The OSHA Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program (FEDTARG) is a fiscal year (FY) based programmed inspection program designed to focus on specific federal agency worksites experiencing a high number of lost time cases (LTCs). FEDTARG10 continues OSHA’s nationwide inspection targeting program for federal worksites.
For each of the OSHA Regions, a primary inspection list, also known as the inspection cycle, will be developed using a random numbers table. Each OSHA Region’s primary list will include 100% of the establishments within the Region’s jurisdiction reporting 100 or more lost time cases (LTCs) during FY 2009, 50% of the establishments reporting 50 to 99 LTCs, and 10% of the establishments reporting 20 to 49 LTCs. All sites on the primary list must be inspected.
The National Office recognizes that resources available for FEDTARG will vary among the Regional and Area Offices. Those offices that have the ability to conduct more targeted federal agency inspections than are provided on their primary inspection lists may develop additional inspection cycles from the secondary inspection lists. Once any cycle is opened, it must be completed.
OSHA Updates Guidance on Applicability of Its Standards to Off-Shore Workplaces
The new instruction provides information and guidance that:
- Supports DOL’s Strategic Plan Performance Goal for increased emphasis on improving occupational safety and health in high-hazard workplace activities and maximizing the use of inspection resources.
- Provides OSHA compliance officers and consultants, and other interested government and industry parties, with specific guidance and information in support of inspections and compliance activities for vessels and facilities on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters and the OCS.
This instruction has been revised and updated to include significant changes as follows:
- Updates the guidance to reflect the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235 (2002).
- Provides policy guidance for the enforcement of the OSH Act with respect to towing vessels that on August 9, 2004, were added by legislation to the 46 U.S.C. 3301 list of vessels that require inspection by the U.S. Coast Guard.
- Provides updated guidance regarding enforcement on permanently moored craft (previously known as permanently moored vessels), such as craft used for gaming or entertainment purposes which do not have a practical capacity to get underway.
- Incorporates guidance from the instruction concerning the roles of OSHA and the U.S. Coast Guard on the OCS, CPL 02-00-046 (CPL 2.46), Memorandum of Understanding Between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard (Concerning Occupational Safety and Health on Artificial Islands, Installations and Other Devices on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States), January 20, 1982.
- Addresses the applicability of OSHA’s General Industry Standards (29 CFR Part 1910) to maritime hazards, as well as the coverage of OSHA’s Shipyard Employment Standards (29 CFR Part 1915), Marine Terminals Standards (29 CFR Part 1917), and Longshoring Standards (29 CFR Part 1918), and address marine operations in the Construction Industry (29 CFR Part 1926).
- Provides an appendix with questions and answers to commonly asked questions.
- Delivers available safety and health information in a web-based format with electronic links to noted references.
OSHA Cites Endres Processing LLC of Kansas City for Combustible Dust Hazards
OSHA cited Endres Processing LLC of Kansas Cit, Kansas, for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act following an inspection alleging fire and explosion hazards from combustible dust. Proposed penalties total $137,250.
“There is no excuse for the lack of attention to accumulation of combustible dusts in any mill or grain elevator, especially given our nation’s history of such horrific combustible dust explosions resulting in a high number of employee fatalities,” said Charles Adkins, OSHA’s regional administrator in Kansas City, Missouri. “It is imperative that employers take the necessary steps to eliminate hazards and provide a safe working environment for all their employees to prevent accidents from occurring.”
OSHA’s inspection of the Endres facility resulted in three alleged willful and four alleged serious violations. The willful violations address the inappropriate location of an air material separator that lacked explosion venting; an inadequate housekeeping program; and allowing combustible dusts to collect at depths greater than one-eighth of an inch. OSHA issues a willful violation when an employer exhibits plain indifference to, or intentional disregard for, employee safety and health.
The serious violations stem from the company’s failure to have an adequate number of exit routes; the lack of a written emergency action plan; an improperly rated powered industrial truck being operated in a hazardous atmosphere; and preventative maintenance records not being maintained.
The company is engaged in recycling inedible food products by milling them into feed for pigs and chickens.
OSHA Cites Cranesville Block Co. for Safety and Health Hazards at New York Plant
OSHA has proposed $45,500 in fines against Cranesville Block Co., for alleged repeat and serious violations of safety and health standards at its Kingston, New York, plant.
The citations and fines follow OSHA safety and health inspections prompted by employee complaints, and concern chemical and electrical hazards as well as lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers. Specifically, OSHA found blocked exits, workers lacking safety glasses and gloves while working with acid, unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals, unmarked electrical equipment, exposed live electrical parts, and moisture in electrical equipment.
“The serious and recurring nature of these hazards is disturbing,” said Edward Jerome, OSHA’s area director in Albany. “Employees at this plant are exposed to the hazards of electrocution, burns, eye and hand injuries, and being unable to swiftly exit the workplace in the event of a fire or other emergency. This employer must address these hazards effectively and continually now and in the future.”
OSHA has issued the company two repeat citations, with $27,500 in fines, for the lack of PPE and the unlabeled containers of chemicals, as it had cited the company in 2009 for similar hazards at Cranesville Block’s Fishkill, New York, and Glens Falls, New York, locations.
The remaining hazardous conditions identified in Kingston resulted in the issuance of six serious citations, with $18,000 in fines.
“One means of preventing recurring hazards is for employers to establish an effective comprehensive workplace safety and health program involving their workers in proactively evaluating, identifying and eliminating hazards,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.
OSHA Cites Guam Painters, BME & Sons Inc., $51,200 for Fall Protection Violations
OSHA has cited BME & Sons Inc., $51,200 in proposed penalties for alleged fall protection safety violations at a jobsite in Apra Heights, Guam.
OSHA cited the company for an alleged willful violation, assessing a proposed penalty of $44,000 for failing to provide fall protection while working on the second and third levels of a building in November 2009.
OSHA also cited six alleged serious violations, assessing a proposed penalty of $7,200 for failing to properly supervise installation of horizontal lifelines and anchorages, provide a competent person to inspect employees’ fall protection harnesses and lanyards, and inspect personal fall arrest systems prior to use and remove from service lanyards with missing identification labels. The employer also required workers to pay for the fall protection harnesses and lanyards, and did not prepare a written certification record documenting fall protection training for each employee exposed to fall hazards at the site.
“These violations occurred because BME & Sons failed to follow basic safety and health requirements despite repeated citations in the past,” said Ken Nishiyama Atha, OSHA’s regional administrator in San Francisco. “These violations had the potential of resulting in the death or serious injury of one or more of the company’s employees.”
OSHA has cited the painting contractor 12 times since 2005, including issuing a serious citation for the same fall protection standard in 2005.
GE Infrastructure Sensing Recalls Commercial CO2 and Temperature Sensors Due to Fire Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GE Infrastructure Sensing Inc., of Billerica, Massachusetts, announced a voluntary recall of the following products. If you have any of the following devices installed, you should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed: GE Telaire Airestat and Carrier Single Beam Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Temperature Sensors.
The CO2 and temperature sensors of these devices can overheat, posing a fire hazard. GE has received three reports in which a cracked capacitor caused the product to overheat and smoke. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves GE Telaire Airestat CO2 and temperature sensors with model numbers T8010, T8010-C, T8011, T8011-C, T5010, T5010-C, T5011 and T5011-C and Carrier Single Beam CO2 and temperature sensors with model numbers 33ZCT55CO2 and 33ZCT56CO2. The sensors are sold for commercial use and are wall-mounted. The sensors have a Telaire, Carrier, or no logo in front of the unit. The model number is not found on the sensor. Determining if a sensor is included in this recall requires inspection of the internal components of the unit.
The sensors were distributed by Carrier, Automated Components Incorporated (ACI), Devices Inc., Direct Digital Controls, Trane, Alps Control Inc., ATS Control Management Inc. and KMC Controls between November 2000 and March 2005 for between $150 and $200. The recalled sensor was distributed for use in commercial buildings.
Building owners should immediately contact GE Infrastructure Sensing for instructions on how to determine if a sensor is included in this recall and if it can be used while awaiting a replacement sensor. Only authorized maintenance personnel should follow these instructions. Building owners with recalled sensors will receive a free replacement sensor.
Schylling Associates to Pay a $200,000 Civil Penalty for Violation of Lead Paint Ban and for Failure to Report
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Massachusetts, has agreed to pay a $200,000 civil penalty.
In 1978, a federal ban was established that prohibited toys and other children’s articles from having more than 600 ppm (by weight) in paints or surface coatings. The regulatory limit was reduced to 90 ppm on August 14, 2009, as a result of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
The settlement resolves the following allegations:
- Schylling imported up to 66,000 units of non-compliant spinning top toys with Thomas and Friends, Curious George, and Circus graphics between June 2001 and June 2002, and distributed them to its retail business customers for sale to consumers.
- Schylling imported as many as 10,200 units of non-compliant tin pail toys with Thomas and Friends, Curious George, and Primary Colors graphics from late January 2002 through March 2002, and distributed about 4,700 of them to its retail customers for sale to consumers.
- Schylling also imported as many as 3,600 units of non-compliant Winnie-the-Pooh style spinning top toys between April and May 2003, and distributed them to its retail customers for sale to consumers.
Although it eventually reported about these toys to CPSC in 2007, Schylling knew or should have known by 2002 that most of the toys did not comply with the lead paint ban, and it failed to report this information to the government in a timely manner.
Instead of notifying CPSC immediately, in 2002 Schylling conducted a unilateral recall of the distributed pails by seeking their return from affected retail business customers.
Within weeks of being notified of each of these violations in 2007, CPSC announced the firm’s voluntary recall of the products first in August and for additional toys in November of that year.
“Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have a legal obligation to ensure that no banned products are introduced into or distributed in the U.S. marketplace, and to inform CPSC as soon as they become aware of information that must be reported under our laws. We will continue to penalize companies that do not follow these basic requirements,” said CPSC Chairman, Inez Tenenbaum.
In agreeing to the settlement, Schylling denies that it violated federal law, as alleged by CPSC staff.
Safety News Links
Hazmat Incidents and Workplace Accidents
Worker Health and Safety