Masonry Magazine January 1973 Page. 44
OSHA Info
Estimates on publication of additional proposed rules were as follows:
* Revocation of color codes for physical hazards and on size requirements for signs (third quarter of fiscal 1973).
* Compressed gas and compressed gas equipment (third quarter of fiscal 1973).
* Woodworking machinery and woodworking machinery guarding (third quarter of fiscal 1973).
* Carbon monoxide, heat stress, noise, and beryllium (fourth quarter of fiscal 1973).
FINAL RULES
Final rules on the following issues are expected to be published in the quarters indicated:
* Resolution of conflicts between general industry and construction standards on scaffold requirements and revocation of the ban on pumpjack scaffolds (second quarter of fiscal 1973).
* Power transmission and distribution lines (second quarter of fiscal 1973).
* Work in confined space (fourth quarter of fiscal 1973).
* Local exhaust systems (fourth quarter fiscal 1973).
CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
A three-count criminal suit was filed by the Justice Department against a construction company and its president for willful violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The suit charges the company and its president willfully failed to shore, brace, slope or otherwise support the sides of a trench which collapsed and killed an employee. The suit also charges that the company and its president willfully failed to store excavated material and other material at least two feet from the edge of the excavation. The firm had been inspected on June 7 and a citation for serious violation was issued on June 9. The accident occurred on June 8. A fine of up to $10,000 and/or six months in prison is provided by the Act upon conviction.
OSHA AMENDS RECORD-KEEPING RULE FOR NON-FIXED LOCATIONS
The Labor Department has amended its requirements on how employers must keep records and report on-the-job-related deaths, injuries and illnesses of employees not working in a fixed location. The rule changes affect employees who do not report to any fixed establishment on a regular basis but are subject to common supervision. This includes workers in construction, installation, repair and similar activities.
These employers had difficulty in maintaining records under previous requirements. The change permits employers to:
* Keep records for each operation or group of operations at an established central place.
* Provide at each work-site the address and telephone number of the central place.
* Assign one or more persons at the central place to provide information by phone and mail from the records kept there.
* Each February the OSHA Summary (OSHA 102) must be furnished to each affected employee who was employed during the previous year and who received pay during that month.
OSHA EASES RECORD-KEEPING FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS
An amendment to OSHA (effective January 1, 1973) will ease record-keeping requirements for employers with fewer than eight employees. The change applies to employers with no more than seven employees at any one time within the prior calendar year. Those employers will not be required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illness (OSHA 100), a supplementary record of each individual job injury or illness (OSHA 101) or an annual summary of such incidents (OSHA 102). They will be required only to report fatalities or multiple hospitalization accidents to OSHA within 48 hours.
JUDGE INCREASES PENALTY IN ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH
The importance of a written safety program, appointing someone on the job as "safety supervisor," tool box safety meetings, etc., was again demonstrated when an employer had a $160 penalty increased to $250 by a trial judge recently. The serious violation was for failing to guard employees from open-sided floors by use of a standard railing or equivalent. The Labor Department inspection indicated that the employer had no safety officer and until the advent of safety education initiated by the passage of OSHA, appeared to have no program directed at safety instruction and the use of protective equipment. Beyond being directed to "look at" safety literature obtained at a course in safety taken by his supervisors, the job foreman received no further instructions.
Accordingly, the employer did not merit consideration for good faith in complying with the act, the judge said. It would appear that the critical point of this type citation is, what would the employer's defense be should he suffer another fatality on-the-job or if he should receive another inspection? Unless he has improved his training program for job supervision, he could be subject to a willful violation.
HARD HATS VS. BUMP HATS
In a recent OSHA decision before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, an employer was found to be in violation because bump hats were worn by employees. This was considered a violation because they were determined to be improper head protection. The record did not show what effort was made by the employer to assure that the proper helmets would be worn in the work area.
MASONRY CONTRACTOR CITED
A California masonry contractor was cited with proposed penalty of $340 for alleged violations on a job site. The citation alleged failure to provide electrical cords with receptacles so designed that attachment plugs used for different voltages are not interchangeable, failure to erect a scaffold on a sound base (concrete blocks were used for footings of posts) failure to provide scaffold planks free of damage due to checking and splitting (numerous planks were in need of replacement), failure to install scaffold planks as required, and notice of OSHA was not posted.