OSHA Inspection: U.S. CHROME CORP. OF ILLINOIS

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(2):     The items listed in subparagraphs (j)(2)(i)-(vii) were not inspected for defects at intervals as defined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section or as specifically indicated, and all deficiencies were not carefully examined and a determination made as to whether they constituted a safety hazard:    On or about October 22, 2013:    The employer did not complete frequent (monthly at minimum) inspections of its overhead cranes used to hoist large pieces above plating tanks.    Abatement certification is required of this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(c).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(3):     Complete inspections of the crane was not being performed at intervals as generally defined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(b) of this section:    On or about October 22, 2013:    The employer did not complete periodic (yearly at minimum) inspections of its overhead cranes used to hoist large pieces above plating tanks.    Abatement certification is required of this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(c).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(iv):     The employer used the scheduled monitoring option, and monitoring revealed employee exposures to chromium (VI) to be above the permissible exposure limit; however, the employer did not perform periodic monitoring at least every three months:    On or about October 22, 2013:    The employer had not performed periodic monitoring at least every three months to assess employee exposures to chromium (VI); the employer performed employee exposure monitoring in May of 2013 and found chromium levels above the PEL.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(1):     The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was, or could reasonably be expected to be, in excess of the permissible exposure limit:    On or about October 22, 2013:    The employer did not establish a regulated area when testing in May of 2013 revealed employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was in excess of the permissible exposure limit.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(1):     A hazard was present or was likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI); however, the employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and/or did not ensure that employees used such clothing and equipment:    On or about October 22, 2013:    (a) The employer did not ensure that employees used personal protective equipment such as goggles and/or face shields when exposed to hazards from eye contact with corrosive chromium (VI).    (b) The employer did not ensure that employees used personal protective equipment such as chemical resistant aprons when exposed to hazards from corrosive chromium (VI) in plating tanks.    Abatement certification is required of this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(c).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(i):     Employees were allowed to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present; however, the employer did not ensure that the eating and drinking areas were maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI):    On or about November 14, 2013:    Employees were exposed to chromium (VI) while eating and drinking at a contaminated table located outside of the Operations Manager's office. No formal cleaning schedule exists to keep this eating and drinking area as free as practicable of chromium (VI).    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i):     The employer did not ensure that all surfaces were maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI):    On or about November 14, 2013:    Employees were exposed to chromium (VI) while working at a contaminated counter-top located inside the shipping office near the plating areas.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(2)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that high efficiency particulate air-filtered vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure to chromium (VI) were tried and found not to be an effective cleaning method before allowing dry shoveling, dry sweeping and/or dry brushing:     On or about October 22, 2013:     Employees dry sweep the floors of the plating areas with a sweeping compound. Exposure to chromium (VI) was not minimized as the employer did not try HEPA vacuuming or other wet methods.     Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(ii):    Employees were allowed to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present; however, the employer did not ensure that employees did not enter the eating and drinking areas with chromium (VI)-contaminated protective clothing or equipment:     On or about October 22, 2013:    Employees were exposed to chromium (VI) in eating and drinking areas from contaminated protective clothing that was not removed or cleaned prior to entry into those areas.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Nov 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $14,000 · Current $9,100 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures:    On or about October 30, 2013:     Three plating employees exposed to chromium (VI) above the PEL were not protected by respirators. The employer's written respiratory protection program was not implemented to require respirator use despite the hazardous exposure necessitating their use.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:     On or about October 30, 2013:     a) Plating employee number one was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 13.8 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 2.75 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air; this limit is established to prevent an increased risk of lung cancer and irritation and sensitization to the lungs, throat, nose, eyes, and skin. The sample was collected over a 413 minute sampling period.     b) Plating employee number two was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 21.1 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 4.22 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air; this limit is established to prevent an increased risk of lung cancer and irritation and sensitization to the lungs, throat, nose, eyes, and skin. The sample was collected over a 405 minute sampling period.    c) Plating employee number three was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 17.2 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 3.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air; this limit is established to prevent an increased risk of lung cancer and irritation and sensitization to the lungs, throat, nose, eyes, and skin. The sample was collected over a 294 minute sampling period.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Apr 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i):     Wherever feasible engineering and work practice controls were not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL, the employer did not use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels achievable, and did not supplement them by the use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section:     On or about October 30, 2013:     Engineering and work practice controls were not used by the employer to reduce the employee exposure to chromium (VI) to the lowest levels achievable; in addition, no supplementary respiratory protection was used.    Step 1:  Effective respiratory protection shall be provided 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:        1. Evaluation of engineering/administrative control options;   2. Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design;   3. Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures;   4. Testing and acceptance 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.  90-day progress reports are required during the abatement period.        Step 3:  Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering controls and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.        Feasible engineering controls include, but are not limited to:     - Substitution (e.g., using a less toxic material instead of Cr(VI), or substituting a process that results in lower exposures for another type of process that results in higher exposures);     - Isolation (e.g., enclosing the source of exposure, or placing a barrier between employees and the source of exposure); and     - Ventilation (e.g., local exhaust systems that capture airborne Cr(VI) near its source and remove it from the workplace, or general ventilation that dilutes Cr(VI) concentrations by circulating large quantities of air; a local exhaust system is generally preferred to dilution ventilation because it provides a cleaner and healthier work environment).     Feasible administrative controls include, but are not limited to:     - Minimizing time spent at or near plating tanks; employees should prepare pieces for plating in non-exposure areas;     - Restrict access to exposure areas; only employees who must access the areas to perform their duties should enter;     - Emphasize safe work practices such as covering tanks and establishing an effective housekeeping program        Date by which Step 1 must be abated:  00/00/00        Date by which Step 2 must be abated:  00/00/00        Date by which Step 3 must be abated:  00/00/00     Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).

Issued

Apr 9, 2014

Abate by

Nov 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(2)(ii):     The employer did not provide a medical examination annually for affected employees under medical surveillance for chromium (VI) exposures:    On or about October 30, 2013:    The employer did not provide an annual medical examination for employees exposed to chromium (VI) over the PEL.    Abatement documentation is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(d).