). The purpose of this NEP is to identify and reduce or eliminate worker exposures to harmful chemical and physical hazards in establishments producing metal products.
Establishments in the primary metals industries are involved in extracting and refining metals from rocks containing iron, lead, nickel, and tin, among other elements. Among these establishments are those that manufacture nails, insulated wires and cables, steel piping, and copper and aluminum products.
The primary metals industries became a concern during OSHA’s review of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Previous OSHA inspections of establishments in this industry revealed that workers were exposed to metal dusts and fumes, carbon monoxide, lead and silica, among other substances. Inspections also showed that workers were exposed to noise and heat hazards. OSHA developed this program because of the seriousness and frequency of these problems.
“Workers who are not properly protected from the hazards of metals refining are at increased risk of serious, potentially deadly health effects,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA’s new enforcement program will raise awareness of the dangers of exposure to metals and other chemicals, so that employers can correct hazards and comply with OSHA standards.”
Workers exposed to various substances found in these industries can suffer damage to the eyes, nose, throat and skin and can experience difficulty breathing and chest and joint pain. Overexposures can also lead to death. The goals of the NEP include minimizing or eliminating exposure to chemical hazards and physical hazards such as noise and heat. Other goals include inspecting facilities that manufacture primary metals and metal products, and conducting follow-up site visits to ensure that there has been a reduction or elimination of exposures.
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:
- June 17
- June 30
- July 15
- July 29
All of Environmental Resource Center’s webcasts on this topic held previously this year were completely sold out. Register early to ensure your spot in one of the upcoming sessions.
Advertising Opportunities Available
Use of Cell Phones Classified as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans by IARC
Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices.
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long‐term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:
- Occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves;
- Environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television, and wireless telecommunication; and
- Personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones.
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).
. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.”
The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph.
New Web Tool Helps Employers Understand OSHA Recordkeeping Rules
A set of questions assists in determining quickly whether an injury or illness is work-related, whether it needs to be recorded, and which provisions of the regulations apply.
Directive to Protect Residential Construction Workers From Falls Goes Into Effect June 16
Falls are the leading cause of death for workers in construction and this directive will provide residential construction workers with greater protection from being injured or killed on the job.
In December 2010, OSHA issued a new directive withdrawing an interim policy that allowed residential construction employers to use alternative procedures for worker fall protection. Under the new procedures, where residential construction employers find that traditional fall protection is not feasible or creates a greater hazard in residential environments, employers will still be allowed to implement alternative procedures that will assure worker protection after developing a written site-specific fall protection plan.
These techniques involve the use of conventional fall protection systems including safety nets, guardrails, and personal fall arrest systems such as body harnesses, lanyards and lifelines.
AWTEC Receives SHARP Award for Workplace Safety and Health Excellence
AWTEC of Plymouth Michigan received the prestigious Michigan Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) Award on June 1st for an exemplary safety and health management system. The facility is a client of Environmental Resource Center’s consulting services.
The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) established the Michigan SHARP Award to recognize employers that have achieved workplace safety and health excellence far beyond their peers. The MIOSHA program is part of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA).
“We are very pleased to welcome AWTEC into this elite group of companies who provide outstanding safety and health protection for their workers,” said Steve Arwood, LARA Deputy Director. “We applaud your success in manufacturing high-quality products for the North American automotive market—while you diligently protect your employees.”
MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski presented the SHARP Award to AWTEC President Eiji Kato who accepted on behalf of all employees. Invited guests, management personnel, and employees attended the ceremony.
“We are very thankful to MIOSHA and all those involved in recognizing our efforts to provide a safe and healthy workplace,” said Charles Singer, AWTEC Safety and Health Coordinator. “This prestigious award would not have been attainable without the hard work and dedication of our team members of whom we are very proud. We continue to strive every day to ensure that our employees are able to return home in the same condition as they arrived.”
The Michigan SHARP Program targets small, high-hazard employers—to help them develop, implement and continuously improve the effectiveness of their workplace safety and health management system. SHARP provides an incentive for employers to emphasize accident and illness prevention by anticipating problems, rather than simply reacting to them.
The MIOSHA Onsite Consultation Program within the Consultation Education and Training (CET) Division operates the Michigan SHARP Program. Onsite consultants work with employers to help them become self-sufficient in managing occupational safety and health. SHARP worksites earn an exemption from “programmed” MIOSHA inspections on a yearly basis.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for AWTEC is 336350—Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing, which is classified as a high-hazard industry. The MIOSHA review team consisted of Fred Hawkins, CET Onsite Industrial Hygienist; and William Griffie Jr. (retired), CET Onsite Safety Consultant.
In 2010, AWTEC had Total Recordable Case (TRC) rates and Days Away from Work and Restricted/Transfer Cases (DART) rates below the 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) industry average. Their TRC was 0.0 in 2010—compared to the BLS rate of 5.9 for this type of industry. Their DART was 0.0 in 2010—compared to the BLS rate of 2.6.
“The Michigan SHARP Program requires a comprehensive consultation visit, and the correction of all serious workplace safety and health hazards,” said Kalinowski. “AWTEC has developed a safety and health system that provides outstanding protection for their workers.”
The management team at AWTEC makes every effort to provide a safe and healthy work environment, especially allocating resources to support their safety and health system. Some of the company’s best safety and health practices include:
- They have a full-time Safety and Health Coordinator and an active Safety Committee.
- Job safety analysis is performed for each work activity.
- Safety is the number one company policy priority.
- Supervisors and hourly employees receive the same safety and health training.
- Accidents and near misses are investigated to find their root cause.
The company has an excellent system in place, which incorporates each of the seven required SHARP elements: Hazard Anticipation and Detection; Hazard Prevention and Control; Planning and Evaluation; Administration and Supervision; Safety and Health Training; Management Leadership; and Employee Participation.
Counterfeit Smoke Alarms Distributed in Atlanta
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is urging consumers in the Atlanta area to check their homes for counterfeit smoke alarms. About 18,500 counterfeit photoelectric smoke alarms were distributed for free in the Atlanta area between 2006 through May 2011 as part of the Atlanta Smoke Alarm Program. The smoke alarms can fail to alert consumers in the event of a fire.
The Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, which distributed the free smoke alarms as part of a fire safety campaign, is recalling the smoke alarms and is working to provide free smoke alarm inspections and replacement units. Consumers who received these alarms should immediately contact the Atlanta Smoke Alarm Recall Hotline at 404-546-2733.
The counterfeit alarms can be identified by a silver Underwriters Laboratories’ UL label on the back and three sets of vented slots on the front. The UL label is counterfeit. The alarms do not have a model number or brand name printed on them. “Important: Refer to Manual for Operating Instruction and Safety” and “Do Not Paint” are stamped into the plastic on the front of the alarm in both English and German. The package states, “This Smoke Alarm saves life and property by early warning!” Claims that smoke alarms can “save property” are not typical claims for smoke alarms. The packaging states, “10 YEAR LIFE LITHIUM BATTERY,” but the battery included with the smoke alarm is a carbon zinc, industrial, heavy duty battery, which will power the alarm for only one year.
CPSC’s independent testing of the smoke alarms determined that the alarms pose a life safety hazard to the occupants in the event of a fire. The alarms perform poorly and inconsistently and do not meet voluntary standards requirements in Underwriters Laboratories’ (UL) 217, Single and Multiple Station Smoke Alarms and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, Fire Alarm and Signaling Code. The smoke alarms’ sensitivity settings varied greatly between the alarms tested. Some alarms did not respond within an adequate time for life safety and other alarms did not respond at all.
CPSC has worked with the voluntary standards organizations to improve smoke alarm performance and reliability. Counterfeit alarms can put lives at risk. Working smoke alarms that meet the voluntary standards are proven to save lives. CPSC urges consumers to install smoke alarms on every level of the home, outside sleeping areas and inside bedrooms. Replace batteries at least once every year and test the alarms once a month.
Michaels Shares OSHA’s Accomplishments at National Industrial Hygienists Vonference
OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels addressed 2,000 attendees of the American Industrial Hygiene Association’s 2011 Conference and Exposition in Portland, Oregon, to share the agency’s accomplishments and future goals to protect workers from occupational health hazards. After the video presentation, Michaels discussed OSHA’s history of creating standards that save workers’ lives without placing a financial burden on employers or stifling innovation and industry.
Prepare for Possible Disasters While on Vacation
Summertime means vacation time for many people. Whether your plans will take you across the state or around the world, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) encourages people to include emergency preparedness in vacation planning. As part of IEMA’s 2011 Preparedness Campaign, the agency is highlighting vacation preparedness throughout June.
“A disaster can strike at any time and any place, even when you’re on vacation,” said IEMA Director Jonathon Monken. “While you’re familiar with the disasters that are common in your community, you could encounter unfamiliar hazards on vacation. A little research, planning and strategic packing could go a long way toward keeping your family safe throughout your vacation.”
Monken said a first step in vacation emergency planning is to conduct an Internet search to learn about natural and man-made hazards for the area you plan to visit. If you’re not sure how to prepare for certain disasters, research preparedness measures for those hazards, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, or major earthquakes.
Even if your vacation spot is prone to dangers you’re already familiar with, such as tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, dealing with those emergencies can be challenging in a new environment. When you arrive at your destination, identify safe locations to go to when severe weather approaches and find out how weather warnings are communicated in the area (e.g., are there outdoor warning sirens, does your hotel or resort have a public address system). Also, locate a hospital near where you’re staying.
“The most important way for travelers to be prepared is to stay informed,” said Chris Miller, warning coordination meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Lincoln. “Know the weather conditions for your entire route and the forecast during your stay. This will help prepare you so that hazardous weather conditions will not catch you off guard when you are away from home.”
To help travelers prepare for vacation, IEMA offers the following tips:
Before you leave
- Pack a travel-size emergency supply kit with water, snacks, a first-aid kit, flashlight, small battery-operated radio, extra batteries, and an emergency contact card with names and phone numbers.
- Pack extra supplies of critical items, such as prescription medications and baby formula, in case your return is delayed by a disaster.
- Let family and friends know your itinerary and how to reach you.
- Develop a communications plan and make everyone in your traveling group aware of the plan. Make sure everyone has the cell phone numbers of the others in your group. Designate an out-of-area person to contact in case your group is separated during an emergency and unable to place local calls.
- If traveling internationally, register with the U.S. Department of State through a free online service at https://travelregistration.state.gov/ibrs/ui/. The Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) allows travelers to enter information about upcoming trips abroad so that the Department of State can better assist them in an emergency.
During your trip
- If traveling by car, check the forecast for your entire route before and during your trip. Weather conditions can change drastically, especially if thunderstorms are expected.
- Bring along a travel weather radio, which will automatically switch to the weather radio station closest to your travel area and will alert you to any hazardous weather.
- Become familiar with the names of the counties you are traveling through because hazardous weather warnings are issued by county.
- If you are in a vehicle when a tornado warning has been issued or you see a tornado approaching, seek shelter in a sturdy building until the storm passes. If you’re unable to reach a sturdy building, pull over and find a low area, such as a ditch, and take cover there.
- Familiarize yourself with emergency plans in your hotel or place you are staying as soon as you arrive.
If disaster strikes your vacation spot, you can register on the American Red Cross’ “Safe and Well” website at www.redcross.org so family and friends will know that you are safe.
US Labor Department Invites Comment on Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
The U.S. Department of Labor announced a one-month period for public comment on a preliminary plan to revise department regulations.
The preliminary plan takes into account public feedback collected through the same online tool. Comments must be received no later than Friday, July 1, at 11:59 p.m. EDT.
“The Department of Labor’s regulatory retrospective plan is our road map to constantly improving regulations,” said Assistant Secretary for Policy, Dr. William E. Spriggs. “Our regulatory approach will be driven by effectiveness and responsibility—and we welcome input from all of our stakeholders during this process.”
The Web page is part of the department’s compliance with Executive Order 13563, which calls for federal agencies to detail how they will review existing significant regulations to identify whether they may be made more effective or less burdensome.
T & F Systems Fined Over $66,000 for Exposing Workers to Fall Hazards
OSHA has issued T & F Systems Inc., of Cleveland three citations, including one involving a willful violation, for failing to provide roofers working on commercial projects with fall protection. The company faces penalties totaling $66,220.
The citations are the result of an OSHA investigation conducted in December 2010 at a jobsite in Cleveland. The citation for a willful violation, carrying $61,600 in penalties, was issued after inspectors observed employees working without fall protection on a commercial roof at a height of nearly 32 feet. 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.
“Falls are a leading cause of injury and death in the construction industry,” said Howard Eberts, OSHA’s area director in Cleveland. “Employers are responsible for knowing what hazards exist in their workplaces and ensuring that workers are not exposed to risks that could result in injury or death.”
OSHA also issued T & F Systems two citations for serious violations, with a proposed fine of $4,620, for failing to ensure that framed step ladders were used in the manner in which they were intended and to protect flexible electrical cords from damage. 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.
OSHA standards require that an effective form of fall protection, such as guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems, be in use when workers perform residential construction activities 6 feet or more above the next lower level.
Prior to the inspection detailed above, T & F Systems had been issued citations by OSHA for fall related hazards on five occasions since 1998, including following a fatality at a jobsite in Cleveland in 2008 and a willful citation in 2010.
Apex Enterprises Cited for 11 Serious Safety Violations
OSHA cited Apex Enterprises Inc., of San Antonio with 11 serious violations for exposing workers to fall, electrical and struck-by hazards at the company’s worksite in Pflugerville, Texas. Proposed penalties total $40,200.
“Fall, electrical and struck-by hazards cause nearly two-thirds of all construction fatalities,” said Casey Perkins, OSHA’s area director in Austin. “Complacency regarding worker safety will not be tolerated.”
OSHA began its inspection February 18 at the company’s worksite on Kelly Lane where workers were finishing a roof with peak heights of up to 40 feet without wearing personal fall protection devices. The inspection was conducted as part of a regional emphasis program on construction hazards.
The violations include failing to ensure employees were wearing personal fall protection equipment such as a full body harness with lanyard and deceleration device, to provide fall protection training for employees working on roof edges, to ensure the use of safety glasses and hard hats, to ensure electrical cords were free from exposed copper and to ensure ladders extended 3 feet above the landing surface.
OSHA Cites Lakeland Feed and Supply for Exposing Workers to Grain Bin Hazards
OSHA cited Lakeland Feed and Supply in Hamilton, Montana for exposing workers to grain bin machine guarding and fall hazards, along with other safety and health hazards. Proposed fines total $122,500.
OSHA’s investigation, which began in December 2010, resulted in the issuance of citations 27 serious and three other-than-serious violations. The inspection was initiated under OSHA’s regional emphasis program that targets grain handling establishments in Montana.
“The hazards associated with grain handling operations are well recognized,” said Christine A. Webb, OSHA’s area director in Billings. “All employers, and especially those in high hazard industries such as the grain industry, must take the steps necessary to eliminate hazards from the workplace.”
The serious violations include platforms missing guarding; no landing platform on a ladder; unguarded shafts, pulleys, chains and sprockets; the lack of an emergency evacuation plan and no fire alarm system; employees walking on grain in the bins; high levels of potentially explosive dust; the lack of a housekeeping program; not locking out augers when employees enter the bins; exposed live electrical lines; improper electrical wiring for high dust areas; and employees not trained on the hazards and chemicals associated with their work.
The other-than-serious violations include not properly maintaining the OSHA 300 log and 300A form, and failing to install handrails on a stairwell. 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.
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.”
OSHA Cites Sousa Contractors for Fall Hazards
OSHA has issued citations to Sousa Contractors Inc., for exposing workers to fall hazards and other safety violations at an apartment building construction site in West Windsor Township, New Jersey. Proposed penalties total $107,900.
OSHA initiated an inspection on December 10, 2010, as part of its Local Emphasis Program on Fall Hazards in Construction. As a result, the company was cited for one willful violation, with a penalty of $70,000; six serious violations, with a penalty of $37,900; and one other-than-serious violation, which carried no penalty.
“This company’s failure to implement proper fall protection reflects a careless approach to workplace safety, leaving workers at risk of serious injury and possible death,” said Paula Dixon-Roderick, director of OSHA’s Marlton, New Jersey, area office. “It’s vital that Sousa Contractors correct these hazards to protect its workers.”
The willful violation was due to the company permitting employees to install trusses of approximately 35 feet at the leading edge of the building without safety nets or personal fall arrest systems.
The serious violations include the company’s failure to provide employees with instruction on the recognition of safety and health hazards, ensure employees were not exposed to debris such as protruding nails and lumber; provide safety glasses; ensure employees using an aluminum extension ladder extended the ladder 3 feet above the landing; ensure employees used an aluminum extension ladder at a safe angle; and ensure employees were grasping an extension ladder.
The other-than-serious violation was due to the company’s failure to prepare a written certification for fall protection training.
Sousa Contractors Inc., is a general contractor that supplies construction crews for framing, roofing, and masonry work.
Two Employers Cited for Electrical Hazards at The Hartford Financial Services Group
OSHA has cited The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., and Grubb & Ellis Management Services Inc., with serious violations of workplace safety standards for exposing workers to electrical hazards at The Hartford’s corporate headquarters and data center in Hartford, Connecticut.
OSHA found that The Hartford’s data center policy required electricians employed by its maintenance contractor, Grubb & Ellis, to perform work in live electrical panels for computer equipment without first de-energizing the panels, as required under the agency’s standards. Grubb & Ellis, for its part, failed to de-energize the electrical panels before having its employees perform installation work and grid upgrades on them.
“What employers must understand is that they or their contractors must first de-energize electrical equipment and circuits before employees work on them,” said Paul Mangiafico, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “Working on live electrical equipment needlessly exposes workers to potential death or disabling injury from arc flash, arc blast or electric shock. Proper and effective safeguards must be in place and in use at all times.”
Other Grubb & Ellis employees who were assigned to work on the building’s electrical systems performed some of their work on live parts and circuits, and were not trained on electrical safe work practices and protective equipment needed to guard against electrical hazards. In addition, Grubb & Ellis lacked specific hazardous energy control procedures to prevent the activation of, or the release of hazardous energy from, equipment during maintenance and repair work, and failed to develop and adequately train all authorized employees on hazardous energy control and procedures for safely applying, using, and removing energy control devices.
The Hartford, as the creating and controlling employer, was issued one serious citation, with the maximum proposed fine of $7,000, for requiring Grubb & Ellis employees to work on live panels. Grubb & Ellis was issued six serious citations, with $34,000 in proposed fines, for additional electrical and energy control hazards.
VA Health Center Cited for 33 Safety and Health Violations
OSHA recently issued notices of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions at a veterans’ health care center in North Chicago.
“The health care center failed to properly ensure the facility was in compliance with established safety and health procedures,” said Diane Turek, director for OSHA’s Chicago North Area Office in Des Plaines. “Employers are responsible for knowing what hazards exist in their facilities and must take appropriate precautions by following OSHA standards to ensure that workers are not exposed to such risks.”
The notices cover seven repeat safety violations: not having standard guardrails on open sided floors, exits not marked and exit doors requiring keys or special knowledge to open, failing to conduct periodic energy control inspections, using working space around electrical equipment for storage, failing to ensure electrical conductor boxes were closed, and not inspecting portable electric equipment.
Additionally, one notice was issued for a repeat health violation: failing to include the type/brand of sharps that were the cause of employees’ exposure to blood or bodily fluids in the sharps log.
OSHA issues a repeat notice if a federal agency previously has been cited for the same or a substantially similar serious condition and if a region-wide inspection history for the agency lists a previous notice issued within the past three years. Veterans’ affairs facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Becksville, Ohio, previously were cited for the same safety violations. The same health violation was previously cited at a veterans’ affairs facility in Minneapolis. There was one previous OSHA safety inspection at the North Chicago site within the past five years, which resulted in two serious violations.
The North Chicago health care center also received notices for 11 serious safety violations: a lack of guardrails on stairs and elevated runways, failing to keep exit routes free and unobstructed, failing to properly mark doors along an exit route and post signs indicating travel route to an exit, failing to use electrical equipment in accordance with labeling, failing to provide rating markings on electrical equipment, and failing to protect flexible cords and cables from accidental damage.
Further, the medical center received notices for nine serious health violations related to bloodborne pathogens and asbestos, including: failure to provide asbestos signs and labels for mechanical rooms and insulated surfaces; failure to provide two hours of asbestos awareness training; not informing employees through training of the location of asbestos-insulated surfaces; not providing employees with occupational exposure to blood the hepatitis B Vaccine, and not including a description of the site’s bloodborne pathogen exposure control plan in the training program.
The facility also received five other-than-serious health notices for failure to report sharps injuries on the OSHA 300 log, having an incomplete OSHA 300 Log and annual recordkeeping summary, and failing to have a copy of the OSHA bloodborne pathogen standard available for employee use.
At the time the latest inspections were initiated in August and September 2010, the center was under the sole direction of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Effective October 1, 2010, the center was renamed the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center and became the first fully-integrated federal health care facility under the partnership of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Department of Defense. OSHA’s inspections were conducted as part of the OSHA Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program.
As required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, federal agencies must comply with the same safety standards as private sector employers. The federal agency equivalent to a private sector citation is the notice of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions. A notice is used to inform establishment officials of violations of OSHA standards, alternate standards, and 29 CFR citable program elements. OSHA cannot propose monetary penalties against another federal agency for failure to comply with OSHA standards.
Safety News Links