Multi-employer sites don’t get “buys”.  Being vigilant is the key.  Document other’s violations and work together for a safe workplace.  We are only as good as our weakest link. Click here to read the recent OSHA Interpretation on Multi-employer responsibility for electrical cords on construction sites.

This interpretation makes it clear that OSHA can cite electrical hazards which are “recognized” under the “General Duty Clause”.  This interpretation also clarifies the responsibilities of the “controlling employer”.  This is one of the first mentions of NFPA 70E by OSHA and we are seeing the results of the citations today. OSHA states in the [...]

OSHA actually addressed logos for flame resistant clothing related to arc flash in an interpretation letter.  This is interesting. They didn’t give specific guidance but indicated the employer is responsible. For arc flash issues some use a non-melting thread like Nomex, Kermel or Conex.  Other options are coming online all the time.  I’d bet a [...]

This letter of interpretation is based on the Ford Motor Citation from 2000 as to how it affects ADOSH citations.  The letter addresses an AZ OSHA Interpretation of the effect of the Ford citation and NFPA 70E on future citations. Click Here to Read See the Complete Letter of Interpretation.

“OSHA’s policy for citing the general industry standard for personal protective equipment (PPE), 29 CFR 1910.132(a), for the failure to provide and use flame-resistant clothing (FRC) in oil and gas well drilling, servicing, and production-related operations. For the purpose of this memo, FRC includes both flame-resistant and fire retardant treated clothing. Clarification of the need to provide and use FRC during certain drilling, servicing, and production-related operations is necessary to resolve its inconsistent use among drilling contractors, well servicing contractors, and oil and gas companies that employ thousands of workers in these operations. OSHA inspection history and current information, including consensus standards, scientific evidence, and accident and injury data, indicate a potential for flash fires during certain well drilling, servicing, and production-related operations….

Citation Guidance for 29 CFR 1910.132(a)

Where appropriate, CSHOs shall cite 29 CFR 1910.132(a) for the failure to provide and ensure the use of FRC in oil and gas drilling, well servicing, or production-related operations when there is a potential for flash fire hazards as discussed below.

Drilling Operations
FRC is usually not needed during initial rig up and normal drilling operations prior to reaching active hydrocarbon zones, unless other activities warrant their use; e.g., fracing a previously drilled well while rigging a well in close proximity.

A potential for flash fire exists once active gas or hydrocarbon zones are reached. Appropriate FRC shall be worn by exposed employees working on the well site prior to drilling into identified gas or hydrocarbon zones. CSHOs should verify that employees are wearing FRC in advance of reaching such zones.

Appropriate FRC should also be worn when there is a history of fluid or gas kicks from underground producing zones.

Once FRC is identified for use as provided above, employees should wear appropriate FRC until the final casing is cemented and the well is effectively closed.

Well Servicing Operations
CSHOs shall determine whether FRC is provided and worn during well servicing or workover operations, such as:

Pulling wet string tubing
Snubbing tubing
Swabbing operations
Fracturing or perforating the well
Using bridge plugs or packers
Open hole work
Flow testing, blowing down or venting the well
Plugging an abandoned well
Flowback operations
Cementing
Stimulation
Wireline operations
Any operation working with wellhead or wellbore under pressure

Production-Related Operations
In OSHA’s experience, the potential for flash fire also exists in production-related operations that fall outside of drilling and well servicing. CSHOs shall determine whether FRC is provided and worn during production-related operations, such as:

Equipment openings (e.g., line breaking or valve changes)
Gauging
Transfer of hydrocarbons
Maintenance operations on production equipment
Hot work operations
Tank heating
Using open flame
Start-up operations”

“Question: Under what circumstances may an employer located in Minnesota repair a damaged extension cord under 29 CFR 1926, Subpart K?

Answer: Paragraph 1926.405(g)(2)(iii) provides:

Flexible cords shall be used only in continuous lengths without splice or tap. Hard service flexible cords No. 12 or larger may be repaired if spliced so that the splice retains the insulation, outer sheath properties, and usage characteristics of the cord being spliced.
This standard permits you to repair an extension cord, under the conditions set forth, provided the cord is a flexible cord that is No. 12 or larger.

Additionally, 1926.403(a) requires all electrical conductors used by employers on a construction site to be “approved.” Section 1926.449 defines “approved” as:

Acceptable to the authority enforcing this subpart. The authority enforcing this subpart is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health. The definition of “acceptable” indicates what is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and therefore approved within the meaning of this subpart.
Section 1926.449 defines “acceptable” as:

An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this subpart K:
(a) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a qualified testing laboratory capable of determining the suitability of materials and equipment for installation and use in accordance with this standard; or
(b) With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind which no qualified testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or determines to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another Federal agency, or by a State, municipal, or other local authority responsible for enforcing occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code, and found in compliance with those provisions; or
(c) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations which are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives.
Assuming the extension cord you are repairing was initially “acceptable,” §1926.403(a) precludes you from using a repaired cord if the cord is significantly altered as a result of the repair. For example, you are precluded from using a repaired cord if the repair changes the cord’s original flexibility.1 As you may be aware, the State of Minnesota operates its own occupational safety and health program under a plan approved by Federal OSHA. Under this plan, the Minnesota Department of Labor promulgates and enforces occupational safety and health standards under authority of State law, and posts them on its website at http://www.dli.mn.gov/mnosha.asp. Although some of Minnesota’s standards are different, both its standards and interpretations must be at least as effective as Federal OSHA’s. For information on Minnesota’s Electrical standard and its enforcement, we suggest that you contact:

James Krueger, Compliance Director
443 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4307
PH: (651) 284-5050
TOLL FREE: (877) 470-6742
FAX: (651) 284-5741″