Lack of Fall Protection Leads to Fatality

The life of a 53-year-old roofer who died after dropping 40 feet to the ground could have been saved if his employer had provided proper fall protection, OSHA has found.

 

“Falls are a leading cause of death for construction workers and can be prevented with proper fall protection. Yet another worker has died needlessly because his employer failed to protect his safety. This has to stop.”

OSHA investigators found the worker was installing a new commercial roof when he fell. No guardrails, safety nets or personal fall prevention devices were in place at the time. In addition, OSHA determined R&B failed to:

• Train workers about fall hazards
• Develop a safety and health program
• Designate a safety monitor
• Train powered industrial vehicle operators
• Record injuries and illnesses

R&B faces proposed penalties of $116,900.

 The site provides fact sheets, posters, and videos on various fall hazards and appropriate preventive measures. OSHA requires employers to provide an effective form of fall protection when workers perform construction activities 6 feet or more above the next lower level.

 

New Exclusions for Solvent Recycling and Hazardous Secondary Materials

EPA’s new final rule on the definition of solid waste creates new opportunities for waste recycling outside the scope of the full hazardous waste regulations. This rule, which went into effect on July 13, 2015, streamlines the regulatory burden for wastes that are legitimately recycled.

The first of the two exclusions is an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for high-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the original solvent by keeping the materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent product.

The second, and more wide reaching of the two exclusions, is a revision of the existing hazardous secondary material recycling exclusion. This exclusion allows you to recycle, or send off-site for recycling, virtually any hazardous secondary material. Provided you meet the terms of the exclusion, the material will no longer be hazardous waste.

Learn how to take advantage of these exclusions at Environmental Resource Center’s live webcast where you will learn:

• Which of your materials qualify under the new exclusions
• What qualifies as a hazardous secondary material
• Which solvents can be remanufactured, and which cannot
• What is a tolling agreement
• What is legitimate recycling
• Generator storage requirements
• What documentation you must maintain
• Requirements for off-site shipments
• Training and emergency planning requirements
• If it is acceptable for the recycler to be outside the US

 

Houston RCRA and DOT Training

 

Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, IATA/IMO, and SARA Training

 

Charleston RCRA and DOT Training

 

How to Implement OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard (GHS)

OSHA has issued a final rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard, aligning it with the United Nations’ globally harmonized system (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. This means that virtually every product label, safety data sheet (formerly called “material safety data sheet” or MSDS), 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 safety data sheets.

 

Fatal Aerial Lift Accident

Kevin Miranda’s death could have been prevented if his employer, Skyline Contracting and Roofing Corp., of Taunton, Massachusetts, had followed industry and federal safety standards, an inspection by OSHA has found.

The lift’s boom was extended to a height of 45 feet when the lift tipped over. When it did, the operator’s basket hit the ground; the force ejected and threw him 16 feet. Miranda subsequently died from his injuries.

OSHA inspectors found the lift was positioned on ground that was not level, a condition that conflicted with both industry safety standards and the lift’s operator manual. In addition, Miranda’s fall protection lanyard was not attached to the basket or boom. They determined his employer had not trained him to recognize this hazard, as required by OSHA standards.

“This incident and the needless death that resulted were preventable. Kevin Miranda’s employer was well aware of the necessary safety requirements, yet disregarded them,” said Kenneth Shedden, OSHA’s area director for Boston and southeastern Massachusetts. “Safety standards exist for a good reason: to prevent incidents such as this, and the deaths and injuries that can result. Employers must know and adhere to all applicable standards. The lives and well-being of their employees depend on it.”

 

S&S Roofing Inc. Repeatedly Exposed Workers to Fall Hazards

 OSHA opened an investigation on August 24, 2015, after receiving a referral from the Parsippany, New Jersey Police Department after a worker fell from the roof of a warehouse. The investigation was also conducted under the agency’s local emphasis program for falls in construction.

OSHA inspectors found that S&S Roofing failed to provide workers with the proper fall protection, resulting in one repeat violation. The company was cited for a similar repeat violation in 2011, and has been cited 10 times since 2000 for comparable offenses.

The investigation determined that the victim who fell was using a manually operated roof hoist to lower his tool bags to the ground that caused the hoist to tip and go over the edge of the roof. As it tipped, the hoist’s boom hit the man and he fell over the roof’s edge to the pavement approximately 25 feet below. The victim succumbed to his injuries, dying six days later.

Proposed penalties total $43,080

“This tragic incident and unnecessary loss of a life could have been prevented had S&S Roofing properly protected its workers against falls, the leading cause of death in the construction industry,” said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA’s Parsippany Area Office. “Compounding the tragedy, the hoist’s manufacturer warns: ‘Never use roof process materials as counterweight.’ We determined S&S Roofing regularly used roofing materials to counterweight the hoist regardless of the warning. Workers should not have to risk their lives needlessly for the sake of a paycheck.”

Saratoga County Campground Fined $187,000 for Exposing Employees to Electrical Hazards

Employees of Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., dba Alpine Lake RV Resort were exposed to electrical hazards throughout the campground when they were required to work on outdoor electrical equipment. The hazards included:

• Not de-energizing and locking out electrical equipment when employees were required to test, operate, troubleshoot, replace, and maintain such equipment
•  
• Employees required to repeatedly reset circuit breakers on electrical field boxes due to an undersized and inappropriately wired electrical service
• Exposed live electrical parts
• Damaged and rusting electrical field boxes with openings that allowed in rain, snow and wind

 

Proposed penalties total $187,000.

“These employees were knowingly exposed to electrical hazards that could have burned, shocked, disabled or killed them. They lacked the basic training, personal protective equipment and safeguards necessary to protect them,” said Robert Garvey, OSHA’s area director in Albany. “This employer must take prompt and effective steps to address and eliminate all these hazards before workers are harmed.”

Four Florida Contractors Fined $144,830 for Exposing Workers to Dangerous Falls

This inspection fell under OSHA’s Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction.

Ezzo Construction and S.A. Robinson were each issued a repeat citation and KB Home a serious citation for the same violation that exposed workers to falls up to 18 feet.

 

Proposed penalties total $144,830.

“Florida home builders must understand that successful project management requires safety and production schedules as equally important,” said Brian Sturtecky, OSHA’s area director in Jacksonville. “Unfortunately, this inspection is another example of multi-layers of construction management turning a blind eye to safety in the name of production.”

Tecnofil Chenango Repeatedly Exposes Workers to Hazards, Fined $124,740

Copper wire manufacturer Tecnofil Chenango SAC continues to expose workers at its Sherburne, NY manufacturing plant to potential deadly or disabling injuries due to missing or inadequate safeguards for machines used in the manufacturing process, an inspection by OSHA has found.

The latest inspection found numerous instances of new and recurring machine guarding hazards on die presses, saws, lathes, and other machinery. Hazards included bypassing interlocks designed to stop machines from operating when their doors opened. 

“The breadth and recurring nature of these hazards is disturbing. This can result in such serious or fatal injuries as crushing, lacerations and amputations. Tecnofil Chenango must take prompt, effective and ongoing action to eliminate these hazards once and for all,” said Christopher Adams, OSHA’s Syracuse area director.

The latest inspection also found workers exposed to falls of up to 8 feet from unguarded work platforms, slipping and tripping hazards from floors littered with tools, machine parts, lubricants and coolants and electric shocks from ungrounded equipment.

Proposed fines total $124,740. 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.

US Steel Corp. Sued for Retaliating Against Workers Reporting Workplace Injuries

In 2014, two U.S. Steel Corp., employees reported injuries that may have resulted from worksite incidents occurring a few days earlier. At the time of the incidents, the employees were unaware they had suffered injuries, as symptoms did not develop until later. When the workers realized and reported their injuries, U.S. Steel suspended both workers without pay for violating the company’s immediate reporting policy.

A lawsuit recently filed by the U.S. Department of Labor against U.S. Steel is seeking to reverse the disciplinary action taken against these employees and amend the company’s immediate reporting policy.

“U.S. Steel’s policy discourages employees from reporting injuries for fear of retaliation,” said Richard Mendelson, OSHA regional administrator in Philadelphia. “Because workers don’t always recognize injuries at the time they occur, the policy provides an incentive for employees to not report injuries once they realize they should, since they are concerned that the timing of their report would violate the company’s policy and result in some kind of reprimand.”

Both workers suffered injuries in February 2014. On February 12, a full-time utility technician at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Plant, in Clairton, Pennsylvania, found a small splinter lodged in his thumb and extracted it himself. He completed his shift without further incident. Two days later, his thumb and hand were swollen noticeably, and he received medical treatment for an infection. When he reported the incident to his supervisor, the company imposed a five-day suspension without pay for his violating the company’s policy. U.S. Steel later reduced the suspension to two days.

On February 15, a full-time laborer at the company’s Irvin Plant in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, bumped his head on a low beam. The employee was wearing a hardhat and didn’t feel any pain or notice any discomfort at the time. However, several days later, he experienced stiffness in his right shoulder and sought medical treatment, which his representative reported to U.S. Steel as a possible worksite injury. When he met with U.S. Steel’s representative to discuss the issue, the company suspended him for five days without pay.

Both workers filed complaints with OSHA alleging that U.S. Steel had suspended them in retaliation for reporting workplace injuries. 

To date, U.S. Steel has failed to rescind its discipline of either worker in addition to refusing to alter or amend its immediate reporting policy to allow for a reasonable period of time for employees to report worksite injuries.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the suit seeks the following:

• Enjoining U.S. Steel from violating Section 11(c)(1) of the Act
• Directing the company to rescind and nullify its immediate reporting policy
• Permanently enjoining the company from enforcing an injury or illness reporting policy that requires employees to report their workplace injuries or illnesses earlier than seven calendar days after the injured or ill employee becomes aware of his or her injury or illness
• Rescinding the discipline and sanction of the two employees
• Directing the company to compensate the complainants for any, and all lost wages and benefits including interest, as well as compensatory damages
• Directing the company to post notices at all of its work sites for 60 days stating that it will not discriminate or retaliate against employees involved in activities protected by Section 11 (c) of the Act

The Department’s Regional Office of the Solicitor in Philadelphia is litigating the case.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 22 statutes protecting employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, motor vehicle safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, and securities laws.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or the government. 

Regional Environmental Demolition Inc. Sued After Firing Whistleblower

He took the right step, and was fired for it.

He was a demolition and asbestos abatement laborer employed by Regional Environmental Demolition, Inc., at an asbestos abatement project in Buffalo from April to June 2014. At the job site at 527 West Utica St., the man observed weakened or deteriorated sections of flooring called “soft spots.” At one spot, his foot broke through the floor.

Concerned that he or others might fall through the floors, the laborer told his superiors who also worked for the Niagara Falls contractor of the hazard multiple times. In June 2014, the company discharged him after OSHA contacted the employer in response to an anonymous complaint. The concerned worker then filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA, which investigated and found it had merit.

Now, the Labor Department has filed suit in federal court against Regional Environmental Demolition and its officials Charles Van Epps and Enrico Liberale for retaliating against the former employee for raising these safety concerns. The suit seeks payment to the worker for lost wages and compensatory damages, interest, front pay, emotional and financial distress damages and punitive damages. The action also seeks to have all references to the matter expunged from his personnel records.

“Regional Environmental Demolition had no reason and no right to fire this worker for repeatedly reporting a safety hazard that could have seriously harmed him and his fellow workers. Firing or retaliating against workers who raise safety concerns is intimidation, plain and simple. If employees fear losing their jobs, hazards can go unreported and injuries can result,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

We will do so when the case warrants, as it does here,” said Jeffrey Rogoff, the regional solicitor of labor in New York.

Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, on February 19, the suit also asks the court to permanently enjoin the defendants from future violations, and require them to post a notice to their employees that they will not discriminate against employees who exercise their workplace safety and health rights.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government.

Alaska Pilot Fired for Raising Safety Concerns

OSHA has ordered an Alaska aviation company to pay years of back wages, $100,000 in compensatory damages, and to reinstate a pilot who had been suspended, then fired and ostracized among the close-knit industry for reporting safety concerns at work.

Bald Mountain Air Services violated federal whistleblower laws with its actions against the employee in 2012. With 35-years of aviation experience, the pilot for the Homer-based company raised repeated safety concerns at work ranging from missed drug tests for pilots to poor recordkeeping.

“Voicing safety concerns at work should never cost someone their job,” said OSHA Acting Regional Administrator Galen Blanton. “This employee should be hired back, compensated and treated fairly from here on out.”

OSHA’s order requires Bald Mountain Air Services to:

• Pay the employee back wages at the rate of $350 per day from November 2012 until he receives a bona fide offer of reinstatement
• Pay the employee $100,000 in compensatory damages for pain, suffering, and mental distress
• Expunge his employment records of any reference to the exercise of his rights under federal whistleblower law, and any reference to the adverse actions taken against him
• Not retaliate or discriminate against him in any manner, nor convey to a third party any mention of the employee’s protected activity
• Respondent shall post a notice to employees about federal whistleblower protections in both its Anchorage and Homer facilities

Bald Mountain formerly provided medevac services to Alaska Regional Hospital in Anchorage.

Both the respondent and complainant have 30 days from the receipt of these findings to file objections and to request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If no objections are filed, the findings will become final and not subject to court review.

 

 

Plastics Engineering Company Failed to Evaluate Hazardous Chemical Procedures

 

OSHA’s process safety management standards include a process hazard analysis, a careful review of what could go wrong and what safeguards must be implemented to prevent releases of hazardous chemicals and exposure by employees.

The federal agency cited the company for:

• Not certifying process safety management procedures had been evaluated every three years
• Failing to consider impact of equipment and operation changes on safety and health
• Not ensuring process safety information was current and accurate
•  

“Companies that use hazardous chemicals in their manufacturing process must evaluate their procedures and safety plans to ensure safeguards are in place. Workers must also be trained on how to recognize and deal with any potential risks,” said Robert Bonack, OSHA’s area director in Appleton. “Complying with OSHA’s common sense safety standards protects workers from injury on the job.”

Proposed penalties total $82,000.

Two Colorado Companies Fined $75,490 for Exposing Workers to Falls

The agency cited Richmond American Homes, the controlling employer, with a serious violation for failing to inspect the site, and cited d7 Roofing for two serious and one repeat violation. The repeat violation was failing to provide fall protection and the serious violations involved failing to provide eye protection for workers using pneumatic nail guns and ensuring ladders used for access to upper levels extended at least three feet above the landing level. Both of these violations were previously cited in a 2011 and 2012 inspection at previous worksites.

The second inspection at the Aurora worksite, begun January 27, 2016, again cited both companies. OSHA cited Richmond again for a serious violation for failing to provide conduct frequent safety and health inspections at the worksite. The agency cited d-7 Roofing for two repeat violations for again failing to provide eye protection for workers using pneumatic nail guns and fall protection.

OSHA has fined Richmond American Homes $10,000 and d-7 Roofing $65,490.

“A fall can kill or seriously maim a worker. Builders and roofing companies must take responsibility for worker safety,” said David Nelson, OSHA’s Area Director in Englewood, Colorado. “Falls are leading cause of death in the construction industry. Every employer is responsible for protecting workers on site. Providing fall protection is nothing new, and any employer in construction work is well aware of OSHA’s fall protection requirements.”

Heritage Thermal Services Employee Hospitalized After Exposure to Toxic Chemical

 

 

In 2012, three other workers at Heritage, a hazardous waste incineration facility in Liverpool, became ill after unsafe aniline exposure and were hospitalized. Exposure to aniline can cause headache, weakness, confusion, skin lesions and cancer.

“This man suffered needlessly because Heritage Thermal again failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment to its workers tasked with toxic chemical disposal,” said Howard Eberts, OSHA’s area director in Cleveland.

Investigators determined the technician, with about 20 years of experience, was pumping several different hazardous wastes from drums into an outdoor kiln for incineration when he came disorientated. He was transported to the hospital for treatment.

 

• Monitor work areas and evaluate the effectiveness of respirators
• Implement a decontamination procedure
• Provide adequate personal protective equipment and ensure it was used by employees

OSHA has proposed penalties of $62,370.

Machinery Maintenance Rebuilder Inc. Fined $57,820 for Exposing Workers to Amputation, Fire Hazards

 OSHA initiated a January 2016 inspection of this facility as a follow-up to a 2015 inspection. Fines total $57,820

“Any time a worker is exposed to machinery without proper guarding is one more time that worker is in jeopardy of losing a limb or even a life. Failing to adhere to this commonsense safety requirement will not be tolerated,” said Joann Figueroa, OSHA’s area director in the Houston North office. “It is the employer’s responsibility to find and fix hazards in the workplace.”

Budney Overhaul & Repair Ltd. Fined $46,287 for Exposing Workers to Hexavalent Chromium

These included:

• Employee overexposure to hexavalent chromium, failure to monitor exposure levels and lack of controls to reduce exposure levels
• Failure to train employees and provide them information on hexavalent chromium hazards and safeguards
• Failure to assess and provide personal protective equipment for exposed employees
• Not requiring employees to remove contaminated clothing at the end of the work shift
• Allowing employees to enter eating and drinking areas while wearing contaminated clothing

The inspection also identified fire and burn hazards due to improper storage and disposal of flammable materials and failure to remove ignition sources from areas where flammable vapors were present.

Proposed penalties total $46,287.

“Employees faced unknowing and needless exposure to an occupational carcinogen as well as potential burns and fires. For the health and well-being of its employees, Budney Overhaul and Repair must take effective and comprehensive corrective action to eliminate these hazards and prevent them from occurring again,” said Warren Simpson, OSHA’s area director in Hartford.

$104,000 Fine for Electrical, Chemical, Mechanical, Fire Hazards and Lack of Protective Equipment

 

Employees at PCC Structurals-Groton faced the risk of chemical burns, fire, lacerations, amputations, electric shock, and other injuries, according to recent OSHA inspections.

“Our inspections identified a disturbing cross-section of hazards that could result in eye, face or body injuries, burns, or hearing loss for employees at the Groton location, as well as potential fires or explosions. It’s imperative for the health and well-being of its employees that PCC Structurals takes comprehensive, effective and ongoing corrective action to eliminate these hazards,” said Warren Simpson, OSHA’s area director in Hartford.

The Groton, Connecticut facility is a steel-investment casting foundry that casts components for aerospace, energy, and commercial applications. Among the hazards identified during OSHA’s inspections:

• Lack of hand, face, and body protection for employees working on or near electrical equipment
• Exposed live electrical parts, misused electrical equipment and power cords, inadequate working space around electrical panel boards, and an ungrounded extension cord
• Unguarded points of operation of hydraulic presses
• Failure to inspect energy control procedures periodically to prevent the unintended startup of machinery during maintenance and cleaning
• No program to inspect chain alloy slings used to lift materials and equipment
• Lack of emergency eyewashes where employees worked with corrosive chemicals
• Inadequate safety glasses for employees working with chemicals
• Inadequately labeled containers of hazardous chemicals
• Flammable liquids not stored in closed containers, improper disposal of combustible waste
• Unsecured compressed gas cylinders
• Incompatible chemicals stored together in a cabinet
• Employees exposed to high noise levels not provided with a choice of hearing protection

As a result of these conditions, OSHA cited the company for 20 serious violations of workplace safety and health standards on February 19, 2016, with proposed penalties of $90,000. OSHA earlier cited the facility on January 5 for two serious violations concerning inadequate fall protection equipment and an unprotected table saw. Fines of $14,000 were proposed for those violations. 

 

Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC and Los Alamos National Security LLC Cited for Violations Related to Worker Safety and Health and Nuclear Safety

 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC, (NWP) for violations of DOE worker safety and health and nuclear safety requirements. Concurrently, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) issued a PNOV to Los Alamos National Security, LLC, (LANS) for violations of DOE’s nuclear safety requirements. Issuance of these PNOVs marks the completion of DOE’s investigations and enforcement process regarding two events in 2014 at DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).

NWP is the management and operating contractor for WIPP, located in Carlsbad, New Mexico. LANS is the management and operating contractor for NNSA’s Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Worker safety and health and nuclear safety are priorities for the Department, and DOE’s enforcement program, implemented by the Office of Enterprise Assessments’ Office of Enforcement on behalf of the Secretary of Energy, supports these priorities by holding contractors accountable for meeting regulatory requirements and maintaining a safe and healthy workplace.

The violations by NWP at WIPP are associated with two events that occurred in February 2014. The first event involved a fire in a salt haul truck in the WIPP underground, and the second event involved a radiological release. The violations by LANS at LANL are associated with processes used by LANS to package and remediate transuranic waste drums, one of which has been linked to the WIPP radiological release.

The NWP PNOV cites four Severity Level I violations and seven Severity Level II violations related to worker safety and health and nuclear safety requirements enforceable under Title 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program; 10 CFR 820.11, Information requirements; 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management, and 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. The LANS PNOV cites two Severity Level I violations and two Severity Level II violations related to nuclear safety requirements enforceable under 10 CFR 830.

In FY 2014, actions taken by DOE and NWP’s inability to earn fee resulted in NWP failing to receive 93% of the available fee, or approximately $7.6 million. NNSA reduced the total contract fee that was awarded to LANS by more than 90%, or approximately $57 million, with most of this reduction due to deficiencies in the processing and handling of transuranic waste and the resultant impact on operations at WIPP. NNSA also reduced the potential length of the LANS contract by a total of 2 years. Due to these significant adverse contract and fee actions taken against NWP and LANS, DOE is proposing no civil penalties for the violations cited in the two PNOVs.

DOE’s Office of Enforcement promotes overall improvement in the Department’s safety and security programs through management and implementation of the DOE enforcement programs for safety and classified information security, authorized by the Atomic Energy Act. The office is independent of the DOE offices that develop and implement policy and programs. The office conducts enforcement investigations and thoroughly evaluates operational events and conditions that represent potentially serious violations of the Department’s nuclear safety, worker safety and health, and classified information security regulations.

DOE’s enforcement program encourages contractors to identify and correct deficiencies in their worker safety and health and nuclear safety programs at an early stage, before they contribute to, or result in, more serious safety and health events.

 

Connecticut Contractor Misclassified Employees as Independent Contractors

A total of $20,240 in fines was proposed.

Royal Construction claimed that the workers at the job site were not employees under the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act but instead independent contractors who worked under their own supervision, supplied their own tools and made their own hours.

After review, Administrative Law Judge Keith E. Bell found that the Labor Department established the following:

• Royal Construction had employees at the job site, and provided materials, tools, trailer and equipment needed for the project
• Dzenutis had control over the workers and work site safety
• Royal Construction determined when and for how long the individuals worked; the work was done as part of the regular business of Royal Construction
• The company paid hourly wages to the individuals working at the site

Judge Bell also upheld the citations and proposed penalties. 

“Employers cannot evade their responsibility by claiming that workers on a job site are independent contractors when the facts show otherwise. We will not hesitate to pursue appropriate legal action to ensure that workers are provided with the safeguards to which they are entitled,” said Michael Felsen, the regional solicitor of labor for New England.

Employers have a fundamental responsibility to their employees, to provide them with a safe and healthful workplace,’ said Kim Stille, OSHA’s regional administrator for New England.

The original inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Hartford Area Office. The case was litigated for OSHA by attorney Mark Pedulla of the regional Office of the Solicitor in Boston.

OSHA Renews Alliance with the West Texas Safety Training Center

With more than 1,000 members, the center is the only non-profit safety training organization in the Permian Basin governed by area industry. The alliance is for a three-year term.

“Since our alliance began more than eight years ago, West Texas Safety Training Center has been an excellent agency partner, communicating safety and health information to employers and workers in the petrochemical , construction and other industries. We greatly appreciate their support for OSHA’s workplace safety initiatives,” said Elizabeth Linda Routh, OSHA’s area director in Lubbock.

 For information about forming an alliance or partnership, contact OSHA’s Lubbock Area Office at 806-472-7681.

Safety News Links