OSHA Inspection: HARDSTEEL, INC.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Mar 31, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) which exceeded 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an 8-hour time-weighted average:  (a) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(2): The employer required respirator use for protection against chromium (VI); however, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, which covers each employee required to use a respirator:  a) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.  A worksite specific respiratory program was not developed and implemented for employee(s) wearing respirators such as, but not limited to, North 7190 half-facepiece respirator.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2014

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 or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

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):   a) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, initial monitoring had not been conducted for employees engaged in cutting, grinding and welding of metal plates. Full shift sampling was performed during one shift on November 6, 2013. The sampling results ranged from 0.3 to 17.8 ug/m3.   The employer may use these sampling results to meet the initial monitoring requirement for Hexavalent Chromium or perform additional monitoring.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Mar 31, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): Feasible engineering controls and work practices were not instituted to reduce and maintain employee exposures to chromium (VI) at or below the permissible exposure limit:  (a) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.  General methods of abatement include but are not limited to:  1. Utilization of local exhaust ventilation such as, but not limited to, a fume extractor.  ABATEMENT SCHEDULE:  STEP 1:   Effective respiratory protection shall be provided to and used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering and/or administrative controls can be implemented or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits.  STEP 2:  Submit to the area director a written, detailed plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposure to hazardous substances as referenced in this citation. This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the abatement dates required by this citation:  a) Evaluation of engineering/administrative control options;  b) Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design;  c) Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures; and  d) Testing and acceptable or modification/redesign of controls.  All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty - (30) day progress reports are required during the abatement period.   STEP 3   Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not make medical surveillance available for all employees who were or could be occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year:  (a) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to chromium (VI) were provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200:   a) On or about September 24, 2013 - a grinder was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of Hexavalent Chromium (VI), 3.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 ug/m3. The sampling time was 397 minutes during one shift on November 6, 2013.  Employees were not provided effective information and training regarding the hazards associated with chromium (VI).

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program for employees using hazardous chemicals, such as, but not limited to acetylene, propane, and oxygen.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 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) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, employees, working in and around chemicals such as, but not limited to acetylene, propane and oxygen were not provided effective information and training regarding the hazards associated with their use.

Issued

Dec 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done:  (a) On or about September 24, 2013 - Facility, no written certification to verify the hazard assessment had been performed.