OSHA Inspection: MULTI-PACK ATLANTA

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,620 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i):  When the employer had assessed the workplace hazard(s) and determined that hazard(s) were present, the employer did not select and/or use the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee from the hazard:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area the employer did not perform a hazard assessment for personal protective equipment where the employees were working with corrosive materials and hand protection was not adequate or enforced.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 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:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, where employees are required to perform servicing and maintenance on equipment that had multiple energy sources that included but was not limited to electrical and pneumatic, the employer failed to develop specific procedures for the control of hazardous energy.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · 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:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, where employees were working with corrosive material that included, but was not limited to Mr. Plumber, the employer did not have sufficient access to an eyewash station for the employees.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):  One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by ingoing nip points and rotating parts:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, the employer failed to provide protection on equipment that included but was not limited to the filler machine, to protect employees against a potential amputation hazard.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,620 Reduced

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:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, employees that were observed working with  prodcuts that included but were not limited to Turbo 108 and Mr. Pumber had not been provided with hazard communication training.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5):  The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged, or marked with the identity and appropriate hazard warnings regarding the chemicals contained therein:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, the "day tanks" that were at the end of the production lines were not labeled with the contents or the hazard associated with the contents.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

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:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, employees required to use a tight-fitting air purifying respirator to protect against chemical vapors were not medically evaluated prior to use.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1):  The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):     On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, employees required to wear a tight-fitting air-purifying respirator to protect against chemical vapors had notr been fit-tested prior to use of the respirator.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, where employees were required to wear a tight-fitting air-purifying respirator to protect from chemical vapors, the employer did not provide the employees with respiratory protection training.

Issued

Dec 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(1):  An educational program was not provided for all employees to familiarize them with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting:      On or about 10/18/2012, in the production area, where employees were working with flammable products, such as but not limited to Turbo 108 Octane Boost, the employer failed to provide employees required to fight incipient stage fires with fire extinguisher training.