre Dame student employee was killed while filming the team’s football practice from a scissor lift that was blown over by high winds. The worker, who reportedly was not trained to properly operate the equipment, raised the lift more than 39 feet into the air on a day in which winds exceeded 50 miles per hour. At the conclusion of OSHA’s investigation they cited the university for five serious and one willful violations netting $77,500 in violations.  Every single citation was the “General Duty “clause.

A few years back while attending another sporting event one of our staff spotted a camera man on a lift where they had removed the railing from the lift and provided the camera man no fall protection.  See photo.

The alert lists hazards associated with scissor lifts such as using the equipment during high winds or bad weather; overloading the equipment with heavy objects; removing the guardrails during operation; and driving the lift on uneven or unstable ground.

Employers can minimize scissor lift hazards by establishing safe work practices, including inspecting the lift before use; safely moving, positioning, and stabilizing the lift; selecting safe work locations; and identifying weather conditions that prevent use. Additional key safety practices include putting the scissor lift on a firm level surface, setting brakes and stabilizing the lift before raising it, and maintaining a 10 foot clearance from electrical power sources and overhead hazards such as tree branches.

Hazards can be further reduced by training workers on how to operate scissor lifts safely, making sure that the scissor lift has a guardrail system for fall protection, and operating and maintaining the lift according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

OSHA’s Scaffolding eTool and Safety and Health Topics page on Scaffolding provide additional guidance on the hazards and requirements for using scissor lifts.

OSHA cites China Grove, Texas bakery for 49 violations following a finger amputation for exposing workers to combustible dust, electrical, fall, other hazards

Federal OSHA has cited Lone Star Bakery Inc. for 32 serious, one repeat and 16 other-than-serious violations following an amputation incident and multiple inspections at two of the company’s facilities in China Grove. Violations include exposing workers to combustible dust, fall and electrical hazards, among others. Proposed penalties total $229,400.

“This company has jeopardized the health and safety of its workers,” said Jeff Funke, OSHA’s area director in San Antonio. “Employees were exposed to many hazards, including excessive accumulations of combustible flour dust that could have ignited and caused serious injuries.”

OSHA’s San Antonio Area Office initiated a safety and health inspection on Oct. 18, 2010, at the company’s facility at 8100 E. U.S. Highway 87, following a finger tip amputation incident on the pie processing line. A second safety inspection began on Dec. 15, 2010, at the company’s facility at 6905 E. U.S. Highway 87 as the result of a fire that occurred from excessive buildup of bread materials in the ovens. A second health inspection was initiated Jan. 24 at the company’s 8100 Highway 87 facility following a report that employees were being exposed to excessive levels of noise and not being protected by a hearing conservation program.

The serious violations include failing to ensure that employees were protected from falls; to clean combustible dust from workroom floors and other surfaces; to cover drain openings; to ensure that exits were free from obstructions and unlocked; and to ensure electrical deficiencies were corrected.

The repeat violation is failing to ensure that a metal junction box was permanently mounted in accordance with the listing and labeling required by the manufacturer. 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 Lone Star Bakery for a similar violation following a 2006 inspection that resulted in total penalties of $78,300.

Other-than-serious violations include failing to record each work-related injury or illness case that met general recording criteria, and complete an incident report form for each work-related injury or illness case that met the general recording criteria for both locations from 2007 to 2010.

Lone Star Bakery, a private commercial bakery that employs about 500 workers at the two China Grove facilities.

Earlier this month the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register its plans to require improved worker protection from tripping, slipping and falling hazards on walking and working surfaces currently in subparts D and I of 29 CFR 1910. A public hearing on the revised changes will be held after the public comment period is over.

The NPRM describes revisions to the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards to help prevent an estimated annual 20 workplace fatalities and more than 3,500 injuries serious enough to cause people to miss work.  A leading cause of worker-related injury and death comes from employees slipping, tripping, or falling from work surfaces such as floors, platforms, portable and fixed ladders, stairs, and ramps. Employees may be exposed and unprotected from these hazards or may have a protection system in place but are using that system incorrectly.

According to OSHA the current walking-working surfaces regulations allow employers to provide outdated and dangerous fall protection equipment such as lanyards and body belts that can result in workers suffering greater injury from falls. Construction and maritime workers already receive safer, more effective fall protection devices such as self-retracting lanyards and ladder safety and rope descent systems, which these proposed revisions would also require for general industry workers.

The current walking-working surfaces standards also do not allow OSHA to fine employers who let workers climb certain ladders without fall protection. Under the revised standards, this restriction would be lifted in virtually all industries, allowing OSHA inspectors to fine employers who jeopardize their workers’ safety and lives by climbing these ladders without proper fall protection.

Here is a little background:

• Subpart D contains standards for walking-working surfaces and was adopted in April of 1971 in accordance with Section 6(a) of the OSH Act. The primary sources for subpart D were several pre-1971 editions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standards. There has been little change to the standard in subpart D since its initial adoption.
• Some early OSHA walking-working surfaces standards were developed with little consideration given to the consistency among the requirements applicable to general industry, shipyards, and construction. As a result, there are different requirements for similar, and sometimes identical, hazards in different industries.
• Existing subpart D is organized such that its sections are often redundant and difficult to use. Reducing redundancy makes subpart D clearer and easier to read, facilitating workers’ and employers’ understanding and application of the rule.
• In 1973, OSHA published a proposed revision of subpart D that was withdrawn in 1976 because, in the Agency’s view, it had become outdated and did not reflect then-current information. In 1990, OSHA published another proposed rule to reorganize, update, and clarify the subpart and add personal fall protection requirements to subpart I, which regulates personal protective equipment. In 2003, the rulemaking record was reopened and several issues were raised. Comments to the record indicated that the 1990 proposed rule was outdated and did not give adequate consideration to newer technology. In 2005, the decision was made to completely redraft the proposed rule. The 1990 proposal was not withdrawn, and therefore is still on record today as a proposed rule
• Subpart I contains standards for personal protective equipment, but it does not currently address personal fall protection systems.

Overview of Proposed Subparts D and I:

• OSHA estimates the proposed rule would prevent 20 workplace fatalities per year, and over 3,700 injuries per year that are serious enough to result in days away from work.
• Subpart D would be reorganized in a clear, logical manner, thereby facilitating compliance and enhancing employee protection.
• The proposed rule would eliminate duplication and extensive specification of requirements, while emphasizing performance-based criteria; for example, the proposal would incorporate the construction scaffolding standards, which would eliminate the need for most scaffold specifications in general industry.
• A new section would be added to subpart I that provides criteria for fall protection equipment. This new section would make the general industry standards consistent with existing construction and maritime standards regulating fall protection, as well as current industry practice, and give clear standards on fall protection PPE to employers.
• Compliance flexibility would be provided for the mitigation of fall hazards; for example, proposed subpart D would require fall protection, but would provide options for compliance such as travel restraint systems and designated areas for fall protection when appropriate. Subpart I would provide criteria on the proper use of personal fall protection systems when used by the employer.

Click here to view video comments by Dr. Michaels
 

Last month OSHA issued a letter of interpretation clarifying the use of a stepladder as a straight (non-self-supporting) ladder even if the bottom of the ladder is footed.

Letter #200801220-8196

Re: Using a stepladder as a non-self-supporting ladder

Question: 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4) requires ladders to be used only for the purpose for which they were designed. Some manufacturers have indicated a concern that a self-supporting ladder might slip out and cause someone to fall if it is used as a non-self-supporting ladder.

Scenario: A stepladder (which is a type of’ self-supporting ladder) is used as a non-self-supporting ladder, but the bottom of the ladder is either “footed” (that is, another person keeps their foot on the bottom to keep the ladder from slipping) or the ladder is tied off at the bottom to prevent the bottom from slipping out.

Would the use of a stepladder as described above violate 29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4)? If so, would such use be a de minimis violation?

Answer: In 29 CFR 1926 Subpart X, 1926.1053(b)(4) states:

Ladders shall be used only for the purpose for which they were designed. [Emphasis added]
Thus, using a stepladder as a non-self-supporting ladder would violate §1926.1053(b)(4) if the ladder were not designed for that purpose. The particular design of a stepladder varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, whether or not the scenario you describe constitutes a violation of §1926.1053(b)(4) would depend on whether such use is consistent with the purpose intended by the manufacturer.

It is our understanding that self-supporting ladders, including stepladders, typically, are not designed to be used as non-self-supporting ladders unless otherwise indicated by the manufacturer. For example, note that paragraph 8.3.1.2 of ANSI A14.1-1982 and ANSI-ASC A14.1-2007 state that, “[s]elf-supporting ladders shall not be used as single ladders or in the partially closed position” [emphasis added].1 Note, also, that ANSI-ASC A14.1-2007 defines “single ladder” as a “non-self-supporting portable ladder, nonadjustable in length, consisting of one section.” Statements from manufacturers indicating a concern that a self-supporting ladder might slip out and cause someone to fall, if used as a non-self-supporting ladder, would be consistent with these ANSI provisions.

Typically, having a coworker hold the ladder, or using rope to attempt to restrain the ladder at its base, would not be considered substitutes for this requirement. We note that, for example, slip-out is not the only hazard that can result from using a ladder differently than in accordance with its design.

Furthermore, 1926.1053(a)(2) states:

Ladder rungs, cleats, and steps shall be . . . level . . . when the ladder is in position for use. [Emphasis added]
Stepladders are typically designed so that the rungs are level when the ladder is in the open and locked position and the ladder is placed on a stable and level surface. Consequently, it is likely that positioning a stepladder for use as a non-self-supporting ladder would result in the ladder’s rungs being out-of-level, which would violate 1926.1053(a)(2).

Sincerely,

Richard E. Fairfax, Acting Director
Directorate of Construction

Top Stories

Federal OSHA proposes more than $266,000 in penalties against Tucker, Ga., manufacturer following worker amputations. Crespac Inc. is cited with three willful, four repeat and 19 serious safety violations.

Crespac Inc. in Tucker, Ga., has been cited with 34 safety and health violations by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Proposed penalties total $266,400.

“OSHA began its comprehensive safety and health inspection after learning of two separate incidents resulting in amputations within a 30-day period,” said Gei-Thae Breezley, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-East Area Office. “In both instances, management knew of deficiencies but acted with plain indifference by failing to correct the problems in a timely manner that could have prevented these amputations.”

The agency is citing the company with three willful, four repeat, 19 serious and one other-than-serious safety violations, as well as five serious and two other-than-serious health violations. OSHA is proposing penalties of $249,200 for the safety violations and an additional $17,200 for the health violations.

The willful citations result from the company’s failure to ensure that all machines had proper safety guards, functional emergency stop cords and usable safety interlock switches installed on machinery.

The company is being cited for repeat violations related to having slippery and wet floors, lack of safety guards on machines, machines being operated with broken parts and employees being exposed to electrical shocks.

Serious violations include fall hazards, slipping and tripping hazards, entrapment hazards, failure to provide proper fire training and equipment, failure to properly train forklift operators, electrical hazards, noise hazards, exposure to hazardous chemicals and an insufficient respirator program for employees.

Top Stories

The U.S. CPSC, announced today a voluntary recall of EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses.

90 of the EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses sold by Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Michigan were recalled due to Fall Hazard.  These units were sold at Cabelas, Bass Pro and at various sporting goods stores nationwide from May 2009 to August 2009 for about $200.  These harnesses were manufactured in the Philippines.

The webbing of the waist belt on the safety harness is not routed through the lineman’s loop located on the front of the harness near waist level. Since the loops are not properly anchored to the harness webbing but are attached only through stitching not intended to restrain a user during a fall, they that can pull away from the harness when force is applied, leaving the user unrestrained.  So far no incidents were reported.

This safety harness, used as a fall restraint for hunting, is comprised of two leg straps and two shoulder straps, which connect to a waist belt and padded back support. There is a long, black tether strap at the top rear of the safety harness, which has grey and red accents. The name EXO-Tech is located on the right front shoulder strap and the name Gorilla is located on the left front should strap both in white lettering. Similar to a shirt tag, there is a white manufacturing label on the inside of the back of the harness with the model number 45111 and manufacturing dates, 4/22/2009 or 6/26/2009. These are the only harnesses recalled.

Consumers should immediately stop using the harness and contact Gorilla Inc. to receive a refund.

For additional information, contact Gorilla Inc. at (877) 685-7817 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web site at www.gorillatreestands.com. Consumers can also write to the firm at Gorilla, Inc., P.O. 378, Flushing, MI., 48433 or 3475 Eastman Drive, Flushing, MI. 48433.

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

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 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