The website now lists both denied and approved requests and provides information to employers on submitting formal requests for a variance from an OSHA workplace standard.
A variance is a regulatory action that permits an employer to deviate from the requirements of an OSHA standard under specified conditions. A variance does not provide an outright exemption from a standard, except in cases involving national defense.
Employers can request a variance for many reasons, including not being able to fully comply on time with a new safety or health standard because of a shortage of personnel, materials, or equipment. Employers may prefer to use methods, equipment, or facilities that they believe protect workers as well as, or better than, OSHA standards. OSHA may grant a variance to employers when they can prove that their proposed methods, conditions, practices, operations, or processes provide workplaces that are at least as safe and healthful as the workplaces provided by the OSHA standards from which they are seeking the variance.
Until recently, only approved variance cases were available on the website. The newly available information about denied applications illustrates which requirements businesses have failed to meet when applying for a variance.
How to Author GHS Safety Data Sheets
How to Label Hazardous Chemicals Using OSHA’s New GHS Hazcom Standard
Los Angeles, CA RCRA and DOT Training
Knoxville, TN RCRA and DOT Training
Mobile, AL RCRA and DOT Training
You Risk Eye Injuries by Not Wearing Required Protection
On-the-job eye injuries can have devastating consequences, but despite these potential hazards, 85% of industrial workers in a Kimberly-Clark Professional survey said they had observed others failing to wear eye protection when they should have been.
“This high rate of noncompliance seriously jeopardizes worker health and safety. In many instances uncomfortable eyewear or fogged lenses could be responsible,” says Valona Renner-Thomas, product manager, Eye and Face Protection, Kimberly-Clark Professional. “The results are very disconcerting when you consider that 90% of eye injuries can be prevented through the use of proper protective eyewear. Enhancing eyewear practices is critical to creating exceptional workplaces—those that are safe, healthy, and productive for all employees.”
OSHA requires employers to provide eye and face protection to guard against chemical, environmental, radiological, or mechanical irritants or hazards. Yet, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that nearly three out of five injured workers were not wearing eye protection at the time of the accident or were wearing the wrong kind of eye protection for the job.
The importance of eye protection was evident to survey participants. 80% said they would encourage a co-worker or employee to wear eye protection if he or she were not in compliance, and 22% said they would report the employee to a supervisor or find a way to halt dangerous work operations until the worker complied with personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols.
In addition, eyewear came in first when respondents were asked to rank the most important PPE category for on-the-job safety. It was also deemed the most challenging PPE category in terms of compliance, which leads to the question: how can compliance be improved? Greater comfort and fog-free lenses could help, according to the survey results. When asked what would most improve compliance with eye protection protocols, the top choice was more comfortable eyewear—with features like flexible, comfortable nose pieces (56%) followed by fog-free lenses (22%).
51% of respondents also reported having been forced to wear uncomfortable eyewear or eyewear they did not like while at work. Of these, 46% wound up purchasing their own eye protection, while 45% said they “used it anyway.”
Fogging was also a problem on the job, with 88% of respondents saying they or someone they worked with had been unable to see or complete a task properly because of fogged lenses. 40% of respondents said this had happened on “numerous occasions.”
Settlement in Crandall Canyon Mine Collapse
The Department of Labor has reached a settlement with the operators of the Crandall Canyon Mine and other Murray Energy Corp., subsidiaries, resolving litigation and violations cited after the mine’s 2007 collapse, which killed eight miners and a Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector. Six victims were killed in the initial collapse on August 6, 2007, and were never recovered. The other three victims were killed August 16 while attempting to rescue the six missing miners. The settlement resolves the department’s civil case with the operators, Murray Energy Corp., subsidiaries Genwal Resources Inc., and Andalex Resources Inc. The case was stayed between December 2008 and March 2012 pending completion of a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.
The accident investigation conducted by MSHA revealed that a grossly deficient mine design led to pillar failures. Consequently, the agency issued 20 enforcement violations to the mine’s operators and assessed penalties totaling $1,639,351.
Under the settlement, the operators accepted four of the citations and orders as “contributory,” meaning that the company’s violations contributed to the cause or effect of the accident. Those violations include the improper mine design as well as the operators’ repeated failure to revise the design, despite knowledge that it was inadequate to protect miners from bursting coal pillars.
The operators also agreed to classifying violations of three safety standards as “flagrant,” the most serious type of violation under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 that can carry the highest penalty assessment. Two of the flagrant violations are directly related to criminal charges. Genwal Resources pleaded guilty to the two charges in March 2012. The third flagrant violation involves the operators’ failure to improve the mine’s design following an August 3, 2007, coal burst, which occurred three days before the first fatal accident.
According to the settlement, Genwal Resources and Andalex Resources have agreed to pay in total $949,351 in civil penalties for the Crandall Canyon violations, following some modifications to the enforcement actions. Three of the enforcement actions carrying a total of $340,000 in penalties have been vacated. In addition, the Murray Energy subsidiaries have agreed to pay $200,649 to settle other violations committed at other mines in Utah, with no modifications made to those citations or orders. The settlement has been filed with Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Administrative Law Judge Richard Manning for his consideration.
OSHA Trainer Impersonator Indicted for Conducting Fraudulent Hazardous Waste Safety Training During Gulf Oil Spill Clean-up
A 22-count federal indictment has charged Connie M. Knight, with impersonating a federal employee for the purpose of enticing people to pay her for fraudulent hazardous waste safety training. The indictment also charges Knight with possessing false federal identification documents, creating false federal identification documents and transferring false federal identification documents to her employees.
Knight, previously of Belle Chasse, Louisiana, was arrested by federal agents in Wiggins, Mississippi, where she currently resides. She was scheduled to appear in federal court in New Orleans.
The indictment states that Knight impersonated an OSHA Master Level V Inspector and Instructor by utilizing false OSHA credentials, a false OSHA email address, and various other means. Knight thereby enticed individuals to pay for fraudulent hazardous waste safety and awareness training under the pretense that they would get work helping to clean the Gulf.
In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, many fisheries were closed, causing many fishermen in the Gulf region to seek other sources of employment, including as oil spill cleanup personnel. All cleanup personnel were required to receive hazardous waste safety training before working in contaminated areas due to dangers from the oil itself and cleanup materials.
According to the indictment, from August to December of 2010, it is estimated that Knight defrauded more than 1,000 individuals throughout the Eastern District of Louisiana. The indictment alleges that Knight created and used fraudulent OSHA credentials, along with numerous false diplomas and certifications, to convince individuals that she was an authorized trainer and that they would be able to procure lucrative cleanup work if they attended and paid for her hazardous waste training courses. Knight targeted members of the Southeast Asian communities in Southern Louisiana, many of whom neither read nor spoke English proficiently.
According to the indictment, in October of 2010, while impersonating an OSHA employee, Knight created false federal OSHA identification badges for others as well. Knight is charged with creating those additional false OSHA identification badges, as well as providing them to four residents of Southern Louisiana fishing communities whom she had hired as employees. The indictment states that Knight knew she had no authority to produce or transfer the false OSHA identification badges.
The charges of producing and transferring fraudulent federal identification documents each carry a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. The charge of possessing a fraudulent federal identification document carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a fine of $5,000. The 19 counts of falsely impersonating a federal employee each carry a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
The allegations in the indictment are mere accusations and all persons are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Dlubak Glass Cited for Exposing Workers to Lead, Other Hazards
The inspection was initiated following a complaint that workers were being exposed to lead and not provided adequate PPE in the plant. Lead exposure can cause damage to the nervous system, kidneys, blood-forming organs, and reproductive system if inhaled or ingested in dangerous quantities. A willful violation has been cited for failing to make an initial determination of worker’s exposure to lead. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.
One repeat violation has been cited for failing to maintain a lunch room free from lead dust and residue. 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. Dlubak Glass Co., was cited for this housekeeping violation in March 2011 at their main facility in Upper Sandusky.
Thirteen serious violations primarily involve violations of the lead standard, including failing to implement engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposure, record initial exposure levels to cadmium, provide clean changing rooms or separate storage facilities for protective work clothing to prevent cross-contamination with street clothes and provide medical surveillance for exposure to lead. The remaining serious violations include dry sweeping lead; noise overexposure; a lack of hazard communication procedures; and failing to provide head as well as other adequate PPE against glass, lead, and cadmium 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.
The program focuses on recalcitrant employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations.
Dlubak Glass Co., was founded in 1932 in Natrona Heights, Pennsylvania. The company serves the automotive, lighting, plate, fiberglass, container, and specialty glass industries, with six plants located in Natrona Heights and Upper Sandusky, Ohio; Lawrenceburg, Kentucky; Waxahachie, Texas; Okmulgee, Oklahoma; and Yuma, Arizona.
OSHA Cites 99 Cent Only Stores Texas with Multiple Serious Violations
OSHA’s inspection was initiated as part of the agency’s national emphasis program on process safety management for covered chemical facilities. Proposed penalties total $121,000.
The violations include failing to compile process safety information for instruments used as safeguards, ensure that equipment complies with recognized and good engineering practices, inspect and test equipment identified as safeguards, complete a process safety management compliance audit, develop and implement an emergency action plan, and provide guarding on elevated platforms above four feet.
99 Cent Only Stores Texas, a discount retailer, employs about 12,000 workers companywide and has operations in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas.
Miller Compressing Cited for Failing to Isolate Power During Maintenance
OSHA has cited Miller Compressing Co., in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with two willful safety violations for allowing employees to perform maintenance on a shredder without first isolating the machine’s energy source. OSHA opened an inspection upon receiving a complaint alleging hazards at the company’s scrap processing facility. Proposed fines total $70,000.
Specifically, the willful violations are failing to lock out the electrical power source of a 7,000-horsepower shredder and have adequate energy control procedures in place for maintenance and servicing.
Postal Facility Cited for Exposing Workers to Potential Injuries from a Powered Industrial Truck
OSHA has cited a US Postal Service processing and distribution center in Tucson, Arizona, for one willful safety violation for the improper operation of a powered industrial truck. The proposed penalty is $70,000.
OSHA’s investigation of the facility was prompted by a complaint that an untrained, uncertified supervisor had operated a powered industrial truck during an evening shift. The truck, which is used to move large quantities of mail, requires training and certification to operate. When two of three certified truck operators did not report for their shift, a supervisor without training or certification operated the truck, exposing workers to potential injuries.
Violations of OSHA’s powered industrial truck standard are among the top five types of violations most commonly cited by OSHA in fiscal year 2012.
OSHA Cites The Home Depot for Exposing Workers to Electrical Hazards
OSHA has cited Atlanta-based The Home Depot Inc., for two repeat and one serious safety violations for exposing employees to electrical hazards at a Chicago, Illinois, store. OSHA opened an inspection in July that was prompted by a referral about blocked electrical panels in the store. Proposed fines total $69,300.
The repeat violations involve failing to ensure that all service, feeder and branch circuits, as well as the circuits' disconnecting means and overcurrent devices, were marked to indicate their purpose, and that materials were not stored in the space around electrical equipment. The same violations were cited at multiple stores in 2009, 2010, and 2012.
The serious violation was issued for failing to ensure that all electrical equipment was marked with the voltage level.
Carter Construction Cited for Exposing Workers to Trenching Hazards
OSHA’s June inspection was conducted under the agency’s National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation. Proposed penalties total $68,500.
The willful violations include failing to provide sidewall protection in a trench and to remove employees from an excavation where hazards were identified.
Two serious violations include failing to keep equipment and material at least two feet back from the excavation’s edge, and provide a means of entry into and exit from an open excavation.
OSHA standards mandate that all excavations five feet or deeper be protected against collapse.
COM2 Computers and Technologies Cited for Exposing Workers to Lead, Other Hazards
OSHA has cited COM2 Computers and Technologies LLC, of Carol Stream, Illinois, for 11 alleged serious safety and health violations, including finding airborne lead above the permissible level in a March 30 inspection prompted by a complaint. Proposed fines total $67,320.
Lead exposure may cause adverse health effects such as central nervous system, urinary, or reproductive damage.
In addition to allowing exposure to lead concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, averaged over an eight-hour period, violations relating to lead involve failing to implement engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposure, collect full shift personal samples for monitoring, measure the effectiveness of the ventilation system to control exposure, provide clean protective clothing, provide clean changing rooms, install shower facilities and require end-of-shift showers, keep lunchroom surfaces free from lead accumulation, and implement a medical surveillance and respiratory protection program for all employees who have been exposed to lead at or above permissible level, as well as removal of lead dust via dry sweeping instead of vacuuming.
The remaining violations involve failing to train workers in lead hazards and other chemical exposure in the facility, implement machine guarding, not stack materials and avoid struck-by hazards, and provide helmets in areas with potential falling objects. 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.
COM2 Computers and Technologies recycles computers, monitors, and other electronic equipment. This inspection was OSHA’s fifth in the Carol Streams facility; the last citations were issued in July 2010.
Podnar Plastics Cited for Seven Violations After Investigating Complaints of Hazards at Manufacturing Facility
OSHA has cited Podnar Plastics Inc., in Kent, Ohio, with seven safety violations, including one willful, for failing to ensure that a mold machine’s point-of-operation was guarded. OSHA opened an inspection in June after receiving complaints alleging hazards at the facility, which manufactures plastic containers. Proposed penalties total $64,400.
Five serious violations involve failing to develop machine-specific lockout/tagout procedures and then train authorized employees on the procedures, guard points of operation on equipment, ensure that employees wear safety glasses while using a grinder, train workers to use portable fire extinguishers, and provide proper hand protection for workers required to handle hot parts.
One other-than-serious violation is failing to ensure that all exits are accessible. 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.
Safety News Links