OSHA Inspection: NEW ROCHELLE PRECISION GRINDING CORP.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Nov 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $900 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    a) Entire Company:  Employees handled and used various hazardous chemicals including but not limited to:  Hysol MB 50 (triethanolamine), Solvent B-27 (combustible), propane, etc. and the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program; on or about 8/1/13.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Nov 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  a) Entire Company:  Employees handled and used various hazardous chemicals including but not limited to:  Hysol MB 50 (triethanolamine), Solvent B-27 (combustible), propane, etc. and the employer did not provide effective information and training on the hazards of these chemicals; on or about 8/1/13.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  a)  Shop:  Employees who dispensed Solvent B-27 (hydrotreated heavy naptha) from a 55-gallon drum into metal containers were not required to wear eye protection (i.e., chemical splash goggles or equivalent); on or about 8/1/13.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:  a)  Shop:  Employees who dispensed Solvent B-27 (hydrotreated heavy naptha) from a 55-gallon drum into metal containers and dipped machined parts into Solvent B-27 (hydrotreated heavy naphtha) were not required to wear appropriate skin protection (i.e., chemical resistant gloves); on or about 8/1/13.  b)  Shop:  An employee using a centerless grinder was handling machined parts that were coated with Hysol MB 50 metal working fluid (triethanolamine) and was not required to wear appropriate hand protection (i.e., chemical resistant gloves or equivalent); on or about 8/1/13.