OSHA Inspection: MIDWEST AUTO RECYCLING, LLC

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Jan 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,980 · Current $950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  (a) The employer required workers performing engine and transmission recycling to use elastomeric half-face respirators, equipped with combination N95 and organic vapor cartridges.  However, no written respiratory program had been implemented to provide for medical evaluations, fit tests, proper maintenance and storage of respirators, and adequate training for respirator users.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Jan 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Workers performing engine/transission dismantling and recycling work were required to use half-face elastomeric respirators, but no medical evaluations had been provided to determine the fitness of the workers to use the respirators.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Jan 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f):     The employee was required to use a respirator without being fit tested with the same make, model, style and size of respirator that was to be used:    (a) Workers performing recycling of engines and transmissions were required to use tigh-fitting elastomeric half-face respirators, but no fit tests (either quantitative or qualitative fit tests) were provided.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Jan 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1):     Respirators were not cleaned and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of 29 CFR 1910.134 or equivalent procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer:  (a) In the engine and transmission dismantling and recycling area, workers used elastomeric half-face respirators which were not kept in a sanitary condition.  No provisions had been made for periodic cleaning of these respirators.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Jan 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i):     Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or  were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  (a) Workers in the engine and transmission dismantling/recycling area used elastomeric half-face respirators, but no provision was made to protect the respirators while in storage from chemical contamination.  For example, no plastic bags or other suitable containers were provided for storage of these respirators.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Jan 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k):     The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:    (a) The employer required use of elastomeric half-face respirators, but training was not provided to workers regarding use and care of these respirators.  For example, workers were not trained on procedures for maintenance and storage of the respirators.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Nov 21, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,300 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1):     Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe had not been  taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition(s)  (a) In the engine dismantling area, powered industrial truck #2860 had been found to have a service brake that was not working properly, according to an inspection performed on October 13, 2011.  However, this powered industrial truck was observed being used on October 19, 2011, without repairs to the brakes having been done.  This condition exposed workers to the potential hazard of being struck-by by the powered industrial vehicle.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Dec 12, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,980 · Current $950 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) In the engine dismantling area, workers used compressed air guns or nozzles for cleaning engines which delivered approximately 70 p.s.i. when dead-ended.  This condition potentially exposed workers to an air embolism hazard.

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Dec 12, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.4(a):     The employer did not record each work-related fatality, injury or illness case that resulted in the general recording criteria on the OSHA Form 300 or equivalent:    (a) On or about September 21, 2011, the employer did not record the following workplace injuries or illnesses on the OSHA 300 Log for the calendar year 2011:    1. On or about April 18, 2011, a worker required medical treatment and experienced days away from work due to a back injury.    2. On or about August 8, 2011, a worker required medical treatment due to laceration injury under lower lip.    Abatement Certification and Documentation is required

Issued

Nov 18, 2011

Abate by

Dec 12, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(1): A Log of all recordable work-related injuries and illnesses (OSHA Form 300 or equivalent), was not completed in the detail as required by the regulation:    (a) On or about September 21, 2011, the employer did not record the following workplace injury correctly on the OSHA 300 log for calendar year 2010:    On or about June 22, 2010 a worker experienced days away from work and restricted work due to a groin hernia injury which was recorded both as a case of days away from work and a case of job transfer or restriction on the 2010 log (according to form instructions, only the most serious result is to be checked for each case).  Also, no entries were made for this injury in columns K and L to show the number of days away from work and the number of days on job transfer or restriction.