On February 19, 2025, a court sentenced a construction company owner to 48 months’ incarceration and to pay more than $55 million in restitution. Also, he will forfeit real estate and cash/bank accounts. He pleaded guilty to a wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and a willful violation of the Occupational Safety…...
United States v. [construction company owner] Read More »
Many workplaces struggle with one of the most critical elements of any attempt to manage safety and health via a safety management system – Incident Investigations. From the struggles of getting personnel to REPORT incidents (including near misses) to management recognizing these reports are GIFTS handed to us! But what normally happens, is we get…...
UK’s HSE “Adverse Events” publication (HSG245) Read More »
I like the fact the thieves wore “high vis” clothing to make themselves look “legitimate”. But as the story points out they were getting injured in arc flash events. I support Hi Vis workwear, as it can’t hurt to be more visible in a busy workplace, especially with a lot of mobile equipment around. My…...
Safety masquerading behind Hi-Vis gear Read More »
Sometimes a lawyer or set of lawyers can surprise us… This is a quote from a recent OSHRC ALJ decision, regarding the employer’s responsibility to conduct inspections of the workplace to identify and correct hazards: “As an employer, Respondent is obligated to provide safe working conditions and ensure safe work practices. Implicit in that obligation…...
Hazard ID is fundamental to any SMS and an ALJ who gets it Read More »
A soft drink manufacturer had a 3-ton capacity carbon dioxide (CO2) receiver tank at the plant. The tank contained 2000 pounds on the day of the explosion. The establishment was evacuated due to flooding river waters in the area. The plant was secured and evacuated. No employees were at the workplace. Suddenly, the storage tank…...
CO2 Tank launches 100′ off-site into a home (Flood Waters) Read More »
On September 19, 2002, Employee #1 was painting one (1) of six (6) tanks containing carbon dioxide when three (3) of them suddenly exploded. He was killed. The tanks were originally built as railroad tank cars for liquefied petroleum gas and they were not designed to store carbon dioxide…. Membership Required You must be a...
At 7:00 a.m. on October 31, 2022, an employee, 36, was brazing a copper line in an electrical equipment room that was equipped with a carbon dioxide fire extinguishing system. The fire extinguishing system activated, discharging and flooding the room with carbon dioxide. The employee was unable to escape the room and was overcome and…...
OSHA settles “Worker overcome by carbon dioxide fumes at LAX dies” Read More »
In response to a report of a fatality at Respondent’s place of business, Complainant initiated an inspection that concluded with Complainant issuing a four-item Citation and Notification of Penalty. For the most part, the specifics of the alleged violations—which include: are not particularly complicated. The wrinkle in this case is whether the workers identified by…...
OSHRC establishes who is an “employee” vs. “independent contractor” Read More »
Back in June of 2021, a 1.5 million gallon water tank exploded just as a contractor began to perform hot work on it. Now most people would think a water tank would not have explosive properties; thus, the workers, nor the deceased contractor with 16 years experience, did not sample the atmosphere within the tank…....
Methane gas from well water caused the 2001 CA fatal water tank explosion Read More »
Establishment Size: All sizesStandard: 1910.134 Respiratory Protection. Citations issued during the period October 2023 through September 2024. Penalties shown reflect current rather than initial amounts…. Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member? Log in here...
OSHA’s Data on 1910.134 – October 2023 through September 2024 Read More »
The following describes the NIOSH policy for determining the attenuation provided by hearing protection devices for individual workers. This statement updates the 1998 NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard—Occupational Noise Exposure. RecommendationNIOSH recommends employers use individual, quantitative fit testing to evaluate the attenuation received by workers from their hearing protection devices. Quantitative fit testing is…...
NIOSH Science Policy Update – Fit-Testing HPDs Read More »
The Standard entitled “Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories” (29 CFR 1910.1450; the “Standard”) applies to laboratories that use hazardous chemicals in accord with the Standard’s definitions for “laboratory use of hazardous chemicals” and “laboratory scale.” The Standard requires these laboratories to maintain worker exposures at or below the permissible exposure limits specified for…...
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories (1910.1450) Read More »
