OSHA recently announced it is launching a national dialogue with stakeholders on ways to prevent work-related illness caused by exposure to hazardous substances.
OSHA’s PELs, which are regulatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air, are intended to protect workers against the adverse health effects of exposure to hazardous substances. Ninety-five percent of OSHA’s current PELs, which cover fewer than 500 chemicals, have not been updated since their adoption in 1971. The agency’s current PELs cover only a small fraction of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in commerce, many of which are suspected of being harmful. Substantial resources are required to issue new exposure limits or update existing workplace exposure limits, as courts have required complex analyses for each proposed PEL.
“Many of our chemical exposure standards are dangerously out of date and do not adequately protect workers,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “While we will continue to work on updating our workplace exposure limits, we are asking public health experts, chemical manufacturers, employers, unions and others committed to preventing workplace illnesses to help us identify new approaches to address chemical hazards.”
OSHA is seeking public comment regarding current practices and future methods for updating PELs, as well as new strategies for better protecting workers from hazardous chemical exposures. Specifically, the agency requests suggestions on:
- Possible streamlined approaches for risk assessment and feasibility analyses
- Alternative approaches for managing chemical exposures, including control banding, task-based approaches, and informed substitution.
The goal of this public dialogue is to give stakeholders a forum to develop innovative, effective approaches to improve the health of workers in the US. In the coming months, OSHA will announce additional ways for members of the public to participate in the conversation.
The comment period for the RFI will continue for 180 days.
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.
Environmental Resource Center is offering live online training for you to learn how the new rule differs from current requirements, how to implement the changes, and when the changes must be implemented.
EPA’s New Solvent Wipe, Shop Towel Rule Demystified
- Does the rule apply to both cloth and paper wipes and rags?
- What solvents can be on the towels, and which are prohibited?
- Does the rule also apply to towels that contain characteristic hazardous waste?
- Can P or U-listed wastes be on the towels?
- How must the towels be stored on-site?
- Do they need to be tested for anything?
- How long can they be stored?
- How must the containers be marked or labeled?
- How must they be prepared for transportation?
- Where can you ship them and what are the disposal and recycling options?
- What are the documentation requirements?
- How is the new rule impacted by current state regulations?
Knoxville RCRA and DOT Training
Mobile RCRA and DOT Training
San Diego RCRA and DOT Training
CSB Recommends Safety Improvements to Emergency Response Guidebook
The CSB noted that while the manual is provided for responders to use in transportation incidents, CSB investigators have found over the years that the guidebook is often used by emergency responders—firefighters, medical technicians, and police officers—dealing with chemical accidents at fixed facilities. However, the CSB found some of the directions given in the manual are vague. The CSB document specifically cited guidebook changes needed for handling ammonium nitrate fires such as the one that led to a massive explosion at a fertilizer storage facility in West, Texas last year.
The current guidebook was released in 2012. The guidebook—jointly produced with Canada and Mexico and in use in those countries as well—is used across the country by emergency responders who can quickly look up correct responses to a myriad of chemical accidents. The department’s website states that, “DOT’s goal is to place an ERG in every emergency service vehicle nationwide.”
CSB Chairperson Rafael Moure-Eraso said, “We have respectfully submitted our comments to the DOT, based on years of our incident investigations, which show that responders are often not aware that this important manual is intended only for responding to chemical releases or fire incidents in transportation accidents, such as railroad tankers or truck-hauled containers, and not fixed facilities. Directions on how to respond to incidents at fixed chemical or manufacturing facilities may be much different.”
The CSB proposed that the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) place a cautionary note at the front of the manual—rather than on page 356 where it is now—to read, in capital letters, “Only intended for use when responding to transportation incidents.”
CSB Investigation Team Lead Johnnie Banks noted, “The CSB recommended the ERG include additional guidance on where responders can find chemical hazard information in responding to incidents at fixed facilities, such as Material Safety Data Sheets or EPA-required ‘Tier 2’ information which specifies the chemicals on hand at facilities. We feel responders need to know where to go for data quickly in the heat of battle.”
The CSB found what investigators called “vague or poorly defined terms” in the proposed new guidelines. Where firefighters are told, for instance, to “fight fire from maximum distance,” the CSB recommended DOT specify the distance so firefighters are not left to guess what “maximum” means.
The CSB noted the catastrophic explosion at West Fertilizer resulted in 15 fatalities and over 250 injuries, and that twelve first responders perished which fighting the blaze when the storage facility exploded. The CSB reviewed the DOT guidance in the ERG for ammonium nitrate fertilizer, classified as an oxidizer. Within Guide 140 for a large fire, the guidance states “Flood fire with water from a distance.” In the case of an ammonium nitrate fire similar to West Fertilizer, the CSB response to DOT notes that “flooding the fire with water from an undefined distance could result in serious injuries or fatalities if the ammonium nitrate detonated.”
The CSB RFI response addresses in detail the need for additional language in DOT guidance regarding ammonium nitrate fertilizer to consider its “unpredictable and explosive nature” and the “potential for detonation within a very short time frame.”
MIOSHA Offers Matching Grants up to $5,000 to Improve Workplace Safety and Health!
In celebration of the 40th anniversary of Michigan’s program for workplace safety and health, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) is offering matching grant awards of up to $5,000 to improve workplace safety and health. The grants are open to qualifying employers to purchase safety and health-related equipment. The goal of this special grant program is to create safer and healthier work environments and reduce the risk of injury and illness to workers in Michigan.
“We are encouraging employers to step up workplace safety and health during MIOSHA’s 40-year anniversary,” said Martha Yoder, MIOSHA Director. “We are pleased to partner with small employers by offering matching grants of up to $5,000 to make improvements in workplace safety and health. With a total of $500,000 available from MIOSHA, that’s a $1 million investment in keeping Michigan’s workers safe and healthy.”
To qualify for the MIOSHA Safety and Health Improvement Program (MiSHIP) Grant, an employer must meet the following conditions:
- Have 250 employees or less
- Come under the jurisdiction of MIOSHA
- A qualified safety professional or a safety committee must have conducted a site-specific evaluation, and there must be a written report with recommendations based on the evaluation unless the project is for lifting equipment in residential care facilities, or fall protection equipment in residential construction
- The grant project must be consistent with the recommendations of the safety and/or health evaluation and must directly relate to improvements that will lead to a reduction in the risk of injury or disease to employees
- The employer must have the knowledge and experience to complete the project, and must be committed to its implementation
- The employer must be able to match the grant money awarded and all estimated project costs must be covered
The MiSHIP Grant requires that an eligible project is one designed to reduce the risk of injury to employees as identified in a site-specific safety and/or health evaluation conducted at the site. The site-specific evaluation must identify the injury and illness risks associated with a work task or area, and the recommended actions of the grant project must directly relate to eliminating or minimizing the risks. Please note that requests for residential fall protection and lifting equipment for in-home care or residential care facilities do not require a hazard evaluation to be performed.
Some examples include:
- Residential Fall Protection Systems
- Lifting Equipment or Portable Lifting Equipment for In-Home Care or Small Nursing/Residential Care Facilities
- Monitoring Equipment for Confined Space Entry
- Noise Reduction Engineering Controls
- Lock Out/Tag Out Systems
- Cooling Systems for Agriculture-based Worksites
- Eyewash Stations for the Accommodations Industry
A limited number of MiSHIP Grants will be available to training organizations. To be eligible, the training organization must make the equipment available to its members for use.
Chemical Safety Board’s Lasting Impact on Industrial Safety
Previously Dr. Anenberg served at the CSB from 2004 to 2006 as a federal career intern and recommendations specialist. After leaving the CSB, she pursued a doctorate in environmental science and later joined the EPA, where she worked on important air related regulations before rejoining the CSB in August 2014.
In the safety message, Dr. Anenberg discusses the CSB’s process for following up on over 700 issued safety recommendations and achieving the agency’s nearly 70% rate of successful recommendations closure. Dr. Anenberg notes, “Recommendations are the CSB’s primary tool for achieving positive change and preventing future incidents. A recommendation is a specific course of action issued to a specific party, based on the findings of CSB investigations, safety studies, and other products.”
Following an urgent recommendation from the CSB, the State of Connecticut banned the hazardous practice of natural gas blows during power plant construction. Responding to a second urgent recommendation from the CSB, the National Fire Protection Association used an expedited process to develop a new comprehensive fuel gas safety standard.
The video further explains that while some safety recommendations may be adopted immediately, others require extensive effort and advocacy. For example, following a string of combustible dust accident investigations, the CSB recommended in a 2006 study that OSHA develop a combustible dust standard for general industry. But eight years later, a national standard has yet to be created, and preventable combustible dust accidents continue to occur.
The CSB is now creating a list of “Most Wanted” safety improvements, which will result in increased advocacy measures.
As Dr. Anenberg states in the video, “CSB recommendations are making a difference. CSB recommendations trigger important actions that are making American businesses, communities, and the environment safer and healthier.”
Work-Related Deaths in Colorado Decline in 2013
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment released preliminary data from the 2013 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. According to the preliminary figures, there were 65 work-related deaths in 2013, which is 17 fewer than occurred in 2012.
Top causes of work-related fatalities:
- Transportation-related deaths continued to be the leading cause of work-related deaths in Colorado, with 28 deaths, accounting for 43% of the state’s 65 occupational fatalities during 2013. Of these 28 deaths, 18 were roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles, three were non-roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles and three were pedestrian vehicular incidents
- There were 11 deaths from violence in 2013. Of these, five were self-inflicted, intentional injuries
- There were nine deaths caused by falls, slip, and trips
- There were nine deaths caused by exposure to harmful substances or environments
Work-related fatalities by worker characteristics:
- Men accounted for 59 (91%) of the 65 worker deaths in 2013
- By race/ethnicity, 47 deaths were among white, non-Hispanic workers and 14 were among Hispanic workers
- Workers in the 45- to 54-year-old age group had the highest number of fatalities, with 19 deaths in 2013, followed by workers in the 25- to 34-year-old age group, with 14 deaths
Work-related fatalities by industry
Overall, 60 fatalities occurred among private industry workers and five occurred among government workers. The top three private industries were:
- Construction: 16 deaths
- Trade, transportation and utilities: 15 deaths
- Natural resources and mining: eight deaths
Work-related fatalities by occupation (top three):
- Transportation and material-moving occupations had 23 deaths. Of these, 13 were among heavy truck and tractor-trailer truck drivers.
- Construction and extraction occupations had 13 deaths. Of these, eight were among construction trades workers and three were among first-line supervisors.
- Installation, maintenance, and repair service occupations had six deaths
The Colorado Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries is a cooperative effort of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment and the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Work-related fatalities are identified through review of death certificates, coroners’ reports, workers’ compensation claims, reports of OSHA, and other sources as available.
GP Roofing & Construction and Archer Exteriors Fined over $335,000 for Exposing Workers to Falls and other Hazards
Archer Exteriors, of Pensacola, subcontracted with Palm Coast-based GP Roofing & Construction to install shingles at the three job sites. OSHA initiated the inspections beginning in March 2014 as part of its Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction. Proposed penalties total $355,300.
“The employer knowingly continues to put workers’ lives at risk of serious injury or death by not ensuring proper safety measures are implemented to protect employees from dangerous falls at all work sites,” said Brian Sturtecky, OSHA’s area director in Jacksonville. “Although safety harnesses and ropes were available at the Panama City site, management decided not to use the fall protection because they didn’t have tie-down brackets.”
OSHA cited GP Roofing & Construction for three willful safety violations, carrying $210,000 in penalties. The inspection found that the employer failed to provide workers with fall protection systems, which exposed them to falls of between 9 and 11 feet while they performed roofing work at the three job sites. 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. GP Roofing & Construction has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program.
The roofing company was also cited for four repeat violations, carrying $108,900 in penalties, for allowing workers to use powered nail guns without eye and face protection and for failing to extend ladders 3 feet above the landing surface for roof access. These violations occurred at two work sites. 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 facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. The company was previously cited for these same violations in 2012.
GP Roofing & Construction was cited for three serious violations, with penalties of $21,000, for using extension ladders improperly at two locations and for failure to require employees to face the ladder when descending from the roof. Another violation was for not clearing debris from the area around the bottom of the ladder. A serious citation 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 company was cited for this same violation in 2011.
GP Roofing & Construction has been inspected by OSHA 13 times since 2011, which resulted in willful, repeat, and serious citations for fall protection, ladders, safety glasses, first aid kits, and hazard communications. Archer Exteriors has been inspected six times within the past five years and was cited in three of those inspections.
Archer Exteriors is a national company that specializes in new construction in 23 US states and remodeling in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Florida.
The page offers fact sheets, posters, and videos that vividly illustrate various fall hazards and appropriate preventive measures.
Haverhill Chemical Employee Fatally Injured while Cleaning Reactor Drain
OSHA’s investigation found the 61-year-old employee suffered fatal injuries on April 4, 2014, while clearing a blockage on the drain line to a reactor. An expansion joint failed and caused a thermally heated chemical mixture to spew onto the employee. The mixture predominately contained Bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, and hydrochloric acid, acetone, and phenol, used in the manufacture of resins, flame retardants, and coatings.
“Haverhill Chemicals has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its workers by ensuring equipment used to carry highly hazardous chemicals is properly installed and maintained,” said Nick Walters, OSHA’s regional director in Chicago. “A long-term employee, preparing to retire and spend more time with his loved ones, lost his life in a preventable tragedy. A worker who dedicated his life to a job should never lose that life to that job.”
The inspection found Haverhill Chemical plant officials failed to ensure misaligned pipes and expansion joints were repaired properly and adequate safety shields were installed before placing the reactor back in service. The company also failed to develop procedures for normal and emergency shutdown of the BPA reactor; address hazards for expansion joint failure; develop written procedures to maintain equipment used to process chemicals during maintenance; and train workers to install flexible expansion joints and associated equipment properly.
In addition, the company failed to conduct required inspections and maintain accurate inspection records; provide personal protective equipment, including clothing, boots, safety goggles, and head coverings; and train workers to identify and handle hazardous chemicals.
An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.
OSHA has proposed fines of $134,000.
Houston-based Haverhill Chemicals began operating the former Sunoco, Inc., site in Haverhill on November 1, 2011, with a workforce of approximately 170 employees.
Rockville Construction Fined $107,100 for 25 Safety and Health Violations
“The numerous hazards found at this work site exposed employees to potential long-term health hazards from lead contamination and to immediate safety hazards from falls and electrocution,” said Warren Simpson, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “These basic health and safety safeguards should have been implemented before the work started. Moving forward, these hazards need to be corrected effectively and expeditiously.”
Lead exposure can cause long-term damage to the central nervous, urinary, blood, and reproductive systems. The lead-related hazards found at the Hockanum Mill work site included employee exposure to high lead levels from scraping lead-containing paint; the employer’s failure to provide effective controls to reduce lead exposure levels; failure to determine lead exposure levels or conduct biological monitoring; and failure to train employees about lead hazards and safeguards.
Employees were exposed to falls from an unguarded work platform, to electric shock from ungrounded electrical outlets, and mislabeled or misused electrical equipment.
Industrial Power Systems Fined $75,000 for Exposing Workers to Trench Cave-Ins
Two employees of Industrial Power Systems were exposed to cave-in hazards while installing steam and chill water piping for the construction of a recreation center on the University of Toledo campus. OSHA has cited the company for one willful and one serious safety violation, carrying proposed fines of $75,000.
“Trench cave-ins can bury a worker in minutes and result in numerous fatalities and injuries every year,” said Kim Nelson, OSHA’s area director in Toledo. “Companies that perform this dangerous work are responsible for knowing the hazards and ensuring necessary safety precautions are in place to protect employees.”
The investigation found that the two workers had been working in the unprotected area on and off for more than six hours. OSHA standards mandate that all excavations 5 feet or deeper be protected against collapse.
The investigation also found that workers were not provided an exit from the trench, such as a ladder, which resulted in the issuance of a serious violation.
West Hartford Stairs and Cabinets Faces $60,200 Fine after Employee Suffers Amputation
West Hartford Stairs and Cabinets has been cited by OSHA for 16 serious violations of workplace safety and health standards at its 17 Main St. manufacturing plant in Newington. This follows inspections conducted by OSHA’s Hartford Area Office in response to an April 14, 2014, incident in which an employee lost parts of two fingers in an inadequately guarded machine. The manufacturer of stairs and cabinets faces $60,200 in fines.
“This is exactly the type of serious injury that proper guarding of a machine’s operating parts would have prevented,” said Warren Simpson, OSHA’s area director in Hartford. “Equally disturbing were the fire, chemical and electrical hazards identified during our inspections. It’s imperative that this employer take prompt and effective corrective action to eliminate these hazards and prevent their recurrence.”
In addition to the machine guarding hazards, OSHA found that employees were exposed to fire hazards from a dust collection system that lacked a spark detector to prevent hot metal from entering the dust collector and igniting an explosion. Other fire hazards included improper disposal of flammable rags; accumulations of flammable chemicals on spray booth walls and combustible dust in electrical outlets; and failure to have at least two emergency exits from the spraying room where flammable liquids were used. Additional safety hazards included employees’ exposure to falls from an unguarded second-story work platform and eye injuries from using inadequate safety glasses.
Worker Injured after Being Caught in Machinery at Kloeckner Metals Corp.
“This worker suffered a catastrophic injury because Kloeckner Metals failed to observe basic safety procedures,” said Bill Wilkerson, OSHA’s area director in Cincinnati. “The company knew how dangerous these machines could be, and they did not put their employees first. It’s a culture too common in the manufacturing industry, and it needs to change.”
OSHA’s April 28, 2014, inspection found that a worker was exposed to the in-running nip point created by two rollers on the slitting line. He got caught in the nip point and suffered severe injuries. The company was issued a repeat violation for inadequate machine guarding. The company was previously cited for this violation at the same location in 2013.
Specifically, workers clearing scrap on the slitting line were not provided devices to shut down machines during these activities, and mechanics were not trained on how to use them.
Kloeckner Metals Corp. is based in Roswell, Georgia. The company employs 56 workers at its Cincinnati facility.
FedEx Ground Packaging System Inc. Cited for Machine Guarding Hazard
FedEx Ground Packaging System, Inc., failed to guard a conveyor belt properly at its Wilmington shipping distribution center and exposed its employees to potential injuries, OSHA has found. OSHA had previously cited the company in 2010 and 2011 for similar hazards at company facilities in Grove City, Ohio, and Syracuse, New York.
After inspecting the Wilmington facility, OSHA’s Andover Area Office personnel determined that the belt conveyor system’s rotating parts were insufficiently guarded on the periphery to prevent employees’ fingers and hands from getting caught. This could result in injuries, including pinched or crushed fingers and hands, concussions, abrasions, or nerve damage. Proper machine guarding ensures that no part of an employee’s body can come in contact with a machine’s moving parts.
“A basic safety concern went unmet here even though this employer has twice been cited for similar hazards in the past four years,” said Jeffrey Erskine, OSHA’s acting deputy regional administrator for New England. “It is critical for workers’ safety and health that an employer with multiple facilities, such as this, ensures that required safeguards are in place and maintained effectively at all times in all locations.”
Because of the prior violations, OSHA has cited the company for a repeat violation with a proposed fine of $44,000.
Judge Affirms Citations Issued for Chemical and Mechanical Hazards at Murray’s Chickens
Citations issued to MB Consultants Ltd., doing business as Murray’s Chickens, for health and safety violations were affirmed by an administrative law judge from the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, upholding an earlier decision by OSHA. The violations occurred at the company’s South Fallsburg chicken processing plant.
“This is a critical decision that this employer and others in the industry should pay close attention to,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York. “Not informing production employees that the chemical hazards they worked with exposed them to potential illness, or that the absence of machine maintenance procedures left them vulnerable to lacerations, amputations or death, is unacceptable and will be enforced to the highest extent of the law.”
OSHA cited the plant in May 2012 for a variety of safety and health hazards, including failure to provide employees with information and training about the hazards of products that contain peracetic acid and bleach, as required by OSHA’s hazard communication standard.
MB Consultants contested its citations, and a hearing was held in Albany on May 21–22, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge William S. Coleman. Judge Coleman issued a ruling on September 19, 2014, upholding these citations and their penalties. Terrence Duncan of the New York Regional Office of the Solicitor tried the case for the secretary of labor.
Judge Coleman found the employer had failed to train production workers on the hazards of chlorine bleach and Perasafe, an antimicrobial agent containing peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetic acid, used to disinfect chicken carcasses. The judge noted in his decision that employees told the OSHA compliance officer that they had experienced respiratory ailment symptoms and rashes consistent with the exposure symptoms described in the manufacturer’s safety data sheets for Perasafe and chlorine bleach.
The judge also found that that the company’s machine maintenance procedures were overly general, lacking sufficient detail to provide employees with the steps to protect themselves from amputation and laceration hazards while servicing equipment. Moreover, production workers were not given basic training on how to avoid injuries when service and maintenance work was needed. Two employees were injured when attempting to clear jams on equipment without knowledge of proper procedures.
Safety News Links