OSHA Inspection: FLEX-N-GATE CORPORATION

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jul 19, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $6,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(h)(4):     Employees working with chromic acid were not provided with periodic examinations of their exposed body parts, especially their nostrils:    Employees working in the plating department, including but not limited to solution's attendants, lab techs, filter operators and employees entering tanks to clean them, were exposed to chromic acid and the employer did not provide periodic medical examinations.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $6,500

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:    On January 28, 2012, an employee, entering the semi-bright nickel tanks to clean them, was required to wear a half-mask air-purifying respirator and the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine his fitness to do so.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1):     The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    On January 28, 2012, an employee, entering the semi-bright nickel tanks to clean them, was required to wear a tight-fitting half-mask air-purifying respirator and the employer did not provide a fit test.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(5):     Respiratory protection retraining was not conducted annually:    A solutions attendant working in the plating dept. was required to use a half-mask air-purifying respirator and was not provided respiratory protection training annually.  The last training provided was 10/20/10.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jul 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    Employees are exposed to chemicals in the back-coat area and when entering plating tanks to clean them and the employer has assigned respiratory protection without appropriate evaluation to determine the severity of the hazard present.     a)  In the back-coat area the employee manually sprayed a water-based acrylic paint into bumpers.  The employee wore a dust mask voluntarily.  The paint contains ammonia and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol).    b)  In the Plating Department, employees enter decorative nickel/chromium electroplating tanks to pick up stray metal and parts and to vacuum contaminants.  On January 28, 2012 employees were required to wear half mask air-purifying respirators with OV/acid/filter cartridges. They entered semi-bright nickel tanks 17, 18 and 19 which contained nickel chloride, nickel sulfate, hydrochloric and sulfuric acids among other chemicals

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jul 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $6,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(f)(3)(i):   A procedure was not utilized to afford the employees a level of protection equivalent to that provided by the implementation of a personal lockout or tagout device when servicing and/or maintenance was performed by a crew, craft, department or other group:  On January 28, 2012 five separate employees entered semi-bright nickel tanks #17, 18 and 19 to clean them and the chemical piping, steam piping, pump electrical and recitifiers were isolated and locked out by only one employee who did not enter the tanks.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jul 19, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $6,500 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:    The employer did not conduct initial monitoring to determine exposures to chromium VI for employees entering chromium electroplating tanks to clean them.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jul 19, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i):     The employer did not ensure that all surfaces were maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI):    On December 15, 2011, dust on conduit above the plating department catwalk contained 204 micrograms per cubic meter of chromium VI.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $6,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(3)(i):     The employer did not provide a medical examination for chromium (VI) that included a medical and work history, with emphasis on:  past, present, and anticipated future exposure to chromium (VI); any history of respiratory system dysfunction; any history of asthma, dermatitis, skin ulceration, or nasal septum perforation; and smoking status and history:    On or about February 6, 2012 an employee exhibiting signs and symptoms of chromium VI exposure was provided a urine test for nickel and chromium content only.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(3)(ii):     The employer did not provide a medical examination for chromium (VI) that included a physical examination of the skin and respiratory tract:    On or about February 6, 2012 an employee exhibiting signs and symptoms of chromium VI exposure was provided a urine test for nickel and chromium content only.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(4):     The employer did not ensure that the examining physician or other licensed health care professional had the information required by the standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026:    On or about February 6, 2012, two employees were sent to a licensed health care professional and the employer did not provide the required information, including:    a)  copy of the standard 1910.1026  b)  A description of the affected employees former, current and anticipated duties as they relate to the employees occupational exposure to chromium VI  c)  The employees former, current and anticipated levels of occupational exposure to chromium VI  d)  A description of any PPE used or to be used by the employee, including when and for how long the employee has used that equipment; and  e)  Information from records of employment-related medical examinations previously provided to the affected employee, currently within the control of the employer.