OSHA Inspection: NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Dec 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    (a) Building #5, Prep line on Northside: On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) wearing short-sleeved t-shirts and without personal protective equipment chemically resistant to D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin (Propane, 2,2-bis[p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)phenyl]-, polymers) were exposed to a chemical hazard from pouring D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin, a skin irritant and sensitizer, onto rotating pipes causing the epoxy resin to splash on to employee(s) resulting in damaged clothing, work boots and skin exposure.    (b) Building #8, Car operation Line: On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) without personal protective equipment chemically resistant to D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin (Propane, 2,2-bis[p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)phenyl]-, polymers) were exposed to a chemical hazard from pouring D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin, a skin irritant and sensitizer, onto rotating pipes causing the epoxy resin to splash on to employee(s) resulting in damaged clothing and work boots.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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):    (a) Building #5, Prep line on Northside: On or about August 1, 2013, the employer did not perform a hazard assessment to select appropriate personal protective equipment for employee(s) who were exposed to a chemical hazard in areas where  D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin (Propane, 2,2-bis[p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)phenyl]-, polymers), a skin irritant and sensitizer, was used.    (b) Building #8, Car operation Line: On or about August 1, 2013, the employer did not perform a hazard assessment to select appropriate personal protective equipment for employee(s) who were exposed to a chemical hazard in areas where  D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin (Propane, 2,2-bis[p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)phenyl]-, polymers), a skin irritant and sensitizer, was used.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Dec 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(e): Defective or damaged personal protective equipment was used:    (a) Building #5, Prep line on Northside: On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) without personal protective equipment chemically resistant to D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin (Propane, 2,2-bis[p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)phenyl]-, polymers) were exposed to a chemical hazard from pouring D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin, a skin irritant and sensitizer, onto rotating pipes causing the epoxy resin to splash on to employee(s) resulting in damaged clothing, work boots and skin exposure.    (b) Building #8, Car operation Line: On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) without personal protective equipment chemically resistant to D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin (Propane, 2,2-bis[p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)phenyl]-, polymers) were exposed to a chemical hazard from pouring D.E.R. *383 Epoxy Resin, a skin irritant and sensitizer, onto rotating pipes causing the epoxy resin to splash on to employee(s) resulting in damaged clothing and work boots.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Jun 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(n)(7)(iii): On all grades the load and load engaging means was not raised only as far as necessary to clear the road surface:    (a) Pipe Storage Yard, North Side:  On or about August 1, 2013, employees were exposed to a struck-by hazard while walking in the vicinity of a Linde Forklift (ID: 100-1, SN: H2X393D50464) which was transporting a load of composite pipes with the mast and load near the top height capacity of the forklift.    (b) Pipe Storage Yard, West side: On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) were exposed to a struck-by hazard from four unsecured composite pipes which were being transported across the storage yard via a Linde forklift with the mast and load near the top height capacity of the forklift.     (c) Pipe Storage Yard, South side: On or about August 22, 2013, employee(s) were exposed to a struck-by hazard from eight unsecured composite pipes which were being transported across the storage yard via a Linde forklift with the mast and load near the top height capacity of the forklift.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Jun 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(o)(1): Load(s) on powered industrial truck(s) were not stable or safely arranged:    (a) Pipe Storage Yard, West side: On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) were exposed to a struck-by hazard from four unsecured composite pipes which were being transported across the storage yard via a forklift with the mast and unstable/unsecure load near the top height capacity of the forklift.     (b) Pipe Storage Yard, South side: On or about August 22, 2013, employee(s) were exposed to a struck-by hazard from eight unsecured composite pipes which were being transported across the storage yard via a forklift with the mast and unstable/unsecured load near the top height capacity of the forklift.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

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 point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    Building #2, Northwest side:  On or about August 1, 2013, employee(s) were exposed to a caught-in hazard from an unguarded rotating chuck on a Republic-14 lathe, which was used to smooth the outer body of coupling parts.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(3): Employees were not given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer:    (a)Building #2, Pipe pulling area: On or about August 22, 2013, employee(s) were not provided with more than one suitable style of hearing protectors to choose from for protection from noise exposure exceeding an 8-hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA in the work place.    (b) Building #5, Pipe pulling area: On or about August 22, 2013, employee(s) were not provided with more than one suitable style of hearing protectors to choose from for protection from noise exposure exceeding an 8-hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA in the work place.    (c) Building #6, Threader work area: On or about August 22, 2013, employee(s) were not provided with more than one suitable style of hearing protectors to choose from for protection from noise exposure exceeding an 8-hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA in the work place.

Issued

Nov 27, 2013

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were being placed in services after the examination showed   condition(s) adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle:    Pipe Storage Yard, West side: On or about November 20, 2013 employee(s) were exposed to a struck-by hazard from the operation of a Linde Forklift (Model H30T) with a defective safety seat belt.