OSHA watch (part 2)

Heat illness prevention

new video on heat hazard recognition and prevention is available.

Cal/OSHA issued a news release reminding employers to protect outdoor workers from heat illness.

Construction safety

A virtual stand-down to prevent struck-by incidents in construction is now available to view.

Recent fines and awards

Florida

  • Jax Utilities Management Inc. was cited for exposing employees to cave-in hazards at a Jacksonville worksite. Inspected as part of the National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation, the construction contractor faces $56,405 in penalties.
  • Two contractors, Prestige Estates Property Management LLC of North Miami and Jesus Balbuena of Miami, face $44,146 in penalties for failure to protect employees from fall hazards at a construction worksite in North Miami. The investigation followed an employee’s 20-foot fall from an aerial lift that led to fatal injuries.
  • Flat Glass Distributors Inc. was cited for exposing employees to unguarded machinery, failure to implement and have a written lockout/tagout program, and electrical hazards at the Jacksonville fabrication and distribution facility. Inspected as part of the National Emphasis Program on Amputations, the custom glass shaping and cutting distributor faces $121,446 in penalties.
  • Crown Roofing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at a residential worksite in Tamarac. The Sarasota-based contractor faces penalties of $134,937. The inspection was initiated under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction after inspectors observed employees working on roofs without fall protection.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA changes course again on recording of COVID-19 cases and increases onsite inspections

OSHA’s shifting guidance has employers’ heads spinning. For the third time since the onset of the pandemic, OSHA has issued guidance about recording COVID-19 cases. In March, it sent a memo reminding employers that COVID-19 diagnoses are recordable events, but in April it backtracked, significantly limiting the reporting requirements. Specifically, only cases related to health care workers, first responders, and correctional institution employees had to be recorded. All other employers were exempt except in cases in which “objective evidence” existed that a COVID-19 infection was work-related or the evidence was “reasonably available” to the employer.

New guidance announced on May 19 overrides the April guidance.Essentially, the new guidance requires an individualized work-relatedness analysis for all industries.

Effective May 26, COVID-19 cases are recordable if the illness is confirmed as COVID-19, the illness is work-related as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5 and the case involves at least one of the general recording criteria listed in 29 CFR 1904.7. The criteria include death, days away from work, medical treatment “beyond first aid,” loss of consciousness, and restricted work or transfer to another job. The revised enforcement policy directs that employers “make reasonable efforts” to investigate confirmed cases of coronavirus in the workplace to determine if they were more likely than not work-related.

Recognizing employee privacy concerns, OSHA indicates that employers are “not expected to undertake extensive medical inquiries” and may rely only “on the information reasonably available to the employer at the time it made its work-relatedness determination.” According to Conn Maciel Carey LLP, an OSHA/MSHA Workplace Safety, Labor and Employment Boutique Law Firm, it will be sufficient in most cases for employers to:

  1. Ask the employee how he believes he contracted the COVID-19 illness
  2. Discuss with the employee his work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness; and
  3. Review the employee’s work environment for potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure (which should be informed by any other instances of workers in that environment contracting COVID-19 illness).

During the investigations, employers need to consider workers’ privacy and refrain from disclosing the names of those who have tested positive for the virus to others in the workplace and should document all aspects of the investigation. OSHA notes, “If, after the reasonable and good faith inquiry described above, the employer cannot determine whether it is more likely than not that exposure in the workplace played a causal role with respect to a particular case of COVID-19, the employer does not need to record that COVID-19 illness.”

To assist employers in identifying work-relatedness, OSHA describes the types of evidence that may weigh in favor of or against work-relatedness. For instance, OSHA says, COVID-19 illnesses “are likely work-related” if:

  • Several cases develop among workers who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation;
  • The illness is contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation; and
  • Job duties include having frequent, close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission and there is no alternative explanation.

The guidance also indicates that an employee’s COVID-19 illness likely is NOT work-related if:

  • Only one worker in a general vicinity in the workplace contracts COVID-19;
  • Job duties do not include having frequent contact with the general public, regardless of the rate of community spread;
  • Outside the workplace, the infected employee associates closely and frequently with a non-coworker (e.g., a family member, significant other, or close friend) who has COVID-19.

As Conn Maciel Carey LLP points out, the biggest differences between the April 10 guidance and the May 19 guidance are:

  1. There is no exemption from conducting case-by-case work relatedness analyses for medium and low-risk exposure workplaces; and
  2. The new memo expands the examples of the type of objective evidence of likely work-relatedness from just a cluster of positive cases, to also include cases where someone contracts the illness after a lengthy exposure at work or has job duties that involve frequent, close exposure to the general public.

The firm also notes the importance of the term “no alternative explanation.” Where there is widespread community spread, it is important to document if an employee acknowledges such interactions away from work.

When determining whether an employer has complied with the revised policy, OSHA instructs compliance officers in a memo issued the same day to apply these considerations:

  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation into whether the COVID-19 case was work-related
  • The evidence available to the employer
  • The evidence that COVID-19 was contracted at work

Consistent with existing regulations, employers with no more than 10 employees and certain employers in “low-hazard industries” do not have an obligation to report COVID-19 cases unless a work-related illness results in death, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.

It is important to remember that even if a COVID-19 is recordable, it does not mean that it will be compensated by workers’ comp. OSHA recordability does not impact workers’ comp determinations and vice versa.

What employers should do now

For employers to prove a reasonable and full faith inquiry, Dustin Boss, a fellow Certified WorkComp Advisor offers this advice:

  • Implement preventive measures and methods for contact tracing as employees return to the workplace
  • Develop procedures to respect employee privacy during investigation into work-relatedness of a confirmed case of COVID-19
  • Update 2020 OSHA records and retrain staff members responsible for tracking injuries (if late, submit 2019 data which was due March 2)
  • Focus on minimizing the risk of transmission in the workplace and develop procedures to investigate the circumstances surrounding employees who test positive for COVID-19

Beyond the recording requirements, employers are exposed to the possibility of OSHA citations. As the fear of contracting the novel coronavirus permeates the workplace, thousands of employees have complained to OSHA regarding the insufficiency of their employers’ protection against COVID-19. In the same news release announcing the new enforcement guidelines, OSHA announced that it is increasing in-person inspections at all types of workplaces. “The new enforcement guidance reflects changing circumstances in which many non-critical businesses have begun to reopen in areas of lower community spread. The risk of transmission is lower in specific categories of workplaces, and personal protective equipment potentially needed for inspections is more widely available. OSHA staff will continue to prioritize COVID-19 inspections, and will utilize all enforcement tools as OSHA has historically done.”

Boss points out that enforcement of COVID-19 issues falls under the catch-all General Duty Clause that employers will provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious harm to his employees. He notes that citations for COVID-19 exposure will rely on guidance the employer did not meet, including OSHA’s.

Both OSHA and the CDC recommend employers adopt exposure control plans. (see post for more detail)

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Citation penalties increase for inflation

Effective January 15, the DOL increased civil penalty amounts for violations to adjust for inflation by 1.01764%. Here are the new maximum penalties:

Type of Violation Penalty Minimum Penalty Maximum
Serious $964 per violation $13,494 per violation
Other-than-Serious $0 per violation $13,494 per violation
Willful or Repeated $9,639 per violation $134,937 per violation
Posting Requirements $0 per violation $13,494 per violation
Failure to Abate N/A $13,494 per day unabated beyond the abatement date (generally limited to 30 days)

Coronavirus resource

An online resource on a new coronavirus outbreak that includes a link to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention interim guidance, quick facts about the outbreak, and information on preventing exposures is available.

Letter of interpretation addresses headphones in workplace

Although there is no specific regulation that prohibits the use of headphones on a construction site or any other workplace, there are permissible noise exposure limits under the Hearing Protection standard and employers must protect employees subject to sound levels exceeding these limits. While the letter acknowledges that some manufacturers promote their products as “OSHA-approved” or “OSHA-compliant,” these are misleading as the agency does not register, certify, approve, or otherwise endorse commercial or private sector entities, products, or services. It further cautions that the use of headphones may produce a safety hazard by masking environmental sounds that need to be heard and it is the employer’s responsibility to protect workers from such hazards.

Earthquake safety resource

A new Earthquake Hazard Alert focuses on keeping emergency response workers safe.

Recent fines and awards

California

  • In Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, the Court of Appeals, 5th District in Fresno unanimously affirmed citations for four serious violations, although the file prepared by the Cal/OSHA office on the day of the inspection was later taken during a car burglary. The company had argued it did not consent to an inspection, the lack of the original inspection file amounted to spoliation and denied the company due process, and the violations were improperly classified as serious.

Georgia

  • In Packers Sanitation Services Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta unanimously upheld an administrative law judge’s finding that the company failed to protect its employees from dangerous machinery.

Florida

  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has found a Jacksonville-based roofing contractor, Travis Slaughter owner of Great White Construction Inc. and Florida Roofing Experts Inc, in contempt for failing to pay $2,202,049 in penalties. The court ordered the companies and Slaughter to pay the outstanding penalties of $2,202,049 plus interest and fees, and required them to certify that they had corrected the violations within 10 days of the court’s order. If the companies and Slaughter fail to comply, they face coercive sanctions, including incarceration and other relief the court deems proper.
  • In addition to the above, Florida Roofing Experts Inc. was cited for failing to protect workers from falls at two work sites in Fleming Island and one in Middleburg. Roofing Experts Inc. faces penalties totaling $1,007,717.
  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, CJM Roofing Inc., based in West Palm, was cited for exposing employees to fall and other hazards at three residential worksites in Royal Palm Beach and Port St. Lucie. The contractor faces penalties totaling $291,724.
  • An employee of Shooting Gallery Range Inc. in Orlando will receive $30,000 in back pay and compensatory damages under a whistleblower settlement. The employee alleged he was fired for reporting safety concerns relating to lead exposure.

Illinois

  • Goose Lake Construction Inc. was cited after an employee suffered serious injuries when an unprotected trench collapsed, burying him up to his waist at a Glencoe, worksite. Proposed penalties are $233,377.

Massachusetts

  • National retailer, Target Corp., was cited for emergency exit access hazards at stores in Danvers and Framingham and faces a total of $227,304 in penalties.

Pennsylvania

  • Webb Contractor Corp. was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at three separate worksites in the Lehigh Valley area. Inspected after a compliance officer observed employees performing residential roofing work without protection, the roofing contractor, based in Bala Cynwyd, faces $605,371 in penalties.
  • Metarko Excavating LLC was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards at a Cranberry Township worksite. The company faces $59,311 in penalties.
  • Philadelphia Energy Solutions was cited for serious violations of safety and health hazards related to process safety management (PSM) following a fire and subsequent explosions at the company’s Girard Point Refinery Complex in Philadelphia. The company faces $132,600 in penalties.

Wisconsin

  • Milwaukee Valve Company Inc., based in Prairie du Sac, was cited for exposing employees to lead and copper dust at rates higher than the permissible exposure levels. Proposed penalties are $171,628.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA: A review and look ahead

Unlike other agencies, such as the EPA, OSHA has not experienced the scale back in enforcement and rulemaking that was expected under the Trump administration. Most attribute this to the fact that there is still no Assistant Secretary of Labor – the longest vacancy ever for the top job at OSHA. Given the present political climate and election year activity, few expect the position to be filled during this final year of President Trump’s first term.

In addition, two vacancies on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) meant that it could not issue decisions since March 28, 2019, because it did not have a quorum. However, it can now resume its work because the Senate confirmed Cynthia Attwood and Amanda Wood Laihow by voice vote Jan. 9, 2020.

What’s been unexpected?

  • No reduction in enforcement emphasis programs. OSHA continues to implement the same number of national (NEP) and regional (REP) emphasis programs as under the Obama administration.
  • Number of inspections has increased. While the number of compliance officers (CSHO) is lower, the number of inspections in 2019 was 33,401, compared to 31,948 in 2016. Although this means the average CSHO’s hours per inspection is lower, it demonstrates a continued commitment to enforcement.
  • Average penalty per serious violation increased dramatically. Under $1,000 in 2009, the average penalty per serious violence reached a high of $5,232 in 2019.*
  • Records for the number of $100,000 penalty cases. In the first year of the Trump administration, there was a record-setting 218 cases with penalties of over $100,000. Last year it was 179 and the three years average is 199 cases, compared to a high of 202 cases in 2011 and an average of 168 cases under the Obama administration.*
  • Little change in the percentage of inspections that result in a serious, willful, or repeat violation. If an employer gets a knock on the door, there’s a very good chance that at least one serious, willful, or repeat violation will be issued. For the past two years, only 28% of inspections closed as “in compliance.” For those that were not in compliance, 87% had at least one serious, willful, or repeat violation in 2017 and 2018 and 86% in 2019.*
  • No let-up on repeat violations. Under the Obama administration, there were significant changes that increased the likelihood of a repeat violation. Workplaces in a corporate family were no longer treated as independent establishments, but as one workplace; in the guidance document, the Federal Operations Manual, the look back period was extended from 3 to 5 years, and there was proactive targeting of past violators for inspections. These practices have not changed. In fact, in 2018 OSHA successfully defended the case, Triumph Construction Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that OSHA is not bound by any look-back period on which to base a repeat violation, a significant expansion of the scope of repeat classifications.

    However, there was one bright spot for employers. In July 2018, the OSHRC issued its decision in Secretary of Labor v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc., providing employers guidance on rebutting repeat violations and clarifying the defenses that employers may have in combating repeat violations. Although the violations involved the same standards of LOTO and confined spaces, the OSHRC found that they were not “substantially similar” because the original violations involved wholesale deficiencies and the company had taken significant abatement actions, and therefore, the conditions differed. OSHA, however, remains committed to repeat violation enforcement, and the case is on appeal to the Second Circuit.

  • Increases in budget. Typically under a Republican administration there are budget cuts to limit enforcement, yet the budget has been increased twice with a 4% increase for FY20, including the enforcement category.
  • Penalties keep rising. Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the maximum allowable penalty amount for OSHA violations is adjusted annually. The latest increase occurred on Jan. 15, 2020. The maximum penalty for “willful” or “repeat” violations is now $134,937 and the maximum fine for serious, other-than-serious, failure-to-correct (per day), and posting-requirement violations increase is $13,494.
  • Criminal prosecutions continue. Two Department of Justice (DOJ) memos that expanded worker safety criminal prosecutions issued by former AG Sally Yates continue to be enforced by AG William Barr. The first relates to individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing and the second encourages the DOJ to use other environmental laws with more teeth and longer statute of limitations to prosecute worker safety crimes.
  • Site Specific Targeting Plan implemented. In Oct 2018, OSHA initiated the Site-Specific Targeting 2016 inspection program (SST-16) that uses the injury and illness data electronically submitted by employers in 2016. These are tough wall-to-wall inspections. The SST list includes 3,000 establishments and 1,000 inspections have already been conducted.*

Scale back in rules and public shaming

  • The first significant deregulation action was the overturning of the Volks rule by Congress under the Congressional Review Act in 2017. The Volks rule gave OSHA the ability to issue citations to employers for failing to record work-related injuries and illnesses during the 5-year retention period.
  • There also was a scale back of the e-recordkeeping rule, adopted in January 2019, that eliminated the requirement for the largest establishments (250+ employees) to annually submit electronically 300 Logs and 301 Incident Reports. However, the rule did not roll back as many provisions as expected, notably the anti-retaliation provision and public reporting concerns.
  • There has been a slowdown in rulemaking. Some rules moved to “long term actions,” including the Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard, Drug Testing Program and Safety Incentive Rules, and Combustible Dust.
  • There’s been a significant decrease in the number of enforcement press releases issued by OSHA, which can be inflammatory and issued before employers have an opportunity to respond. In 2019, 176 press releases were issued, compared with an average of 463 per year under the Obama administration.* However, the tone hasn’t reverted to the factual reporting of the Bush administration but has remained aggressive.

A look ahead

Inspections

It is projected that the number of inspections will remain steady or rise slightly as the budget includes funding for an additional 26 FTE CSHOs and five FTE whistleblower investigators. Expect to see an aggressive continuation of the SST-16 program that targets non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees with elevated Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate, together with a random sample of low-rate establishments and those that did not submit the required electronic data.

The top four priorities are investigation of imminent danger, fatality and catastrophe investigations, response to complaints, and programmed inspections, such as SST and emphasis programs. In Oct. 2019, for the first time since 2015, OSHA changed the weighting system it uses for inspections:

  • Group A, criminal and significant cases (those where fines total more than $180,000): 7 Enforcement Units (EUs)
  • Group B, fatalities and catastrophes (hospitalization, amputation, physical loss of an eye), chemical plant National Emphasis Program, process safety management inspections: 5 EUs
  • Group C, the “fatal four” – caught-in, electrical, fall and struck-by hazards: 3 EUs (expect an uptick in construction industry inspections under this group)
  • Group D, priority hazards: amputation, combustible dust, heat, non-PEL overexposures, workplace violence, permit-required confined space, air contaminants, noise, and site-specific targeting: 2 EUs
  • Group E: everything else: 1 EU.

With these priorities, employers can expect to see more six-figure penalties.

Rulemaking

  • LOTO. Many employers were relieved when the term “unexpected energization” was not removed from the LOTO standard as proposed; however, OSHA left open the door to remove it in the future. In May 2019, the agency issued an RFI seeking input on control circuit type devices and robotics, but to date, OSHA has not provided updates on rulemaking action. There has been an uptick in requests for variances from businesses to consider safe robotic systems as energy-isolating devices. This is an opportunity to change the standard beneficially to reflect technological advances and bears watching.
  • Silica rule. The silica standard requires that medical surveillance must be offered to employees who will be exposed at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year starting on June 23, 2020. Employers with silica present need to document objective data that they do not have exposures at or above the action level under any circumstances.

    It’s anticipated that the recently requested feedback on expanding table 1 of the standard will result in additional engineering and work practice control methods that effectively limit silica exposure for the tasks and equipment currently listed in the table.

  • Beryllium. The compliance date for ancillary provisions in the beryllium standards for construction and shipyards is September 30, 2020. Enforcement of the engineering controls in the general industry standard starts March 10, 2020.
  • Workplace violence. OSHA plans to initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act review panel that will begin an effort to create a standard designed to address workplace violence in the healthcare and social services industries.
  • Other. Other possible new rulemakings will deal with powered industrial trucks, walking-working surfaces rule to clarify its requirements for stair rail systems, cranes and derricks in construction, communication tower safety, welding in construction confined spaces, occupational exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds in construction and shipyard sectors, and updates to the Hazard Communication Standard.

*Conn Maciel Carey webinar, Annual OSHA Update: 2019 in Review and 2020 Forecast

Note: The information above applies to OSHA in federally mandated states. If you are located in a state where a state agency enforces the OSH Act, the information may differ.

 

OSHA watch

Inspections increase in FY 2019

In FY 2019, which ended September 30, 33,401 inspections were conducted. This is more inspections than in each of the previous 3 years – 32,023 in FY 2018, 32,408 in FY 2017, and 31,948 in FY 2016. The agency also provided a record 1,392,611 workers with training on safety and health requirements through its various education programs.

CIC certifications no longer accepted

Certifications issued by Sanford, Florida-based Crane Institute of America Certification LLC (CIC) for crane operators engaged in construction activities are no longer valid because the CIC is no longer considered a nationally recognized accrediting agency. Employers will not be cited for work performed by crane operators holding CIC-issued certifications obtained before Dec. 2, 2019, if those crane operators acquired the certification with the good faith belief that it met government standards. However, CIC certifications or re-certifications issued on or after Dec. 2, 2019 are not acceptable.

Minor corrections and clarifications to Walking-Working Surfaces regulations published

notice published in the Federal Register corrects minor errors and clarifies requirements in the Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment standards.

Update to NEP on amputation hazards in manufacturing

Updated guidance was issued for Compliance Safety and Health Officers conducting inspections in manufacturing facilities that could potentially have incidents involving amputations. There is a new method for targeting industries that involves using amputation reports submitted by employers as well as Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) incident and amputation rate data. The 75 NAICS codes covered under the National Emphasis Program (NEP) can be found in Appendix B of the compliance directive.

There will be a 90-day outreach program offered to employees.

Recent fines and awards

Florida

  • Garabar Inc., based in Lake Worth, was cited for exposing employees to fall and eye hazards at a worksite in Royal Palm Beach. The roofing contractor faces $64,974 in penalties. The inspection was conducted under the REP for Falls in Construction.
  • Action Roofing Services Inc., based in Pompano Beach, was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at Palm Beach Gardens and Port Saint Lucie worksites. Inspected under the REP for Falls in Construction, the roofing contractor faces $146,280 in penalties.

Georgia

  • Kittrich Corp., operating as Avenger Products LLC, was cited for exposing employees to amputation, fire, and electrical hazards at the company’s Gainesville facility. The pesticide and agricultural chemical manufacturer faces $90,801 in penalties for lockout/tagout violations, improper storage of chemicals, failure to update and give employees access to safety data sheets, and more.
  • Wright Metal Products Crates LLC, based in South Bend, Indiana, and operating as WMP Crates was cited for exposing employees to amputation, chemical and other safety hazards at a worksite in Lavonia. Inspected under the NEP on Amputations and the REP for Powered Industrial Trucks, the company faces $195,034 in penalties.
  • Mavis Southeast LLC, operating as Mavis Discount Tire, was cited for exposing employees to fall, struck-by and other hazards at the company’s distribution facility in Buford and faces $191,895 in penalties.

Massachusetts

  • United Parcel Service Inc. was cited for exposing employees to multiple hazards including exit access, fire, and electrical at the shipping and delivery facility in Vineyard Haven. The company faces $431,517 in penalties for four repeated and seven serious safety violations.

Missouri

  • Martin Davila, operating as Davila Construction, was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at job sites in Wentzville, Grover, and St. Louis. The residential roofing company faces $205,098 in proposed penalties.

New York

  • Frazer & Jones Company Inc. was cited for 33 workplace health and safety violations at the manufacturer’s Solvay iron foundry. The company faces $460,316 in penalties for multiple violations, including exposing employees to crystalline silica, iron oxide, combustible dust, falls, struck-by and caught-between hazards, unsafe work floors and walking surfaces, inadequate respiratory protection and more.
  • A whistleblower investigation found that Bouchard Transportation Company Inc., B. No. 272 Corp, a petroleum barge company based in Melville, and its officers violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA) when it retaliated against a seaman who cooperated with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

Pennsylvania

  • Dana Railcare, based in Wilmington, Delaware, was cited for confined space hazards after an employee asphyxiated while servicing a rail car containing crude oil sludge in Pittston. The railcar service provider faces $551,226 in proposed penalties and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

Wisconsin

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a citation of $2,800 against Guaranteed Home Improvements LLC after a worker was seriously injured in a ladder fall for using the ladder in icy and slippery conditions and failing to secure it to prevent accidental displacement. There was, however, an issue of fact regarding the side rails of the ladder, and the second citation of $2,884 was vacated.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

New video explains inspection process

new video explains the OSHA inspection process.

New fact sheet on taxi driver safety

A new fact sheet focuses on keeping taxi drivers safe.

Input sought on safety training

Public input on how to improve access to online classes through the Outreach Training Program can be given here.

Recent fines and awards

Florida

  • Westwind Contracting Inc. was cited for exposing employees to excavation and confined spaces hazards after a worker drowned when water and mud-filled a catch basin in which the employee was working at a Pembroke Pines worksite. The contractor faces $185,239 in penalties.
  • Two commercial and residential roofing companies, Cruz Enterprises & Construction LLC based in Dover and Intex Builders LLC based in Tampa, were cited for exposing employees to struck-by and fall hazards at a Greenacres worksite. Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction, the companies face a combined $83,348 in penalties.

Georgia

  • Discount retailer Dollar Tree Stores Inc. was cited for exposing employees to safety hazards, at its store on Atlanta Highway in Athens. The company faces $125,026 in proposed penalties for exposing employees to struck-by, trip and fall hazards by failing to keep passageways and walking surfaces in a clean, orderly and sanitary condition and for not maintaining access to portable fire extinguishers.

Illinois

  • AB Specialty Silicones LLC was cited for 12 willful federal safety violations after four employees suffered fatal injuries in an explosion and fire at the company’s Waukegan plant. The company faces $1,591,176 in penalties and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Citations included failure to ensure that electrical equipment and installations in the production area of the plant complied with electrical standards and were approved for hazardous locations. The company also used forklifts powered by liquid propane to transport volatile flammable liquids and operated these forklifts in areas where employees handled and processed volatile flammable liquids and gases, creating the potential for ignition.

Massachusetts

  • A petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit asks that The Roof Kings LLC and its owner, Craig Galligan, be held in civil contempt for not fulfilling the terms of an order issued by the court in 2018. It also asks that The Roof Kings LLC provide written certification that they have abated the 32 cited violations affirmed in the settlement agreement, and pay overdue penalties of $206,090 plus interest, within 20 days.

Missouri

  • A food flavoring company, Kerry Inc., was cited for failing to provide fall protection to employees working in the company’s facility in Greenville after an employee fatally fell while trying to extinguish a fire at the plant. The company faces $223,525 in penalties for one willful and eight serious safety violations and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

Nebraska

  • Smith Mountain Investments LLC of Anson, Maine was cited for two serious safety and health violations for failing to protect workers from hazards associated with heavy physical activity in extreme heat conditions after a heat-related fatality at a jobsite in Inman. The utility pole inspection company faces $18,564 in penalties.

New York

  • The Dollar Tree Stores Inc. was cited for unsafe storage of material, obstructed exit routes and blocked electrical panels at the discount retailer’s Elmira location. The company has been cited several times at other locations and the citations, totaling $208,368, include three repeat violations.
  • Citations against Countryside Tree Service arising from a fatality where an employee was pulled into a wood chipper on his first day on the job at a Schenectady worksite were affirmed by an administrative law judge. Penalties are $66,986.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com