The committee that wrote the report found that the listing is supported by “limited but credible” evidence of carcinogenicity in human studies, “sufficient” evidence from animal studies, and “convincing relevant information” in mechanistic studies that observed DNA damage in human cells that had been exposed to styrene. The committee reached the same conclusion after conducting both a peer review of the RoC and an independent assessment of the styrene literature.
Styrene is a substance of interest for the RoC because many people in the United States are exposed. It is an oily, colorless to yellow liquid and it is found in many consumer products such as plastic packaging, food containers, and household goods. Sources of environmental exposure include cigarette smoke and vehicle exhaust. Occupational exposure can occur during the industrial processing of styrene.
Based on RoC listing criteria, a substance can be classified as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence in animals or limited evidence in human studies. In its peer review of the 12th RoC, the committee examined the primary literature cited in the document as well as other research published before June 10, 2011, and found that the RoC identified the most important studies and described the limitations and strengths of each, and that the arguments supported listing styrene as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
In its independent assessment, the committee considered additional research published through November 13, 2013. It found that “compelling evidence” exists in human, animal, and mechanistic studies to support listing styrene, at a minimum, as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
The committee noted, however, that there was ambiguity with respect to weighing the mechanistic evidence when applying the listing criteria, and that a strong argument could be made to support the listing of styrene as a known human carcinogen if data derived from the study of human tissues or cells alone were considered sufficient. Further clarification and expanded guidance by the National Toxicology Program regarding the types and strength of mechanistic evidence and how it is used in the context of the RoC listing criteria is needed, the report says.
EPA’s New Solvent Wipe, Shop Towel Rule Demystified
EPA’s new rule now provides significant new exclusions for shop towels and wipes, provided you manage them correctly.
- 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?
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.
40-Hour HAZWOPER Training
Houston RCRA and DOT Training
Charlotte RCRA, DOT, and Storm Water Training
Strong, Positive Safety Culture Requires Support From All Levels
Everyone involved in the academic chemical research enterprise—from researchers and principal investigators to university leadership—has an important role to play in establishing and promoting a strong, positive safety culture, says a new report from the National Research Council. This requires a constant commitment to safety organization-wide and emphasis on identifying and solving problems, rather than merely adhering to a set of rules and assigning blame when those rules are not followed.
Chemical hazards can be found in many academic fields and settings, including the biological sciences, medical schools, engineering disciplines, and art studios. Recent serious and some fatal accidents in research laboratories at US universities have prompted government agencies, professional societies, industries, and universities themselves to re-examine the issue of safety in chemical research.
“The shift away from mere compliance and toward promoting a strong, positive safety culture has already yielded benefits in industries such as aviation and health care,” said H. Holden Thorp, provost and distinguished professor of chemistry and medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “We hope our recommendations help move academic chemical research in a similar fashion—toward the adoption of a culture of safety in laboratories that goes beyond inspections, standard operating procedures, and chemical safety plans, all with the ultimate goal of protecting the lives and health of those who work there.”
The availability and commitment of university resources to lab safety vary across institutions, the committee found. It identified five major groups at universities and the steps they should take to support a strong safety culture:
- Presidents, chancellors, and provosts should demonstrate that safety is a core value of their institutions by discussing safety frequently and publicly, and encouraging others to do so as well. They should use university resources in ways that support safety, for example by paying for personal protective equipment and hazardous waste disposal. They also should have in place a comprehensive risk management plan for lab safety that addresses prevention, mitigation, and emergency response.
- Vice presidents for research and deans should ensure that their institutions only undertake areas of research that they can carry out safely. They also should make sure everyone involved in the research knows his or her role in supporting safety, and should develop reporting structures that better integrate safety management into overall research management.
- Principal investigators and department chairs are responsible for establishing a strong, positive safety culture in the laboratories they oversee, by demonstrating safe practices and wearing personal protective equipment, ensuring researchers are properly trained in safety before they begin any work, and encouraging open, ongoing dialogue about safety concerns.
- Researchers have a responsibility for supporting safety culture in the laboratories where they work and should be encouraged to take on leadership roles, such as serving on safety committees and taking part in non-punitive, walk-through inspections of other laboratories. Institutions should provide researchers with the equipment, training, systems, and support they need to work safely.
- Environmental health and safety staff should partner with administrators, faculty, and researchers to go beyond compliance and support these groups as they undertake actions to establish a strong, positive safety culture.
“Our recommendations for improving the overall safety performance of laboratories are grounded in insights from the behavioral sciences, while taking into consideration what we know about chemistry safety,” said committee vice chair David DeJoy, professor emeritus of health promotion and behavior and director emeritus of the Workplace Health Group in the College of Public Health at the University of Georgia. “The committee used its behavioral sciences knowledge together with an examination of successful safety systems from other sectors, to draw lessons that could be applied in academic laboratory research.”
In addition to improving the organizational dynamics that drive safety practice, laboratories should conduct analyses that will help them identify and mitigate hazards, the report says. One key approach to identifying dangers before they cause any harm is to report and collect data on near misses—situations in which a combination of unsafe conditions and/or behaviors could have led to injuries or other adverse outcomes, but did not. Such data often are repressed or distorted when there is punitive action in response to incidents.
The committee found that though training is an important element of a positive safety culture, there is a lack of comprehensive, ongoing, and laboratory-centric training and education for various groups within the research community. Therefore, department leaders and principal investigators, in partnership with environmental health and safety professionals, should develop and implement initial, ongoing, and periodic refresher training that ensures understanding of potential hazards and associated risks, and the ability to execute proper protective measures to mitigate them.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Underscores Need to Actively Seek Out and Act on New Information About Nuclear Plant Hazards
The committee that wrote the report examined the causes of the Japan accident and identified findings and recommendations for improving nuclear plant safety and off-site emergency responses to nuclear plant accidents in the US.
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant was initiated by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011. The earthquake knocked out off-site AC power to the plant, and the tsunami inundated portions of the plant site. Flooding of critical equipment resulted in the extended loss of on-site power with the consequent loss of reactor monitoring, control, and cooling functions in multiple units. Three reactors—Units 1, 2, and 3—sustained severe core damage, and three reactor buildings—Units 1, 3, and 4—were damaged by hydrogen explosions. Off-site releases of radioactive materials contaminated land in Fukushima and several neighboring prefectures, prompting widespread evacuations, distress among the population, large economic losses, and the eventual shutdown of all nuclear power plants in Japan.
Personnel at the Fukushima Daiichi plant responded to the accident with courage and resilience, and their actions likely reduced its severity and the magnitude of off-site radioactive material releases, the committee said. However, several factors relating to the management, design, and operation of the plant prevented plant personnel from achieving greater success and contributed to the overall severity of the accident.
Nuclear plant operators and regulators in the US and other countries are taking useful actions to upgrade nuclear plant systems, operating procedures, and operator training in response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. As the US nuclear industry and its regulator, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), implement these actions, the report recommends particular attention to improving the availability, reliability, redundancy, and diversity of specific nuclear plant systems:
- DC power for instrumentation and safety system control
- Tools for estimating real-time plant status during loss of power
- Reactor heat removal, reactor depressurization, and containment venting systems and protocols
- Instrumentation for monitoring critical thermodynamic parameters—for example temperature and pressure—in reactors, containments, and spent-fuel pools
- Hydrogen monitoring, including monitoring in reactor buildings, and mitigation
- Instrumentation for both on-site and off-site radiation and security monitoring
- Communications and real-time information systems
To further improve the resilience of US nuclear plants, the report also recommends:
- The US nuclear industry and the USNRC should give specific attention to improving resource availability and operator training, including training for developing and implementing ad hoc responses to deal with unanticipated complexities.
- The US nuclear industry and USNRC should strengthen their capabilities for assessing risks from events that could challenge the design of nuclear plant structures and components and lead to a loss of critical safety functions. Part of this effort should focus on events that have the potential to affect large geographic regions and multiple nuclear plants, including earthquakes, tsunamis and other geographically extensive floods, and geomagnetic disturbances. USNRC should support these efforts by providing guidance on approaches and overseeing rigorous peer review.
- USNRC should further incorporate modern risk concepts into its nuclear safety regulations using these strengthened capabilities.
- USNRC and the US nuclear industry must continuously monitor and maintain a strong safety culture and should examine opportunities to increase the transparency of and communication about their efforts to assess and improve nuclear safety.
Until now, US safety regulations have been based on ensuring plants are designed to withstand certain specified failures or abnormal events, or “design-basis-events” —such as equipment failures, loss of power, and inability to cool the reactor core—that could impair critical safety functions. However, four decades of analysis and experience have demonstrated that reactor core-damage risks are dominated by “beyond-design-basis events,” the report says. The Fukushima Daiichi, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl accidents were all initiated by beyond-design-basis events. The committee found that current approaches for regulating nuclear plant safety, which have been based traditionally on deterministic concepts such as the design-basis accident, are clearly inadequate for preventing core-melt accidents and mitigating their consequences. A more complete application of modern risk-assessment principles in licensing and regulation could help address this inadequacy and enhance the overall safety of all nuclear plants, present and future.
The Fukushima Daiichi accident raised the question of whether off-site emergency preparedness in the US would be challenged if a similar-scale event—involving several concurrent disasters—occurred here. The committee lacked time and resources to perform an in-depth examination of US preparedness for severe nuclear accidents. The report recommends that the nuclear industry and organizations with emergency management responsibilities assess their preparedness for severe nuclear accidents associated with off-site regional-scale disasters. Emergency response plans, including plans for communicating with affected populations, should be revised or supplemented to ensure that there are scalable and effective strategies, well-trained personnel, and adequate resources for responding to long-duration accident/disaster scenarios. In addition, industry and emergency management organizations should assess the balance of protective actions—such as evacuation, sheltering-in-place, and potassium iodide distribution—for affected off-site populations and revise the guidelines as appropriate. Particular attention should be given to protective actions for children, those who are ill, and the elderly and their caregivers; long-term social, psychological, and economic impacts of sheltering-in-place, evacuation, and/or relocation; and decision making for resettlement of evacuated populations in areas that were contaminated by radioactive material.
Military Munitions Support Services—Explosives Safety
On August 21, 2014, one of a series monthly webinar sessions for the Military Munitions Support Services community will be held from 1:00pm–4:45pm EDT. During this session, speakers will provide updates on explosives safety policy, processes, best practices, and incident review.
Explosion at Tonawanda Coke Corp. Results in Serious Safety Violations and $161,100 Fine
Tonawanda Coke Corp., and Kirchner, LLC, face a total of $161,100 in fines from OSHA following an explosion that occurred January 31, 2014, at the 3875 River Road plant in Tonawanda. The explosion collapsed brick walls, damaged electrical equipment, and injured two permanent plant employees and one temporary employee.
The explosion was caused by an overpressured coke oven manifold, which released coke oven gas in an enclosed area where it ignited. The flare stack, used to burn off excess coke oven gas, failed. OSHA determined that this exposed Tonawanda Coke employees to asphyxiation from the release of gas, and explosion and fire hazards. OSHA concluded that the company failed to inspect and maintain safety systems properly to ensure their effectiveness.
“Had this company taken proper precautions and ensured that safety systems were working, this explosion would not have occurred. Equally disturbing, however, are the additional, preventable hazards the employer allowed at the plant,” said Michael Scime, OSHA’s area director in Buffalo. “These conditions exposed workers to potential amputations, falls, crushing injuries, injury by unexpectedly activated machinery and an inability to exit the workplace swiftly if fire, explosions or other emergencies arose.”
These conditions resulted in the issuance of 15 serious violations with $90,100 in fines. The company was also issued two repeat violations, with $70,000 in fines, for recurring hazards, failing to train employees in lockout procedures and not certifying inspections of lockout procedures. OSHA had cited Tonawanda Coke for similar hazards in October 2010. The company was fined $1,000 for failing to provide voltage markings on electrical equipment.
Workers Repeatedly Exposed to Amputation Hazards at Packaging Corporation of America
OSHA initiated an inspection January 21, 2014, after receiving a complaint that workers were reaching in to unjam machines without turning off the machinery. The complaint also alleged that the company had workers standing on conveyor belts and operated forklifts without providing proper training. OSHA has proposed penalties of $111,650 for the company’s Akron plant.
“This is the second time in two years an inspection at one of Packaging Corporation of America’s facilities has found significant safety violations. What is happening at the plant demonstrates a company culture that does not value safety and puts employees at risk each day,” said Howard Eberts, OSHA’s area director in Cleveland.
Similar violations were cited at the company’s facilities in Opelika, Alabama, and Tomahawk, Wisconsin, in 2010, 2011, and 2013. More than 100 violations have been cited at Packaging Corporation of America’s facilities nationwide in the past five years. OSHA last cited the company’s Tomahawk plant in March 2013 after a worker was severely burned while attempting to relight a steam boiler.
One serious violation cited involved lack of machine guarding. Two other-than-serious violations were also noted.
Each year more than 500,000 injuries are reported in the manufacturing industry. Many of these injuries involve inadequate guards for machines and failing to shut machines down before maintenance, which exposes workers to severe risk when they reach in and touch moving parts.
Based in Lake Forest, Illinois, Packaging Corporation of America manufactures paper and cardboard boxes. The company employs 37 workers at the Akron facility and 13,000 corporate wide at facilities in 30 states.
Packaging Corporation of America has contested the citations and proposed penalties. The case will now go before an independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Home Depot USA’s Chicago Store Fined $110,700 for Serious Hazards
The repeat and willful violations involved lack of training and maintenance for powered industrial vehicles. Proposed penalties total $110,700.
“Employees at this Home Depot store used powered industrial vehicles around-the-clock to receive stock and transport goods to customers’ vehicles. This made maintenance and operator training for these vehicles vital to employee safety,” said Angeline Loftus, OSHA’s area director for Chicago North. “Employers, such as Home Depot, have a responsibility to re-evaluate safety procedures corporate wide. When cited for a hazard at one store, they need to ensure that all stores have incorporated the necessary safety procedures and training.”
Nationwide, Home Depot has been cited more than 120 times in the past five years for safety and health violations at its stores, which employ about 325,000 people. The Kimball Avenue store employs 210 workers.
Yearly, thousands of workers are injured, sometimes fatally, while operating these vehicles. The local emphasis program was implemented to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries caused by these vehicles. The vehicles have been the source of 105 occupational fatalities during fiscal years 2005 through 2013 in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
OSHA issued one willful violation for failing to remove from service a powered industrial truck in need of repair. 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 repeat violation was issued for failing to evaluate forklift operators’ performance at least once every three years. The Home Depot was previously cited for this violation at its Douglasville, Georgia, store in July 2012. A second repeat violation was issued for failing to perform shift-by-shift inspections of forklifts. This violation was previously cited in 2010 at Home Depot stores in Tampa, Florida, and Chicago.
Three serious violations were issued for exposing workers to chemical burns from sulfuric acid by failing to require the use of eye, face, and hand protection when adding water or checking water levels in powered industrial vehicle batteries. Home Depot also failed to provide an eyewash station for immediate emergency use for employees exposed to injurious corrosive materials while working with industrial batteries.
Austin Powder Company Exposes Workers to Chemical Hazards
The proposed penalty totals $178,400.
“OSHA’s process safety management standard has stringent and comprehensive requirements to prevent catastrophic incidents, such as the uncontrolled release of highly hazardous chemicals,” said Carlos Reynolds, OSHA’s area director for its Little Rock office. “Employers must follow OSHA standards proactively to ensure the safety of workers exposed to hazardous chemicals.”
The inspection, which began in February 2014, was initiated under OSHA’s National Emphasis Program for Process Safety Management Standards, a detailed set of requirements and procedures employers must follow to address hazards proactively that are associated with processes and equipment involving large amounts of hazardous chemicals.
Serious violations were cited for failing to include OSHA-accepted chemical limits in the company’s process safety information; to certify annually that the written operating procedures were current and accurate; to develop diagrams of the explosive manufacturing processes in the facility; and to train workers tasked with chemical and hazardous material cleanups. 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 repeat violation involves failing to conduct a process safety management compliance audit. 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. A similar violation was cited in 2012 during an inspection at another Austin Powder facility located in McArthur, Ohio.
Georgia Roofing Contractor Fined $83,930 for Repeat and Serious Violations
Pablo Lopez of Norcross has been cited by OSHA for three repeat and one serious safety violation following inspections at two work sites in Milton and Smyrna where employees were performing roofing work without fall protection.
“It is unacceptable that Lopez continues to violate OSHA standards by exposing workers to serious fall hazards,” said Christi Griffin, director of OSHA’s Atlanta-West Area Office. “Allowing repeat violations to occur only demonstrates the employer’s lack of commitment to safety and the lives of his workers.”
The repeat violations were cited for exposing workers to fall hazards between 14 and 24 feet when employees installed shingles on an unprotected, steep-sloped roof; for failure to ensure the extension ladder that workers used to access the roof extended 3 feet above the landing area; and for allowing employees to carry shingles from a material lift without wearing fall protection. These repeat violations total $80,850. The employer was cited for these same violations in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
The serious citation, with a $3,080 penalty, was issued for using a material lift as a ladder to access the roof, which exposed workers to fall hazards of up to 28 feet.
The page offers fact sheets, posters, and videos that vividly illustrate various fall hazards and appropriate preventive measures.
Employees of P. Gioioso & Sons Inc. Faced Electrocution Hazards from Power Lines
Employees of P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc., were exposed to possible electrocution from working close to energized power lines at a Cambridge work site where required safeguards were not used. A May 9 inspection by OSHA found that employees used a trench rod and a fiberglass pole with a metal end to lift overhead power lines, so that workers could move excavating equipment under the lines and onto the work site. The Hyde Park contractor faces $70,290 in proposed fines
“This employer knew the overhead power lines were dangerous, but did not take steps to protect workers or shield them from contact and electrocution,” said Jeffrey Erskine, OSHA’s area director for Middlesex and Essex counties. “Electricity is swift and deadly. While it is fortunate no one was injured or killed in this case, the hazard of death or disabling burns was real and present.”
OSHA cited Gioioso in 2011 for a similar hazard at a Framingham work site. Based on the employer’s knowledge of the hazard, OSHA has cited Gioioso for a willful violation with $69,300 in proposed fines.
Another violation, with a $990 fine, was cited for improper labeling of a trench box.
OSHA Schedules Meeting of the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee
OSHA will hold a meeting of the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee September 3–4, 2014, in Washington, D.C. Work groups will meet September 3 and the full committee will meet September 3 and 4.
WPAC was established to advise and make recommendations to the secretary of labor and the assistant secretary for occupational safety and health on ways to improve the fairness, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of OSHA’s whistleblower protection activities.
The tentative agenda includes remarks from Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health; discussion of committee and work group reports; invited reports from other agencies or the public regarding whistleblower enforcement; administrative business and public comments.
The committee will meet from 1:30 p.m.–5 p.m., September 3, and from 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., September 4. Meetings will be held in Room S-4215 A-C, US Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Keymark Corp. Fails to Protect Workers Against Chemical, Noise, and Fall Hazards
The company faces $53,000 in fines following OSHA inspections in March 2014 by the Albany Area Office, prompted by a complaint.
“These employees faced both short- and long-term risks to their health and well-being, ranging from potentially fatal falls and hearing loss to cumulative damage to the respiratory system, kidneys, liver, skin, and eyes from chromium exposure,” said Kimberly Castillon, OSHA’s area director in Albany. “Keymark must take prompt and effective action to ensure that these conditions are corrected and do not pose future risk to employees.”
OSHA found that employees were exposed to high noise levels and that Keymark did not ensure the use of hearing protectors or train workers in their use and care. Keymark failed to check that personal protective equipment, clothing, and respiratory devices were provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary condition, and that workers were trained to use them.
Keymark failed to determine workers’ exposure levels to chromium and ensure that surfaces were free from chromium accumulation; to ensure proper, clean changing areas for employees’ working with chromium; and to ensure that chromium-contaminated clothing was stored and transported in sealed containers. Employees were exposed to 17-foot falls into a work pit that lacked a guardrail and to being caught in or injured by unintended machinery start-up. Procedures and training for turning off machine power sources before maintenance and servicing were lacking.
Because of these conditions, OSHA cited Keystone Corp., for 11 serious violations.
Major Metals Co. Fined $41,300 for Exposing Workers to Amputation and other Serious Hazards
Major Metals Co has been cited by OSHA for 10 serious safety violations after receiving a complaint alleging hazards at the facility.
“Failing to protect workers from a machine’s moving parts exposes them to risk of serious injuries, such as amputation and lacerations. “Employers have a responsibility to implement safe work practices, follow manufacturer guidelines, and prevent injuries. In 21st century America, no worker should be exposed to preventable injuries on the job.”
OSHA’s inspection found workers were exposed to the moving and grinding parts of machinery while setting up machines. The company also was cited for failure to train workers properly on using machines safely.
Major Metals was cited for failure to have a guardrail on a platform adjacent to a metal pit, which exposed workers to a 10-foot fall hazard. Workers were exposed to eye injuries from welding rays because the company did not enclose the welding station with a noncombustible or flameproof screen or shield.
Yearly, thousands of workers are injured, sometimes fatally, while operating forklifts. The most common injuries occur when the forklift overturns, workers fall from the vehicle or pedestrians are hit.
Major Metals attended an informal meeting with OSHA on July 29, 2014, and have abated all the violations and agreed to pay a penalty of $22,750.
Fiberdome Inc. Agrees to Limit Employee Exposure to Styrene
. The agreement resolves all outstanding citations issued to Fiberdome in September 2013 by OSHA.
Styrene, a chemical used extensively in the manufacture of plastics, rubber, and resins is used by Fiberdome at its Lake Mills-based fiberglass manufacturing plant. It can cause health effects such as headache, fatigue, confusion, difficulty in concentrating, a feeling of intoxication, and respiratory problems.
“We are pleased that Fiberdome agreed to adopt the industry recognized 50 ppm limit and believe that all responsible and safety conscious employers who use styrene should consider doing the same thing,” said Kim Stille, OSHA Area Director in Madison. “OSHA believes that employers have the responsibility to further limit exposure to chemicals that can harm employees even if the level of such exposure is below OSHA permissible exposure limits. “
Under the terms of the agreement, Fiberdome will abate the general duty citation by following the styrene industry’s 1996 agreement to voluntarily adopt an employee exposure limit of 50 ppm over an 8-hour time weighted average. Fiberdome further agreed that if it cannot achieve compliance with a voluntary exposure limit through engineering and/or administrative controls, it will implement an effective respiratory protection program, including the use of appropriate respirators.
OSHA cited Fiberdome for a general duty clause violation in September 2013 for exposing a worker to styrene levels that were measured at 1.3 times the industry agreed-upon level, even though the airborne concentration of the chemical didn’t violate OSHA’s permissible exposure limit of 100 parts per million. OSHA initiated the inspection after receiving a referral relating to workers being ill.
Cell Tower Company Cited by OSHA for Safety Hazards Following Fatality
Following the collapse of a Clarksburg communication tower in February 2014 that seriously injured two and claimed the lives of two employees and a volunteer firefighter, S and S Communication Specialists, Inc., has been cited for two serious workplace safety violations. The citations issued to the Hulbert, Oklahoma-based company follow an investigation by OSHA.
The modifications included replacing diagonal bracing and installing leg stiffeners and new guy wires on the structure. The tower collapsed while the employees were removing diagonal bracing.
“OSHA is concerned about the alarming increase in preventable injuries and fatalities at communication tower work sites.
Thirteen workers lost their lives in the communication tower industry in 2013, more than the previous two years combined. This year, nine worker deaths have occurred in this industry to date.
The company was assessed a $7,000 penalty for each of the two violations, which is the maximum amount allowed by law for a serious violation.
Stanley Black and Decker Recognized for Workplace Safety
INSHARP businesses are recognized Indiana workplace safety and health leaders.
“INSHARP status is a significant achievement requiring serious effort,” said Indiana Department of Labor (IDOL) Commissioner Rick J. Ruble. “The people at Stanley Black and Decker have worked hard to prioritize employee safety and health, and their success has made them one of the safest companies in Indiana.”
To participate in INSHARP, a company must develop, implement, and maintain an exemplary worker safety and health management system and pass a comprehensive safety and health evaluation by the IDOL. In addition, the facility’s occupational injury and illness rates must be below the national industry average. Less than 50 Indiana employers have achieved INSHARP certification.
Stanley Black and Decker’s Greenfield facility produces hardware from steel wire and strapping, including staples, hog rings, nails, and clips.
Oil & Gas Safety and Health Conference
This conference will gather key decision makers within management and executive positions to foster a better understanding of how industry and OSHA can work together to improve safety performance through cooperation, best practices, knowledge sharing, and relationship building.
Safety News Links