OSHA watch

Anti-retaliation provisions of electronic record-keeping rule survives employer challenge

An Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) administrative law judge’s decision to reject two defenses offered by the U.S. Postal Service to a citation preserves the controversial anti-retaliation provisions under its electronic record-keeping rule. The USPS allegedly issued a seven-day working suspension to a carrier because he reported a work-related injury. The USPS argued that the alleged standard and/or penalties were invalid because they were beyond the legal power or authority of OSHA and/or were arbitrary and capricious.

Process Safety Management standard extended beyond hazardous chemicals in ruling

Legal experts warn that a recent OSHRC ruling regarding safety violations in a deadly oil refinery explosion in 2012 could have wider implications for companies dealing with highly hazardous chemicals. OSHRC affirmed 12 violations of Process Safety Management standard by Wynnewood Refining Co, which argued the PSM was never intended to include processes that do not manage such chemicals – such as the steam boiler involved.

Prior to this ruling, it was widely understood that utilities unrelated to the manufacturing process were not included in the requirements for PSM. Experts say it is unclear how far the standard extends now.

Social media campaign to educate young workers

#MySafeSummerJob, a social media campaign to educate young workers about their rights in the workplace, how to speak up about dangerous work conditions, and how to protect themselves on the job, was launched in concert with several worker safety organizations. From April 15 through May 17 outreach will promote safety among young workers. Check out materials and ideas at the #MySafeSummerJob website.

Regional construction safety campaign shifts focus to falls

In concert with the Mid-Atlantic Construction Safety Council, a four-month campaign was launched to address the four leading causes of fatal injuries in construction. In March, the campaign focused on electrical hazards, and during April the emphasis was on struck-by hazards. This month is falls, and caught-in / between hazards will be the focus in June. The campaign serves employers and employees in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Email OSHA-Focus4-Region3@dol.gov for more information.

OSHRC finalizes revisions to its procedural rules

The OSHRC has finalized what it calls “comprehensive” revisions to its procedural rules, in part to reflect technological advances. Slated to take effect June 10, the changes include mandatory electronic filing for “represented” parties and a new method intended to streamline calculating time periods.

Proposal to watch: joint employer revisions

The Department of Labor announced a proposal to “revise and clarify” the issue of joint employers. The department is proposing a four-factor test “based on well-established precedent” that would consider whether the potential joint employer actually exercises the power to hire or fire the employee; supervise and control the employee’s work schedules or conditions of employment; determine the employee’s rate and method of payment; and maintain the employee’s employment records.

The proposal could differ from the interpretations put forth by other federal agencies and would not nullify regulations promulgated by individual states that have different standards.

The public has 60 days from April 1 to comment on the proposal.

Webpage on radiation emergency preparedness and response launched

A webpage intended to educate workers about how to protect themselves in radiation-related situations ranging from a small, isolated spill in a laboratory to a potentially catastrophic release at a nuclear facility is now live. The Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response webpage provides resources on health and safety planning, medical monitoring and dosimetry, and other relevant topics for workers “who may be impacted by radiation emergencies” or “who may be involved in emergency response operations or related activities.”

Cal/OSHA proposing to re-adopt emergency rules for e-filing injury reports

Emergency rules were adopted Nov. 1, 2018 and the re-adoption would give additional time to proceed with regular rulemaking on a permanent basis. In addition to requiring electronic reporting for companies with at least 250 workers, the rules require businesses with 20 to 249 employees in industries such as construction, manufacturing and agriculture to electronically file injury logs.

A notice for proposed permanent rules is expected to be published by May 10.

MIOSHA launches emphasis program on roadway accident

The state emphasis program on roadway accidents will run through December 31, 2019 and is intended to increase the priority of inspections related to construction roadway safety and initiate inspections upon observing a roadway project with workers present.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Cal North Farm Labor Inc., a farm labor contractor and Crain Walnut Shelling Inc. face more than $100,000 combined in proposed penalties after a worker was fatally crushed by a bin dumper at a walnut processing and packing facility in Los Molinos.
  • Staffing agency Priority Workforce Inc. and JSL Foods Inc., a maker and distributor of pasta and baked goods face more than $300,000 in fines for serious citations after a temporary worker lost two fingers cleaning machinery at a Los Angeles food manufacturing facility.
  • Accurate Comfort Systems Inc. received four citations and faces $75,750 in penalties after a worker suffered serious injuries in a fall from a ladder on a 12-foot-high work area.

Florida

  • Inspected as part of the Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction, Florida Roofing Experts, Inc. faces $132,598 in fines after inspectors observed workers performing residential roofing activities without fall protection.

Georgia

  • Investigated under the National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation, Riverside Military Academy Inc., a military college preparatory academy in Gainesville, was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards, faces $381,882 in penalties, and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Citations included allowing employees to work inside a trench without cave-in protection and a safe means to enter and exit the excavation, and failing to locate underground utilities prior to work.
  • Specialty chemical manufacturer, Plaze Aeroscience, operating as Plaze GA, was cited for exposing employees to fire and burn hazards at the company’s facility in Dalton and faces $107,164 in penalties.

Michigan

  • Mt. Clemens-based Powder Cote II received seven citations and faces $65,000 in penalties for failing to provide fall protection or guardrail systems, guard rotating shafts and machinery, and failing to control the startup of machinery during maintenance.

New York

  • Remington Arms, LLC, based in Madison, North Carolina was cited for 27 violations of workplace safety and health standards and faces $210,132 in penalties after a worker’s fingertip was amputated while using an unguarded metalworking machine at its Ilion manufacturing plant.

Pennsylvania

  • Framing contractor, Navy Contractors, Inc. was cited for willfully exposing employees to fall hazards at residential construction sites in Royersford, Collegeville, and Center Valley after inspections saw employees working without fall protection. The company faces $603,850 in penalties.
  • A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District has found that Lloyd Industries Inc., a manufacturing company based in Montgomeryville, and its owner William P. Lloyd unlawfully terminated two employees because of their involvement in a safety investigation. Damages will be determined in phase 2 of the trial.
  • A jury has concurred with the findings of a whistleblower investigation and awarded $40,000 for lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages to a former employee of Fairmount Foundry Inc. The employee claimed that the Hamburg iron-casting company terminated him for reporting alleged safety and health hazards.
  • New Jersey contractor, Brutus Construction, Inc. was cited for exposing workers to fall hazards at a Souderton residential construction site. Inspectors saw employees working on roofs without fall protection and the company faces nearly $182,000 in penalties.

Wisconsin

  • A follow-up inspection revealed that Beloit-based Avid Pallet Services, LLC, failed to correct violations related to wood dust and respiratory hazards. The company faces penalties of $188,302.

For additional information.

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

Ten most dangerous jobs

Going by the sheer number of on-the-job deaths, the truck drivers and sales drivers classification was by far the most dangerous, accounting for nearly 1,000 (987) deaths in 2017. However, the chances of a fatality are much higher in specific industries when the fatal work injury rate, calculated per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, is used. According to a recent report in EHS Today, the ten most dangerous jobs of 2019 are:

No. 1 – Fishers and related fishing workers

Moving up from number 2 to become the most dangerous profession, fishers and related fishing workers experienced 41 fatalities in 2017, an increase of almost 58% from 2016. The fatality rate was 99.7 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers. Risks: drowning, struck by lightning, crushed by equipment.

No. 2 – Loggers

Falling from the most-dangerous profession to number 2, loggers experienced 55 fatalities, a drop of almost 65% from 91 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 84.3. Risks: falls, struck-by, dangerous tools such as chainsaws and axes.

No. 3 – Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Pilots and flight engineers experienced 59 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 58.6, a drop from 2016. Risks: crashes.

No. 4 – Roofers

Roofers experienced 91 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 45.2, slightly lower than in 2016. Risks: falls, struck-by, and heat.

No. 5 – Refuse and recyclable material collectors

Refuse and recyclable material collectors experienced 30 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 35.0, very similar to 2016. Risks: dangerous machinery, crushed by equipment, struck-by, traffic accidents, struck by vehicle.

No. 6 – Structural iron and steel workers

Steel and ironworkers experienced 14 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 33.4, a slight decrease from 2016. Risks: falls, struck-by, heat, crushed by materials.

No. 7 – Truck drivers and other drivers

Employees who drive for work – including truck drivers – experienced 987 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 26.8 out of 100,000 workers, which was higher than in 2016. Risks: traffic accidents, struck by vehicle, other drivers, construction zones, sleep deprivation, texting/talking while driving.

No. 8 – Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers

Agricultural workers experienced 258 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 24.0 out of 100,000 workers, very similar to 2016. Risks: dangerous machinery, chemicals, heat.

No. 9 – Grounds maintenance workers

Grounds maintenance workers experienced 244 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 21.0, a decline from 2016. Risks: heat, cold, noise, chemical exposure, ergonomics-related issues, machinery.

No. 10 – Electrical power-line installers and repairers

New to the list, electrical power-line installers and repairers experienced 26 fatalities for a fatality rate of 18.7. Risks: electrocution, falls to a lower level, transportation incidents.

Supervisors of construction workers (which ranked at #9 last year), fell off the list of the top 10.

Other key findings:

  • There were a total of 5,147 fatal work injuries recorded in the United States in 2017, down slightly from the 5,190 that were registered in 2016.
  • Fatal falls were at their highest level in the 26-year history of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), accounting for 887 (17 percent) worker deaths.
  • Transportation incidents remained the most frequent fatal event in 2017 with 2,077 (40 percent) occupational fatalities.
  • Violence and other injuries by persons or animals decreased 7 percent in 2017 with homicides and suicides decreasing by 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively.
  • Unintentional overdoses due to non-medical use of drugs or alcohol while at work increased 25 percent from 217 in 2016 to 272 in 2017. This was the fifth consecutive year in which unintentional workplace overdose deaths have increased by at least 25 percent.
  • Fatal occupational injuries involving confined spaces rose 15 percent to 166 in 2017 from 144 in 2016.
  • Crane-related workplace fatalities fell to their lowest level ever recorded in CFOI, 33 deaths in 2017.
  • Fifteen percent of the fatally-injured workers in 2017 were age 65 or over – a series high. In 1992, the first year CFOI published national data, that figure was 8 percent. These workers also had a higher fatality rate than other age groups in 2017.

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

Employee behavior and heat-related illness: 5 problem-solutions

Educational campaigns and accessible resources coupled with technology and meteorology precision have made it possible for employers to provide site-specific weather information and the proper resources and training for employees to combat the risk of heat exposures. Tools such as OSHA’s heat index app calculate the heat index for the worksite, display a risk level for workers, and provide reminders about the protective measures that should be taken at that risk level.

Yet, every year thousands of workers suffer from heat illness and some die. Why?

In some cases, it’s organizational factors such as indifferent or callous supervision, poor workplace conditions, and unrealistic production expectations, which reflect the company’s overarching culture. Yet, many employers are proactive and do an excellent job in training employees and implementing procedures to prevent heat stress that aren’t followed by some employees.

Here are five problem-solutions related to employee behavior and heat stress:

  1. Problem: Risk perceptionSome employees simply underestimate how serious heat illness can be. They’ve worked in the heat before without incident – been there, done that – can’t happen to them. Moreover, the symptoms of heat illness can be subtle and misinterpreted as mere annoyances rather than signs of a serious health issue.

    That’s why the American Society of Safety Engineers calls heat the “unseen danger” at construction sites. If a heat rash appears or a cramp develops, workers can dismiss them as an inconvenience and continue working without applying a powder or getting water or a sports drink. Even signs of heat exhaustion such as thirst, heavy sweating, headache, nausea, dizziness, and irritability can be interpreted as being tired from working in the sun.

    Potential solutions: Make rest and shade breaks mandatory, pre-shift reminders about the symptoms of heat stress, foster a ‘stop and think’ culture, buddy system, make sure employees are aware of the worst-case scenario, and use testimonials and share previous incidents to heighten awareness.

  2. Problem: Don’t understand hydrationDehydration not only leads to heat stress but also impairs visual motor tracking, short-term memory, and concentration leading to work-related accidents. Most workers know that staying hydrated is critical when working in hot and humid environments.

    But “staying hydrated” means different things to different people. To some, it means waiting until they are thirsty to drink. To others, it means grabbing an ice-cold soda loaded with sugar.

    As a general guideline, the recommended amount of water intake is one quart per hour (ideally one cup every 15 minutes) of active work for the average adult. However, every worker is different. Workers with underlying medical conditions or those who are new to the work environment have unique hydration requirements.

    Potential solutions: Have water easily and readily available, provide reusable water bottles, enforce breaks, educate with detailed information about how to hydrate (frequency, water vs.sports drinks, predisposing medical factors, effects of diet, drinking alcohol) and the symptoms of dehydration, and issue frequent reminders and weather alerts throughout the day.

  3. Problem: Inexperienced workersSummer work means many young and inexperienced workers and OSHA statistics prove that these workers are particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses. Whether it’s lack of knowledge, an immature attitude, fear, a desire to fit in and prove their worth, or an invincible mindset, some young workers try to side-step an acclimatization program and keep up with more seasoned workers with deadly results.

    Potential solutions: Have a mentoring program, tailor training, establish consequences for failure to follow rules, and consistently interact with workers to gauge how they’re feeling.

  4. Problem: Heat illness mythsEven well-trained employees can fall back on myths, misconceptions, and inaccuracies in the “heat” of the moment. Some common myths are:
    • When you’re having heat stroke, you don’t sweat
    • Acclimatization will protect you during a heat wave
    • Salt tablets are a good way to restore electrolytes lost during sweating
    • Off-duty drinking and diet do not adversely affect the ability to manage job-related heat
    • Medications/health conditions will not affect the ability to work safely in heat

    Potential solutions: To debunk myths, employees need to understand them. Make them a part of ongoing training.

  5. Problem: Bantering and sense of controlBanter is commonplace in many physically demanding jobs. Good-natured joshing and jibing can reduce stress and help to build strong teams. Yet, when bantering moves to rough-and-tumble horseplay or bullying it can lead to dire consequences. When workers are made to feel that needing a break is a sign of weakness – “don’t be a wimp,” “man-up” – a critical line is crossed.

    Potential solutions: How workers perceive the ease or consequences of horseplay or bullying is a key factor. All organizations should make clear what is acceptable and set clear boundaries. Importantly, drill home the message that workers are responsible for each other’s safety and make sure supervisors walk the talk.

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

OSHA watch

2020 budget proposal

President Trump’s proposed budget calls for a $300,000 increase in the agency’s budget, but includes an increase of almost $4 million for safety enforcement and workplace inspections and the number of full-time equivalent workers at the agency will increase by 33. Whistleblower protection is also slated to receive an extra $1.1 million, and the number of federal inspections budgeted in 2020 is projected to rise by about 300 to 33,133.

Six states sue over electronic reporting rollback

Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York are challenging the “illegal and unjustified attempt to roll back (the regulation’s) requirements for the public reporting of workplace injuries and illnesses…” in State of New Jersey v. R. Alexander Acosta. The states allege the Administrative Procedure Act was violated when the agency changed its course without a “reasonable explanation” for its new policy.

Input on powered industrial trucks sought

Request for Information published in the March 11 Federal Register seeks input to aid in a possible update of the powered industrial trucks standard (1910.178). This standard covers forklifts, fork trucks, tractors, platform lift trucks and motorized hand trucks, among others.

Comments on the RFI are due by June 10.

New trenching and excavation videos

A free 11-minute video highlighting the importance of soil classification when planning trenching and excavation work has been released in English and Spanish.

The Region 6 Training Institute Education Centers recently released a video on trenching and excavation safety. The one-hour video addresses best practices, cave-in protection, resources and other hazards workers encounter in trenching.

Registration is required to access the video.

Revised webpages address safety in the agriculture and maritime industries

The Agricultural Operations webpage was revised to make it easier for users to find safety information on agriculture-related hazards, such as grain bins and silos, heat, machinery, pesticides, and other chemicals.

The revised Maritime Industry webpage offers compliance materials, training information, and other resources to eliminate hazards in longshoring and marine terminals, commercial fishing, and shipyards.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Santa Ana-based Aardvark Clay & Supplies Inc., a ceramics firm, faces more than $250,160 in penalties for willful failure to properly guard equipment after an employee was fatally entangled in a clay manufacturing machine. Although the manufacturer had provided safety guards for the machinery, the employer removed the guards.
  • Underground Construction Co., Inc. of Benicia received three citations and proposed penalties of $27,000 after two of its employees contracted Valley Fever. The workers were exposed to the fungal disease while using hand tools to dig trenches in Kings, Fresno and Merced counties-areas where the soil is known to contain harmful spores that cause the infection.
  • West Coast Land and Development Inc., based in Concord, faces fines of $26,540 for eight violations after a worker was crushed to death by vertically stacked plywood at a San Rafael construction site.

Florida

  • Two contractors, PCL Construction Services Inc. and Universal Engineering Sciences, were cited for safety violations after two employees suffered fatal injuries at a worksite for the new JW Marriott Hotel in Orlando. Inspectors found the contractors failed to inspect formwork, shoring, working decks, and scaffolds properly prior to construction to ensure that the equipment met the required specified formwork drawings. The contractors collectively received three violations totaling $157,792 in proposed penalties, including one willful citation to PCL.
  • The Higgins Group Corp., operating as Higgins Premium Pet Foods, faces $95,472 in penalties for exposing employees to amputation, fall, and other safety hazards at its facility in Miami.
  • Ammunition manufacturer, AMTEC Less Lethal Systems Inc., faces $188,290 in penalties for multiple serious violations, and a willful violation after an explosion fatally injured two workers at the company’s Perry facility.
  • Brinker Florida Inc., operator of a Chili’s Grill and Bar restaurant in Doral, was cited for exposing employees to burns, falls, and other hazards after an employee suffered burns when falling from an unguarded platform into a hot water bath. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $62,513.
  • Roofing and waterproofing contractor, TarHeel Corp., faces $32,013 in penalties for failing to provide employees with fall protection systems and to properly train their employees after an employee suffered fatal injuries in a fall at the Forest Glen Community in Naples.
  • Venice-based Olin Landscaping faces $16,102 in penalties for failing to protect employees from heat-related illnesses and injuries and failing to report a workplace fatality to OSHA within 8 hours, as required.

Georgia

  • Inspected under the National Emphasis Program (NEP) on Trenching and Excavation, Corley Contractors Inc., based in Dallas, faces $106,078 in penalties for exposing employees to excavation hazards while installing water and sewer lines at a worksite in Acworth.
  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program on Lead, U.S. Battery Manufacturing Co. is facing $115,594 in fines for exposing workers to lead, unguarded machinery, and other safety hazards at its facility in Augusta.

Massachusetts

  • The DOL has filed a lawsuit against Boston-based contractor Tara Construction Inc. and its chief executive officer, Pedro Pirez, alleging that they retaliated against an injured employee by facilitating his arrest. The worker incurred a serious injury when he fell from a ladder and reported it to DOL. The Department alleges that shortly after the employee engaged in protected activities, the defendants initiated a law enforcement investigation and facilitated the employee’s detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Nebraska

  • Western Engineering Company Inc. faces $89,032 in penalties when an employee suffered fatal injuries after being pulled into an unguarded slat/drag conveyor at the company’s North Platte asphalt plant. Serious violations related to machine guarding, lockout tagout, confined spaces, and air monitoring.

Pennsylvania

  • Warminster-based Etna Construction Inc. faces $208,560 in fines for failing to protect its workers against trenching hazards at a Philadelphia worksite.

Virginia

  • Virginia Occupational Safety and Health issued 12 citations and $528,692 in penalties to T.D. Fraley & Sons, Inc., after a worker who was removing scaffolding sections received an electric shock from contact with a power line.

Wisconsin

  • Nemak USA Inc., based in Sheboygan, faces penalties of $26,520 for two serious health violations, the maximum penalty allowed by law, for exposing workers to metalworking fluids used on aluminum after three employees were diagnosed with occupational hypersensitivity pneumonitis, a debilitating lung disease.
  • In Secretary of Labor v. Packers Sanitation Services Inc., an administrative law judge with the OSHRC held that Packers Sanitation Services, based in Kieler, failed to guard a quill puller machine and ensure walking services were safe for employees and upheld the assessment of nearly $20,000 in citations.
  • A follow-up inspection of Avid Pallet Services LLC of Beloit found that the company failed to implement sufficient engineering controls to limit dust exposure, as well as train employees on the health hazards of wood dust. The company faces penalties of $188,302 for repeat, serious, and other-than-serious safety and health violations.

For additional information.

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

PPE and women: 13 do’s and don’ts

The recent cancellation by NASA of the highly publicized first-ever all-woman spacewalk is a good reminder of the importance of proper fitting PPE. Even with extensive training on the ground, getting the right fit for a spacesuit in microgravity can be a challenge since the body changes slightly in space due to fluid shifts or spine elongation.

Only one suit for a medium-size torso, which is the size that best fits the two astronauts, is ready for use on the station. While the decision was made by one of the astronauts who thought a large-size suit would be fine, but after a spacewalk a week earlier decided the medium-size was a better fit, it was met by some with disbelief on Twitter. The number of women entering traditionally male-dominated fields continues to grow and many have encountered improperly fitting personal protective equipment (PPE) and personal protective clothing (PPC). (The two female astronauts were part of a class that had 50/50 gender representation.)

According to The Washington Post, “Across social media platforms, women told of giant overalls, wading boots that were the wrong size, oversize gloves that kept them from being nimble, a lack of bulletproof vests that accommodated their chest sizes and a dearth of petite-size personal protective equipment at construction sites.”

While there is increased awareness and significant strides have been made in PPE for women, the fact remains that most PPE was designed based on average male body measurements and it has only been in recent years that manufacturers have tailored PPE to women. When there are products specifically designed for women some worksites just don’t have them readily available.

The best practices of providing PPE for women are very similar to those for men. Here are 13 do’s and don’ts:

  • Don’t assume your PPE is appropriate for all of your employees. Find out what is and isn’t working by getting feedback from employees. Monitor the use and identify situations where it is not used when it should be.
  • Don’t ask women to wear PPE that is too big. It is not going to provide adequate protection and in some cases creates even more serious safety risks.
  • Don’t alter PPE. It should be certified to specific standards, and alterations beyond built-in adjustment features can make the garment no longer compliant – and unsafe.
  • Don’t subject women to derogatory remarks or disingenuous humor about how they look in PPE.
  • Don’t assume women are only concerned about “how it looks.”
  • Don’t criticize, ignore, or retaliate against employees who report ill-fitting PPE.
  • Don’t penalize employees who refuse to work when appropriate PPE is not available.
  • Do involve employees in the selection of PPE.
  • Do provide the same range of sizes for women as for men, and ensure suppliers have properly assessed the appropriateness of their equipment to women and men.
  • Do ensure employees try on several sizes or types of PPE before it is issued to ensure the best fit.
  • Do educate employees about why the PPE is to be worn and train how to properly use it.
  • Do make appropriate provisions for pregnant women.
  • Do get supervisor buy-in.

The gender pay gap is substantially less in many non-traditional jobs than in other professions, and training and apprenticeships present great opportunities for women. Yet, as noted in the Construction Productivity Blog, “recruitment bias, company cultures where harassment isn’t thoroughly addressed and even reasons as simple as tools and gear not made for women in mind, also all play a critical role into why more women aren’t considering building as a career.”

Attracting women to non-traditional fields can help industries deal with an acute labor shortage and have economic benefits. According to the Peterson Institute, construction companies that were in the top 25% in gender diversity of their workforce were 46% more likely to outperform their industry average. Providing the right PPE is another way companies can recruit and retain more female talent.

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

Understanding OSHA’s general duty clause

Often referred to as the general duty clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, requires that employers provide “a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm…” It’s only used where there is no standard for a particular hazard and citations must be serious and/or willful violations. The citation is for the hazard, not for a particular incident or lack of a particular abatement method.

2003 OSHA Letter of Interpretation clarified the elements necessary to prove a violation of the General Duty Clause:

  • The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed
  • The hazard was recognized (a recognized hazard exists if the hazard is recognized either by the employer or by the employer’s industry)
  • The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm (Establishing whether a hazard is serious is similar to how OSHA classifies a serious violation for its standards, the Field Operations Manual states)
  • There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard

While this criteria can make it difficult for OSHA to prove a violation, OSHA’s use of the clause has expanded over the years and many are concerned about its use as an enforcement mechanism and the confusion it creates for employers. Increasingly it’s been applied to ergonomic, heat-related, and workplace violence hazards. Two recent cases have tested the use of the clause:

Heat-related hazards

Secretary of Labor v. A.H. Sturgill Roofing Inc., was a closely watched case in which serious citations were issued against the company for not adequately implementing a heat illness prevention program and not providing adequate training to employees on heat related hazards. A temporary employee who had various pre-existing medical conditions experienced heat stroke and died three weeks later from complications.

His responsibility was to stand near the edge of the roof where other employees brought him a cart full of cut-up pieces of roofing material that he then pushed off the roof into a dumpster. The foreman encouraged all employees to utilize the access to ice, water, rest and shade, without fear of reprisal. By late morning, the temperature rose to about 82°F with 51% relative humidity.

The citations had a negative effect on the employer’s bidding opportunities and it appealed the decision. An administrative law judge affirmed the citations, but the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) vacated the citations against the commercial roofing company. In so doing, it noted that the citations did not meet two of the required elements – the existence of a hazard and a feasible means of abatement. OSHA had defined the hazard as “excessive heat” but, according to the commission, to constitute a cognizable hazard under the clause, a worksite condition must pose more than the mere possibility of harm. The conditions at the jobsite were not such that they would put a reasonable employer on notice.

While employer representatives welcomed the decision, experts caution that the decision turned on a very specific set of facts and the commission did not state that the clause could never be used to cite employers for such hazards. The possibility of an OSHA appeal exists.

Workplace violence

In Secretary of Labor v. Integra Health Management Inc., a 25-year-old recent college graduate with no prior experience in social work or working with the mentally ill was hired by Integra, a Maryland-based company, and assigned to a client with schizophrenia. Integra employs service coordinators to help its clients, who are identified by health insurers as not receiving appropriate care for chronic medical conditions including mental illness. It provides training in various manners, but employees are not clinically trained.

Unbeknownst to Integra and the referring health insurer, the client had a prior criminal record, including aggravated battery and assault. He attacked the employee with a knife, stabbing her nine times and killing her. In the Integra case, the commission was asked for the first time to decide whether workplace violence is a recognized hazard that the employer must remove from its workplace, according to the decision.

The administrative law judge affirmed an OSHA citation issued to Integra alleging a violation of the general duty clause for exposing employees “to the hazard of being physically assaulted by members with a history of violent behavior.” The OSHRC affirmed, noting a direct nexus between the work being performed by Integra’s employees and the alleged risk of workplace violence and feasible measures to abate the hazard as recommended by OSHA.

While affirming the citation, the Commission expressed concern about OSHA’s use of the general duty clause to address workplace violence risks. Chairwoman Heather MacDougall, who recently resigned, noted, “My hope is that this precedent will be revisited in a future decision and, even better, that OSHA will continue in its effort to promulgate a standard that addresses workplace violence.”

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

OSHA watch

“Good-faith” employers get grace period to comply on crane operator documentation requirements

The requirement that employers must evaluate their operators before allowing them to operate cranes independently is being enforced, but employers making good-faith efforts to comply have a 60-day grace period, according to the enforcement guidance effective on Feb. 7. Employers who have evaluated operators in accordance with the final rule, and are making good-faith efforts to comply with the new documentation requirement are offered compliance assistance, in lieu of enforcement. The grace period ends April 15.

New bulletin for workers wearing devices containing lithium batteries

A new Safety and Health Information Bulletin warns employers and workers of potential fire and explosion hazards stemming from lithium batteries used to power small or wearable electronic devices.

New video on ammonium nitrate emphasis program

A new YouTube video deals with inspections under the ammonium nitrate emphasis program.

Employers urged to prevent worker exposure to carbon monoxide

Employers are reminded to take necessary precautions to protect workers from the potentially fatal effects of carbon monoxide exposure. To reduce the risk of exposure, employers should install an effective ventilation system, use carbon monoxide detectors, and take other precautions as described in the Carbon Monoxide Fact Sheet.

Other resources include videos (in English and Spanish), QuickCards (English) (Spanish)and a fact sheet on portable generator safety.

Alert to Nebraska employers: Increase in amputation injuries

A review of Nebraska workers’ compensation claims found 42 employees suffered amputation injuries in 2018, and employers failed to report more than 65 percent of those injuries within 24-hours, as required. The National Emphasis Program for Amputations targets inspections at workplaces with machinery and equipment that cause, or are capable of causing, amputations. Information and resources are available to help employers identify and eliminate workplace hazard.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Solus Industrial Innovations, a plastics manufacturing plant in Rancho Santa Margarita was cited for willfully, knowingly and intentionally maintaining an unsafe and hazardous work environment after two workers were killed in an explosion caused by a water heater that was never intended for commercial use. The case was referred to the local district attorney’s office and a $1.6 million judgment was obtained in a civil case.
  • Platinum Pipeline Inc., based in Livermore, received a $242,600 fine after a worker died when a trench built for a storm drain project collapsed.
  • A joint venture of Shimmick Construction Co. Inc., of Oakland and San Francisco-based Con-Quest Contractors Inc. faces a $65,300 fine after a worker was fatally struck by a steel beam in 2018 while working on a light rail tunnel project in San Francisco.

Connecticut

  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Eastern Awning Systems Inc., a manufacturer of retractable fabric patio awnings based in Watertown, and its owner Stephen P. Lukos to pay a total of $160,000 to two discharged employees who filed safety and health complaints. The judgment also requires the employer to provide neutral letters of reference for the two discharged employees, and to post the judgment and notice of employees’ rights prominently at the workplace.

Florida

  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, Crown Roofing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at two separate residential worksites in Port St. Lucie and Naples. The Sarasota-based contractor faces penalties of $265,196. It has been inspected 17 times in the past five years and 11 inspections have resulted in repeat violations.
  • OSHRC affirmed two serious violations, and reinstated one stemming from an inspection of gas line work – overturning an administrative law judge’s decision – and increased the fine from $5,500 to $9,000 against Dade City-based Florida Gas Contractors Inc.

Georgia

  • Hilti Inc., a hardware merchant wholesaler, was cited for exposing employees to struck-by hazards after an employee was injured while operating a forklift at a distribution center in Atlanta. The Plano, Texas-based company faces penalties of $164,802.
  • Eye Productions Inc., a motion picture company, was cited for failing to provide adequate head protection during stunts while filming the “MacGyver” show in Chattahoochee Hills. Proposed penalties total $9,472.

Massachusetts

  • In Secretary of Labor v. HRI Hospital Inc. d/b/a Arbour-HRI Hospital, an administrative law judge vacated a citation that HRI Hospital Inc., based in Brookline, failed to adequately protect its employees from being physically assaulted by patients.

Minnesota

  • In Secretary of Labor v. SJ Louis Construction of Texas Ltd. (a division of SJ Louis Construction Inc., of Rockville, Minnesota), the ALJ determined that SJ Louis, an underground utilities contractor, failed to construct a trench in Cypress, Texas, in compliance with regulations and failed to provide employees proper egress. A penalty of $36,000 was assessed.

Pennsylvania

  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District has entered a consent judgment ordering Blown Away Dry Bar and Salon, based in Kennett Square, to pay a $40,000 settlement to a fired hair stylist. Investigators determined the defendants retaliated against the employee when her husband reported workplace safety and health hazards to OSHA, a violation of the (OSH) Act.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a general duty clause citation against Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital’s facility in Fort Washington for exposing its employees to workplace violence, as well as a $12,471 penalty.
  • KidsPeace Inc. was cited for exposing employees to workplace violence hazards at two behavioral and mental health facilities in Orefield. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $29,010.

Tennessee

  • Hankook Tire Company received 11 citations and faces $85,200 in penalties for failure to conduct periodic crane inspections, provide adequate personal protective equipment for workers handling hazardous chemicals, ensure that proper lockout/tagout procedures were followed, and guard machinery.

For additional information.

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

More than 60,000 employers submit data not required by OSHA

General confusion surrounding OSHA’s electronic record-keeping rule may spell trouble for some employers that voluntarily submitted data even though they are not regulated by the rule. Although the “courtesy” submissions may seem harmless, OSHA is using the data to target enforcement activities.

In a webinar, Daniel Deacon, a Washington, D.C.-based associate in Conn Maciel Carey LLP’s OSHA and labor and employment practice groups, reported that in 2017 there were 60,956 so-called out-of-scope submissions of Form 300A data, up from 52,171 in 2016. He noted confusion about the rule, misunderstanding of the thresholds for employment figures, and states that have not adopted the rule all contribute to this surprisingly high number.

According to OSHA, there is significant underreporting problem. The agency reported that more than one-third of the workplaces did not submit required reports in 2016. Under its Site Specific Targeting 2016 Program, the agency is targeting inspections of employers that should have reported, but did not. Moreover, compliance officers have been directed to review reporting records on all inspections.

March 2, 2019, was the deadline for employers to electronically report OSHA Form 300A data for calendar year 2018. The establishments covered by this requirement are specified on OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application webpage.

Other reporting challenges

Although employers are getting more comfortable with the severe injury reporting rule adopted in 2015, incidents are being reported to OSHA that should not be reported. On the other hand, OSHA has issued at least 400 citations for late reporting or failure to report.The rule requires employers report the inpatient hospitalization of a single employee as well as all amputations and loss of an eye within 24 hours.

Here are some key provisions:

  • If the injury or illness resulted in the employee’s death within 30 days of the incident, it is reportable to OSHA within eight hours of learning the outcome.
  • If the injured worker went to the hospital, was the employee formally admitted to the inpatient service of the hospital? If yes, did they receive medical treatment (more than observation or diagnostics) after admission? If yes, reportable to OSHA within 24-hours of learning the outcome.
  • Common mistakes in reporting: reporting when employee spent more than 24 hours in emergency service before being formally admitted; inpatient medical treatment was deferred for more than 24 hours; medical treatment was provided beforeadmission to the inpatient service; not reporting inpatient first aid treatment.
  • Did the injury result in a body part becoming severed from the employee’s body, either during the incident or after the incident in a medical amputation? If yes, did the amputation occur within 24-hours of the work-related incident? If yes, report to OSHA within 24 hours of learning of the outcome.
  • Did the injury result in loss of an eye? If yes, report to OSHA within 24-hours of learning of the outcome. Note: this does not include loss of eyesight.

Other common issues are reporting injuries that are not work related, misunderstanding when the 24-hour timeclock begins, and responding inappropriately to a rapid response letter by blaming the employee for the incident or not offering corrective actions.

The challenges of keeping up with OSHA’s rules and regulations are enormous. While it’s critical to strictly adhere to OSHA requirements, providing unnecessary information or not reporting when you should can lead to something you don’t want…an inspection. If you need help, contact us.

You can also learn more about OSHA Recordkeeping, and benchmarking your injury results at http://www.premiumreductioncenter.com/osha-incident.html, as well  access to FREE OSHA 300 Log recordkeeping software.

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

The daunting challenge of maintaining a drug-free workplace

With a national opioid crisis that defies holistic solutions, the legalization of medicinal marijuana in more than 30 states and recreational marijuana in 10 states, increases in deadly overdoses in the workplace, changing state laws, confusion over OSHA’s anti-retaliatory drug testing rule, and concerns about medical privacy, no employer should think they are immune to the problem. In fact, according to the National Safety Council (NSC), 15.6% of American workers live with a substance disorder and The Hartford reports that 64% of HR professionals are ill-prepared to help a worker with an opioid addiction.

These factors, coupled with a tight labor market and low unemployment, have led some employers to soften zero-tolerance policies for jobs where safety is not critical and there is a low risk of injury or error. The decision to relax zero-tolerance policies requires buy-in from company leadership and supervisors as well as serious evaluation of the consequences. Although the legalization of marijuana exponentially increases the complexity of the issue, the reasons for maintaining a drug-free workplace remain constant: safety of employees and customers, lower absenteeism, reduced turnover, fewer workers’ comp claims, fewer workplace conflicts, and reduced liability for workplace accidents.

It’s also troublesome for supervisors because substance abuse often falls below the radar of the workplace. Yet, for five consecutive years, unintentional workplace overdose deaths have increased by at least 25%. Drug testing, which is often a critical component of a zero-tolerance policy, can identify those at risk.

Here are five things to consider when evaluating a drug policy:

Legal concerns

While federal law regulating drug testing affects some heavily-regulated industries, there is no comprehensive federal law regulating drug testing in the private sector. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires all recipients of federal grants and some federal contractors to maintain a drug-free workplace.The ADA does not consider drug abuse a disability and allows drug testing; however, disability discrimination is a significant legal risk. If an applicant is not hired or an employee is terminated because of a positive drug test and the medication was legally prescribed for a disability, the employer could be liable. Reasonable accommodations must be provided at application, hiring, and during employment.

State laws that do regulate workplace drug testing vary widely and are constantly changing. Generally, state laws allow employers to drug test job applicants. However, many have rules about providing notice, preventing discrimination, and following procedures to prevent inaccurate samples. The laws governing testing of current employees varies widely by state, with some prohibiting random testing and others requiring ‘reasonable suspicion.’ There are also laws governing post-accident testing. It’s critical to understand and stay abreast of the laws in all the states in which you operate.

Marijuana

Marijuana is one of employers’ biggest worries and one of the driving reasons for employers to relax pre-employment drug testing. There is legitimate fear that it will reduce the pool of qualified candidates. Some address this issue by removing marijuana from the test panel for many positions that are not safety-critical.

The laws vary significantly with states that have legalized marijuana and case law is limited and evolving. Some states have card holder anti-discrimination statutes and some states prohibit firing of an employee who tests positive for marijuana while others allow it. Although all marijuana use is still illegal under federal law, state courts across the country are deciding cases on medical marijuana use and accommodation. Employers are wise to consider whether positive drug tests are connected to medicinal use before making employment decisions.

Employers should be careful about penalizing employees for off-duty marijuana use, since some states have statutes protecting employees. However, most states permit employers to prohibit marijuana use on their premises and to discipline employees who come to work under the influence.

While the uncertainty is unnerving for employers, a growing number of states are writing statutes to remove the ambiguities. Statutes in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington DC, and West Virginia address employment protection for medical marijuana patients. It’s still possible to restrict marijuana use in these states, but care needs to be taken in crafting and enforcing a policy.

If you choose to differentiate marijuana policies from other drug policies, consider these questions:

  • Will treating marijuana differently create problems in the workforce?
  • Under what circumstances will employees be tested for marijuana?
  • What are the consequences of not testing (i.e. more injuries, absenteeism)?
  • What is the process to determine a medical exception to the policy?
  • What happens when an employee fails the test?

Workers’ Comp

Substance abuse can contribute to workplace accidents and a drug-free workplace helps prevent accidents, thus lowering workers’ comp costs. In some states, employers implementing a drug-free workplace receive a premium discount. As of October 2018, 13 states had such laws. While the requirements and discounts vary, the states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

In addition, some states have enacted laws to make it easy for employers who properly drug test to deny workers’ compensation benefits. For example, Florida law provides that if the employee tests positive for drugs, then “it is presumed that the injury was occasioned primarily by…the influence of the drug upon, the employee.”

Medical marijuana raises thorny issues for employers. Can a claim be denied if an employee tests positive for using state-approved medical cannabis? Can an injured employee receive medical marijuana to treat a workplace injury? Both are new and evolving issues that will be the subject of future court cases and state regulations. The Minnesota Department of Labor & Industries issued rules allowing cannabis as a reimbursable form of medical treatment.

OSHA

The anti-retaliatory provisions of OSHA’s e-Recordkeeping rule resulted in considerable confusion about post-injury drug testing policies, which was somewhat clarified in a guidance memo in October 2018. Before doing post-accident drug testing, employers should:

  • Have a reasonable basis to conclude drug use could have contributed to the injury
  • Test all employees whose conduct could have caused an accident, even if they were not injured
  • Identify high hazard work as a reason for testing
  • Determine if the drug test can provide insight to the root cause of incident
  • Consider whether drug test is capable of measuring impairment at the time the injury occurred
  • Ensure employees are not discouraged or dissuaded from reporting injuries

Remember, the rule does not affect new hires, random testing, or testing to comply with state or federal laws or required by Workers’ Comp insurers.

Privacy

Although challenges to workplace drug testing policies on the grounds that they violate employees’ privacy have generally not been successful, the manner in which the test is conducted and how the results are used have been successfully challenged. Drug test results are considered protected health information and must be kept confidential. Further, as laws on employee privacy continue to evolve, testing that is not clearly authorized by law could be open to legal challenges.

Conclusion

Zero-tolerance policies are strong stands that send an important cultural message, but like any policy it should be evaluated periodically. How effective has it been? Has it hampered recruitment and retention efforts for positions that are not safety-critical? Has it prevented workers from seeking the help they need to deal with substance abuse? Does it impede flexibility?

Anecdotally, more employers are tailoring drug testing to the job and adding a fitness-for-duty component. Any policy changes require serious consideration as protecting employees remains the top priority. However, no change in policy should excuse an employee who is impaired while working. There’s just too much at risk.

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

OSHA watch

Maximum penalty of repeat or willful violation rises to $132,598

The cost of non-compliance is on the rise with the annual adjustment for inflation, effective January 24, 2019. The chart below shows the 2019 increases for each type of violation:

Violation Type/Description CFR Citation 2018 Max Penalty 2019 Max Penalty
Serious 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3) $12,934 $13,260
Other-than-Serious 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(4) $12,934 $13,260
Willful 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(1) $129,336 $132,598
Repeated 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(2) $129,336 $132,598
Posting Requirement 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(6) $12,934 $13,260
Failure to Abate 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(5) $12,934 $13,260

Reminder: Feb. 1 was deadline for posting Form 300A

Each year, from Feb. 1 to April 30, OSHA’s Form 300A, which summarizes job-related injuries and illnesses logged in the prior calendar year, must be displayed in a common area where notices to employees are usually posted. Details can be found in our January 2019 issue.

Final rule on electronic recordkeeping issued

As expected, the final rule eliminates the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees or those with 20 to 249 employees in certain industries with historically high occupational injury and illness rates to electronically submit information from Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) each year. These establishments are still required to electronically submit information from Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The final rule also requires covered employers to electronically submit their Employer Identification Number with their information from Form 300A.

The deadline for electronic submissions is March 2, 2019. More information.

A lawsuit has already been filed by the Public Citizen Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists arguing the final rule violates of the Administrative Procedure Act.

FAQs on silica standard for general industry published

The FAQs, which include answers to 64 questions organized by topic, provide guidance to employers and workers on the standard’s requirements, including exposure assessments, hazard communication and methods of compliance.

Free compliance assistance resources on falls offered online

To help employers prepare for the sixth annual National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction, set to take place May 6-10, the following resources are online:

Requirements for trainers in Outreach Training Program revised

Among the 18 changes, which are scheduled to go into effect April 1, is eliminating the 90-day grace period after a trainer card expires, as well as updating the trainer code of conduct and responsibilities.

New safety resource on safe operation of tractors

A new rollover protection brochure provides information in English and Spanish on the safe operation of tractors. It emphasizes the importance of using rollover protective structures and seat belt systems to help reduce worker injuries.

Enforcement notes

California

  • US Postal Service faces fines of $149,664 for not addressing worker safety in high-heat conditions after a mail carrier was found dead in a postal vehicle on a record-setting 117-degree-Fahrenheit day in July.

Florida

  • Compass Group USA Inc., operating as Chartwells Dining, was cited for exposing employees to burn and chemical hazards at its cafeteria in Coral Gables. The company faces $134,880 in penalties for exposing employees to hazards associated with exit routes, failing to provide suitable facilities for quick drenching for employees who work with cleaning chemicals, and for not providing effective training to the employees working with the chemicals.
  • Inspected under the REP for Falls in Construction, Ad-Ler Roofing Inc. was cited for exposing employees to dangerous falls at a Naples residential worksite, one month after similar violations were found at another worksite. The Fort Myers-based contractor faces penalties of $91,466.

Missouri

  • New Haven-based Franklin County Construction LLC faces $56,910 in penalties after an employee suffered fatal fall injuries when a roof truss collapsed.

Nebraska

  • Hastings-based Noah’s Ark Processors is facing $182,926 in penalties after an employee suffered severe burns caused by exposure to anhydrous ammonia at one of its meat processing facilities. Sixteen serious violations were issued relating to process safety management (PSM) program deficiencies, failing to guard roof openings, and electrical safety and lockout/tagout violations.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation and $11,408 penalty after an employee was hospitalized due to an arc flash. Jacobs Field Services’ policy of permitting employees to remove portions of their personal protective equipment after they had determined the load side – but not the line side – of an electrical disconnect box was de-energized violated the statute.

New York

  • St. Louis, Mo-based Western Specialty Contractors is facing criminal charges and $155,204 in penalties for exposing employees to serious injuries. Operated by an untrained employee, an unsecured mini-crane overturned and fell four stories at an NYC worksite.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation against Fairport-based Ontario Exteriors Inc. when a worksite policy that directed its employees to traverse a steep second-story roof without fall protection at the beginning and end of each work day resulted in the injury of one worker. The law judge reduced the fine in half to $1,811 noting that the court believes the company will comply with fall protection requirements in the future.

Pennsylvania

  • Spear Excavating LLC based in Pennsburg was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards at a worksite in Malvern. The company faces $106,057 in proposed penalties. The inspection was initiated by a complaint.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious citation and $11,408 fine against Coastal Drilling East LLC after an employee’s finger had to be amputated following a workplace accident. Cited under the general duty clause, the company argued that abatement of the cited condition was infeasible and the violation was the result of unpreventable employee misconduct, but the law judge cited an absence of training, instruction, and supervision and inconsistent enforcement.

Wisconsin

  • Two utility contractors – Bear Communications LLC of Lawrence, Kansas, and subcontractor V C Tech Inc. of Ypsilanti, Michigan – were issued a serious safety violation, and face penalties of $12,934 each – the maximum penalty allowed when they failed to establish the location of underground utilities prior to beginning excavation work. A volunteer firefighter responding to the incident was fatally injured.

For additional information.

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