OSHA Inspection: CHENOA WELDING & FABRICATION, INC.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(6):     Electrical wiring and equipment not subject to deposits of combustible residues but located in a spraying area as herein defined were not explosion-proof type approved for     Class I, group D locations and did not otherwise conform to the provisions of subpart S of this part, for Class I, Division 1, Hazardous Locations:    An employee within the paint building was exposed to fire hazards while performing painting operations.  The electrical wiring in place was not explosion-proof in design and did not conform to the provisions of subpart S of this part for Class I, Division 1 Hazardous Locations.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 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:    An employee was wearing a 3M half mask respirator while performing painting operations.  The employer did not and implement and maintain a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 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 employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    An employee was wearing a 3M half mask respirator while performing painting operations.  The employer did not ensure that the employee had received a medical evaluation prior to use of the respirator in the workplace.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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.    An employee was wearing a negative pressure half mask respirator while painting parts in the paint building and the employee had not been fit tested prior to intial use of the respirator.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(5):     Respiratory protection retraining was not conducted annually:    An employee was wearing a 3M half mask respirator while performing painting operations.  The employer did not provide annual respiratory protection training.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii):     An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operators performance was not conducted at least once every 3 years.    Employees were operating forklifts while moving parts.  An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operators performance had not been conducted at least once every 3 years.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(6):     The employer did not certify that each operator had been trained and evaluated as required by this paragraph (l)    Employees were operating forklifts while moving parts.  The employer failed to certify that each operator had been trained and evaluated in the operation of the forklifts.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2):     Listed or labeled electrical equipment was not used or installed in accordance with instructions included in the listing or labeling:    Employees were exposed to electrical hazards while working around live extension cords which were outfitted with metal electrical boxes.  The boxes contained knockouts and were intended to be mounted on a wall.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i):     Except as elsewhere required or permitted by Subpart S of Part 1910, live parts of electric equipment operating  at 50 volts or more were not guarded against accidental contact by use of approved cabinets or other forms of approved enclosures or by any of the means identified in paragraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of 29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i):    An employee was exposed to electrical hazards from live 110 volt wiring which terminated near the door.  The live ends were not guarded against accidental contact by use of enclosure.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii):     Unused openings in boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not effectively closed:    Employees working within bay one were exposed to electrical hazards.  Two electrical panels had multiple missing blanks and were not effectively closed to prevent contact with energized parts.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(i):     The employer using the scheduled monitoring option did not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium (VI) for each employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:    Employees were potentially exposed to hexavelant chromium while welding on stainless steel.  The employer failed to perform initial monitoring.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · 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:    Employees were exposed to the physical and chemical hazards associated with welding fumes from stainless steel and structural steel; as well as vapors from various paints.  Employees were not provided information and training as required on hazardous chemicals in their work areas.  The employer did not maintain material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(d)(4)(i):     Inside storage rooms were not constructed to meet the test specifications set forth in the Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, NFPA 251-1969.      An employee working within the paint building was exposed to potential fire hazards because the inside storage room within the building did not have an approved fire rating nor was it liquid tight in construction.  Additionally the inside storage room did not have a raised sill and was not equipped with a self-closing fire door.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(7):     Electric lamps outside of but within 20 feet of spraying area(s), and not separated there from by partition(s), were not protected from mechanical injury by suitable guards or by location:    An employee within the paint building was exposed to fire hazards while performing painting operations.  The lights in place on the East and West walls were not protected by suitable guards to prevent against breakage.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):     Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):    Employees performed welding on structural and stainless steel and used various paints including Sherman-Williams Shopcoat Primer.  The employer did not implement and maintain a written hazard communication program.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    A container of paint was used by an employee within the paint building.  The container was not labeled, tagged, or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemicals contained therein.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Jan 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:    A container of paint was used by an employee within the paint building.  The container was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazards associated with the substance. The container was no labeled to convey general information regarding the product's hazards.

Issued

Jan 19, 2012

Abate by

Feb 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    Employees were exposed to the physical and chemical hazards associated with welding fumes from stainless steel and structural steel; as well as vapors from various paints.  Employees were not provided information and training as required on hazardous chemicals in their work areas.