As large parts of the nation recover from nature’s one-two punch—an earthquake followed by Hurricane Irene—building researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) warn that a double whammy of seismic and wind hazards can increase the risk of structural damage to as much as twice the level implied in building codes.
This is because current codes consider natural hazards individually, explains NIST’s Dat Duthinh, a research structural engineer. So, if earthquakes rank as the top threat in a particular area, local codes require buildings to withstand a specified seismic load. In contrast, if hurricanes or tornadoes are the chief hazard, homes and buildings must be designed to resist loads up to an established maximum wind speed.
In a timely article published in the Journal of Structural Engineering,* Duthinh, NIST Fellow Emil Simiu and Chiara Crosti (now at the University of Rome) challenge this compartmentalized approach. They show that in areas prone to both seismic and wind hazards, such as South Carolina, the risk that design limits will be exceeded can be as much as twice the risk in regions where only one hazard occurs, even accounting for the fact that these multiple hazards almost never occur simultaneously. As a consequence, buildings designed to meet code requirements in these double-jeopardy locations “do not necessarily achieve the level of safety implied,” the researchers write.
Simiu explains by analogy: a motorcycle racer who takes on a second job as a high-wire performer. “By adding this new occupation, the racer increases his risk of injury, even though the timing and nature of the injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident or in a high-wire mishap may differ,” he says. “Understandably, an insurer would raise the premium on a personal injury policy to account for the higher level of risk.”
The researchers developed a method to assess risks due to wind and earthquakes using a common metric of structural resistance. With a consistent measure (the maximum lateral deflection), the combined risk of failure can be compared to the risk that design limits will be exceeded in regions vulnerable to only one of the hazards, the basis for safety requirements specified in current building codes.
They demonstrate their approach on three different configurations of a 10-story steel-frame building. One of the configurations used so-called reduced beam sections (RBS) to connect girders to columns. RBS technology was developed after California’s Northridge earthquake in 1994, which resulted in significant structural damage in new and old buildings due to unanticipated brittle fractures in frame connections. Shaped like a dog bone, tapered RBS connections made the frames more ductile—better able to deflect without breaking.
In this case study, the researchers found that RBS connections do not decrease the risk that a steel-frame building will exceed its design limit when used in a region exposed to high winds or a region exposed to high winds and earthquakes. Consequently, the risk of failure doubled under dual-hazard conditions, when those conditions are of similar severity. However, they note that RBS connections can decrease the risk that limits associated with seismic design will be exceeded during the structure’s life.
The researchers are continuing to extend their methodology and are proposing modifications to building codes.
(* C. Crosti, D. Duthinh, and E. Simiu, “Risk Consistency and Synergy in Multi-hazard Design,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 8, August 2011.)
Safety Consultant/Trainer
Environmental Resource Center has a new opening for a safety consultant and auditor. We are looking for a former OSHA CSHO, OSHA trainer, or state inspector for this position in our Cary, North Carolina, office. Applicants should have excellent writing and speaking skills and be willing to travel 7–14 days per month. We are looking for an expert in all of the General Industry and Construction standards who is capable of performing audits of industrial facilities as well as conducting on-site training.
Strong consideration will be given to applicants who also have experience providing Hazwoper, Hazcom, lockout/tagout, confined spaces, and machine guarding training.
The position includes maintenance of training materials (books and presentations), working on consulting projects, development of classes and computer-based training programs, and ensuring customer satisfaction.
How to Prepare for OSHA Adoption of the GHS for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
This means that virtually every product label, material safety data sheet (soon to be called “safety data sheet”), and written hazard communication plan must be revised to meet the new standard. Worker training must be updated so that workers can recognize and understand the symbols and pictograms on the new labels as well as the new hazard statements and precautions on MSDSs.
Environmental Resource Center is offering webcast training courses where you will learn how the new rule differs from current requirements, how to implement the changes, and when the changes must be implemented. Dates for the upcoming webcasts include:
- September 27
- October 14
- October 25
- November 10
Advertising Opportunities Available
After Explosion Injures 4 Workers, OSHA Fines Company Almost $1 Million
OSHA cited Bostik Inc., for 50 alleged violations of workplace safety standards following a March 13 explosion at the company’s Middleton, Massachusetts, plant in which four workers were injured. The adhesives manufacturer faces a total of $917,000 in proposed fines.
In this case, the chemical was acetone, used in a PSM-covered process known as direct solvation. On the day of the explosion, a valve on a transfer line inadvertently was left open, resulting in the release of flammable acetone vapors. The vapors exploded after being ignited by an undetermined source.
“Failure to evaluate, anticipate, address and prevent hazardous conditions associated with a process can result in a catastrophic incident such as an explosion.”
“In this case, Bostik knew from prior third party and internal compliance audits conducted at the plant that aspects of its PSM program were incomplete or inadequate, and misclassified electrical equipment was in use. The company did not take adequate steps to address those conditions,” said Jeffrey A. Erskine, OSHA’s area director for northeastern Massachusetts. “Luckily, the explosion happened when there were few workers in the plant. Otherwise, this incident could have resulted in a catastrophic loss of life.”
Specifically, OSHA found that the process safety information for the solvation process was incomplete. The employer’s analysis of hazards related to the process did not address previous incidents with a potential for catastrophic results, such as forklifts that struck process equipment, and did not address human factors such as operator error, communication between shift changes, and employee fatigue from excessive overtime. In addition, the company did not ensure that a forklift and electrical equipment, such as a light fixture, switches and a motor, were approved for use in Class 1 hazardous locations where flammable gases or vapors are present.
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.
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.
$389,000 Penalty for Unauthorized Use of Radioactive Materials
The Radioactive Materials Unit of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has ordered Nuclear Cardiology Systems, doing business as NC Systems, Inc., to pay $36,800 in unpaid licensing fees plus a $389,010 penalty for violations of the Colorado Radiation Control Act and the Colorado Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control. The Boulder company sells and services medical radiation-detection equipment to clients nationwide. The company is licensed by the state to possess and use radioactive materials to test and calibrate its own equipment at its Boulder facility. The company is owned by Charles H. Rose.
State inspectors determined that, over the past two years, the company provided unauthorized services for other radioactive materials licensees, including:
- The receipt and analysis of sealed radioactive source leak tests;
- The receipt of radioactive material for disposal; and
- The receipt of radioactive material for re-distribution.
According to the compliance order, the company also violated its license by using radioactive materials at locations outside its Boulder office and by “making a false statement(s), representation or certification” to state officials to avoid paying licensing fees for these activities. In the past 12 months, the Radioactive Materials Unit has served the company with three notices of violation involving this conduct. The unit issued the unilateral compliance order after the company failed to return to compliance with the Radiation Control Act and the radiation regulations.
“None of these violations presented a significant threat to public health and safety,” said Jennifer Opila, leader of the Radioactive Materials Unit. “Therefore we are assessing an administrative penalty and do not plan to revoke the company’s license at this time. However, it’s extremely unusual and particularly troubling for one of our licensees to make false statements to us about activities for which they are not licensed.”
Colorado officials have notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and all state radiation programs about the compliance order. The state of Arizona also has cited the company for unlawful possession of radiation sources.
A license is required to receive, possess, use, transfer, or acquire most radioactive materials in Colorado. Part of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Radioactive Materials Unit regulates radioactive materials licensees in the state.
OSHA Proposes $175,500 Fine for 38 Violations Following Worker Injury
An inspection was opened after OSHA learned that a worker sustained serious eye and facial injuries when the grinding wheel of the portable grinder he was operating ruptured and kicked back in his face. Inspectors found that the grinder was not guarded or set up properly, and steps had not been taken to ensure that it was operated at the proper speed. The metal fabrication plant faces a total of $175,500 in proposed penalties.
“This is exactly the type of needless injury OSHA standards are designed to prevent,” said Jeffrey A. Erskine, OSHA’s area director for Middlesex and Essex counties in Massachusetts. “Portable hand tools are just as dangerous as large machinery if they are not properly maintained and used.”
The inspection also uncovered other hazards throughout the plant, including obstructed exit access, improper propane storage, failure to inspect cranes on a frequent and regular basis, failure to inspect crane running ropes and test crane upper limit switches, a lack of hazard communication training, numerous electrical hazards, as well as unguarded ladderway openings, floor holes, and open-sided floors and platforms. A total of 32 serious violations carrying $173,000 in proposed penalties were cited.
“The sizable penalties proposed here reflect both the severity of the grinder hazards as well as the breadth and range of additional mechanical, electrical and other hazards found throughout the plant,” added Erskine. “Left uncorrected, these hazards expose employees to the dangers of falls, electric shocks, crushing injuries, slipping and tripping hazards, and being unable to exit the workplace swiftly in the event of a fire or other emergency.”
Six other-than-serious violations with $2,500 in fines were cited for undocumented energy control procedures and additional machine guarding, crane, electrical, and hazard communication issues. 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 Cites Refinery, for Exposing Workers to Possible Fires and Explosions, Other Violations
Proposed penalties total $126,600 following a March 14 inspection by OSHA’s Baton Rouge Area Office at the company’s petroleum refinery on Scenic Highway.
“This company exposed its workers to serious safety and health hazards by failing to comply with OSHA’s process safety management regulations,” said Dorinda Folse, OSHA’s area director in Baton Rouge. “It is fortunate that in this case that no one was injured.”
The serious violations involve failing to investigate incidents as being related to process safety management, equipment repair, address inconsistent thickness measurements collected during pressure vessel inspections, maintain accurate and updated engineering drawings, and ensure that written operating procedures were certified as being current and accurate.
The other-than-serious violations involve failing to ensure that a plate protecting electrical components remained affixed to its housing and deficiencies identified in the emergency action plan.
OSHA Fines Contractor over $158,000 for Trenching and Other Hazards
Proposed penalties total $158,400.
“In 2008, an unprotected trench at an A-Absolute site caved in and trapped a worker, yet the company continues to place workers in harm’s way by not taking necessary measures to prevent trench collapses,” said Kris E. Hoffman, OSHA’s area director in Parsippany. “OSHA will not tolerate employers risking the lives of their workers.”
The willful violations, with $128,700 in penalties, involve failing to ensure that the excavation spoil pile was at least 2 feet from the edge of the excavation; ensure that the ladder extended 3 feet above the level being accessed; and provide cave-in protection for employees working in the excavation.
The repeat violation, with a $9,240 penalty, was cited for failing to ensure that daily inspections were conducted by a competent person. 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 for a similar violation in 2008 at its Sayreville, New Jersey, work site.
The serious violations, with $20,460 in penalties, include failing to train workers in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe trenching conditions, provide traffic control signage for the work zone, use a safe and acceptable means to determine the estimated location of underground utilities, implement respiratory protection and hazard communication programs, provide training and conduct medical evaluations for workers required to use respirators, provide training for employees who use hazardous chemicals, and provide material safety data sheets at the site for hazardous chemicals.
OSHA Cites Wagner’s LLC for Unsafe Working Conditions at Grain Handling Facility
OSHA has cited Wagner’s LLC, in Flagler, Colorado, for one repeat, 13 serious, and two other-than-serious safety violations for exposing workers to a variety of grain hazards during bulk birdseed handling and packaging operations. This investigation was initiated under a regional emphasis program focused on the grain handling industry. Proposed penalties total $62,100.
“Too many workers and their families have suffered tragic losses in the grain industry,” said John Healy, OSHA’s area director in Englewood, Colorado. “Grain handling hazards are preventable, and are currently the focus of local and national enforcement efforts.”
The repeat violation was cited for improper electrical wiring. A similar electrical violation was cited in January 2010.
The serious violations involve employees exposed to fall hazards, improper controls for combustible grain dust, inadequate procedures for entering confined spaces, a lack of proper machine guarding, and electrical hazards.
The other-than-serious violations involve inadequate personal protective equipment and failing to provide an adequate lockout/tagout program for the energy sources of equipment.
Since 2009, OSHA has issued fines exceeding $100,000 per employer to grain operators across the country following preventable fatalities and injuries. In addition to enforcement actions, OSHA sent a notification letter in August 2010 and another in February 2011 to a total of more than 13,000 grain elevator operators warning them of proper safety precautions, including prohibiting entry in grain storage facilities while grain is being emptied out or flowing in or out of the bin, prohibiting employees from “walking down the grain,” and ensuring that employees enter the bin with the proper safety equipment. “OSHA will not tolerate noncompliance with the Grain Handling Facilities standard,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels in both letters. “We will continue to use our enforcement authority to the fullest extent possible.”
Safety News Links