OSHA Inspection: ROCORE HOLDINGS, INC.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 16, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): Where wet processes were used, drainage was not maintained, and false floors, platforms, mats, or other dry standing places were not provided when practicable.    (a)  Between the large paint booth and wash station, water was accumulating on the floor due to a drain not being maintained. Employee(s) had to walk through this area to check pH levels and test water.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(9): A clear space of not less than 3 feet on all sides was not kept free from storage or combustible construction:    (a)  In the production area, items such as but not limited to wood boards, a broom, and tar paper were stored within three feet of the small paint booth.    (b)  In the production area, items such as but not limited to paint drums, shelving, stepladders, a work bench, and a pallet were stored within 3 feet of the large paint booth.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(10): 29 CFR 1910.107(b)(10):  Illumination panels did not effectively isolate the spraying area from the area in which the lighting unit is located.  (a)  In the small paint booth, the left side light panel was cracked and did not completely enclose the lighting unit.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(2): All spraying areas were not kept as free from the accumulation of deposits of combustible residues as practical, with cleaning conducted daily if necessary:  (a)  In the small paint booth, housekeeping was not accomplished in that overspray had not been cleaned off of spraying surfaces.   (b)  In the large paint booth, housekeeping was not accomplished in that overspray had not been cleaned off of spraying surfaces.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Feb 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(g)(2): Employees who  worked with liquids that could burn, irritate, or otherwise harm their skin were not provided with an emergency shower and eye-wash station close to the dipping and coating operation:    (a) In the Core Line area, an eye wash station and emergency shower that provides 15 minutes of continuous flow was not provided for employees who dip cores into the Bake Flux (Hydrobromic Acid and Zinc Oxide) which is a corrosive chemical and can cause burns and/or severe irritation. The employer provided a 32 fl. oz. saline wash bottle as a flushing method.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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) In the Core Line area, the employer did not provide and enforce the use of personal protective equipment, such as but not limited to splash-resistant goggles, sleeves and/or foot coverings, to employees performing dipping operations in the Bake Flux dip tank containing hydrobromic acid and zinc oxide.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:    (a) The employer did not perform a hazard assessment to determine what operations require personal protective equipment. Employee(s) were working with and near corrosive liquids without the use of splash-resistant goggles.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $4,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): Procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance including, but not limited to, 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(A), (c)(4)(ii)(B), (c)(4)(ii)(C) and (c)(4)(ii)(D):    (a)  The employer's energy control procedures for equipment, such as but not limited to the Chicago press brake, did not meet all the requirements outlined in 1910.147(c)(4)(ii):         1.) A specific statement of the intended use of the procedure         2.) Authorization of individuals who can use the procedure                3.) The specific procedural steps for shutting down, blocking, and securing the machine to control hazardous energy, including gravitational energy.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed:    (a)  A periodic inspection of the energy control procedures for equipment, such as but not limited to the Chicago press brake, was not performed on an annual basis to ensure the information was accurate and applied correctly by authorized personnel.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d): The established procedure for the application of energy control (the lockout or tagout procedures) did not cover the actions listed in and was not done in sequence as required by 29 CFR 1910.147(d)(1)-(6):   (a) The employer did not ensure that employees who change the dies in the Chicago press brake de-energized and locked out energy sources prior to placing their hands in the die area. On or about November 5, 2013 an employee was observed changing the dies in the press brake without utilizing lockout/tagout.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Apr 7, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $3,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each operator had successfully completed the training consisting of a combination of formal instruction (e.g., lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape, written material), practical training (demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee), and evaluation of the operator's performance in the workplace.    (a)  The employer did not ensure that all powered industrial truck operators successfully completed training, including formal instruction (video) and a performance evaluation prior to operating the forklifts.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:  (a)  The employer has not performed an evaluation of the powered industrial truck operators' skills at least once every three years.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $4,000 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 point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    (a)  In the machining department, the KIWA Excel Center-4L CNC machining center did not have an interlocking safeguard mechanism affixed. The CNC was able to operate with the doors not fully closed.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    (a) In the machining department, the compressed air used to spray down parts on the KIWA CNC machining center was expelling air at 50 P.S.I.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1): On every building or other structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official were not marked on plates of approved design and securely affixed in a conspicuous place in each space to which they relate.  (a)  In the Core Department, the mezzanine level above the employee restrooms did not have a plate marked with a load rating. Employee(s) work on the mezzanine to perform job functions, such as but not limited to air compressor maintenance.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  (a)  In the large and small paint booths, employees who used respiratory protection, such as but not limited to N-95 particulate masks and elastomeric half-mask respirators with organic vapor cartridges, were not provided with information and training on Appendix D of the respiratory protection standard.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates and markings were in place:  (a)  In the metal fabrication area, the nameplate for the Caterpillar powered industrial truck was not maintained in a legible condition. The information contained here was worn away.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

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:  (a) In the production area, dip tanks containing chemicals such as but not limited to "D.W. Davies Metal-Kleen" was not labeled with its identity and appropriate hazard warnings.

Issued

Jan 9, 2014

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

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)  Information and training on the hazards of chemicals, such as but not limited to soldering flux and black gloss enamel, was not provided to employees prior to the initial use of the products.