OSHA Inspection: ACADEMY OF SCREENPRINTING AND AWARDS, INC.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 2260

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    An employee was power washing off silk screens which had been coated with corrosive cleaners including HR-2001 Haze and Image Remover and Strip e doo and appropriate protective eyewear was not worn. The employer failed to assess hazards of the workplace which included chemical burn hazards from silk screen cleaners.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 2260

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective eye equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment:  An employee was power washing off silk screens which had been coated with corrosive cleaners including HR-2001 Haze and Image Remover and Strip e doo and appropriate protective eyewear was not worn.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i): Except as elsewhere required or permitted by Subpart S of Part 1910, live parts of electric equipment operating  at 50 volts or more were not guarded against accidental contact by use of approved cabinets or other forms of approved enclosures or by any of the means identified in paragraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of 29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i):    Employees working with and around the Cincinnati drying oven were exposed to accidental contact with energized parts because the electrical box had an opening which did not fully enclose live electrical parts.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:    Employees working within the building were exposed to potential fire hazards as flexible wiring was used as a substitute in place of fixed wiring for the Cincinnati and Encore drying ovens.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical    Employees using the spray bottle containing SPIF II were exposed to the hazards associated with the substance and the containers were not labeled to convey general information on the chemical hazards.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 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:    Employees performing screen printing activities were exposed to Clog Buster, SpotBuster, HR-2001 Haze and Image Remover and Strip e doo and had not received hazard communication training as required by the standard.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:  An employee used SpotBuster containing methylene chloride and methylene chloride solution.  The employer had not conducted initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride.

Issued

Nov 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1): The employer shall provide information and training for each affected employee prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride.  An employee used methylene chloride and SpotBuster and the employer had not provided the employees training on the hazards prior to initial job assignment.