As you know, I love using some of the State OSHA Plan standards as they can be more protective and offer some explanations as to their requirements. The state of Michigan just renewed its 1910.151 standard as it relates to Eyewash/Shower Equipment and in doing so has offered some excellent insight into their revisions. Whereas […]
At 5:15 p.m. on May 16, 2017, an employee was preparing to paint a car. The employee hooked up his airline respirator to a nitrogen hose instead of to the compressed air hose, resulting in the employee suffering asphyxiation.
Citation 1, Item 1 is classified as “Serious” and alleges that Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. § 1910.176(b), stating that “employees are exposed to struck-by hazards from unstable material storage.” A penalty of $10,864.00 is proposed for this item. For the reasons that follow, the Citation is AFFIRMED, and the proposed penalty is assessed. The Accident
On October 3, 2016, a warehouse employee was seriously injured when seven crates containing 94-pound struts fell from a stack onto him as he was inventorying them. There were no witnesses to the accident, and the injured employee has no memory of the event. Following an inspection by OSHA, the Secretary concluded the cause of
This is a common question we get when we are working at facilities where there is a mechanical refrigeration system… Do my refrigeration technicians have to be “qualified electrical workers”? Because that question is so broad, we always answer “Yes”, based on our experience around these types of processes, but it depends and here are
In FY 2017, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections, including 18,031 (about 56 percent) unprogrammed inspections, which includes employee complaints, injuries/fatalities, and referrals. The high percentage of unprogrammed inspections indicates that OSHA continues to devote considerable resources responding to referrals and complaints. Of the 32,408 inspections, 14,377 (about 44 percent) were programmed inspections. Programmed inspections focus OSHA’s
In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). In the final revised respirator standard, OSHA established a mechanism to accept new fit test protocols under Mandatory Appendix A. Any person may submit to OSHA an application for approval of a new fit test protocol, and if the method meets specific
OSHA has cited a cosmetics manufacturer and proposed fines of $281,220 for failing to protect its employees from dangerous chemicals, and other hazards. In November 2017, OSHA investigated the cosmetics manufacturer after an employee was fatally injured in a fire. The company was cited for 11 violations for fall, and compressed air hazards, and for
A WPF in respiratory protection stands for Workplace Protection Factor. It’s a measure of how much protection a respirator actually provides to a worker in real‑world conditions, not just in a laboratory test. What a WPF really means…
Over 3 million United States employees in approximately 1.3 million workplaces are required to wear respiratory protection. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.134) requires an annual fit test to confirm the fit of any respirator that forms a tight seal on the wearer’s face before it is used in the workplace.1
Recently I was working with one of my flammable liquid clients who recently hired some new engineers who needed some flammable liquids training. During my 1-day “Flammable Liquids 101” course we touch on those flammable liquids that are “non-conductive,” and as usual this caused quite a stir among the attendees. Most of the attendees, including
I am guessing we may be having this debate for the next 20-30 years, as before OSHA revised their HAZCOM standard to the Globally Harmonized version we were still debating the requirements of the original HAZCOM standard up to the day it got changed (e.g., 30+years). But it seems there are companies benefiting from the
