This week OSHA issued a PPE citations to a glass manufacturing company after a worker suffered third-degree burns on his legs and hands when molten glass bottles fell on the production floor and ignited oil residue that had leaked from the machines. The proposed fine for ONLY the PPE citations involving FRC concerns was $85,000. TAKE NOTICE…
- facility had done (or had one done) a PPE HAZ Assessment
- PPE HAZ Assessment identified the need for FRC
- The written PPE program included FRC
- Company did not know if their company uniforms were FRC
- Company was not following their own PPE HAZ Assessment or written program
Taking bets (not really) that the company attorney will argue that the PPE HAZ Assessment was still being reviewed (a year later) and that is why it had not been “certified” and since it was not yet “certified” all the references to the FRC are not valid and thus they request they be withdrawn and or reduced to other-than-serious.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,000
29 CFR 1910.132(b): Where employees provided their own protective equipment, the employer did not assure its adequacy, including proper maintenance, and sanitation of such equipment:
a. Where employees working at the IS bottle making machines wore their own shirts and pants (not company provided uniforms), the employer did not assure that flame-resistant (FR) protection was used as stated in the PPE program (“FR clothing”); the employer did not assure that FR clothing bought by the employees was laundered according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Citation 1 Item 3 a
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(l)(ii): When the employer had assessed the workplace hazard(s) and determined that hazard(s) were present, the employer did not communicate the selection decision(s) to each affected employee:
a. Flame-resistant clothing requirements were not communicated to employees. Employees did not know what clothing was required, including whether the clothing was flame-resistant (FR) when working at the IS bottle making machines, where they were exposed to burn hazards. Employees did not know if company uniforms were required, if company uniforms were FR, or if non-uniform clothing was required to be FR.
Citation 1 Item 3 b
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.132(f)(l): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protective equipment (including 1910.132(f)(l)(i), (ii), (iv)):
a. Employees did not know what clothing was required, including whether the clothing was flameresistant (FR) when working at the IS bottle making machines, where they were exposed to bum hazards. Employees did not know if company uniforms were required, if company uniforms were FR, or if non-uniform clothing was required to be FR. Employees did not know the limitations of the clothing provided, such as that cotton pants provide less protection than FR when exposed to burn and ignition hazards.
Citation 1 Item 3 c
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 1910.132(h)(l): The employer did not provide the protective equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), used to comply with this part, at no cost to employees:
a. Flame-resistant clothing was not provided to hot end employees at no cost.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,000
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:
a. The company written hazard assessment, “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Plan For Piramal – FRG;” (Program #08-125) dated 10/28/14, was not certified. Section 5.2 of the written program states, “Certification of the hazard assessment should identify the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the assessment has been performed … The certification must be in written form.”
Citation 2 Item 1
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CFR 1910.132( a): Protective equipment, was not provided or used, including protective clothing, when hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:
a. In the hot end, during operation of the IS bottle making machines, where the company personal protective equipment (PPE) program and hazard assessment required flame-resistant (FR) clothing, and where an employee suffered a third degree bum injury to his lower body as a result of a fire on 4-11-15, FR pants were not required and were not worn.
b. In the hot end, during operation of the IS bottle making machines, where the company personal protective equipment program and hazard assessment required flame-resistant (FR) clothing, employees were not required to wear FR pants and shirts.
c. In the hot end, during operation of the IS bottle making machines, where the company personal protective equipment program and hazard assessment required flame-resistant (FR) clothing, employee(s) were not prohibited from wearing short sleeve T-shirts.
(Note: Flame-resistant (FR) clothing is designated according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).)
CLICK HERE for the actual citations