OSHA Inspection: STOWE WOODWARD LLC

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Oct 6, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $3,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1):  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:              a.      Establishment - On or about 3/8/11, employees who were required to wear half-face, elastomeric, negative- pressure tight-fitting respirators in the workplace had not been medically evaluated to determine their ability to use a respirator.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Sep 27, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $3,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):  The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter:           a.     Establishment - Prior to 4/25/11, employees required to wear half-face and/or full-face elastomeric negative-pressure, tight-fitting respirators had not been fit-tested prior to initial use of these respirators.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Sep 27, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A):  The employer permitted respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surfaces of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:         a.     Establishment - On or before 3/17/11, required-use, half-face, elastomeric, negative-pressure respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Sep 13, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.7(b)(3): The employer did not correctly classify the following work-related injuries or illnesses on the OSHA Form 300 or equivalent:        a.     Establishment -  On or about 11/13/09, an employee was diagnosed with right inguinal hernia due to constant heavy lifting, which resulted in restricted work activity as well as days away from work following the surgery necessary for treatment of this injury.  The employer had not recorded this injury as a case involving days away from work.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Sep 13, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.7(b)(4):  The employer did not enter the number of days for a case involving restricted work or transfer on the OSHA 300 Log:         a.      Establishment  - On or about 8/25/10, an employee was diagnosed with a laceration to the right forearm which required sutures and ten days restricted work activity.  The employer did not record the number of restricted days.         b.      Establishment - On or about 10/8/10, an employee was diagnosed with a laceration to the left hand, which required sutures and restricted work activity for several days.  The employer did not record the number of restricted days.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Mar 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):  The employer did not ensure that a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures was updated as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator use, to include the provisions of (i)-(ix), as applicable:     a.     Establishment - The employer\'s written respiratory protection program did not include worksite specific procedures, such as, but not limited to, the assessment for the selection of respirators at this location.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Mar 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminants\' chemical state and physical form:\\r\\n\\r\\n     a.      Establishment - On or about 4/25/11, the employer had not evaluated the respiratory hazards in the workplace, in that cartridges provided to all employees wearing required-use, half-face or full-face, elastomeric air-purifying respirators were for protection against ammonia and methylamine and particulates (AM/MA/P100), including those workers who were working with paints and solvents containing chemicals such as, but not limited to, toluene, MEK, and rubber solvent, which indicate organic vapor cartridges as the necessary type for use with those materials.

Issued

Sep 6, 2011

Abate by

Mar 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2):  The employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator that would ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life:\r\n\r\n          a.      Establishment - On or about 6/29/11, the employer did not establish or implement a change out schedule for the North "Defender" cartridges used with elastomeric, negative-pressure, air purifying respirators, for protection against materials such as, but not limited to, toluene, MEK and rubber solvent.\r\n\r\n