Under the rule, all PPE, with a few exceptions, must be provided at no cost to the employee. The rule applies to general industry, maritime and construction workplaces.
The final rule contains exceptions for ordinary safety-toed footwear, ordinary prescription safety eyewear, logging boots, and ordinary clothing and weather-related gear. The final rule also clarifies OSHA's requirements regarding payment for employee-owned PPE and replacement PPE. While these clarifications have added several paragraphs to the regulatory text, the final rule provides employees no less protection than they would have received under the 1999 proposed standard.
Michigan Company Shut Down by MIOSHA due to Safety Violations
Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Director Keith W. Cooley directed Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) compliance officers to execute a Cease Operation Order against Pretco Technologies in Mt. Morris for continuing to run operations without the required eye wash facilities, chemical safety program, or PPE.
Pretco Technologies in Mt. Morris employs 10 workers and is a parts coating operation. Their business requires the extensive use of corrosives, solvents, and paints. They are classified as a high-hazard industry.
"MIOSHA standards require employers to protect workers from known workplace hazards. By not correcting previously identified hazards, Pretco Technologies has compromised the safety of its employees," said Cooley. "MIOSHA is committed to helping employers who want to do the right thing. But we will not tolerate Pretco Technologies' flagrant disregard of employee safety."
A Cease Operation Order is one of the strongest actions MIOSHA can take against an employer. This is the third time in MIOSHA history that a Cease Operation Order has been served against an employer for failing to correct identified safety and health violations within the provided time frame.
Cease Operation Orders can be executed when MIOSHA has determined there are serious hazards at a worksite and the employer fails to correct the hazards. If an employer fails to comply with the Cease Operation Order, MIOSHA has the authority and the responsibility to seek a court order to obtain compliance.
This Cease Operation Order stems from violations first identified to the company in 2005. On Aug. 24, 2005, citations were issued to Pretco Technologies as a result of a complaint inspection. The citations were for lack of eye wash facilities, no chemical hazard communication program, no assessment for PPE, violations on electrical safety, no formaldehyde exposure monitoring, improper storage of liquefied petroleum gases, and two violations on control of hazardous energy sources.
Pretco Technologies failed to submit abatement information to MIOSHA on these citations so a follow-up inspection was done on July 19, 2006. The compliance officers found that the employer had not abated five of the original nine violations, including the three related to this Cease Operation Order.
On May 29, 2007, a second follow-up inspection was conducted because the company had again failed to submit abatement information. This inspection also found the company had not abated the three violations. A second set of failure-to abate citations were issued. By 2008 the firm had still not submitted the abatement information so a third follow-up inspection was done on April 28, 2008. This inspection has resulted in a third set of failure-to-abate citations.
In addition to the follow-up inspections, MIOSHA contacted the company on nine separate occasions from 2005 to 2008 to discuss abatement methods and offer help. On each occasion the firm continued to conduct operations without the required protections. MIOSHA also gave the company free compliance guides that it could use to create the necessary programs.
On July 17, 2008, a return visit to the firm found the violations had yet to be fixed. During this return visit, the Cease Operation Order was issued.
"We will not allow this continued exposure of employees to serious hazards. Since the employer refuses to take corrective action, we must step in and protect these workers," said Cooley. "As soon as Pretco Technologies corrects the hazards and notifies our compliance officers, we will respond in less than 24 hours, verify abatement and remove the Cease Operation tags."
Summer Heat Can Bring Toxic Algae Blooms
Now that summer heat is in full force, people need to be aware of the dangers of potentially toxic blue-green algae.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) warns people that they should use common sense and avoid areas of ponds or lakes that have unsightly algae. Hot, dry weather is triggering outbreaks, or blooms, of blue-green algae.
Blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, reproduce rapidly in fresh water when the sunlight, temperature and nutrients are just right. Within a few days a clear lake, pond or ditch can become cloudy with algae growth. Potentially toxic blue-green algae can occur throughout Montana in any lake, reservoir, stock pond, or roadside ditch. Residential drinking water taken from a lake may also be affected. They normally are not found in rivers, streams, springs, irrigation canals, or wells.
A bloom often looks like bright green paint floating on the water, however it can also appear bluish, brownish or reddish green. It is made up of extremely small organisms that are very difficult to pick up or hold. They are usually suspended in water or formed into floating mats and can be several inches thick near the shoreline.
In most cases in Montana the algae is not toxic. Only certain species are capable of producing toxins, and even these species are harmless most of the time. But in their toxic form, blue-green algae can, and has, sickened or killed pets, waterfowl, and other animals, including livestock. They can also cause serious illness in humans.
Signs of a toxic bloom may include large numbers of dead fish, water fowl or other animals, the sudden unexplained illness or death of a cat or dog, especially if it has algae on its mouth, legs or feet or a skin rash on humans after being in the water. There is no way to tell for sure if the water is toxic unless it is actually injected into an experimental laboratory animal. Harmless strains of potential toxin-producing algae look the same as deadly strains under a microscope.
If you suspect an algae bloom keep children, pets and livestock away from the area of contamination.
Static Hazards in Propane Handling
By Todd Strong, Senior Safety Officer, Michigan OSHA, adopted from MIOSHA News
Care in the handling of propane cylinders is something that many people may consider relatively uncomplicated. Most people realize that an open flame is not a good thing to have in close proximity during connecting, disconnecting, and transfer operations. Some would recognize that an electric arc from nearby machinery in operation might create an unsafe condition. People that frequently handle flammable liquids and gases are also likely to recognize that static electricity can pose a hazard.
Incidents involving the ignition of propane by static electricity may be more common than many realize. Investigators, instructors, and response personnel understand that static can be a significant hazard due to materials used and a lack of bonding and grounding common in some parts of the propane industry. Static electricity generated at propane facilities can have serious consequences. Thus, keeping employees and others informed of the hazards related to propane handling and static electricity is a vital part of ensuring their safety.
An important aspect to consider is how static electricity functions in relation to materials used in the handling and labeling of propane cylinders. One dictionary defines static electricity as a stationary electric charge built up on an insulating material. Many elementary school children know that static energy can be built up and then discharged by rubbing objects together (feet on carpet) and touching one another. In the workplace, we frequently generate and release similar static charges through material handling and normal job tasks. Sparks produced from static discharges are often unseen (though not necessarily unnoticed) in ordinary daytime settings. In realizing that insulators such as plastics abound in the packaging and transportation of propane, we might better consider the potential problems. Contact and separation of items such as clothing (often made from synthetic fibers) and plastic materials used in shipping and labeling are often considered necessary and routine. Plastic pallets and shrink wrap are common. Employees frequently handle and move cylinders and secure loads while contacting or utilizing these plastics. Therefore, preventing static discharges involved in material handling from happening in concurrence with the release of propane is essential.
According to the authors of the booklet “Static Electricity in the Propane Industry,” there are other ways friction can produce static that do not require direct involvement of personnel. Flow of propane at high velocity through small openings is one. Dry air flowing over plastic wrapping material is another. Operations that involve these conditions or situations should be carefully reviewed and safety measures considered.
Affecting the safe release or venting of propane in emergencies or for purposes such as purging, may require precautions not otherwise necessary. Isolation of the venting container may be necessary. Venting through stacks, flares, or collection systems may be required to avoid accumulations of gas and prevent ignition due to static or other sources in traffic or work areas. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 58 prohibits venting to atmosphere in an unsafe manner. The standard requires that venting to atmosphere for purging be done in a manner which results in “rapid dispersion of the product being released.”
A related incident occurred at Michigan business, Reliance Propane in Erie, Michigan, in May 2007. The investigation involved a propane ignition and subsequent explosions involving cylinders that were being purged in stacked formation on plastic pallets. The cylinders were being vented to atmosphere in the yard area of the facility through small orifices referred to as “bleeder” valves. An ignition occurred when an employee reached into the stack to manipulate one of the valves. Investigators believe the fire resulted from a static discharge that occurred between the employee or tool and the stacked materials. The configuration of the stacked cylinders, depressions in the pallets, and number of cylinders venting simultaneously likely hindered adequate dispersion of the gas. These factors along with the presence of materials and conditions favorable to the buildup of static (plastic materials, flow of gas through small openings, and wind blowing over these materials,) may have significantly increased the static potential in this incident. The employee working with the venting stacked cylinders sustained a burn injury to his right side. The facility lost multiple structures integral to the operation along with powered equipment and a large number of cylinders and materials.
The facility was cited for the following Michigan OSHA (MIOSHA) violations:
- Act 154 Sec. 11(a) – venting multiple 20 pound cylinders for purging the contents, exposing employees to possibly explosive conditions, fire, and projectile hazards.
- Part 21, Powered Industrial Trucks Rule 2178 – improperly equipped vehicle in hazardous environment.
- Part 39, Design Safety Standards for Electrical Systems Rule 1910.307(b) – improper equipment, wiring methods, and/or installations of equipment in hazardous (classified)
- Part 40, Electrical Safety-Related Work Practices Rule 4007(7) – Alteration or connection of attachment plugs and /or receptacles in a manner that would prevent proper continuity of the equipment grounding conductor.
Three violations were classified as “serious” and one violation was classified as “other than serious.”
How about some preventive measures? In addition to preventing or limiting the release of propane to the atmosphere whenever possible, the following considerations and methods should help minimize the potential for incidents:
- Prohibit venting propane into the air except through an approved vent pipe, collection equipment, or flare.
- Identify the areas where propane may be present in the air. Evaluate and if possible improve transfer methods or equipment.
- Provide and utilize materials and PPE that help reduce static charges. (These items may include grounding heel straps and static dissipating footwear, conductive wrist bands with cords, mats, and conductive coating materials for floors.)
- Restrict synthetic fabrics from being worn in hazardous work areas.
- Ground equipment used in process areas wherever required, and, in addition, wherever it might be possible and practical.
- Remove non-conductive materials that are not essential to the operation.
- Consider steps in the operation that involve movement or contact and separation of materials and other objects, and remove or modify procedures that create unnecessary friction.
Considering the possible consequences, it should not be difficult to agree. Methods for preventing or minimizing static discharges have to be a consideration in providing a safer workplace operation. While there is no known way to eliminate static in the workplace, appropriate steps should be taken to diminish and eliminate hazards wherever possible.
A single incident may be all it takes to end a life or destroy a business. Even damage on a lesser scale can result in stopping or greatly hindering productivity for extended periods. The benefits of safely handling propane are superior to what the temporary benefit shortcuts may provide.
Contractor Faces $140,000 in OSHA Fines for Fall Hazards
OSHA has cited a New Britain, Conn., contractor for 15 alleged repeat and serious violations of safety standards following OSHA inspections at worksites in Danielson and Newington, Conn. BMA General Contractors LLC faces a total of $140,000 in fines for failing to protect employees against potentially fatal fall and electrocution hazards.
OSHA found employees at both locations exposed to falls of 19 to 29 feet while working on scaffolds and atop roofs without fall protection equipment or training. At the Danielson location, employees faced additional fall hazards from using ladders that did not extend at least three feet above the scaffold platform.
OSHA had cited BMA in 2006 and 2007 for similar hazards at worksites in Glastonbury and Norwich, Conn. As a result, OSHA issued BMA seven repeat citations, carrying $100,000 in proposed penalties, for the conditions found at the Danielson and Newington worksites.
"Falls are the most frequent cause of death in construction, and there is no justification for an employer's repeated failure to ensure that employees have the knowledge, training and equipment to identify and protect themselves against this most dangerous of hazards," said C. William Freeman III, OSHA's area director in Hartford.
Employees at both sites also had not been adequately trained in recognizing fall hazards and in the erection and dismantling of scaffolds, while employees at the Danielson site were exposed to electrocution hazards due to the draping of an energized 240-volt power line atop and along the conductive aluminum frame scaffold on which they were working.
These conditions resulted in the issuance of eight serious citations with $40,000 in proposed fines. A serious citation is issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
OSHA Finds 25 Safety Violations at CITGO Asphalt Refining in Savannah, Ga.
OSHA is proposing $110,000 in penalties for 25 alleged serious safety violations uncovered at CITGO Asphalt Refining Co.'s plant in Savannah.
"OSHA has conducted more than 45 inspections at various CITGO facilities and there is no excuse for the problems found at this refinery," said John J. Deifer, OSHA's area director in Savannah.
While the plant has changed ownership, CITGO remains responsible for the deficiencies identified during the safety inspection initiated in January as part of the agency's National Emphasis Program for petroleum refineries. Under the program, every refinery under OSHA's jurisdiction is being inspected.
The 25 serious safety violations include failing to take adequate precautions when working around combustible liquids, failure to inspect and test process equipment in accordance with good engineering practices, inadequate emergency response plans, inaccurate piping and instrumentation diagrams and not informing contractors of known hazards. CITGO Asphalt Refining failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that was operating outside acceptable limits required for continued safe operation, thus endangering the safety and health of its employees.
Safety News Links
