Each year in the US, tens of thousands of workers are made sick or die from occupational exposures to the thousands of hazardous chemicals that are used in workplaces every day. OSHA recently launched two new web resources to assist companies with keeping their workers safe.
While many chemicals are suspected of being harmful, OSHA’s exposure standards are out-of-date and inadequately protective for the small number of chemicals that are regulated in the workplace. This toolkit walks employers and workers step-by-step through information, methods, tools, and guidance to either eliminate hazardous chemicals or make informed substitution decisions in the workplace by finding a safer chemical, material, product, or process.
“We know that the most efficient and effective way to protect workers from hazardous chemicals is by eliminating or replacing those chemicals with safer alternatives whenever possible,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health.
OSHA’s PELs set mandatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air to protect workers against the health effects of certain hazardous chemicals and OSHA will continue to enforce those mandatory PELs. Since OSHA’s adoption of the majority of its PELs more than 40 years ago, new scientific data, industrial experience, and developments in technology clearly indicate that in many instances these mandatory limits are not sufficiently protective of workers’ health.
“There is no question that many of OSHA’s chemical standards are not adequately protective,” Michaels said. “I advise employers, who want to ensure that their workplaces are safe, to utilize the occupational exposure limits on these annotated tables, since simply complying with OSHA’s antiquated PELs will not guarantee that workers will be safe.”
The annotated PEL tables provide a side-by-side comparison of OSHA PELs for general industry to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health PELs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limits (RELs), and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs).
GHS OSHA Hazard Communication Training PowerPoint Now Available in English and Spanish
With OSHA’s adoption of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals, virtually every chemical label, MSDS—now called Safety Data Sheet (SDS), and written hazard communication plan must be revised to meet the new standard.
By December 1, 2013, all employees at your site that work with, or are exposed to, hazardous chemicals must be trained to understand the new classification system, labels, warning statements, precautions, pictograms, and safety data sheets for chemicals at your worksite.
Environmental Resource Center is making available a PDF presentation or a customizable PowerPoint that you can use for on-site worker training. The training program, which is designed to cover your site’s GHS Hazard Communication training requirements, is in a format that is easy to understand.
Pricing and options:
Multiple PDF copies can be purchased for $99/copy (1–10); $79/copy (11–20); or $69/copy (21+).
Multiple copies can be purchased for $199/copy (1–10), $179/copy (11–20), or $169/copy (21+).
Additional Options*:
1. Customized PowerPoint: Send us your written GHS hazard communication plan and 10–20 safety data sheets. We’ll create a custom training program for your site: $899
2. If you have not updated your hazard communication plan, let Environmental Resource Center update it for you: $799
3. Customized PowerPoint and hazard communication plan: $1600
*Call 800-537-2372 for Spanish pricing
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.
New Hampshire Power Plant Contractors Fined $280,000 for Multiple Hazards
The employers face a combined $280,880 in proposed fines following inspections by OSHA’s Concord Area Office, which started in March in response to complaints.
“Workers at this site were exposed to serious and potentially fatal injuries from a variety of hazards. These included cave-in, fall, scaffold collapse, crushing, lead, and electrocution hazards,” said Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA’s area director for New Hampshire. “While it is fortunate no one was killed or seriously injured, worker safety cannot and must never be left to chance. For the safety and well-being of their employees, these employers must supply and ensure the use of proper safeguards on their job sites.”
Project general contractor Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc., of Barberton, Ohio, faces a total of $116,280 in proposed fines. OSHA issued the company 14 serious citations, with $66,600 in fines, for assembling and using cranes on unstable ground; a 100-foot fall hazard through an unguarded wall opening; failing to train workers adequately to install fall protection systems; allowing workers to be close to an energized electrical panel, therefore exposing them to arc flash and blast hazards; and uncovered and unlabeled floor holes. Other serious citations include not performing air monitoring and determining lead exposure levels when removing lead-containing paint, not keeping work areas clear of debris, defective rigging equipment, and unguarded grinders.
The company was also issued one willful citation, with a $49,500 fine, for allowing a worker to wear a tight-fitting respirator over facial hair while the worker removed lead-containing paint. Facial hair can encumber a respirator from being properly sealed, thus exposing the worker to lead inhalation. The company also received one repeat other-than-serious citation, with a $180 fine, for torn welding curtains. OSHA had cited the company in April 2010 for a similar hazard at a Hastings, Nebraska, work site.
Mascaro Construction Co., LP, of Pittsburgh, which performed excavation and utilities work and installed concrete foundations, faces a total of $85,000 in fines. It was issued one willful citation, with a $70,000 fine, for having workers in two excavations that lacked cave-in protection. Three serious citations, with $15,000 in fines, involve failing to protect workers against loose rocks falling into the excavation hole, using a closed stepladder to access a trench box, and not providing cave-in protection for workers in front of a 6-foot-deep excavation.
Mardo Masonry, of Mt. Morris, Pennsylvania, which performed masonry work, faces a total of $56,000 in fines. It was issued a willful citation, with a $44,000 fine, for exposing workers to scaffold collapses due to an inadequately braced scaffold. Three serious citations, with $12,000 in fines, involve overloaded outriggers, storing excess supplies on the scaffold and a lack of toeboards.
Northeast Utilities Enterprises, Inc., doing business as E.S. Boulos Co., of Lewiston, Maine, an electrical contractor that installed the primary electrical wiring and transmission lines, was issued one serious citation with a $5,000 fine, for exposed live electrical wiring, unlabeled electrical panels, and not closing unused electrical cabinet openings effectively.
Vaillancourt Electrical Service of Berlin, which installed and maintained temporary power throughout the job site, was issued five serious citations, with $11,600 in fines. It allowed workers to be close to an energized 480-volt electrical panel, which exposed workers to arc flash and blast hazards; it did not ensure the use of personal protective equipment; and it overlooked deficiencies involving temporary lighting, electrical cords and a panel, and did not guard an energized electrical panel from water.
Virginia Transformer Corp., of Roanoke, Virginia, which furnished and installed the main power transformer, was issued one serious citation, with a $7,000 fine, for allowing workers to be close to an energized electrical panel.
A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. 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.
Williamsburg RCRA and DOT Training
Orlando RCRA and DOT Training
Charlotte RCRA and DOT Training
New Jersey Concrete Company Fined $153,900 for Willful, Serious Hazards
OSHA’s April investigation was initiated in response to a complaint alleging hazards related to silica, respirators, dust, and noise. Proposed penalties total $153,900.
Sixteen serious violations, carrying a $90,900 penalty, include the company’s failure to evaluate the workplace for permit-required confined spaces; inform employees of the existence, location, and dangers of permit-required confined spaces; develop and implement a permit-required confined space program or written hazard communication program; and conduct periodic inspections of, and provide employee training on, energy control procedures. Additionally, the company did not develop and implement a monitoring program, establish and maintain an audiometric testing program, and provide training, for employees whose exposure exceeded the 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels; establish a written respiratory protection program; identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in the workplace; provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee’s ability to use a respirator; ensure that employees using tight fitting face piece respirators were fit tested prior to use and received effective training; properly store respirators; determine and implement administrative or engineering controls whenever feasible; provide effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area; and ensure employee’s exposure to silica, in any 8-hour work shift of a 40-hour work week, did not exceed the 8-hour time weighted average limit.
“This company willfully violated OSHA safety standards, compromising worker safety and well-being,” said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA’s Parsippany Area Office. “Employers will be held legally responsible when they fail to uphold their responsibility to provide a safe and healthful workplace.”
One other-than-serious violation was also found because the employer did not provide Appendix D of the respiratory protection standard to workers wearing respirator protection. This citation carries no penalty. 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.
New Jersey Steel Company Fined $115,400 for Failing to Abate Workplace Hazards
Proposed penalties total $115,400 after OSHA’s follow-up inspection opened in April.
“By not abating past violations, Jersey Shore Steel keeps its employees vulnerable to hazards that can cause injuries and, possibly, death,” said Paula Dixon-Roderick, director of OSHA’s Marlton Area Office. “It’s vital to correct all hazards immediately to protect workers at the facility.”
The failure-to-abate notices, which carry $111,000 in penalties, relate to the company’s failure to develop and implement a written lockout/tagout program that prevents inadvertent machine start-up; require fork truck operators to have their performance evaluated at least once every three years; and train workers to use portable fire extinguishers. A failure-to-abate notice applies to a condition, hazard or practice, found upon reinspection, that the employer was originally cited for and failed to correct.
The company was also cited for one repeat violation, with a $4,400 penalty, due to the lack of machine guarding on a press brake. A similar violation was cited in November 2012.
Jersey Shore Steel has requested an informal conference with the OSHA area director in Marlton.
New York Metal Hatch Manufacturer Violates Safety Standards, Faces Fines
OSHA has cited EJ USA, Inc., a metal hatch manufacturer, for 13 violations of workplace safety standards at its Cicero, New York, plant. Proposed fines total $56,000 following an inspection begun in March by OSHA’s Syracuse Area Office. The inspection was conducted under OSHA’s Site Specific Targeting Program, which directs enforcement resources to high-hazard workplaces with the highest rates of injuries and illnesses.
OSHA’s inspection found that EJ USA, Inc., failed to institute a hearing protection program; prevent an overexposure to metal fumes, including hexavalent chromium; provide a handrail on stairs; cover containers of flammable liquids; keep ignition sources away from flammable liquids; maintain the airflow indicator on a spray booth; adequately clean combustible residue from a spray booth; lockout machinery while performing maintenance or conducting inspections of the lockout/tagout procedures; maintain limit switches on an overhead crane; and adequately guard machinery and guard live electrical parts.
“Left uncorrected, these conditions place the plant’s employees at risk of burns, electric shock, being caught in unexpectedly activated or unguarded machinery, hearing loss, falls and being exposed to hazardous substances,” said Christopher Adams, OSHA’s area director in Syracuse. “This employer must take prompt and effective action to abate these hazards and prevent their recurrence.”
“To prevent potential hazards like these from occurring, employers should implement an effective illness and injury prevention program in which they will work with their employees to identify, address and eliminate hazards before they harm workers,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.
Rebecca Minkoff LLC Faces $77,000 Fine for Exit Access Hazards
OSHA has cited Rebecca Minkoff, LLC, for willful and serious violations of workplace safety standards at the fashion retailer’s corporate office and showroom in Manhattan. The company, which manufactures handbags, accessories, and apparel for women, faces $77,000 in fines for hazardous conditions that include impeding a swift and safe exit in case of emergency. The citations and fines follow an inspection by OSHA’s Manhattan Area Office that was prompted by worker complaints.
“Workers may have only seconds to escape in the event of a fire or other emergency. It’s critical to maintain swift, clear access to emergency exits, and it is a requirement under the law,” said Kay Gee, OSHA’s area director in Manhattan. “Management knew of the hazard of compromised emergency exit access, yet allowed the hazard to continue. Because of that, we are proposing the maximum fines allowable for the willful and serious violations.”
OSHA found that many of the sixth floor offices and the showroom space was overcrowded and congested with boxes, rolling racks, workstations, chairs, equipment, storage, and other materials. As a result, the path to the emergency exit door was not accessible; aisles, pathways, and a hallway were blocked; and a workstation was installed directly in front of emergency exit doors. These conditions posed slip, trip, and fall hazards for workers.
OSHA issued Rebecca Minkoff, LLC, one willful citation, with a proposed fine of $70,000, for the exit access hazards. One serious citation was issued, with a $7,000 fine, for the slip, trip, and fall hazards.
Jury Orders Florida School and its Principal to Pay Whistleblower $175,000
A trial by an eight-member jury in US District Court determined that Renaissance Arts and Education, Inc., doing business as Manatee School for the Arts in Palmetto, Florida, and its principal, Dr. Bill Jones, violated the whistleblower protection provisions of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) when the charter school terminated the worker from employment for engaging in protected activity and voicing and reporting concerns regarding work-related safety hazards. The verdict calls for Manatee School and Jones to pay the worker $55,000 in back wages and $120,000 in punitive damages.
“This is a groundbreaking decision made by the people against the unlawful termination, with malice, of an employee for raising concerns about a potential electrical fire hazard in the large theater,” said Teresa A. Harrison, OSHA’s acting regional administrator in Atlanta. “The department is pleased with the jury’s verdict and hopes that this decision reminds employers that America’s workers have the right to raise safety concerns in the workplace without fear of retaliation.”
The trial was held in US District Court in Tampa from September 9–12, followed by the judge’s decision on September 30. This decision is the latest in a series of wins in this case for the department, which was represented by the Regional Solicitor’s office in Atlanta, during the past two years. On June 1, 2012, Judge Steven D. Merryday denied Manatee’s motion to dismiss, alleging lack of OSHA jurisdiction. Manatee contended that the school is a “political subdivision” of Florida, does not engage in business affecting commerce and, therefore, is not an “employer” under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. OSHA argued that the school, although funded by the state, is not a political subdivision, as none of its governing members are appointed by a public entity. The school operates as a “private employer” under both state law and in practice. In his order on the defendant’s motion, Merryday agreed with OSHA’s position, stating, “The secretary’s amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the school constitutes an employer under the statute.”
In this case, the worker submitted a letter to his direct supervisor on June 20, 2009, addressing perceived safety hazards in the school’s large theater—specifically, the improper placement of extension cords above the sprinkler system that could cause a fire during performances. The school did not respond to the letter. On July 10, 2009, the worker filed a complaint with the Manatee School Board and with OSHA. On July 30, 2009, the worker was notified that his position was being terminated. On August 4, OSHA performed a safety inspection and cited the school for the same electrical hazards mentioned in the worker’s complaint. The school accepted the safety inspection citations and entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA.
After the US District Court decision, the charter school once again challenged the department regarding jurisdiction through a motion for summary judgment. On June 11, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo also denied this motion stating, “I find that the Florida Legislature’s characterization of privately run charter schools as public for some purposes does not apply to the school’s conduct for OSHA’s purposes. To the contrary, based on the undisputed facts, RAE [Manatee] is not a political subdivision of the state and, therefore, not exempt from OSHA’s definition of employer.”
OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act and 21 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities, trucking, airline, nuclear, pipeline, environmental, rail, maritime, health care, consumer product, and food safety laws.
Under the various whistleblower provisions enacted by Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government.
Connecticut Trucking Company Ordered to Withdraw Retaliatory Lawsuit Against Whistleblower
OSHA has ordered Palumbo Trucking, Inc., of North Branford, Connecticut, and owner David Palumbo to withdraw a retaliatory lawsuit filed against two former workers of the commercial motor carrier who raised safety concerns, pay them $60,000 in damages and take other corrective actions.
“Filing a baseless, retaliatory lawsuit against workers who engaged in protected activity has a profound chilling effect. It can intimidate workers into remaining silent about safety and health concerns that could have consequences for them and others on the road,” said Marthe Kent, OSHA’s New England regional administrator.
The order follows an OSHA investigation that found the company and Palumbo violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) when they filed a lawsuit against two former workers, a mechanic and a driver, who had registered complaints about a potentially unsafe truck with the North Branford Police Department and the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles in September 2012. The former workers’ actions were protected activity under the STAA.
While the workers were discharged from employment for reasons not related to their protected activities, the company subsequently filed a lawsuit against the two workers in the Superior Court of Connecticut on January 7, 2013, alleging that they intentionally and maliciously filed the complaint with the North Branford Police Department.
In addition to ordering the withdrawal of the lawsuit, the order requires Palumbo to pay each worker $20,000 in punitive damages for the filing and litigating of a lawsuit that was solely intended to retaliate against activities protected by the STAA, as well as $10,000 each in compensatory damages for mental anguish, emotional distress, pain, and suffering. Additionally, the company must pay reasonable attorney’s fees to the complainants, provide the former workers a neutral job reference, and post a notice on its job site and provide fact sheets to its workers notifying them of their rights under the STAA.
The company or the complainants may file objections or request a hearing before the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges within 30 days of receipt of OSHA’s order.
Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or the government. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor.
Safety News Links
