OSHA Inspection: ANOPLATE CORPORATION

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $2,700

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:    a) On the chromic anodize line, on or about 4/18/12: Where employees work with chromic acid, in tank 2-94, periodic examinations of exposed body parts were not provided.    b) On the zinc line, on or about 4/18/12: Where employees work with chromic acid, in tank 400-313, periodic examinations of exposed body parts were not provided.       Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:      a) In the lab, on or about 4/18/12: Where employees work with corrosive chemicals, including but not limited to hydrochloric acid and nitric acid, a suitable eyewash facility was not present.      Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $4,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:        a) Throughout the facility, on or about 4/18/12: Where employees manually dip parts into dip tanks containing corrosives, caustics, and hexavalent chromium, protective gloves were not required to be worn.        Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $0 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:      a) At the facility, on or about 5/15/12: An employee who was required to wear a respirator during chemical additions to dip tanks did not have an up to date medical evaluation prior to using a respirator.        Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:      a) At the facility, on or about 5/15/12: Where an employee was required to wear a respirator during chemical additions to tanks, fit testing was not conducted at least annually.         Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

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) At the facility, on or about 2/27/12: The OSHA 300 Injury and Illness log for 2012 did not contain specific information to explain the object/substance which caused the person to be injured or become ill in column F.         Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(1)(ii): Full shift (for at least seven -7 continuous hours) personal samples for lead were not collected including at least one sample for each shift for each job classification in each work area:        a) On the tin line, on or about 5/30/12: Personal air sampling was not conducted to determine employee exposure to lead for line operators who dip parts into tanks containing Solderon Lead Concentrate.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i): Prior to initial job assignment to an area where employees were subject to chromium (VI)exposure, the employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge in the content of this section, and the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required by paragraph (k) of this section.      a) On the chem film line, on or about 5/30/12: Employees who work on a dipping and coating line where they were subject to hexavalent chromium exposure did not receive information and training on the contents of the OSHA hexavalent chromium standard and the medical surveillance program.     b) On the Hard Chrome line, on or about 5/30/12: Employees who work on a dipping and coating line where they were subject to hexavalent chromium exposure did not receive information and training on the contents of the OSHA hexavalent chromium standard and the medical surveillance program.     c) On the Black Chrome line, on or about 5/30/12: Employees who work on a dipping and coating line where they were subject to hexavalent chromium exposure did not receive information and training on the contents of the OSHA hexavalent chromium standard and the medical surveillance program.     d) On the Zinc line, on or about 5/30/12: Employees who work on a dipping and coating line where they were subject to hexavalent chromium exposure did not receive information and training on the contents of the OSHA hexavalent chromium standard and the medical surveillance program.       Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):      a) In the EO department, on or about 6/30/12: The employer did not determine employee exposure to hexavalent chromium during operation of the hexavalent chromium treatment tank.        Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.

Issued

Jul 3, 2012

Abate by

Aug 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(j)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure airflow was adequate at least quarterly during operation:      a) Throughout the facility, on or about 4/18/12: Ventilation on dipping and coating lines was not checked on at least a quarterly basis to ensure airflow was adequate.        Abatement certification must be submitted for this item.