El Paso Contractor Fined $106k

Here's one close to my new home - that is if you think Pensacola is close to Fort Myers. OSHA is proposing $106,200 in penalties against El Paso-based Best Plastering Contractors for allegedly exposing employees to potential fall hazards.

OSHA issued the citations alleging four willful and three serious violations following an investigation that began July 11, 2008, when agency inspectors witnessed employees working on a scaffold without using fall protection equipment at the company's worksite on Patriot Point Drive in El Paso.

"The fines reflect the company's failure to follow OSHA requirements and their indifference toward providing their employees with a safe workplace environment," said Dean McDaniel, OSHA's regional administrator in Dallas. "It is fortunate that no one was seriously injured."

The willful citations are for failing to fully plank working levels of the scaffold; to set up the scaffold on adequate foundation; to supply workers with a ladder or other safe access to the scaffold working levels; and to provide guardrails for employees working on upper levels of the scaffold. A willful violation is one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

Serious violations included failing to provide training for employees who used portland cement, a chemical which can cause skin burns; to properly brace the scaffold; and to repair or replace damaged scaffold components. A serious violation exists when there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.

The very sad thing is that most of us in the construction safety profession preach these very same things every day. And, it doesn't matter where in the country we work. As a safety director for a general contractor, I find a lot of subcontractors who work hard at providing their workers with safety training. But, for every one who cares, there are a dozen who don't care. Scaffolding requires the supervision of a "competent person" and I believe that if contractors complied with that one rule - having a real "competent person" on-site - the hazards noted here would not have existed. I am surprised that the subcontractor wasn't cited for the lack of a competent person - or the n0n-existence of the required scaffold inspection.