For more info see article below:<\/p>\n
$144,000 Fine For Water Authority Allegedly Exposing Workers To Ozone<\/em><\/h1>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n![\"worker.reg\"](\"http:\/\/vertassets.blob.core.windows.net\/image\/00f11048\/00f11048-d2a5-4cb1-8504-261f79f82849\/375_250-worker_reg.jpg\")
<\/a><\/em><\/div>\nState regulators are hitting New Mexico\u2019s largest water provider with $144,000 in fines, alleging that the utility put employees in harm\u2019s way, according to<\/a>\u00a0NM Political Report.<\/em><\/p>\nAfter a six-month probe, the New Mexico Occupational Health & Safety Bureau<\/a> wrote up the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility for 44 violations, including worker safety problems.<\/em><\/p>\n\u201cMore than a third of the dollar figure for the fines comes from exposing employees to hazardous levels of ozone, a toxic gas that at high levels can cause serious respiratory problems and trigger asthma attacks,\u201d according to NM Political Report.<\/em><\/p>\n\u201cThe dispute stems from an incident where an employee discovered a \u2018minor leak\u2019 in a pipe in the area of the plant that works with ozone. Water Authority employees appealed to OSHA after being ignored through the internal grievance process, according to an employee with knowledge of the situation who didn\u2019t want to be named in fear of retaliation,\u201d the report said.<\/em><\/p>\nThe bureau classified the violation as \u201cwillful\u201d and \u201cserious,\u201d which means the following, according to the Political Report:<\/em><\/p>\nBy federal definition<\/a>, the willful part of the violation means the Water Authority \u201cknowingly failed to comply\u201d with the law or \u201cacted in plain indifference to employee safety.\u201d The serious part of the violation means management put the workplace in a situation that \u201ccould cause an accident or illness that would most likely result in death or serious physical harm.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThe bureau argued that the water authority \u201cwas aware that there were no [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-certified] respirators for ozone [and instead allowed its employees to use air-purifying respirators],\u201d according to the Political Report.<\/em><\/p>\nThe water authority is contesting the charge, per the story:<\/em><\/p>\nWater Authority spokesman Davis Morris contended that the ozone exposure levels were actually too low to do any harm. \u201cOSHA said, \u2018No, this respirator isn\u2019t rated for working with ozone,\u2019\u201d Morris told New Mexico Political Report. \u201cWhat we\u2019re saying is you don\u2019t need a respirator at all.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nHe later added, \u201cIf in the judgement of the [regulators it\u2019s determined that] the use of a cartridge respirator was a mistake in this particular circumstance, it is still not a willful violation as inadvertent, accidental or ordinarily negligent violations are distinguishable from willful [ones].\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nRead Full Article HERE<\/a><\/em><\/div>\n <\/p>\n
While the main point of the fine and contention from management appears to revolve around a respirator, this should never become an issue.\u00a0 OSHA provides safety limits for ozone use of 0.08. 0.1, and 0.3 ppm depending upon worker environment.<\/a><\/p>\nOSHA also requires that ozone detection devices are in place, and workers are trained in the operation.\u00a0 In the event the workplace ozone levels are never allowed to rise above these levels, and workers are aware of this, there is no need for a respirator.<\/p>\n
The respirators that OSHA recommends for use near ozone are basic carbon filters.\u00a0 As ozone reacts with this carbon filter CO and CO2 are created.\u00a0 These are also toxic gasses at high levels.\u00a0 Also, as the carbon breaks down into CO and CO2 as it should, the filter becomes less effective at removing ozone safely.\u00a0 At what point does the filter stop working?\u00a0 And does the worker know this?\u00a0 For these reasons, we do not suggest the use of respirators, unless absolutely necessary.\u00a0 We suggest the use of quality ozone detectors, and for proper ozone shut-down controls.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/em><\/div>\nState regulators are hitting New Mexico\u2019s largest water provider with $144,000 in fines, alleging that the utility put employees in harm\u2019s way, according to<\/a>\u00a0NM Political Report.<\/em><\/p>\n After a six-month probe, the New Mexico Occupational Health & Safety Bureau<\/a> wrote up the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility for 44 violations, including worker safety problems.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cMore than a third of the dollar figure for the fines comes from exposing employees to hazardous levels of ozone, a toxic gas that at high levels can cause serious respiratory problems and trigger asthma attacks,\u201d according to NM Political Report.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThe dispute stems from an incident where an employee discovered a \u2018minor leak\u2019 in a pipe in the area of the plant that works with ozone. Water Authority employees appealed to OSHA after being ignored through the internal grievance process, according to an employee with knowledge of the situation who didn\u2019t want to be named in fear of retaliation,\u201d the report said.<\/em><\/p>\n The bureau classified the violation as \u201cwillful\u201d and \u201cserious,\u201d which means the following, according to the Political Report:<\/em><\/p>\n By federal definition<\/a>, the willful part of the violation means the Water Authority \u201cknowingly failed to comply\u201d with the law or \u201cacted in plain indifference to employee safety.\u201d The serious part of the violation means management put the workplace in a situation that \u201ccould cause an accident or illness that would most likely result in death or serious physical harm.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The bureau argued that the water authority \u201cwas aware that there were no [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-certified] respirators for ozone [and instead allowed its employees to use air-purifying respirators],\u201d according to the Political Report.<\/em><\/p>\n The water authority is contesting the charge, per the story:<\/em><\/p>\n Water Authority spokesman Davis Morris contended that the ozone exposure levels were actually too low to do any harm. \u201cOSHA said, \u2018No, this respirator isn\u2019t rated for working with ozone,\u2019\u201d Morris told New Mexico Political Report. \u201cWhat we\u2019re saying is you don\u2019t need a respirator at all.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n He later added, \u201cIf in the judgement of the [regulators it\u2019s determined that] the use of a cartridge respirator was a mistake in this particular circumstance, it is still not a willful violation as inadvertent, accidental or ordinarily negligent violations are distinguishable from willful [ones].\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Read Full Article HERE<\/a><\/em><\/div>\n <\/p>\n While the main point of the fine and contention from management appears to revolve around a respirator, this should never become an issue.\u00a0 OSHA provides safety limits for ozone use of 0.08. 0.1, and 0.3 ppm depending upon worker environment.<\/a><\/p>\n OSHA also requires that ozone detection devices are in place, and workers are trained in the operation.\u00a0 In the event the workplace ozone levels are never allowed to rise above these levels, and workers are aware of this, there is no need for a respirator.<\/p>\n The respirators that OSHA recommends for use near ozone are basic carbon filters.\u00a0 As ozone reacts with this carbon filter CO and CO2 are created.\u00a0 These are also toxic gasses at high levels.\u00a0 Also, as the carbon breaks down into CO and CO2 as it should, the filter becomes less effective at removing ozone safely.\u00a0 At what point does the filter stop working?\u00a0 And does the worker know this?\u00a0 For these reasons, we do not suggest the use of respirators, unless absolutely necessary.\u00a0 We suggest the use of quality ozone detectors, and for proper ozone shut-down controls.<\/p>\n