OSHA Inspection: SWIFT TEXTILE METALIZING, LLC

Issued

May 8, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1): Employees were not able to open an exit route door from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge:    METALIZING AREA:    On or about November 22, 2013, a screen door with a slide bolt lock was installed inside the security exit door which was also equipped with a deadbolt.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,695 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:    INSPECTION AREA:    On or about January 9, 2014, the employer did not provide guarding to protect the operator of the Fab-Com tenter frame (S/N 1115) from an ingoing nip point between the final roller and cutter frame.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(f)(1)(iv): Overcurrent devices for circuits rated 600 volts, nominal, or less, were not readily accessible to each employee or authorized building management personnel:    MAIN ELECTRIC PANEL:     On or about November 22, 2013, surplus materials were stored in front of the electrical panels on the shop floor preventing them from being readily accessible.  Employees access the panels daily to reset breakers, turn equipment on/off, and turn the lights on/off.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,620 · Current $3,234 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of silver metal listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) concentration of 0.01 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3):    METALIZING AND FINISHED PRODUCT AREAS:    On or about February 25, 2014, three employees were exposed to airborne silver concentrations in excess of the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.01 mg/m3.  Analytical results reported for personal samples collected on this date showed that the employees were exposed to 8-hour TWAs of 0.0738 mg/m3, 0.0119 mg/m3, and 0.248 mg/m3.  The employees were monitored for 308 minutes, 366 minutes, and 339 minutes, respectively.  Zero exposure is assumed for time not monitored.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    METALIZING AND FINISHED PRODUCT AREAS:    On or about February 25, 2104, the employer had not identified and implemented engineering and/or administrative controls to address exployees' exposure to silver.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $3,773 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(h)(1)(i): All contact of the eyes and skin with liquids containing 1 percent or more formaldehyde was not prevented by the use of chemical protective clothing made of material impervious to formaldehyde and the use of other personal protective equipment such as goggles and face shields, as appropriate to the operation:    METALIZING AREA:    On or about November 22, 2013, the employer had not provided chemical splash goggles and face shields or adequate chemical protective clothing to prevent formalehyde contact with eyes or skin when employees manually add 3.7% formaldehyde to the treatment tanks.  Employees were exposed to a solution containing hydrochloric acid at a pH of approximately 2.5 and another solution containing formaldehyde with an approximate pH of 10 while agitating fabric ensuring that it is thoroughly treated.    Employees were observed to be wearing disposable vinyl sleeves, PVC aprons, and safety glasses.  Splashing of the solution is common during the treatment process.  Safety glasses will not protect the employees' eyes and the aprons and sleeves do not protect the employees' upper arms and shoulders from chemical splashes.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Jun 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(h)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that the protective equipment and clothing that had become contaminated with formaldehyde was cleaned or laundered before its reuse:    METALIZING AREA:    On or about December 9, 2013, reusable personal protective equipment was not decontaminated or cleaned before reuse.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Jun 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(h)(2)(ii): When formaldehyde-contaminated clothing and equipment was ventilated, the employer did not establish storage areas so that employee exposure is minimized.  METALIZING AREA:  On or about December 9, 2013, reusable gloves, aprons, and rubber overshoes are hung to air dry on hooks on the wall between the metalizing area and the nickel plating area.  The area designated for storage of the PPE was not arranged to minimize employee exposure.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Jun 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(h)(2)(ii)(A): Storage areas for contaminated clothing and equipment were not identified by signs bearing the following legend:    DANGER  FORMALDEHYDE-CONTAMINATED [CLOTHING] EQUIPMENT  MAY CAUSE CANCER  CAUSES SKIN, EYE AND RESPIRATORY IRRITATION  DO NOT BREATHE VAPOR  DO NOT GET ON SKIN  METALIZING AREA  On or about December 9, 2013, the employer had not posted signs in storage areas for contaminated clothing and equipment indicating the presence of formaldehyde.  Reusable gloves, aprons, and rubber overshoes are hung to air dry on hooks on the wall between the metalizing area and the nickel plating area.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Jun 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(h)(2)(ii)(B): Labels. The employer did not ensure that containers for contaminated clothing and equipment are labeled consistent with the Hazard Communication Standard, Sec. 1910.1200, including, at a minimum, include the following:    DANGER  FORMALDEHYDE-CONTAMINATED [CLOTHING] EQUIPMENT  MAY CAUSE CANCER  CAUSES SKIN, EYE, AND RESPIRATORY IRRITATION  DO NOT BREATHE VAPOR  DO NOT GET ON SKIN  METALIZING AREA:  On or about November 22, 2013, the employer had not ensured that containers in which disposable formaldehyde-contaminated personal protective equipment was stored were properly labeled.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Jun 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(n)(2): The employer did not provide employees with information and training on formaldehyde at the time of their initial assignment and annually thereafter and/or whenever a new hazard from formaldehyde was introduced into their work area:    METALIZING AREA:    On or about November 22, 2013, the employer had not provided annual formaldehyde training for employees working in the metalizing area.

Issued

May 8, 2014

Abate by

Jun 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,080 · Current $2,156 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:    METALIZING AREA:    (A)  On or about November 22, 2013, barrels reported to contain approximately 30 gallons of ethanol in water were observed to be unlabeled on the floor near the sensitizing tanks.    (B) On or about November 22, 2013, the sump tanks containing spent solution from the sensitizing and metalizing tanks were not labeled with their contents.