OSHA Inspection: AFT INDUSTRIES INC.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jun 10, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not provided when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:   A.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to contact hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying a resin-bonded aqueous based product on metal parts.  Torso and head protection was not provided.  B.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to contact hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying an organic solvent based coating on metal parts.  The coating product was a skin sensitizer and classified as a carcinogen.  Torso and head protection, such as but not limited to disposable garments, were not provided.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 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.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to contact hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying a resin-bonded aqueous based product on metal parts.  Torso, head, and shoe covering protection were not provided.  B.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to contact hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying an organic solvent based coating on metal parts.  The product was listed as a skin sensitizer and classified as a carcinogen.  Torso, head, and shoe covering protection, such as but not limited to disposable garments, were not provided.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

May 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazardous conditions:   On or about 12/18/2013, a painter worked without gloves and was exposed to contact hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying a resin-bonded aqueous based product on metal parts.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jul 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:   A.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to inhalation hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying a resin-bonded aqueous based product on metal parts.  The employee wore a Sperian One-Fit NBW 95 filtering facepiece and at times a 3M Paint Spray Respirator.  B.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to inhalation hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying an organic solvent based coating that was listed as a skin sensitizer and classified as a carcinogen.  The employee wore a Sperian One-Fit NBW 95 filtering facepiece respirator.  C.  On or about 12/18/2013, masking employees wore Western Safety Particle Dust masks (No NIOSH approval) while dipping the parts in an organic solvent based product.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jul 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(ii): The employer did not select and use a NIOSH-certified respirator in compliance with the conditions of its certification:   On or about 12/18/2013, masking employees wore Western Safety Particle Dust masks (No NIOSH approval) while dipping the parts in an organic solvent based maskant product.  Employees were exposed to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jul 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:  A.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to inhalation hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying a resin-bonded aqueous based product on metal parts.  The employee wore a Sperian One-Fit NBW 95 filtering facepiece and at times a 3M Paint Spray Respirator.  B.  On or about 12/18/2013, a painter was exposed to inhalation hazards in a spray finishing operation while applying an organic solvent based coating that was also listed as a skin sensitizer and classified as a carcinogen.  The employee wore a Sperian One-Fit NBW 95 filtering facepiece respirator.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jun 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 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:   On or about 12/18/2013, employees were exposed to inhalation and skin contact hazards in spray finishing operations and also while dipping and trimming parts in a masking process.  No program to manage and communicate occupational health hazards had been developed.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jun 19, 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:   On or about 12/18/2013, employees were exposed to inhalation and skin contact hazards in spray finishing operations and also while dipping and trimming parts in a masking process.  No program to communicate occupational health hazards and means of avoiding exposures had been developed.