OSHA Inspection: ALL RECYCLING, INC.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 13, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,207 · Current $3,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to the possibility of dropped loads and/or crushing hazards:  (a)  On or about March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to crushing injury while using the overhead hoist without performing daily to monthly inspections of the hoist.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

Jun 6, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,366 · Current $3,030 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not provide employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards which were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees, in that employees were exposed to the hazard of serious crushing injuries:   (a)  On or about March 29, 2011,  and at times prior, the employer had not developed and implemented an inspection and maintenance program for the Prolift automotive lift. The condition exposed employees to possible crushing injuries due to the potential for lift failure.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

Apr 28, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,207 · Current $3,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.67(c)(2)(v): A body belt was not worn and a lanyard attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift:  (a)   On or about March 29, 2011, and at at times prior, employees were not adequately restrained from catapulting from the basket of a Genie aerial lift by the use of a properly installed fall restraint system. Employee were utilizing fall arrest systems with 6 foot shock absorbing lanyards while working in the basket which would not provide adequate protection.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 13, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,366 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:   (a)  On or about March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to falls in excess of 9.5 feet, while walking the railcars without utilizing a fall protection system.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 4, 2011

Penalty

Initial $5,940 · Current $5,346 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  (a)  On or about  March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to eye and face injury while handling automotive batteries without utilizing eye protection such as goggles and a face shield.   (b)  On or about March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to eye  injury while working with de-greaser cleaner, without utilizing appropriate eye protection.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 13, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,366 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1):Where powered industrial trucks were found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe, the trucks were not taken out of service until they had been restored to safe operating condition.  (a)  On or about  March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to vehicle injury while operating a Daewood forklift which was not removed from service until identified repairs were made.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 13, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,366 · Current $3,030 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by, ingoing nip points:  (a)  On or about March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to ingoing nip points from an unguarded tail section of the machine located in the Sensor building, which did not have adequate machine guarding installed.    (b)  On or about March 29, 2011,  and at times prior, employees were exposed to amputation injury from an unguarded tail section of the machine located at the East side of the yard at the wire machine.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 4, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,524 · Current $2,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:  (a)  On or about  March 29, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to injury while using compressed air for cleaning, in the Sensor building and the Forklift repair building,  that had a dead end pressure greater than 100 p.s.i..

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

Jun 6, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,524 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:    (a)  On or about March 29, 2011, and at times prior, a material safety data sheet was not maintained for de-greaser used in the janitorial department by employees.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

May 4, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,207 · Current $3,790 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(b)(2):Outlet devices had an ampere rating less than the load being served:  (a)  On or about  March 29, 2011,  and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical injury while utilizing an outlet that had a portable powertap, located outside,  plugged into another powertap, which had a kerosene heater, lamp, radio, and GE refrigerator plugged into the same outlet.

Issued

Apr 25, 2011

Abate by

Jun 6, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:  (a)  On or about March 29, 2011,  and at times prior, employees were exposed to eye and face injury while handling automotive batteries which contain sulfuric acid,  without utilizing the appropriate personal protective equipment, effective information and training on the hazardous chemicals in the work area was not provided.   (b) On or about March 29, 2011, and at time prior, employees were exposed to eye injury while utilizing degreaser for cleaning, without utilizing the appropriate personal protective equipment, effective information and training on the hazardous chemicals in the work area was not provided.