EIGHTY FOUR, PA —
OSHA Inspection: RICE ELECTRIC COMPANY
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of RICE ELECTRIC COMPANY in 30 LINNWOOD ROAD, EIGHTY FOUR, PA 15330 (NAICS 335999). OSHA activity number 336351598.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- RICE ELECTRIC COMPANY
- Site address
- 30 LINNWOOD ROAD
- City
- EIGHTY FOUR
- State
- PA
- ZIP
- 15330
- Mailing
- 30 LINNWOOD ROAD, EIGHTY FOUR, PA 15330
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 335999
- Employees
- 25
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 D03 II
- Issued
- Feb 8, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $840 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not select a respirator appropriate for the chemical state and physical form of the contaminant: a) In the facility, on or about September 14, 2012 - The employer did not select a respirator cartridge for protection against gases and vapors. Employees exposed to paint vapors and required to wear tight-fitting respirators in the workplace were provided with P-95 particulate filters.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $840
- — Z (S) $1200
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Feb 8, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 15, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,600 · Current $1,120 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) In the facility, on or about September 14, 2012 - The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to employees required to wear tight-fitting respirators in the workplace.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1120
- — Z (S) $1600
1910.134 F02
- Issued
- Feb 8, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 15, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $840 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece was used, and at least annually thereafter: a) In the facility, on or about September 14, 2102 - The employer did not ensure that employees required to wear tight-fitting respiratory protection were provided with a fit test prior to being issued the respirator for use in the workplace.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $840
- — Z (S) $1200
1910.134 K03
- Issued
- Feb 8, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 15, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $840 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): The employer did not provide respirator training prior to requiring the employee to use a respirator in the workplace: a) In the facility, on or about September 14, 2012 - The employer did not provide effective training to employees required to wear tight-fitting respirators in the workplace.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $840
- — Z (S) $1200
1910.132 D02
- Issued
- Feb 8, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 15, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed; the dates of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment: a) In the facility, on or about September 14, 2012 - The employer did not verify through a written certification that the required workplace personal protective equipment hazard assessment had been performed.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
1910.1200 H01
- Issued
- Feb 8, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 15, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2) and (3) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced inot their work area: a) In the facility, on or about September 14, 2012 - The employer did not provide an effective training program to inform employees of specific hazards associated with chemicals used in the workplace, such as but not limited to aerosol spray enamels containing acetone, propane, toluene, butane, and naptha.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
More inspections at Rice Electric Company
View Rice Electric Company's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 335999)
More inspections in PA
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 336351598.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.