Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica
Many workers in a wide range of industries are exposed to crystalline silica, usually in the form of respirable quartz or, less frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational disease resulting from exposure of employees over long periods of time (10 years or more). Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline silica causes acute or accelerated forms of silicosis that are ultimately fatal. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for general industry is based on a formula proposed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1968 (PEL=10mg/cubic meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL for construction and shipyards (derived from ACGIH's 1970 Threshold Limit Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is considered obsolete. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and ACGIH recommend 50ug/m3 and 25ug/m3 exposure limits, respectively, for respirable crystalline silica.
Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. ASTM International has published recommended standards for addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.
OSHA will host a live Web chat to discuss this proposed rule from 1 p.m.–3:30 p.m. EST, Tuesday, January 14. The Web chat will provide you with the opportunity to ask questions, get clarification from OSHA on the proposed silica rule, and learn how to participate in the regulatory process. OSHA staff will be available to clarify the proposed standards related to silica for general industry, maritime and construction. Staff will also answer questions on OSHA's underlying analysis of health risks, potential costs and benefits, and economic impacts associated with the proposed rule, and how to submit comments to the rulemaking record.
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
OSHA was petitioned to issue an emergency temporary standard by the United Steel Workers (formerly the Paper Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers Union), Public Citizen Health Research Group, and others. The Agency denied the petitions but stated its intent to begin data gathering to collect needed information on beryllium's toxicity, risks, and patterns of usage. On November 26, 2002, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) (67 FR 70707) to solicit information pertinent to occupational exposure to beryllium, including: current exposures to beryllium; the relationship between exposure to beryllium and the development of adverse health effects; exposure assessment and monitoring methods; exposure control methods; and medical surveillance. In addition, the Agency conducted field surveys of selected worksites to assess current exposures and control methods being used to reduce employee exposures to beryllium. OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and completed the SBREFA Report in January 2008. OSHA also completed a scientific peer review of its draft risk assessment. A notice of proposed rulemaking is expected by April 2014.
Infectious Diseases
Employees in health care and other high-risk environments face long-standing infectious diseases hazards such as tuberculosis (TB), varicella disease (chickenpox, shingles), and measles (rubeola), as well as new and emerging infectious disease threats, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and pandemic influenza. Health care workers and workers in related occupations, or who are exposed in other high-risk environments, are at increased risk of contracting TB, SARS, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and other infectious diseases that can be transmitted through a variety of exposure routes. OSHA is concerned about the ability of employees to continue to provide health care and other critical services without unreasonably jeopardizing their health. OSHA is considering the need for a standard to ensure that employers establish a comprehensive infection control program and control measures to protect employees from infectious disease exposures to pathogens that can cause significant disease. Workplaces where such control measures might be necessary include: health care, emergency response, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, drug treatment programs, and other occupational settings where employees can be at increased risk of exposure to potentially infectious people. A standard could also apply to laboratories, which handle materials that may be a source of pathogens, and to pathologists, coroners' offices, medical examiners, and mortuaries.
Combustible Dust
OSHA has commenced rulemaking to develop a combustible dust standard for general industry. The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) completed a study of combustible dust hazards in late 2006, which identified 281 combustible dust incidents between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured another 718. Based on these findings, the CSB recommended the Agency pursue a rulemaking on this issue. OSHA has previously addressed aspects of this risk. For example, on July 31, 2005, OSHA published the Safety and Health Information Bulletin, “Combustible Dust in Industry: Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Fire and Explosions.” Additionally, OSHA implemented a Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) March 11, 2008, launched a new Web page, and issued several other guidance documents. However, the Agency does not have a comprehensive standard that addresses combustible dust hazards.
OSHA will use the information gathered from the NEP to assist in the development of this rule. OSHA published an ANPRM October 21, 2009.
Injury and Illness Prevention Program
OSHA is developing a rule requiring employers to implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). It involves planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and activities that protect employee safety and health. OSHA has substantial data on reductions in injuries and illnesses from employers who have implemented similar effective processes. The Agency currently has voluntary Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines (54 FR 3904 to 3916), published in 1989. An injury and illness prevention program rule would build on these guidelines as well as lessons learned from successful approaches and best practices under OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, and similar industry and international initiatives such as American National Standards Institute/American Industrial Hygiene Association Z10 and Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series 18001. A notice of proposed rulemaking is expected by September 2014.
Reinforced Concrete in Construction and Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities
OSHA published a Request for Information (77 FR 18973; March 29, 2012) that sought information on two subjects: 1) preventing backover injuries; and 2) hazards and risks of reinforcing concrete operations in construction, including post-tensioning. Backing vehicles and equipment are common causes of struck-by injuries and can also cause caught-between injuries when backing vehicles and equipment pin a worker against an object. Struck-by injuries and caught-between injuries are two of the four leading causes of workplace fatalities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2011, 75 workers were fatally backed over while working. While many backing incidents can prove to be fatal, workers can suffer severe, non-fatal injuries as well. A review of OSHA’s IMIS database found that backing incidents can result in serious injury to the back and pelvis, fractured bones, concussions, amputations, and other injuries. Emerging technologies in the field of backing operations may prevent incidents. The technologies include cameras and proximity detection systems. The use of spotters and internal traffic control plans can also make backing operations safer. The Agency has held stakeholder meetings on backovers and is conducting site visits to employers. Current rules regarding reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities may not adequately address worker hazards in work related to post-tensioning and reinforcing steel. Both are techniques for reinforcing concrete and are generally used in many types of construction. OSHA’s IMIS data indicates that 31 workers died while performing work on or near post-tensioning operations or reinforcing steel between 2000 and 2009.
Currently, workers performing steel reinforcing suffer injuries caused by unsafe material handling, structural collapse, and impalement by protruding reinforcing steel dowels, among other causes. Employees involved in post-tensioning activities are at risk for incidents caused by the misuse of post-tensioning equipment and improper training. The Agency is continuing to seek information about injuries and hazards of reinforcing steel operations.
Confined Spaces in Construction
In 1993, OSHA issued a rule to protect employees who enter confined spaces while engaged in general industry work (29 CFR1910.146). This standard did not cover employees entering confined spaces while engaged in construction work because of unique characteristics of construction worksites. Pursuant to discussions with the United Steel Workers of America that led to a settlement agreement regarding the general industry standard, OSHA agreed to issue a proposed rule to protect construction workers in confined spaces. The final rule is expected in February of 2014.
Did You Miss OSHA’s December 1 GHS Hazard Communication Training Deadline? Use Environmental Resource Center’s GHS OSHA Hazard Communication Training PowerPoint
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.
OSHA’s December 1, 2013, deadline under the revised Hazard Communication Standard required that all employees at your site who work with, or are exposed to, hazardous chemicals 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.
Price and options:
Multiple PDF copies can be purchased for $99/copy (1–10), $79/copy (11–20), or $69/copy (21+).
Multiple PowerPoint 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.
CSB Deploys to Chemical Spill in Charleston, West Virginia
An investigative team from the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is deploying to the scene of a massive spill into the Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia.
According to local authorities the leak originated from a storage tank at Freedom Industries—the leak of unknown quantity has left hundreds of thousands of West Virginia residents without clean drinking water.
CSB Chairperson Rafael Moure-Eraso said, “This incident continues to impact the people of West Virginia—our goal is to find out what happened to allow a leak of such magnitude to occur and to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place to prevent a similar incident from occurring.”
The investigative team will be led by Supervisory Investigator Johnnie Banks and is scheduled to arrive in West Virginia on Monday morning.
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
Forever 21 Fined $236,500 Repeat Workplace Safety Violations
Inspectors cited the company for four repeat violations at the Paramus store, including obstructed exit routes; a fire extinguisher that was not mounted and readily accessible; stored material that was not secured against sliding or collapse; and fluorescent lights that had no cover to prevent accidental contact or breakage.
Inspectors issued citations for two repeat violations to the Manhattan store, including obstructed exit routes and fluorescent lights with no covers. A serious citation was also issued because the store was not kept clean and orderly.
“It is unacceptable for Forever 21 to continue repeating these violations, which are common among retailers, and put workers at serious risk,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. “Retail managers have a legal responsibility to inspect their stores, identify potential hazards and quickly eliminate them to ensure worker safety and health.”
A repeat citation is issued when a substantially similar violation is found at any of an employer's facilities in federal enforcement states within five years of a previous citation. The company was previously cited for these violations in 2012. OSHA issues a serious citation when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew, or should have known, of the hazard.
Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, and IATA/IMO Training
Atlanta RCRA, DOT, and SARA Training
Tampa RCRA and DOT Training
OSHA Extends Comment Period on Proposed Rule to Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses
The proposed rule would amend recordkeeping regulations to add requirements for the electronic submission of injury and illness information that employers are already required to keep under OSHA's regulations for recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses.
Black Hills Energy Fined $75,000 for Electrical hazards
OSHA cited Black Hills Corp., doing business as Black Hills Energy in Pueblo, Co., with two safety violations, including one willful. The citations were issued after an employee came in contact with an energized power line while making repairs and was seriously injured in July. Proposed penalties total $75,000.
Workers responding to a power interruption during a summer thunderstorm were exposed to electrical shock hazards when they entered the minimum approach distance without any protective safety measures in place. Only one of the five energized lines was deenergized while work was performed. The willful violation, with a penalty of $70,000, was cited for failing to ensure workers were protected from energized overhead electrical lines while making the repairs. 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.
“This situation could have easily resulted in a fatality. When workers respond to storm outages, all reasonable precautions must be taken to protect workers from electrical shock hazards,” said David Nelson, OSHA's area director in Greenwood Village. “OSHA will not tolerate such negligence.”
The serious violation, with a penalty of $5,000, was cited for failing to conduct an adequate briefing to inform employees of all potential hazards associated with the job, work procedures involved, special precautions, energy source controls and required personal protective equipment. 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.
Black Hills Corp. has headquarters in Rapid City, North Dakota, and employs about 1,800 workers nationwide. Black Hills Energy, located in Pueblo, provides electrical and natural gas services to more than 600,000 customers in hundreds of communities throughout Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska.
New Prime Inc. to Pay More than $100,000 to Blacklisted Driver
An investigation by OSHA found that New Prime, Inc., retaliated against a truck driver by blacklisting him in the commercial transport industry after he sought medical attention for a work-related injury. OSHA has ordered the Springfield, Missouri-based motor carrier to pay the former employee $100,994.24 in back wages and damages and take other corrective action.
The driver notified his supervisors in October 2008 that he sustained an on-the-job back injury and was seeking medical attention. In November, he provided documentation that the condition was serious enough to prevent him from returning to work because he had been prescribed medications that made operating a commercial motor vehicle unsafe. In July 2009, the driver's physician released him for full duty. He opted not to return to New Prime, Inc., and began seeking employment elsewhere in the industry.
After being rejected for a job, the driver learned New Prime, Inc., had submitted damaging and misleading information about his employment to a provider of pre-employment and drug testing screening services. The information appeared on the driver's Drive-A-Check Report, an employment history submitted by former employers in the trucking industry. The driver submitted a complaint with OSHA, alleging violation of the anti-retaliatory provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act.
As a result, OSHA is ordering New Prime, Inc., to pay the former employee lost wages, including interest, of $41,373.34, covering the time between July 1, 2009 and April 1, 2010; $40,000 in compensatory damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of home and property; and $20,000 in punitive damages in light of the company's reckless and callous disregard for the worker's rights under the STAA. The company must also expunge the complainant's employment and DAC Report records of any reference to his unlawful termination.
“Blacklisting an employee and sabotaging a worker's career is unacceptable. It can have a dangerous ripple effect if employees are compelled to drive when unwell or under medication because they are afraid they will lose their livelihood,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York, whose offices conducted the investigation. “OSHA will not tolerate employers retaliating against its employees for reporting violations, including forcing employees to operate commercial motor vehicles when doing so would be unsafe for the driver and the public.”
Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor.
DNT Construction Exposes Workers to Trench Hazards, Fined $89,000
OSHA has cited DNT Construction in Round Rock, Texas, with multiple safety hazards at a San Antonio work site after a worker was injured in a trenching collapse. Proposed penalties total $89,000.
OSHA's San Antonio Area Office began its investigation in August after the worker injury. When OSHA arrived at the site to conduct the investigation, another worker was in the same trench and exposed to similar hazards as the injured worker. At the time of the inspection, the worker was inside a seven-foot-deep trench without sloping, benching, or shoring up. OSHA standards mandate that all excavations five feet or deeper be protected against collapse.
“A trench or excavation site without proper protection can become a grave in a matter of seconds. This employer failed to protect the worker who was injured and then sent another worker into the same hazardous trench. OSHA will not tolerate such distain for worker safety,” said Kelly Knighton, OSHA's area director in San Antonio.
In addition, three serious violations, carrying penalties of $19,000, were issued for failing to place and maintain the excavated material at a distance of two or more feet from the trench edge, support structures that could pose a hazard and compromise the trench and failure to provide a competent person to remove workers from a trench if needed.
Pennsylvania Roofing Company Exposes Workers to Fall Hazards
OSHA has cited Jenkintown-based James J. McCullagh Roofing, Inc., for 10 alleged safety violations-including three willful-following its investigation of a fatal accident in June when a worker fell 45 feet from a roof while performing roofing repairs on a church in Philadelphia.
“This tragic accident could have been prevented had the company provided the proper fall protection for employees,” said Domenick Salvatore, director of OSHA's Philadelphia Area Office. “It's vital that these hazards be corrected to protect employees in the future.”
The willful violations were due to a lack of fall protection for employees performing roofing work as high as 45 feet from the ground level and a lack of fall protection for employees working from a roof bracket scaffold.
Eight serious violations include the company's failure to:
- Ensure only one employee, not two, worked from a scaffold platform that was only intended to support one employee
- Ensure a roof bracket scaffold was not loaded in excess of its maximum intended load
- Properly erect and attach a roof bracket scaffold for employees performing roofing work on the scaffold
- Provide fall protection for employees working from a roof bracket scaffold
- Provide training for employees involved in erecting, disassembling, moving, operating, repairing, maintaining, or inspecting scaffolds
- Provide employees working 45 feet above the next lower level with the correct type of rope lifeline
- Restrain the ends of the scaffold platform
- Provide the proper anchorage points for personal fall arrest systems
James J. McCullagh Roofing, Inc., received $71,600 in penalties.
Texas Manufacturer Exposes Workers to Amputation, Electrical, and Noise Violations
OSHA cited Evergreen Plastics, Inc., in Houston with 17 violations after two separate safety and health inspections were conducted in July 2013. The proposed penalty totals $60,200.
The safety inspection, which resulted in $44,800 in fines, was conducted under OSHA's National Emphasis Program on Amputations. Twelve serious safety violations were cited for failing to establish an energy control program system consisting of training, procedures, and periodic inspections to ensure that during maintenance the equipment does not unexpectedly startup, energize or release stored energy. The company was also cited for failing to: provide railings on exposed stairways and stair platforms; guard various machine parts including fan blades, pulleys and gears exposing workers to amputation hazards and live electrical parts operating at 50 volts or more; protect conductors entering boxes, cabinets or fittings from abrasions; and substituting fixed wiring for flexible cords and cables.
“It is imperative for Evergreen Plastics, Inc., to find and fix its hazards while also developing and maintaining an effective prevention program,” said Mark Briggs, area director in OSHA's Houston South area office. “OSHA will not tolerate an employer compromising the safety and health of its workers.”
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.
A subsequent health inspection, which resulted in four serious citations with fines of $15,400, found workers were exposed to noise and chemical hazards. The violations cited include failing to: administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program; provide personal protective equipment for the eyes, hands and skin of workers handling corrosive substances; perform a hazard assessment as to what necessitates the use of personal protective equipment; and provide suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body for workers exposed to corrosive materials.
Texas Bedding Manufacturer Exposes Workers to Multiple Safety Hazards
OSHA cited Sonic Component Systems, LLC for nine violations as part of the agency's National Emphasis Program on Amputations. The citations from the June 2013 inspection include three repeat and six serious safety violations at the company's Corsicana facility and carry proposed penalties totaling $40,810.
The three repeat violations, with $26,180 in penalties, include failing to provide required guarding on machines, sprockets, and chains and ensure that strain relief was provided on all electrical cords. The company was cited for similar violations in February 2013.
The six serious violations, with a penalty of $14,630, include failing to: ensure that exit doors were kept from obstruction, provide exit signs, ensure that floor surfaces were kept dry to prevent slips and falls, and provide proper personal protective equipment.
“Sonic Component Systems, Inc., failed to abate previous electrical and machine guarding violations and by continuing to do so, exposed workers to possible amputation hazards. Such disregard for worker safety will not be tolerated,” said Jack Rector, OSHA's area director in Fort Worth. “It is the employer's responsibility to find and fix hazards while providing a safe and healthy workplace.”
Safety News Links