OSHA Inspection: NU-CHROME, INCORPORATED

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Jan 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $2,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    Shop: On 7-12-12,  Workers were exposed to noise levels in excess of the 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) action level of 85 decibels(50% equivalent dose) while operating buffing and grinding equipment.     a. A worker was exposed to an  8hour TWA noise level of 92 decibels (132% equivalent dose)    b. A worker was exposed to an  8hour TWA noise level of 90 decibels (102% equivalent dose)         A heariing conservation program was not implemented for all workers in the grinding, buffing and polishing  department     A program shall inlcude  1. Noise monitoring  2. Baseline and annual audiometric testing  3. Noise training  4. Offering of hearing protection

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:    Plating:  Workers voluntarily wearing a half-face respirator were not medically evaluated. A written program describing a medical evaluation program and respirator maintenance was not developed.

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,320 · Current $1,320

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(1): Washing facilities were not maintained in a sanitary condition:    Shop: Men and women's bathroom facilities were not maintain in a sanitary manner. Sinks,toilets,trash containers were filled with  dirt, trash and organic debris.

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,760 · Current $1,760

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(4)(iii): Oxygen cylinders in storage were not separated from fuel-gas cylinders or combustible materials (especially oil or grease), a minimum distance of 20 feet (6.1 m) or by a noncombustible barrier at least 5 feet (1.5 m) high having a fire-resistance rating of at least    Shop: An oxygen cylinder was stored next to an acetylene cylinder.

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,760 · Current $1,760

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2): Each outlet box in completed installations did not have a cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy:    Break Room:  There were two outlets missing a cover plate.

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,760 · Current $1,760

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    Shop: The written hazard communication program with chemical inventoy list was not maintained at the workplace. The written program was not provided after numerous requests were made during the inspection process.      A written program should describe how the criteria for:    1. Labeling and other forms of warning;  2. Material Safety Data Sheets  3. Employee information and training will be met

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,640 · Current $2,640

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)  A tank labeled copper sulfate #2 was not labeled with a health hazard warning which would include target organ effects.    b)  A tank labeled chrome plate tank was not labeled with a health hazard warning which would include target organ effects.    d)  Waste water tanks were not labeled with health hazard warnings which would include target organ effects.    THE NuChrome Company WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS EQUIVALENT STANDARD 1910.1200(f)(ii), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA INSPECTION NUMBER 3125099500, CITATION NUMBER 1, ITEM 8, ISSUED ON 11-18-2008 WITH A FINAL ORDER DATE OF 8-30-2010

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(b): An emergency action plan was not in writing, kept in the workplace, and available to employees for review:    Shop: Employer did not have a written emergency action plan describing evacuation procdures in event of an emergency.

Issued

Oct 12, 2012

Abate by

Nov 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical, and did not ensure that they were readily accessible during each work  shift to employees when they were in their work area(s)    Shop: Material safety data sheets were not available for for the aluminum oxide abrasive agent and resin product.