A maintenance contractor that provides skilled labor to perform skilled labor, electrical and mechanical work was cited by OSHA for violations of the PSM standard after their employee was injured by a chemical release.<\/p>\n
OSHA threw the book at them and through conference and litigation many of the citations were dropped. Two stuck around:<\/p>\n
\nItem 3 alleged a serious violation of \u00a7 1910.119(j)(2) for failing to establish and implement written procedures for maintaining the ongoing integrity of process equipment;
\nItem 4 alleged a serious violation of \u00a7 1910.119(j)(3) for failing to train (the employee)\u00a0in an overview of the process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to his tasks;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe contractor asserted that the site owner was the operator of the plant, and\u00a0therefore was the appropriate “employer” responsible for fulfilling the requirements set forth in the cited PSM standards and that the cited standards did not apply to the contractor.<\/p>\n
The Appeals Court upheld the previous ALJ ruling:<\/p>\n
\nALJ expressly rejected Jacobs’s argument that \u00a7\u00a7 1910.119(j)(2) and (3) do not apply to contract employers, finding that, under OSHA’ s multi-employer policy, the cited standard applied “to the cited conditions, not to the cited employer.” Because (the Contractor)\u00a0was the “exposing employer,” it was responsible “for all violative conditions to which its employee had access.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Two things to keep in mind here:<\/p>\n
\n
- You have to deal with a contract employee the same as you would deal with any similarly situated employee.<\/li>\n
- Process Operator<\/em> is a\u00a0function<\/strong>, not a title. Whether it’s the janitor, a line cook, a salesman or a skilled contract employee – if they are operating the process, they are a\u00a0Process Operator<\/em> and all the PSM requirements will apply to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
OSHA would have had a much easier time proving violations of the PSM standard under the Contractors element:<\/p>\n
\n1910.119(h)(3)(i) –\u00a0The contract employer shall assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform his\/her job.
\n1910.119(h)(3)(ii) –\u00a0The contract employer shall assure that each contract employee is instructed in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his\/her job and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nMy thinking is that they were trying to prove a larger point\u00a0with these citations placed under the Mechanical Integrity element.<\/p>\n
(link to ruling itself<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A maintenance contractor that provides skilled labor to perform skilled labor, electrical and mechanical work was cited by OSHA for violations of the PSM standard after their employee was injured by a chemical release. OSHA threw the book at them … Continue reading