VERMONT, IL ·
OSHA Inspection: MAHONEY FOUNDRIES, INC.
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of MAHONEY FOUNDRIES, INC. in 29 NORTH MAIN STREET, VERMONT, IL 61484 (NAICS 331522). OSHA activity number 333308625.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- MAHONEY FOUNDRIES, INC.
- Site address
- 29 NORTH MAIN STREET
- City
- VERMONT
- State
- IL
- ZIP
- 61484
- Mailing
- P.O. BOX 290, VERMONT, IL 61484
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Union (A)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 331522
- Employees
- 40
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
7 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Jul 18, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,900 Reduced
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 working on the New Hunter Line in the Shake Out position was required to wear a tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirator and the employer had not provided a medical evaluation to ensure his ability to wear the respirator.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1900
- · Z (S) $2800
1910.134 F01
- Issued
- Jul 18, 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): An employee working on the New Hunter Line in the Shake Out position was required to wear a tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirator and the employer had not provided a fit test.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.134 K03
- Issued
- Jul 18, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace: An employee working on the New Hunter Line in the Shake Out position was required to wear a tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirator and the employer had not provided training as outlined in this section: a. Why the respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage or maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the respirator; b. What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are; c. How to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions; d. How to inspect, put on and remove, use and check the seals of the respirator; e. What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the respirator; f. How to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of the respirators; and g. The general requirements of the OSHA standard.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.134 G01 I A
- Issued
- Jul 18, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,900 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: An employee working on the New Hunter Line in the Shake Out position was required to wear a tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirator and the employer did not prohibit his facial hair that interferred with the sealing surfaces of the facepiece and the face.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1900
- · Z (S) $2800
1910.1025 J02 I A
- Issued
- Jul 18, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(2)(i)(A): The employer did not make available biological monitoring in the form of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin levels at least every 6 months to each affected employee: An employee working on the Melt Floor as a Pourer, exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit, and had received biological monitoring on January 4, 2011. The employee was terminated fromthe job on June 14, 2011. The same employee was rehired to the same position on February 20, 2012 and had not receive biological monitoring upon his rehire. The employee was employed for approximately eight months without receiving biological monitoring that is required at six month intervals.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $4200
1910.1025 L01 I
- Issued
- Jul 18, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,900 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i): Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025: An employee working on the New Hunter Line as a shake out operator was potentially exposed to lead and the employer had not provided training for lead that included the information in Appendices A and B.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1900
- · Z (S) $2800
1910.1200 H01
- Issued
- Jul 18, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,500 · Current $2,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area: An employee working on the Melt Floor on the New Hunter Line as a shake out operator was exposed to hazardous chemicals, such as dust containing silica, and the employer had not provided information and training as required by this section. Such training shall include at least: a) Any operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present, b) The location and availability of the written hazard communication program, the list of hazardous chemicals, and the material safety data sheets, c) Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical, d) The physical and health hazards of the chemicals, e) The measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards, such as work practices, emergency procedures and personal protective equipment, and f) The details of the hazard communication program, any labeling system used and how to read and understand material safety data sheets.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $2400
- · Z (S) $3500
More inspections at Mahoney Foundries, INC.
View Mahoney Foundries, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 331522)
More inspections in IL
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 333308625.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.