LAMAR, CO —
OSHA Inspection: SEMCO, INC.
Referral inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of SEMCO, INC. in 7595 HIGHWAY 50, LAMAR, CO 81052 (NAICS 333913). OSHA activity number 338829443.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- SEMCO, INC.
- Site address
- 7595 HIGHWAY 50
- City
- LAMAR
- State
- CO
- ZIP
- 81052
- Mailing
- PO BOX 1216, LAMAR, CO 81052
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- 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
- 333913
- Employees
- 36
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- May 31, 2013
- Abate by
- Jun 26, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,100 · Current $1,113 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: (a) On February 11th, 2013, and at times prior, an employee working in the spray booth wore an N95 full-face particulate respirator without being provided a medical evaluation to ensure that they were medically fit to wear a respirator.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1113
- — Z (S) $2100
1910.134 F01
- Issued
- May 31, 2013
- Abate by
- Jun 26, 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): (a) On February 11th, 2013, and at times prior, the employer did not provide employees working in the spray booth a quantitative or qualitative fit test to ensure proper fit of tight fitting respirators.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- May 31, 2013
- Abate by
- Jun 26, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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: (a) On or about February 11th, 2013, and at times prior, the employer had not established and implemented a written respiratory program for spray booth operations.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.136 A
- Issued
- May 31, 2013
- Abate by
- Jun 26, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $4,200 · Current $2,226 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.136(a): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical hazards: (a) On March 28th, 2013, and at times prior, employees exposed to foot injuries from falling or rolling objects were not wearing protective footwear in the assembly bay.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2226
- — Z (S) $4200
1910.132 D02
- Issued
- May 31, 2013
- Abate by
- Jul 26, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed: (a) On or about February 11, 2013, and at times prior, the employer did not complete a written workplace hazard assessment identifying hazards and means of controlling employee exposure to the hazards identified.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1026 D01
- Issued
- May 31, 2013
- Abate by
- Jun 12, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI) in the welding bay during welding operations on aluminum or stainless steel. The employer is to make this determination in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2), the scheduled monitoring option, or paragraph (d)(3), the performance-oriented option. (a) On or about February 11, 2013, and at times prior, employees who weld aluminum parts using aluminum wire rod were potentially exposed to hexavalent chromium at unknown concentrations.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
More inspections at Semco, INC.
View Semco, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 333913)
More inspections in CO
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 338829443.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.