On Nov. 28, 2008, Jdimytai Damour was trampled to death at Wal-Mart’s Valley Stream, NY, store as 2,000 shoppers surged inside for its annual day-after-Thanksgiving sale.

OSHA issued Wal-Mart a $7,000 fine under the General Duty Clause. The federal safety agency says employees were exposed to being crushed by the crowd due to the store’s failure to implement reasonable and effective crowd management.

Wal-Mart contested the fine, and the case will be heard before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

The giant retailer agreed to pay nearly $2 million and improve safety at its 92 New York stores as part of a deal with local prosecutors. Wal-Mart set up a $400,000 victims compensation and remuneration fund and gave $1.5 million to local social service programs and nonprofit groups.

To prevent similar incidents, OSHA recommends retailers:

• have trained security personnel or police officers on site
• set up barricades or rope lines for pedestrians and crowd control well in advance of customers’ arrival
• make sure barricades are set up so the customers’ line doesn’t start right at the store entrance
• prepare an emergency plan that addresses potential dangers, and
• have security or customer service personnel explain entrance procedures to the public.

OSHA’s full list of crowd control guidelines is available here (PDF).

“Sixteen workers are killed a day in the United States because of reckless negligence on the part of their employers,” according to a new Web site.

The statement on the home page of 16deathsperday.com goes on to say, “Under existing laws, these employers get a slap on the wrist, or walk away scot-free. Meanwhile, workers who blow the whistle face threats and retaliation at the workplace.”

A five-minute video profiles two workplace fatalities where companies paid relatively small fines and didn’t face criminal prosecution.

The group’s message: Companies would rather pay low OSHA fines rather than spend more money on worker safety.

To change that, the Web site endorses passage of the Protecting America’s Workers Act. That bill would:

• allow OSHA to pursue criminal charges against a company for an employee’s death, including fines and up to 10 years in prison for owners and managers. Criminal penalties for serious bodily injury to an employee could include up to five years in prison.
• increase the civil penalty for an employee death from $50,000 to $250,000, with a minimum $25,000 fine for companies with 25 or fewer employees
• raise the maximum fines for willful and repeat citations to $120,000, and
• increase OSHA fines every four years for inflation.

What do you think of 16deathsperday.com’s message? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Injuries and illnesses occurred at a rate of 3.9 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers. The 2007 rate was 4.2, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There were 3.7 million total nonfatal injuries and illnesses in 2008 compared to 4 million in 2007.

Occupational injuries and illnesses have declined significantly each year since 2003.

The injury and illness rate was highest among mid-size companies with 50 to 249 employees, and lowest among small companies with fewer than 11 workers.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the injury rates. But she also noted that OSHA has launched a National Emphasis Program on Recordkeeping that will help assure the accuracy of injury and illness data reported by employers.

Specifically, NHCA is calling on OSHA to:

1. lower the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for noise to an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) using a 3 dB time/intensity exchange rate.
2. apply the revised PEL to all U.S. industrial sectors, including construction, agriculture, oil and gas drilling and servicing, and shipbuilding, which aren’t effectively covered now, and
3. rescind the policy in the OSHA Field Operations Manual which permits exposures of up to 100 dBA without employer efforts to implement noise control.

The current PEL for noise is 90 dBA with a 5dB time/intensity exchange rate.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have both called for an 85 dBA exposure limit. Many other nations have already lowered their noise PELs to that level.

Do you think the noise PEL needs to be lowered? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) recently released a position statement on ergonomics (PDF) which supports “the development of ergonomics-related reporting, regulations and standards as a more effective long-term strategy” than guidelines.

AIHA says ergonomic regulations should focus on the development of health and safety programs that reduce the risk of musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs).

Specifically, AIHA has called for OSHA to:

• develop a strong and clear minimum standard for the recognition and abatement of hazards that result in MSDs based on the best available scientific and medical knowledge, and
• continue to require employers to record MSDs on Form 300, Log of Work-Related Injuries.

Earlier this year, interim OSHA administrator Jordan Barab called ergonomics “the 60,000-pound elephant in the room.” He acknowledged OSHA can’t create a new standard. Congress barred OSHA from issuing a similar standard when the original ergonomics rules were overturned in 2001.

However, Barab said, “we can fix this.”

Even during the Bush years, OSHA issued 19 General Duty Clause (GDC) citations for ergonomics.

Should OSHA address workplace ergonomics through regulations? Or should the agency just use the GDC to issue fines when it finds ergonomic problems? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The previous largest penalty was also against BP after the Texas City explosion. BP signed a settlement with OSHA and agreed to pay $21 million in fines.

As part of the settlement, BP also agreed to correct violations at the plant. OSHA claims it hasn’t. It’s issued 270 citations for failure-to-abate previous violations. That totals $556.7 million in fines at a rate of $7,000 per fine times 30 days.

OSHA also found 439 new willful violations, totaling $30.7 million.

Since the 2005 incident, four more fatalities have occurred at the Texas City facility.

The New York Times reports that, in the 30 years before the 2005 explosion, there were 23 deaths at the Texas City refinery.

“The $87 million fine won’t restore those [15] lives, but we can’t let this happen again,” said U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

“BP was given four years to correct the safety issues identified pursuant to the settlement agreement, yet OSHA has found hundreds of violations of the agreement and hundreds of new violations,” said acting OSHA administrator Jordan Barab.

Since the explosion, BP has settled more than 4,000 civil claims, paid from a $2.1 billion fund it set aside.

The BP refinery is the third largest in the country.

Do you think this large fine is justified against BP? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

You can also take our Quick Poll on the subject on our home page.

The number of violations in the top 10 increased almost 30% over the same time period in 2008.

The violations are:

1. Scaffolding: 9,093
2. Fall protection: 6,771
3. Hazard communication: 6,378
4. Respiratory protection: 3,803
5. Lockout/tagout: 3,321
6. Electrical (wiring): 3,079
7. Ladders: 3,072
8. Powered industrial trucks (forklifts): 2,993
9. Electrical: 2,556
10. Machine guarding: 2,364.

OSHA will update these numbers later in 2009. The preliminary list was released at the National Safety Council’s annual congress.

When SafetyNewsAlert.com reported on the OSHA recordkeeping inspection program, readers responded with their best safety incentive ideas that don’t discourage injury reporting:

• Bill B.: True safety incentives are a positive reinforcement of the safety culture. We have set up a program for “on the spot” recognition for above and beyond safety actions. Seems to be working on our construction site with 20 contractors and over 70 workers.
• Dave B.: Supervisors should reward safe practices like wearing PPE, reporting hazards or developing safe solutions. When the employees wearing proper PPE and following safety procedures get all the free stuff, it doesn’t take long for the other employees to join in.
• Safety Sam: I developed a plan to base incentives on employee participation instead of simply not getting hurt. I made a list of things that I wanted to get done, and then presented that to the employee safety committee with the mandate to base getting the incentives on getting this stuff done. It was hugely successful and took away any edge that OSHA might have had in using our incentive plan against us. (Sam is at an OSHA Voluntary Protection Program site.)
• Tim H.: (1) Base the incentive on behavior (individual and collective) not injury reports, and (2) Structure a supervisor’s performance review so that a failure to make a required injury report is a negative.
• Alex: (Our plan is) based on proactive activities reported to and recorded and audited by the safety department. Measurements include number of near-misses reported, job/task observations, area inspections, safety team meetings, completion of compliance and awareness training, and monthly safety topics.

Even more comments had this general theme: Reward positive safety behavior, not a lack of injuries.

You can take our Quick Poll on safety incentive programs on our home page.

The agency has cited Sealcoating, Inc., of Hingham, MA, for $38,100 in violations after a nighttime inspection on its bridge restoration work.

The contractor was cited for 11 alleged repeat and serious violations as part of OSHA’s Boston North Area Office’s efforts to inspect construction projects where silica is generated.

“Employers should not assume that OSHA will not conduct inspections because much of their work is done at night,” said Paul Mangiafico, an OSHA area director.

Among the citations:

• employees exposed to excess silica levels while jack hammering concrete
• no controls to lower exposure levels
• failure to evaluate employees’ exposure levels
• inadequate respirator protection program and training, and
• no fit-testing of respirators.

The company has 15 days to decide whether to appeal the citations.

The Pearl Room in Bay Ridge, NY, was fined by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division because the teenager was working in violation of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The teen was killed when he tried to stop a rolling minivan from hitting another parked car.

Police say the teen had hopped out of the vehicle without putting it in park.

When the van started rolling backwards, he ran behind it and tried to stop it from moving. But the force of the van threw him backward, pinning him against another vehicle.

The FLSA prohibits 17-year-old workers from driving vehicles after sunset as part of their jobs.

The $50,000 penalty is the maximum allowed under a recent amendment to the FLSA. The $604 was for the employer’s failure to record the young worker’s date of birth.

OSHA had investigated this case and referred it to the Wage and Hour Division.

Now with just a couple mouse clicks, the whole world can see which U.S. companies had an employee fatality in the previous week.

Example: For the week of Aug. 28, 2009, OSHA’s Weekly Fatality Report lists 18 incidents. First on the list is an incident involving Tri-State Electrical Contracting, Inc., Bay Terrace, NY. The Web page lists Nature of Incident as “victim was operating a knuckle boom truck and was crushed between the boom and the controls.”

That’s all the information given.

While the Web page explains how OSHA receives the incident information, there’s no word (at least as of the writing of this article) on what purpose the agency thinks posting this information will serve.

So, we have two guesses:

1. OSHA hopes employers use the information in safety training to show workers the real-life consequences of various workplace hazards, or
2. OSHA is posting the information to call attention to companies that just experienced a worker fatality or other catastrophe.

There are two potential problems with either of these uses. If these are meant to be used as teaching lessons for employees, the items are light on detail. If this is meant as a Wall of Shame for the companies involved, OSHA is posting the information before investigations can be completed, and before exact cause for the incident can be determined.

One more note: When the page for the Weekly Fatality Reports first appeared on OSHA’s Web site, many may not have found it. To access it, you had to find a one-line clickable link among everything on OSHA’s home page. A few days later, OSHA made it highly noticeable, front and center, in a bright blue box in the middle of its home page.

While safety pros can agree that sharing information about workplace fatalities can help prevent similar incidents from happening, it’s not entirely clear what OSHA’s intention of posting the information is.

What do you think? Is this useful information for safety training? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Police in Port Panama City say the explosion happened in two dust collectors. An investigation will determine what triggered it.

Authorities say it started in an area where a coating is put on pipes.

The facility will be shut down for several days while OSHA investigates.

After going from three shifts to one and briefly shutting down in December, Monday — the day of the blast — was the first time that all three shifts were up and running again.

Federal statistics show, in a 25-year period, 281 combustible dust explosions and fires killed 119 workers and injured 718.

This week, our SafetyNewsAlert.com Quick Poll was on combustible dust. We asked: Do you think OSHA needs a new standard on combustible dust?

• 51% said no, OSHA should use its existing regulations, and
• 49% said yes, current regulations aren’t enough.

A total of 430 readers voted. Check our home page for a new poll later this week.

In April, Charles Sittig was killed at the CES Environmental Services facility in Port Arthur, TX.

Three men have died at CES plants since December 2008.

OSHA cited the company for 34 violations, including a willful citation for failure to establish a rescue team capable of assisting a worker who becomes incapacitated while cleaning out chemicals tanks.

Other citations include raised platforms without railings, poorly maintained ladders and failure to develop decontamination procedures.

The company has 15 days to decide whether to contest the citations.

Two workers died recently at CES’ Houston plant. In December 2008, one worker died in an explosion that sent metal debris into nearby properties. In July 2009, a CES employee died when an explosion and flash fire at the Houston plant knocked him from the top of a mobile tank he was filling with water. OSHA is still investigating that death.

An OSHA investigation says Ismael Octtaviani-Mercado died from a 31-foot fall at the Palm Beach International Airport.

Octtaviani-Mercado had jury-rigged a stool to remove a light fixture, then tumbled over a rail and fell three stories.

Using the stool placed him higher than the nearby rail. Investigators believe he lost his footing and went over the rail.

Octtaviani-Mercado was working on an air surveillance radar tower that had been decommissioned after heavy damage caused by hurricanes in 2004.

He decided on his own to go to the third level to salvage light fixtures for use on an active tower. The fixtures are expensive, and it was common practice to salvage them for use elsewhere.

He was working alone when he fell.

OSHA doesn’t have the authority to fine other federal agencies, but it can perform investigations like this one.

Last week, OSHA announced a National Emphasis Program (NEP) on recordkeeping.

The agency wants to find out whether the nation’s workplace injury rate is really at its lowest point ever as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

BLS uses reports issued by employers to tabulate the injury rate.

OSHA’s targets in this NEP: Facilities in high-injury industries that have much lower-than-average injuries. The theory: Some of these employers are under-reporting injuries.

OSHA told it’s inspectors on this NEP to ask employees about their company’s safety incentive programs, specifically if they may discourage reporting of injuries. The inspectors will interview a minimum of 10 employees, more if the facility has over 100 workers.

Inspectors have been told to obtain copies of these incentive programs and note their existence in their reports.

While the guidelines say most recordkeeping violations uncovered through this NEP will be classified as “other-than-serious” violations, the citations may also be raised to the willful level when inspectors can document deliberate under-reporting.

Existence of incentive programs may be used to back up raising a recordkeeping violation to the willful level.

What’s your theory on safety incentive programs? How can a company develop an incentive program that reduces injuries yet doesn’t discourage reporting of incidents? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

Our current Quick Poll asks about safety incentive programs. You can take our Quick Poll on our home page.

The Chamber sent a letter to the chairs and ranking members of two Senate committees, asking for hearings on David Michaels’ nomination.

Michaels is a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health.

In the letter, Chamber President Bruce Josten notes that Michaels’ book, Doubt is Their Product, criticizes industry groups that raise questions about various regulations and the science underlying them.

Josten cites the ergonomics standard that was enacted at the end of the Clinton administration but overturned by Congress in 2001.

The letter states, “Instead of acknowledging that the scientific and medical record relied upon for this regulation left many questions necessary to issue a regulation unanswered … he described the science as settled and the efforts by business advocates to raise concerns about the science as nothing more than a delaying tactic.”

Josten also questions the way Michaels views the role of compliance assistance in workplace safety. And the Chamber wants Michaels to state whether he accepts data showing that workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities are at all time lows.

OSHA just started a National Emphasis Program on recordkeeping which will send inspectors to facilities with low injury rates that are in high-injury industries. Reason: OSHA wants to check whether companies are under-reporting injuries.

Jordan Barab is acting OSHA administrator. When a permanent head is named, he’ll assume the No. 2 position at the agency.

The rule has been in effect since Jan. 12, 2009, and OSHA has already used it.

OSHA has said it intends to use these new measures only in egregious cases in which employers showed a clear disregard for issuing PPE to employees. However, the standard doesn’t spell out that it’s only for use in severe cases.

The National Association of Manufacturers points out that a $7,000 fine for lack of or incorrect PPE could turn into a $700,000 penalty if 100 employees within a facility are required to wear that type of PPE.

Arguments in the case are expected to begin in November.

Do you think OSHA should be able to fine companies, per employee, for PPE violations? If so, under what circumstances? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Here’s what happened: A Home Depot employee in Houston was found lying under a truck in the store’s parking lot. The worker’s job was to gather shopping carts in the lot and help customers load packages into their cars. The worker didn’t have any visible injuries. Other employees said the man was incoherent, lying on the ground and moving, while putting his hands behind his head.

He was taken to the hospital where he died two days later. An autopsy said the cause of death was “blunt head trauma with subdural hematoma and brain contusions.”

OSHA investigated. It issued just one other-than-serious citation for the company’s failure to report the employee’s death to OSHA within eight hours of occurrence.

Home Depot appealed. An administrative law judge upheld the $1,000 OSHA fine. The judge said, “the evidence suggested that the employee fell in the Home Depot parking lot, sustaining the head injuries to which he eventually succumbed.”

Home Depot also appealed that decision. This time, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission threw out the citation. Reason: The judge’s finding that the employee fell in the store’s parking lot wasn’t supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission said it was speculation that he fell and hit his head in the parking lot.

OSHA has 60 days to decide if it wants to appeal the Commission’s ruling.

What do you think about the Commission’s ruling? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Cite: Secretary of Labor v. Home Depot, OSHRC Docket No. 07-0359, 9/16/09. (PDF)

Clearwater Management, Inc., dba Splash Handwash, faces $62,500 in fines after an employee was injured at the company’s Fairfield, CT, carwash.

The worker suffered foot and ankle injuries after he became caught in an unguarded opening on the operating conveyor track that moves vehicles through the carwash.

OSHA issued 11 serious citations, including:

• an unguarded conveyor opening
• uncovered electrical outlets in wet areas
• misused extension cords
• a locked emergency exit, and
• lack of an emergency eyewash for employees working with corrosive cleaners.

The company also faces three repeat citations for lack of eye and face protection for a worker spraying chemical cleaners and for not training workers on chemical hazards and required PPE.

This case is another example of OSHA extending its use of repeat citations to cover violations at different locations owned by the same company. OSHA had cited the company for similar hazards at two of its other carwash locations.

The company has 15 days to decide whether to contest the citations.

And the rulemaking process is moving along.

OSHA has submitted the proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

That news comes in the wake of the Chemical Safety Board’s recent release of its investigation into the explosion and fire that killed 14 and injured 36 at the Imperial Sugar plant in Wentworth, GA.

In a 25-year period, 281 combustible dust explosions and fires killed 119 workers and injured 718.

A number of OSHA standards address aspects of combustible dust control, including those on housekeeping, emergency action plans, ventilation, spray finishing, permit required confined spaces and electric power generation.

Do you think a separate OSHA standard on combustible dust is necessary? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below, and take our Quick Poll on our home page.

In its final report on the explosion, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) said ongoing releases of sugar from poorly designed and maintained dust collection equipment, conveyors, and sugar handling equipment led to the blast.

Inadequate housekeeping allowed highly combustible sugar dust to build up throughout the plant’s packing buildings.

A conveyor had been enclosed, creating a confined, unventilated space where sugar dust could accumulate to an explosive concentration. It’s likely the dust was ignited by an overheated bearing.

The initial explosion caused a cascade of secondary dust explosions in adjacent packing buildings.

On top of these problems, the CSB said Imperial hadn’t conducted evacuation drills for its employees and that the explosions and fires disabled most of the emergency lighting, making it difficult for workers to escape.

A 2006 CSB study identified 281 combustible dust fires and explosions between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 718, and extensively damaged industrial facilities. In April, OSHA started development of a combustible dust standard. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has recommended practices for preventing dust fires and explosions.

Toys R Us faces $69,000 in fines for 10 violations at one of its stores in Brooklyn, NY.

OSHA’s inspection found hazards that could impede employees’ exit during a fire or other emergency. These included:

• obstructed exit access
• missing or defective exit doors
• an exit door that was painted over and couldn’t be opened
• improper or inadequate exit signage
• employees not trained in fire extinguisher use, and
• all fire extinguishers not kept in their required locations.

OSHA also cited the company for other violations, including damaged storage racks that were prone to collapse.

Three of the citations, for the obstructed exit route, blocked aisle and damaged storage racks, were categorized as repeat and came with $50,000 in fines. But the Brooklyn store wasn’t fined for these problems before.

OSHA had cited Toys R Us stores in Ohio and New Jersey for similar hazards, and that triggered the more expensive repeat citations. The other seven violations were categorized as serious for a total of $19,000 in fines.

The report comes from the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). The latest incident occurred earlier this month at a market in San Francisco.

What happened: A man represented himself as a DLSE investigator and sought cash in lieu of issuing citations.

An investigator will never request payment in lieu of citations or ask for money onsite, according to California state officials. If an investigator requests payment, employers should call the Division of Labor Standards at 415-703-4810. The Division will then contact local authorities.

Before an inspection, a real Labor Standards investigator will:

• identify him or herself using state ID and a business card
• discuss the employer’s rights and responsibilities during the inspection, and
• explain what happens during the inspection.

A federal OSHA factsheet on what to expect during an inspection can be downloaded here (PDF).

OSHA has filed a whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of an employee of Bering Sea Eccotech, based in Anchorage, Alaska.

The worker complained about safety violations after observing two dangerous explosions. The company barred the employee from being rehired.

An OSHA investigation revealed that the former employee’s complaint had merit. The company still refused to rehire the employee or pay back wages.

The lawsuit seeks to reinstate the employee, secure compensatory damages and lost wages, and require the company to post a notice for 60 days that explains employee rights under the whistleblower section of the OSH Act.

Bering Sea Eccotech specializes in unexploded ordnance clean-up, range management and remediation services.

The company is responsible for cleaning up unexploded ordnance at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in San Diego.

In a 2005 article and subsequent book, Doubt is Their Product, Michaels wrote, “Never in our history have corporate interests been as successful as they are today in shaping science policies to their desires.”

The National Association of Manufacturers said Michaels’ approach is always to paint employers as malevolent, and that’s not a quality the business community would like in someone responsible for policing workplace safety.

The White House responded that Michaels is a respected scientist whose resumé includes previous occupational safety work for the Department of Energy.

What experience should the head of OSHA have? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Specifically, OSHA is updating the references in its PPE regulations for general industry, shipyards, and longshoring and marine terminals. The regulations will now reflect more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards that incorporate advances in PPE.

The incorporated American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards are over a decade old, and in some cases, two decades old.

These updated regulations involve eye, face, head and foot protection.

OSHA is using a direct final rule to update these standards, and says there are more updates to come. These updates take effect Oct. 9, 2009.

The specifics are in the 9/9/09 edition of the Federal Register.

OSHA has cited Stavis Seafoods with 15 serious violations at its Boston facility. The company faces $47,250 in fines.

PSM requires employers to proactively assess and address hazards associated with processes and equipment that use large amounts of hazardous chemicals. In this case, the chemical is anhydrous ammonia used in the facility’s refrigeration system.

Among the violations:

• initial evaluation of hazards associated with the refrigeration system hadn’t been conducted
• lack of written procedures covering process changes or to maintain ongoing mechanical integrity of equipment
• process safety information hadn’t been updated to reflect changes
• PSM program wasn’t audited every three years, and
• employee maintaining refrigeration system hadn’t received annual emergency response training and respirator fit testing.

The company has 15 business days to decide whether to contest any of the citations.

That’s what happened to Sims Bark Co. and Sims Stone Co. in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.

OSHA received a complaint about safety at one of Sims’ locations and determined that similar hazards might exist at its other locations.

Result: $576,750 in OSHA fines after inspectors visited six Sims facilities.

Willful citations were issued for:

• allowing workers to service, unjam and clean machinery without procedures to ensure they wouldn’t be caught in or struck by equipment or burned by machines’ heat strips, and
• exposing workers to dangers associated with being caught in fast moving machinery.

OSHA issued serious citations for:

• lack of employee training
• exposure to electric shocks
• lack of fall protection
• lack of machine guards
• exposure to noise hazards
• struck-by dangers, and
• accumulation of combustible dust.

Sims also faces other-than-serious citations for failing to keep injury/illness logs according to OSHA rules.

The company has 15 business days to comply with or contest the citations.

Thedford Construction Co., Inc., faces $133,000 in OSHA fines in connection with the Feb. 18, 2009, death of 21-year-old Hector Moran.

An underground power line was damaged while the company was digging in front of a pad-mounted transformer.

Moran, a Hispanic employee of Thedford, was unaware and uninformed that the power line was energized and began repairing the line. That’s when he was electrocuted.

OSHA’s investigation revealed that Moran was wearing a glove with a hole in the index finger that hadn’t been tested for insulation qualities.

“All workers, regardless of whether or not they speak English, deserve a safe workplace,” said Stephen Boyd, OSHA’s area director in Dallas.

OSHA cited Thedford for two willful violations for failing to electrically test rubbed-insulated gloves at least every six months and failing to ensure that workers don’t come within two feet of energized electrical equipment.

The company also faces 10 serious violations, including failing to:

• train workers on the dangers of electrical hazards
• provide prompt medical treatment in the event of serious injuries
• issue a valid certificate to an employee to perform first-aid treatment
• provide PPE, and
• determine the exact location of underground installations.

Thedford has 15 days to accept or challenge the citations.

OSHA has issued a directive that cancels focused inspections for general industry for now. Focused inspections will continue in the construction and maritime industries.

The agency is in the process of considering a new Annual Operating Plan that will change the General Industry Inspection protocol.

OSHA developed guidelines for its inspectors to conduct focused inspections in the construction and maritime industries in 1994 and 1998, respectively. The agency says focused inspections allow it to use its resources more efficiently.

Focused inspections primarily address the predominant hazards of the industry. Comprehensive inspections look at a wide range of potential hazards.

In 2008, focused inspections were extended to general industry.

Information on focused inspections for the construction industry is here. Click here for information about the maritime program.

Dan Kavanaugh, vice president and general manager with Turner Construction Co. in Oregon, told the Daily Journal of Commerce, “Money is not the motivator. A fine doesn’t mean anything to us.”

Dan Johnson, vice president of operations for Sakanska USA, agrees. “If they raised fines, would that become a motivation? I’m thinking ‘no.’”

However, Johnson says higher fines could be big financial hits for small and mid-sized construction companies.

Oregon OSHA administrator Michael Wood realizes that the fines he’s proposing still wouldn’t have a significant impact on the largest companies.

Wood is considering setting the cap for the most severe violations at $7,000. Now, it’s $5,000.

When a state OSHA inspects a company after a fatality, even the $5,000 fines can add up.

Recently, Oregon OSHA announced penalties totaling $90,000 against ConAgra Foods and a company performing repairs at a ConAgra plant in connection with an incident in which a welder was killed.

Wood acknowledges that ConAgra’s portion of the fine, $65,000, won’t be a big hit for such a large company. Besides raising fines, he’s considering a sliding scale based on company size.

Do you think OSHA fines are real motivation for companies to improve their safety? Is it different for larger vs. smaller companies? Should fines be higher for larger companies? Let me know in the Comments Box below.

That’s what happened when it recently issued citations against Sinton Dairy Foods Co. of Englewood, CO. OSHA issued one willful violation to the company for failure to follow an established preventive maintenance program for an anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system.

OSHA also issued serious violations concerning electrical hazards and mechanical integrity procedures for ammonia systems.

Total fine: $50,575.

Sinton has 15 days to comply, request a conference with OSHA or contest the fines.

The Las Vegas Sun reports that Labor Department officials and officials from other states have descended on Nevada to scrutinize how it investigates workplace accidents.

The Sun ran a series of articles last year — for which it won a Pulitzer Prize — detailing serious problems with worker safety in Nevada. During an 18-month stretch, 12 construction workers were killed on the Las Vegas Strip.

Acting OSHA head Jordan Barab had warned state officials that the feds planned to intensify their monitoring of state plans.

OSHA’s only enforcement tool is complete takeover of a state agency, something it’s never done. But OSHA observers say this intervention is the most dramatic in a state plan since 1991, when the feds strongly considered taking over North Carolina’s state plan.

A report is expected to be issued in about a month.

Michaels, a professor at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, detailed his views in Congressional testimony two years ago.

To paraphrase, he saw the agency as weak, unmotivated, understaffed, heavily impeded and generally ineffective.

Here are a few excerpts, which clearly signal his views on recordkeeping, ergonomics, rulemaking and the General Duty Clause, among other topics:

• “Preventable work related injuries and illnesses … are unacceptably high. Furthermore, the true incidence of these conditions is far higher than reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
• OSHA enforcement does not appear to be effective in further reducing injury rates. …  Statistical analyses indicate that (any reported) decrease can be attributable to changes in OSHA recordkeeping rules.
• “For most hazardous chemicals, OSHA’s standards are either inadequate or totally absent. One could write a book about the hazards that OSHA has failed to regulate adequately.”
• “The primary blame (for OSHA’s failure to issue appropriate health standards) rests in a system that makes OSHA standard setting inordinately difficult and resource-intensive.”
• “OSHA has abandoned the general duty clause. It is time for the agency to start using it again.”
• “Ergonomic injuries cost employers $15-20 billion annually in workers’ compensation costs alone, yet this number one workplace safety and health problem is not even mentioned on OSHA’s most recent regulatory agenda.”
• “OSHA doesn’t have the staff to work on more than one or two standards at a time, and … each standard takes years to complete. Unless things change radically, only a handful of the thousands of chemicals in daily use in American workplaces will ever be the subject of an OSHA standard.”

There’s no question that OSHA will change radically if Michaels is approved by the Senate and moves his agenda forward — an aggressive approach that Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and interim OSHA head Jordan Barab appear to have already set in motion.

Do you expect OSHA to make your job tougher in the coming years? Tell us what you think in the Comment Box below.

When it comes to interpreting exactly what OSHA requires of employers, your peers often go directly to the source to find out.

In fact, OSHA keeps track of the top safety and health topic questions it receives.

The agency keeps two lists depending on how it receives the questions: by e-mail or phone.

Eight topics appear on both lists.

The following were the top 10 topics raised via e-mail questions handled by OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs in March 2009, followed by the pertinent standard and the topic’s corresponding position on the phone list:

1. Powered industrial trucks (1910.178, #3)
2. Sanitation (1910.141, #4)
3. Hazard communication (1910.1200, #2)
4. Bloodborne pathogens (1910.1030, #1)
5. Personal protective equipment, general requirements (1910.132, #5)
6. Medical services and first aid (1910.151, #6)
7. Ergonomics (no OSHA standard, not on phone list)
8. Electrical, general requirements (1910.303, not on phone list)
9. Respiratory protection (1910.134, #8)
10. Air contaminants (1910.1000, #7).

The two questions in the top-10 list of questions received by phone that aren’t on the e-mail list are about indoor air quality (no OSHA standard) and permit-required confined spaces (1910.146).

We’d like to hear from you on this topic. Which OSHA standard drives you crazy? Which one is the most difficult to understand? Have you ever sought advice from any sources on a standard? Let us know in the Comments Box below.