Why You Should Toss “Common Sense” From Your Safety Vocabulary

Posted by Editor on Aug 1, 2010 in content can, feature report | Comments Off

We hear it all the time: If people would only use their common sense, they wouldn’t get hurt on or off the job. But just who decides what is and isn’t common sense?

Safety managers try to make the point that “common sense” won’t tell you how to avoid many lethal workplace hazards. People are not born knowing this stuff and they do not learn it in everyday life.

“Common sense” refers to what the average person would think, know or figure out. Think of a 25-year-old guy who is not a deep thinker, living in suburbia, high school grad, watcher of television, not a big reader, learned workshop skills from Dad, has a busy life and lots of important things on his mind. In many companies or organizations, that’s your average worker.

A great deal of workplace safety is NOT common sense. Consider these examples:

• The liquid in that drum can eat your skin away and you won’t feel a thing until the damage is done.
• A glimpse of that light in a mirror can burn your eyes and cause terrible pain.
• Step into that underground utility vault and you will be dead in minutes.
• The liquid in that container way over there is going to explode when you start an electric drill way over here.
• Dropping a pen from your pocket into the hatch of that tanker will set off a huge explosion.
• Put your hand over a pinhole leak on that cylinder and you will die an agonizing death.
• Your hearing does not get used to loud noise, it just gets permanently impaired.
• Pavement that looks bare and dry is actually sheer ice.

What’s common sense to you may be anything but common to your workers. Assuming that people will automatically know what to do or not to do is asking for big trouble. Take time to spell out the hazards to your workers, even if they seem obvious to you.

Staying Off OSHA’s Top 10 List?

Posted by Editor on Aug 1, 2010 in content can, news you can use | Comments Off

Here’s a Top 10 list you’ll want to avoid finding yourself on: OSHA’s Top 10 list of most frequently-cited violations between January and the end of September 2006.

During the 94^th annual National Safety Congress and Expo in San Diego in early November, OSHA announced that 43,374 violations were included in its 2006 Top 10 list. Numbers from state-run plans aren’t included.

Here are the most recent numbers:

1. Scaffolding, General Requirements: 9,012 violations
2. Hazard Communication: 6,704
3. Fall Protection: 6,378
4. Respiratory Protection: 4,332
5. Lockout/Tagout: 3,659
6. Powered Industrial Trucks: 3,080
7. Electrical Wiring Methods, Components and Equipment for General Use: 2,953
8. Machine Guarding, General Requirements: 2,749
9. Ladders 2,329
10. Electrical, General Requirements: 2,178

White Swan Company Can’t Duck OSHA

Posted by Editor on Jul 27, 2010 in content can, news you can use | Comments Off

Some company owners view occupational safety and health fines as part of the cost of doing business. And a much smaller number don’t bother addressing issues raised by safety inspectors and fail to pay fines.

A logging company operating in White Swan, WA, has been cited by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for alleged failure to abate previously-cited safety concerns. It also faces repeat, serious and other-than-serious violations that collectively carry proposed penalties totaling $103,400.

The inspections were initiated as a follow-up to an OSHA fatality inspection conducted in 2005. Wheeler Logging Co. was cited for numerous violations. OSHA says the company neither responded to the 2005 citations nor paid the previous penalties.

The failure-to-abate citation addresses separation and protection of fuel storage tanks. Violations cited in 2005 have not been corrected. The repeat citations were issued for failure to provide OSHA with copies of OSHA 300 and 301 forms for reporting injuries and other incidents, and failure to label containers of hazardous chemicals.

The serious citation alleges violations related to machine guarding, compressed gas cylinders, electrical hazards and hazard communication. The other-than-serious citation alleges violations involving fire exits, fire extinguishers and electrical hazards.

Construction Company facing $191,000 in Proposed Fines

Posted by Editor on Jul 20, 2010 in content usa, scorecard | Comments Off

REGION 4

An OSHA investigation alleges that 84 injury incidents involving lost workdays or restricted work activities at three plants were not recorded. Officials at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which operates the three facilities, contacted OSHA when they noticed discrepancies on the OSHA 300 Log used to record work-related injuries and illnesses. [Stone and Webster Construction’s maintenance division, Stoughton, MA. Release Number 07-87-ATL (006), Jan. 22, 2007].

Employee Complaint Leads to $120,600 in Proposed Fines for Syracuse, NY, Bakery

Posted by Editor on Jul 20, 2010 in content usa, scorecard | Comments Off

REGION 2

OSHA inspectors cite a company for 42 alleged serious safety and health hazards including blocked exit routes, deficiencies in an emergency response plan and lack of procedures, training and equipment to lock out power sources of machines before performing maintenance. Other alleged violations include unguarded moving machine parts, unsafe operation of forklifts, electrical hazards, lack of PPE, problems with chemical hazard communication and failure to provide medical exams and surveillance. [Penny Curtiss Baking Co., Syracuse, NY. Release No. 07-47-NEW/BOS 2007-011, Jan. 18, 2007].