OSHA Inspection: KEVIN REILLY, INC.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Dec 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,250 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 1910.95(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:    (a) Paint Booth: On or about August 8, 2012: an employee painting parts in the paint booth was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 120.7 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 91.1 dBa) which is approximately 2.414 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) Results are based on a 478 minute sampling period conducted. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 2 minute period not sampled.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(7): Oil lubricated compressor(s) used to supply breathing air did not have a high-temperature or carbon monoxide alarm(s) or both:      (a) Paint Booth: On or about August 9, 2012, and times prior to; the employer had employees performing painting operations on light fixture parts while wearing a supplied air respirator fed by a shop air compressor without a high-temperature and carbon monoxide alarm for the airline feeding the employee.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

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:    (a) Facility: On or about August 8, 2012: Employer did not have a written hazard communication program detailing the hazards of chemicals such as but not limited to antiquing solution, various paints and sand blasting media used in the facility

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    (a) Facility: On or about August 8, 2012; the employer did not ensure that each container had labels identifying the identity of chemicals such as but not limited to isopropanol used in the facility.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Facility: On or about August 8, 2012; the employer did not ensure that each container had labels identifying the hazards of chemicals such as but not limited to isopropanol used in the facility.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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    (a) Facility: On or about August 8, 2012: Employer did not train employee(s) on the hazards of chemicals such as but not limited to antiquing solution, various paints and sand blasting media used in the facility.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures was established and implemented to include the provisions of (i)-(ix), as applicable    (c) Facility: On or about August 9, 2012, the employer required employees to use full face positive pressure respirators during painting operations and did not have a written respiratory protection plan in place.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Facility: On or about August 9, 2012; the employer had employees preforming painting operations on light fixture parts while using respirators without medically evaluating the employees to determine if they could safely use the airline respirators they were required to use.

Issued

Oct 17, 2012

Abate by

Nov 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of items in (i)-(vii)    (a) Facility: On or about August 9, 2012, the employer had employees performing painting operations on light fixture parts without training the employees on the use, limitations, storage and maintenance requirement of respirators, both for supplied air and tight fitting negative pressure respirators.