OSHA cited Resource Management Cos. at its Earth City, MO recycling facility for 37 safety and health violations. An inspection was opened after a worker died from injuries sustained on June 12 when he entered a baling machine to clear a jam and it became energized. Proposed fines total $195,930.
“Resource Management Cos. has a responsibility to ensure that its workers are protected from hazardous working conditions, especially ones related to dangerous equipment such as baling machines,” said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo. “Employers are required by law to ensure that work environments are safe and healthful. OSHA is committed to protecting workers on the job, especially when employers fail to do so.”
Twenty-two serious safety violations have been cited, including failing to lock out and tag out the energy sources of equipment and install adequate machine guarding. They also involve hazards related to fall protection, exits, flammable liquids, fire extinguishers, powered industrial trucks, and welding and electrical equipment. Additionally, eight serious health violations involve inadequate housekeeping, excessive noise, improper personal protective equipment, permit required space program, and blood borne pathogens hazards. 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.
One repeat safety violation has been cited relating to defective powered industrial trucks that were not taken out of service. 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. The company was cited in April 2010 for a similar violation.
Six other-than-serious safety and health violations have been cited, involving egress, fire extinguisher, personal protective equipment and hazard communications deficiencies. 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 physical harm.
Employee of Miami Beach Store Allegedly Fired for Complaining about Raw Sewage Spill
OSHA has sued Whole Foods Market Group Inc. to reinstate a former employee with full back wages and benefits after the company allegedly fired the worker for voicing and reporting workplace health concerns regarding a raw sewage spillage at its store in Miami Beach.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, resulted from an investigation by OSHA that found the company violated the whistleblower protection provisions of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by unlawfully and intentionally terminating the individual’s employment at the store, which is located at 1020 Alton Road.
“OSHA takes allegations of workplace discrimination very seriously,” said Teresa Harrison, OSHA’s acting regional administrator in Atlanta, GA. “These types of allegations are thoroughly investigated, and employers violating the whistleblower protection provisions of the OSH Act are held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
OSHA is asking the federal court to remedy the situation by issuing an order that includes a permanent injunction against Whole Foods to prevent future violations of this law; reinstating the former employee with full benefits; paying back wages, punitive damages and compensatory damages to the employee; expunging the employee’s personnel file with respect to the matters at issue in this case; and granting any other appropriate relief.
On Nov. 2, 2009, the employee voiced concerns to a supervisor alerting him that a sewer line, which had ruptured on Nov. 1, was still spilling into the workplace including, but not limited to, the specialty cheese department and the restrooms. The employee then called the company’s anonymous tip line, since no corrective actions had been conducted by store management. On Nov. 5, the worker contacted another manager expressing concern that the problem had not been corrected. Whole Foods then fired the worker on Nov. 5 for allegedly making false and malicious statements to the effect that management had not taken any steps to redress the sewage contamination at the workplace.
Whole Foods Market is a retail food store chain with its main office in Austin, TX. OSHA is represented in court by the Labor Department’s Regional Office of the Solicitor in Atlanta.
OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act and 20 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities, trucking, airline, nuclear, pipeline, environmental, rail, maritime, health care, workplace safety and health, consumer product and food safety laws.
Under the various whistleblower provisions enacted by Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets, is available online at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.
35 Serious Safety and Health Violations Discovered
Remington Arms Co. Inc. was cited by OSHA for 35 alleged serious violations of workplace safety and health standards at its Ilion, NY manufacturing plant. The firearms manufacturer faces a total of $170,000 in proposed penalties for a variety of mechanical, electrical, and chemical hazards identified during inspections by OSHA’s Syracuse Area Office.
“Left uncorrected, these conditions expose the plant’s workers to electrocution, falls, burns, lacerations, amputation, crushing and “struck-by” injuries, as well as exposure to hazardous substances and being caught in operating or unintentionally energized machinery,” said Christopher Adams, OSHA’s area director for central New York. “For the safety and health of these workers, this employer must ensure that these hazards are corrected and take effective steps to prevent their recurrence.
“Specifically, OSHA found violations involving a lack of personal protective equipment; accumulations of toxic substances lead and cadmium on surfaces in the plant; food and beverages stored and consumed at cadmium-contaminated work stations; failing to provide workers with training and information on lead and cadmium; and not determining cadmium exposure levels. The inspection also identified numerous electrical hazards and instances of unguarded moving machine parts; improper storage and transfer of flammable liquids; a lack of procedures to lock out machines’ power sources to prevent their unintended startup during maintenance; unguarded openings and defective ladders; defective powered industrial trucks and untrained drivers; inadequate fire extinguisher training and availability; unlabeled permit-required confined spaces; no continuous, effective extermination program for vermin; unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals; and several exit deficiencies including a locked exit door, obstructed exit routes, umarked exits, and non-functioning emergency and exit lighting. 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.
“An effective illness and injury prevention program in which employers and employees work together to identify and eliminate hazards is one way of preventing initial and recurring workplace hazards such as these,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional director in New York.
OSHA cited Sigma Processed Meats Inc. for 16 serious and three repeat violations following an inspection that found workers were exposed to fall and other hazards at the company’s processing plant in Seminole, OK. Proposed penalties total $204,800.
OSHA’s Oklahoma City Area Office began its investigation June 1 at the company’s plant on East Goodhope Road after receiving a complaint. Serious violations include failing to provide guardrails as fall protection for employees working on elevated walking/working surfaces, provide an adequate emergency action plan, provide personal protective equipment such as goggles or face shields, train employees on the use of hazardous chemicals and address hazards created by deficiencies in the company’s process safety management system for anhydrous ammonia. Anhydrous ammonia is used for the refrigeration system. 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 repeat violations include failing to develop and implement a lockout/tagout program for isolation of energy sources as well as to provide training for employees on the use of lockout/tagout devices. 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.“Failure to effectively implement OSHA’s safety and health regulations to protect workers from potential hazards could lead to serious injury or death. OSHA will not tolerate such negligence,” said David Bates, OSHA’s area director in Oklahoma City.
Company Placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program
OSHA has cited Midsouth Steel Inc. of Atlanta for four safety violations following an inspection that found workers exposed to fall hazards while performing roofing work on Roosevelt Highway in Union City, GA. Proposed penalties total $184,800.
OSHA initiated the inspection as part of a local emphasis program protecting workers in the construction industry from falls. Midsouth Steel, a general contractor performing steel fabrication and roof decking, had been contracted by MBA Waste Service of Atlanta to build a 44,000-square-foot recycling facility in Union City.Three willful violations with $184,800 in fines were cited for exposing workers to fall hazards by allowing them to work at heights of 35 feet in an aerial lift without requiring the use of fall protection, exceeding an aerial lift’s load capacity and failing to provide fall protection for employees working on a steep pitched roof.
A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. Additionally, one other-than-serious violation with no monetary penalty was cited for failing to provide certification that the site supervisor received proper forklift operator training and evaluation. 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 physical harm.
“Management knowingly exposed its workers to fall hazards because they were more concerned with completing the job faster than providing a safe work site,” said Andre C. Richards, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-West Area Office. “It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that workers are safe on the job.”
OSHA has placed Midsouth Steel in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. Initiated in June 2010, the program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations.
For more information on SVEP, visit here. View the company’s citations.
OSHA Cites Dallas Facility for Exposing Workers to Noise & Energized Machine Hazards
Anaheim, CA based Bridgford Foods Corp. was cited for 27 safety and health violations at its food manufacturing facility in Dallas, with proposed penalties totaling $422,600. The violations include, among others, failing to establish and maintain a hearing conservation program for workers exposed to noise hazards beyond the permissible exposure limit, and failing to establish a lockout/tagout program for energy sources to protect workers from machines starting up unexpectedly.
“Bridgford Foods has a history of failing to implement necessary safety and health programs to prevent the unexpected start-up of machines and prevent hearing loss,” said OSHA Regional Administrator John Hermanson in Dallas. “Under the law, it is the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace.”
OSHA’s investigation of the facility on South Good Latimer Expressway found 20 serious violations carrying $129,000 in penalties. They include failing to provide guardrails on mixers, ovens and ice machines; provide machine guarding to prevent workers from coming into contact with rotating parts; develop energy control procedures for machinery with more than one energy source; and ensure that employees were trained on the use of energy control procedures. 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.
Six repeat violations, with penalties of $292,500, include failing to provide training on the hazards of electrical equipment, ensure that workers operating powered industrial trucks are evaluated at least every three years, establish and maintain an audiometric testing program, and train employees on hearing protection who are exposed to noise levels at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels. 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 company for similar violations in February 2008 with penalties of $8,000, in September 2008 with penalties of $33,900, and again in January 2010 with penalties of $106,000.
One other-than-serious violation, with a penalty of $1,100, was cited for failing to post a copy of the hearing conservation standard in the workplace. 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 physical harm.OSHA has placed Bridgford in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. Initiated in June 2010, the program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations. For more information on SVEP, click here.
WICHITA, KS – OSHA cited Formation Plastics Inc. in Quinter, KS with one serious and three willful safety and health violations. An inspection was initiated after a worker was fatally crushed between a press mold and the machine’s outer structure in May.
“It is unthinkable that an employer would allow employees to work in and around dangerous equipment that lacked machine guarding as well as appropriate lockout/tagout procedures to control the energy source,” said Charles E. Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, MO. “All employers must take the necessary steps to eliminate hazards from the workplace.”
The willful violations, carrying $210,000 in proposed fines, address hazards associated with failing to develop and utilize energy control procedures, failing to train workers in energy control, and exposing workers to moving equipment parts. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.
The serious violation, with a $7,000 fine, was cited for failing to provide point-of-operation guarding on a punch press. 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.
Proposed penalties total $217,000. Formation Plastics, a custom plastic parts manufacturer, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director in Wichita, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Market Basket Store Failed to Call Emergency Services after Employee Fall Injury
CONCORD, NH – OSHA cited DeMoulas Supermarkets Inc., doing business as Market Basket, for 30 alleged willful, repeat and serious violations of workplace safety standards at its stores in Rindge and Concord, N.H. The Tewksbury, Mass., grocery chain, which has stores in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, faces a total of $589,200 in proposed fines, chiefly for recurring fall and laceration hazards and also for improperly responding to a worker’s serious injury.
“Employers with multiple locations have a responsibility to ensure safe and healthful working conditions at all of their workplaces,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “This employer has been cited for similar conditions at numerous other stores. Although those individual hazards were abated, this employer has not taken effective steps to correct these hazards across the board.”
The inspection of the Market Basket store in Rindge on U.S. Route 202 began after an employee sustained broken bones and head trauma on April 17 when he fell 11 feet to a concrete floor from an inadequately guarded storage mezzanine. Instead of calling for emergency help, store management lifted the injured worker from the floor, put him in a wheelchair and pushed him to the store’s receiving dock to wait for a relative to take him to the hospital.The Concord store inspection began May 16 after an OSHA supervisor observed the same type of fall hazard as the one at the Rindge store while shopping at the Market Basket store on Fort Eddy Road.
OSHA found that employees at both stores were exposed to falls from heights greater than 11 feet while working on top of produce coolers, freezers and storage lofts that lacked adequate guardrails. OSHA previously had cited DeMoulas for the same hazard at the Concord store as well as stores in Fitchburg, Lawrence and Tewksbury, Mass.
Employees who worked in the produce, deli and bakery departments at the Rindge and Concord stores also were exposed to laceration hazards from knives due to the grocery chain’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment and provide hand protection. DeMoulas previously was cited by OSHA for the same types of hazards at its Tewksbury and Westford, MA locations.Due to the company’s knowledge of the fall and laceration hazards and its systemic failure to correct them, OSHA cited four willful violations with $261,000 in proposed penalties. A willful violation exists when an employer has demonstrated either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the law or plain indifference to employee safety and health.
Additionally, DeMoulas Supermarkets has been cited for seven repeat violations with $225,500 in fines for hazardous conditions similar to those previously cited at its Ashland, Andover, Fitchburg, Salem, Tewksbury and Westford, Mass., locations. These citations encompass amputation hazards stemming from a lack of procedures, training and equipment to ensure that a meat saw and seafood cooler would not be activated while employees were cleaning them, as well as hazards from exposed portions of the saw’s blade; inadequate training of powered industrial truck operators; and a lack of bloodborne pathogen training for an employee required to clean equipment and work areas contaminated with human blood. 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.
Finally, the company has been cited for 19 serious violations with $102,700 in proposed penalties. One violation was cited under OSHA’s general duty clause for failing to contact emergency services and for moving the injured employee. The remaining 18 violations involve obstructed exit routes; a lack of eye and hand protection and an emergency eyewash for employees working with or near battery acid; a lack of chemical hazard communication training for workers; and other hazards related to electrical equipment, machine guarding and bloodborne pathogens. 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.
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 Issues Compliance Directive on Enforcement of Workplace Violence Issues
In early September OSHA issued a directive on Enforcement Procedures for Investigating or Inspecting Incidents of Workplace Violence. The directive establishes uniform procedures for OSHA field staff for responding to incidents and complaints of workplace violence and conducting inspections in industries considered vulnerable to workplace violence, such as healthcare and social service settings, and late-night retail establishments.
According to an OSHA release workplace violence is a serious recognized occupational hazard, ranking among the top four causes of death in workplaces during the past 15 years. More than 3,000 people died from workplace homicide between 2006 and 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Additional BLS data indicate that an average of more than 15,000 nonfatal workplace injury cases was reported annually during that time.
A recent OSHA inspection of a Maine psychiatric hospital found more than 90 instances in which workers were assaulted on the job by patients from 2008 through 2010. The hospital was cited for not providing its workers with adequate safeguards against workplace violence and a fine of more than $6,000 was proposed. OSHA has also recently cited facilities in New York and Massachusetts where employees have been killed as a result of assaults.
“These incidents and others like them can be avoided or decreased if employers take appropriate precautions to protect their workers,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “We have accompanied this directive with a new Web page on Preventing Workplace Violence to help employers address workplace violence issues.”
Studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and other organizations show that employers who implement effective safety measures can reduce the incidence of workplace violence. These measures include training employees on workplace violence, encouraging employees to report assaults or threats, and conducting workplace violence hazard analyses. Other methods such as using entrance door detectors or buzzer systems in retail establishments, and providing adequately trained staff, alarms and employee “safe rooms” for use during emergencies in healthcare settings can help minimize risk.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, http://www.osha.gov
