OSHA Inspection: AMERIMEX MOTOR & CONTROLS, INC.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a):   The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.    a)  At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when mixing paint components, using solvents and spraying paint exposing employees to chemical exposure hazards including but not limited to dermatitis, skin burns, skin sensitization, and central nervous system effects.      b)  At the facility in the varnish dip tank area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection while dipping motors in baking varnish exposing employees to chemical exposure hazards including but not limited to dermatitis, skin burns, chemical sensitization and central nervous system effects.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1):  Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:    a)  At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not provide methylene chloride resistant hand and eye protection or ensure its use when employees used Safety-Kleen Heavy Duty Lacquer Thinner 6782 containing up to one percent methylene chloride to wash paint spray guns and metal parts exposing employees to skin and eye hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, procedures were not developed, documented, and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees are engaged in setup and maintenance of machinery. This condition exposed the employees to struck-by and caught-between hazards.     a) Welding Area, energy control procedures for the control of hydraulic and electrical energy were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Metal Muncher Dye Model MM90C18 S/N: 7108982.     b) Welding Area, energy control procedures for the control of hydraulic and electric energy were were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Pacifico Press Brake shear.    c) Welding Area, energy control procedures for the control of hydraulic and electric energy were were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Columbia Press Brake shear.    d) Welding Area, energy control procedures for the control of hydraulic and electric energy were were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Chicago Press Brake shear.     e) Front of Shop, energy control procedures for the control of hydraulic, electric, pneumatic energy were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Doosan Model Puma 700LM Lathe S/N: ML0161-001139.     f) Winding Area, energy control procedures for the control of electric and hydraulic energy were were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Horizontal Boring Mill Gipping & Lewis Fraser Model Allot S/N: ISO-1561.     g) Winding Area, energy control procedures for the control of electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic energy were not developed, documented, and utilized for a Vanguard Horizontal CNC Boring Mill Model TH6511B S/N: B10-8000008.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $2,700 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)  At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not provide suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes as the gravity flow eyewash station was not full of water as designed by the manufacturer, and was not inspected and maintained exposing employees to eye injury hazards.      b)  At the facility in the forklift battery charging and maintenance area: On June 11, 2012 the employer did not provide suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes. No eyewash was installed in the immediate area of the forklift battery charging station exposing employees to eye injury hazards from corrosives.    c)  At the facility in the varnish dip tank area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not provide suitable facilities for quick drenching of the eyes and body of employees dipping motors in baking varnish, exposing employees to eye and skin injury hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each operator had successfully completed the training required by paragraph (l), except as permitted by paragraph (l)(5), prior to permitting an employee to operate a    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees operating Hyster powered industrial trucks were not trained. This condition exposed the employees to struck-by hazards.     a) Hyster Model S100FTBCS S/N: G004V0297E was operated by an employee who was not trained or qualified to operate the equipment.    b) Hyster Model J40XMT S/N: F160N01743U was operated by an employee who was not trained or qualified to operate the equipment.    c) Hyster Model H800 S/N: 0005D22503B was operated by an employee who was not trained or qualified to operate the equipment.    d) Hyster Model H60XL S/N: 4177B34489K was operated by an employee who was not trained or qualified to operate the equipment.    e) Hyster Model H60XL S/N: 4177B34489K was operated by an employee who was not trained or qualified to operate the equipment.    f) Hyster Model S155XL S/N: B024D03228R was operated by an employee who was not trained or qualified to operate the equipment.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(2): The items listed in subparagraphs (j)(2)(i)-(vii) were not inspected for defects at intervals as defined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section or as specifically indicated, and all deficiencies were not carefully examined and a determination made as to whether they constituted a safety hazard.    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were operating overhead cranes where frequent inspections had not been performed to detect defects. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.     a) Winding Area; overhead crane #1, 10 Ton All Crane was operated with defective or worn brakes, bumpers, electronic control brakes, and upper sheaves.     b) Between Mechanics and Test Stand Area; overhead crane #3, 20 Ton Deshazo was operated with defective or worn trolley/runway conductors, brakes, electric control brakes, mechanical load brake and runway rails.     c) Welding and Blower Area; overhead Crane #8, 15 Ton Bridgecap was operated with defective or worn brakes, chain container, end stops, and strain cable.     d) Mechanics Area; overhead Crane #4, 15 Ton Yale was operated with defective or worn bridge/trolley/hoist brakes, exposed wires, and missing covers.     e) Welding and Blower Area; overhead Crane #5, 7  Ton Yale was operated with worn brakes and missing covers.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(3): Complete inspections of the crane was not being performed at intervals as generally defined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(b) of this section:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were operating overhead cranes where a periodic inspection of the cranes had not been performed to detect defects. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.     a)  Winding Area; overhead crane #1, 10 Ton All Crane was operated with defective or worn brakes, bumpers, electronic control brakes, loose line shaft bearing, damaged chain coupler, missing rail stops and end stops, missing cotter pins and springs, damaged or defected upper sheaves.    b) Between Mechanics and Test Stand Area; overhead crane #3, 20 Ton Deshazo was operated with defective or worn trolley/runway conductors, brakes, electric control brakes, mechanical load brake, cracked coil mount, misaligned bridge and runway rails.     c) Welding and Blower Area; overhead Crane #8, 15 Ton Bridgecap was operated with defective or worn brakes, missing chain container, damaged strain cable, and missing or damaged end stops.     d) Mechanics Area; overhead Crane #4, 15 Ton Yale was operated with defective or worn bridge/trolley/hoist brakes, worn bridge coil assembly, worn runway conductors, worn brake drifts, exposed control operation wires, and missing bridge motor covers.     e) Welding and Blower Area; overhead Crane #5, 71/2 Ton Yale Model TDL 71/2H 29520 S/N: AX222645was operated with worn bridge couplings and gears, bent frame, missing bumpers and rail sweeps, worn brakes and missing motor covers.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(d): Sling(s) and fastenings were not inspected each day or during use and were not removed from service when damaged or defective:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were using slings that were not inspected for damage or defect by a competent person designated by the employer This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.     a) At the facility; Liftall Tuff Edge 20ft Sling S/N: 1718088-12.5 synthetic web slings were not inspected prior to use.     b) At the facility; Wire rope slings (No marking) were not inspected prior to use.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(3)(i): A thorough periodic inspection of alloy steel chain slings was not made on a regular basis and/or were done at intervals greater than once every 12 months:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were using alloy steel chain slings where a thorough inspection was not performed by a competent person designated by the employer. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(1): Alloy steel sling(s) did not have permanently affixed durable identification stating size, grade, rated capacity, and reach:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were using alloy chain slings that were not permanently affixed with durable identification stating size, grade, rated capacity, and reach. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(f)(1): Sling use. Employers must use only wire-rope slings that have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as prescribed by the manufacturer, and that indicate the recommended safe working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it is based, and the number of legs if more than one.    On or about June 11, 2012, at the facility; employees were using wire rope slings that were not permanently affixed with legible identification markings as prescribed by the manufacturer indicating the safe working load. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from struck by hazards.    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were operating machinery that was not guarded. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by and caught-between hazards.     a) Welding Area, a Metal Muncher Dye Model MM90C18 S/N: 7108982 was not guarded.     b) Winding Area, a Monarch Manual Lathe Model 11-942 S/N: 16476 was not guarded.     c) Winding Area, an American Pace Maker Manual Lathe 20 Chuck S/N: 75083-56 that was not guarded.     d) Winding Area, a Szerszage Pari Wuvek Manual Lathe Model EE800-02 S/N: 1091139, 1979 was not guarded.     e) Winding Area, an American Hole Wizard Drill Press Model 33785 was not guarded.     f) Winding Area, a Le Blond Lathe 24 Chuck Model 4138 S/N: 24 LE1Z was not guarded.     g) Winding Area, a King Vertical Turning Lathe (VTL) Model 3411 21-30-60-00 80297-09 S/N: 20024 was not guarded.     h) Winding Area, a Cincinnati Vertical Turning Lathe (VTL) Model 1001435 S/N: 12411 was not guarded.     i) Front of Shop, a Doosan Model Puma 700LM Lathe S/N: ML0161-001139 was not guarded.     j) Winding Area, a Horizontal Boring Mill Gipping & Lewis Fraser Model Allot S/N: ISO-1561 was not guarded.     k) Winding Area, a Bridge Port EZE Path III S CNC Lathe was not guarded.     l) Winding Area, a Tool Master Cincinnati Milling Machine S/N: 001909 was not guarded.     m) Winding Area, a Vanguard Horizontal CNC Boring Mill Model TH6511B S/N: B10-8000008 was not guarded.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were operating machinery where the point of operation was not guarded. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by and caught-between hazards.     a) Welding Area, a Metal Muncher Dye Model MM90C18 S/N: 7108982 point of operation was not guarded.     b) Control Shop, Scotchman Ironworker Model 6509-24M S/N: 7865FF0208 point of operation was not guarded.     c) Welding Area, Pacifico Press Brake shear was not guarded.    d) Welding Area, Columbia Press Brake shear was not guarded.    e) Welding Area, Chicago Press Brake shear was not guarded.     f) Welding Area, Lown Model B400 Initial Pinch Plate Roll S/N:4401 pinch rolls were not guarded.     g) Welding Area, a Horizontal Bandsaw Model: HBS-916W S/N: 0110826 blade was not guarded.     h) Welding Area, a Wellsaw Horizontal Bandsaw Model: 1118 S/N: 2626 blade was not guarded.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $1,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(b): Machine(s) designed for fixed location(s) were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving:    At the control shop; on or about June 11, 2012, employees were operating machinery designed for a fixed location that was not permanently anchored. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.     a) Control Shop Area, NATL Air Compressor Model # BD157268 S/N: 3325 was not anchored to prevent walking.     b) Control Shop Area, a Scotchman Ironworker Model 6509-24M S/N: 7865FF0208 combination punch press and shear was not anchored to prevent walking.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rest(s) on grinding machinery work rest were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:    On or about June 11, 2012, at the control shop; employees were using a bench top grinder that was not equipped with a work rest. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:    At the control shop; on or about June 11, 2012, a Westward Bench grinder had a tongue guard opening greater than  inch. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(3): Abrasive wheels used on vertical portable grinder(s) (right angle head grinders) were not provided with safety guard(s) having a maximum exposure angle of 180 degrees and located between the operator and wheel:    On or about June 11, 2012, at the control shop; employees were using hand held grinders that were not equipped with safety guards. This condition exposed the employees to a struck-by hazard.     a) Metabo Angle Grinder was not equipped with a safety guard.     b) DeWalt Angle Grinder was not equipped with a safety guard.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,272 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(3)(ii): Acetylene cylinders in storage were not stored valve end up:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, acetylene cylinders were not stored with the valve end up. This condition exposed the employees to explosion, fire and struck-by hazards.     a) Exterior Yard Area; acetylene cylinders were stored lying down.    b) Welding and Blower Area; acetylene cylinders were stored lying down.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(4)(iii): Oxygen cylinders in storage shall be 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 one-half hour.    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, oxygen cylinders were stored with acetylene bottles. This condition exposed the employees to fire and struck-by hazards.     a) Warehouse Area; oxygen cylinders were stored with acetylene cylinders.    b) Welding and Blower Area; cylinders were stored with acetylene cylinders.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(f)(2): Each service, feeder, and branch circuit, at its disconnecting means or overcurrent device, was not legibly marked to indicate its purpose, nor located and arranged so the purpose was evident:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, the disconnecting means or overcurrent device of each service, feeder, and branch circuit was not marked to indicate its purpose.  This condition exposed the employees to electrical hazards.     a) Welding Area; service, feeder, and branch circuits were not marked to indicate purpose.      b) Mechanics Area; service feeder, and branch circuits were not marked to indicate purpose.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(2):   The employer did not fill out or correctly fill out an OSHA Form 301 or equivalent for each recordable injury or illness.      At the facility:  On or about August 23, 2012, an OSHA Form 301 or equivalent for the following work-related injuries or illnesses was not filled out or incorrectly filled for the calendar year 2012.    a)  On August 10, 2012 a leadman suffered possible exposure to chemicals.  No OSHA 301 was filled out.      b)  On August 10, 2012 a painter suffered possible exposure to chemicals.  No OSHA 301 was filled out.      c)  On August 10, 2012 a painter suffered possible exposure to chemicals.  No OSHA 301 was filled out.      d)  On August 23, 2012 a painter helper suffered possible exposure to chemicals.  No OSHA 301 was filled out.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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:    At the facility in the welding area, a welder grinding and welding mild steel was exposed to continuous noise levels at 105.8 % of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 105.8% is approximately 90.4 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 438 minutes during one shift on October 18, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period  time, 42 minutes.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):  The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:    At the facility:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not assess workplace activities including but not limited to:  mixing of paints and additives, using solvents, spray painting, varnish dip coating and baking of motor windings, welding, grinding, machining metal, cutting metal, and using corrosives to determine if hazards were likely to necessitate the use of personal protective equipment, exposing employees to physical and chemical hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 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:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with specific worksite procedures when painters were required to use 3M elastomeric half face respirators, exposing employees to chemical inhalation hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i):   Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer selected half face air purifying respirators to protect employees from inhalation hazards during spray painting and did not make reasonable estimate of exposure to air contaminants, did not incorporate Material Safety Data Sheet recommendations to provide supplied air respiratory protection, and did not incorporate manufacturer cartridge selection recommendations for specific air contaminants.  Additional user factors included: no respirator training, no cartridge change schedule, and no respirator user fit testing or medical evaluation.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 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 contaminant chemical state and physical form:      a)  At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not make reasonable estimate of exposure of employees conducting mixing of chemical components and spray painting, exposing employees to inhalation hazards from paints, additives and solvents being used including but not limited to:  toluene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, homopolymer of hexamethylene diisocyanate, tert-butyl acetate, acetone, N-butyl acetate, methyl normal amyl ketone, xylene, ethyl benzene, lead sulphochromate yellow, lead chromate molybdate sulphate red, aromatic solvent, tris (dimethylaminomethyl) phenol, bis (dimethylaminomethyl) phenol, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol butyl ether, alkyd resin, polyamide resin, vinyl acetate, acetic acid ethenyl ester, butyl acrylate-vinyl acetate polymer, 1,2  propanediol, dibutyltin dilaurate, styrene monomer, crystalline silica and ammonia.    b)  At the facility in the varnish dip tank area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not make reasonable estimate of exposure of employees conducting motor winding dip tank coating operations to inhalation hazards from the Hi-Therm BC-346-A Baking Varnish and Von Roll Isola Catalyzed Epoxy Resin insulating varnish components including but not limited to:  epichlorohydrin, phenyl glycidyl ether, xylene, aliphatic petroleum distillates, and ethyl benzene.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1):   The employer did not determine, in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section,  the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI)    At the facility in the blower shop welding area:   On June 11, 2012 the employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure of employees conducting MIG welding and grinding on stainless steel blower components being manufactured, exposing employees to hexavalent chromium inhalation hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(i):  Where methylene chloride was present in the workplace, the employer did not determine each employee's exposure:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not take personal breathing zone samples of employees using either individual or representative air samples of individuals to determine the 8-hour TWA and Short Term Exposure Level (STEL) exposure of employees using lacquer thinner containing up to one percent methylene chloride to clean paint spray guns and parts, exposing employees to acute and chronic health effects of methylene chloride.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29CFR 1910.1026(l)(2): The employer did not ensure that employees could demonstrate knowledge of the contents of this section and the purpose of medical surveillance; and in addition the employer did not make a copy of this section available without cost to all affected employees:    At the facility in the blower shop welding area:   On June 11, 2012 the employer did not ensure employees conducting MIG welding and grinding on stainless steel components could demonstrate knowledge of the contents of the hexavalent chromium regulations, exposing employees to hexavalent chromium health hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(i):  The employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1052 and the information available in its appendices and/or how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace:    At the facility in the painting area:   On June 11, 2012 the employer did not inform employees using lacquer thinner containing up to one percent methylene chloride to clean paint spray guns and parts of the requirements of the methylene chloride standard and the information available in its appendices, or how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace, exposing employees to acute and chronic health effects of methylene chloride.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    a)  At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer did not provide effective information and training on hazardous chemicals used by employees conducting mixing of paint components, using solvents and spray painting, exposing employees to inhalation and skin absorption from chemicals used including but not limited to:  toluene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, homopolymer of hexamethylene diisocyanate, tert-butyl acetate, acetone, N-butyl acetate, methyl normal amyl ketone, xylene, ethyl benzene, lead sulphochromate yellow, lead chromate molybdate sulphate red, aromatic solvent, tris (dimethylaminomethyl) phenol, bis (dimethylaminomethyl) phenol, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol butyl ether, alkyd resin, polyamide resin, vinyl acetate, acetic acid ethenyl ester, butyl acrylate-vinyl acetate polymer, 1,2  propanediol, dibutyltin dilaurate, styrene monomer and ammonia.    b)  At the facility in the varnish dip tank area:  On June 11,2012 the employer did not provide effective information and training on hazardous chemicals used by employees conducting motor winding dip coating, exposing employees to chemical inhalation and skin absorption from the Hi-Therm BC-346-A Baking Varnish and Von Roll Isola Catalyzed Epoxy Resin insulating varnish components and additives including but not limited to:  epichlorohydrin, phenyl glycidyl ether, xylene, aliphatic petroleum distillates, and ethyl benzene.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

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:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer required employees conducting spray painting to use tight fitting half face air purifying respirators and did not have employees medically evaluated to determine their ability to wear the respirators, exposing employees to cardio-pulmonary stress hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f):  The employee was required to use a respirator without being fit tested with the same make, model, style and size of respirator that was to be used:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer required employees conducting spray painting to use disposable 3M half face air purifying respirators with organic vapor cartridges and N95 pre-filter and did not ensure employees were fit tested for that make, model, style and size, exposing employees to inhalation hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i):  Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the 3M disposable half face air purifying respirators used by employees conducting spray painting were stored unprotected in the paint and chemical storage cabinet, exposing employees to chemical inhalation hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k):   The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:    At the facility in the painting area:  On June 11, 2012 the employer required employees conducting spray painting to use disposable 3M half face air purifying respirators with organic vapor cartridges and did not ensure employees were provided comprehensive, understandable training including but not limited to usage, fit, storage and maintenance, limits and capabilities of the respirator, how to inspect and check the seals of the respirator and recognizing medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators, exposing employees to inhalation hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(1)(ii): The required working space about electric equipment rated 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground, was used for storage:    At the Test Stand Area; on or about June 11, 2012, the working space near electrical breaker panels was used for storage. This condition exposed the employees to electrical hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(h)(2)(iv): Outdoor electrical installations having exposed live parts were not accessible to qualified persons only.    Outside of the Test Stand Area; on or about August 30, 2012, an outdoor electrical installation was not accessible to qualified persons only. This condition exposed the employees to electrical hazards.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii): Unused openings in boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not effectively closed:    At the facility; on or about June 11, 2012, unused openings in cabinets and boxes were not effectively closed. This condition exposed the employees to electrical hazards.     a) Welding Area; unused openings in cabinets were not effectively closed.     b) Mechanics Area; unused openings in cabinets were not effectively closed.     c) Winding Area; unused openings in an electrical box were not effectively closed.

Issued

Dec 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i): Covers of outlet boxes having holes through which flexible cord pendants passed were not provided with bushings designed for the purpose nor did the holes have smooth, well-rounded surfaces on which the cords could bear:    At the welding area; on or about June 11, 2012, all pull boxes, junction boxes, and fittings were not provided with covers. This condition exposed the employees to electrical hazards.     a) Welding area; an electrical outlet was not covered.     b) Winding area; a pull box housing 480v wiring was not covered.