OSHA Inspection: DESIGN PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(d)(1): Circular handfed crosscut table saw(s) were not guarded by an automatically adjusting hood which completely enclosed that portion of the saw above the table and above the material being cut:   a) Model maker dept.: The Haudaille Powermatic table saw, model#66, S/N:266061 was not guarded during operation, exposing operator to the danger zone of the machine, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(1): Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not used with safety guard(s):  a) Model shop: The safety guard of the 6 inch Black & Decker grinder was missing exposing employees to the moving parts of the machine, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Grinding machinery was not used with work rest(s) to support offhand grinding work:   a)      Model shop: The work rest of the 6 inch Black & Decker bench grinder was missing exposing employees to the moving wheel of the machine, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): Guard for abrasive wheel machine where the operator stands in front of the machine was not constructed so that the peripheral protecting member could be adjusted to the constantly decreasing diameter of the wheel:     a)      Model shop: The adjustable tongue guard of the 6 inch Black & Decker bench grinder was missing exposing employees to the hazard of wheel breakage, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 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) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not develop and implement a worksite-specific written respiratory protection program, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five parts per million as an 8-hour TWA:    a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(2): The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of 125 parts per million as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes:     Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 140 ppm and 170 ppm for 15 minutes which is in excess of the OSHA-STEL value of 125 ppm, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1): The employer did not institute and maintain the effectiveness of engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limits and wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices which can be instituted were not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or short term exposure limit, 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 compiled with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1052(g):     a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not institute engineering controls, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(1)(i): Respirators were not used during periods when an employee's exposure to methylene chloride exceeds the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or short term exposure limit:     a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not ensure that the affected employees are wearing appropriate respirators during the process, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jun 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:  a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average, which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not perform exposure monitoring for methylene chloride to determine employee's exposure level initially, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeded or could reasonably be expected to exceed either the 8-hour Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit or the Short Term Exposure Limit:     a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not establish a regulated area, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(2): The employer did not limit access to regulated areas to authorized persons:    a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not limit access to the shop thus exposing other employees to methylene chloride hazard, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(6): The employer did not demarcate regulated areas from the rest of the workplace in any manner that adequately established and alerted employees to the boundaries of the area and minimized the number of authorized employees exposed to methylene chloride within the regulated area:     A) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm.  The employer did not demarcate the shop as being regulated area from the rest of the facility thus exposing other employees to methyl chloride hazard, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

May 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:  a) Model shop: Model makers engaged in manufacturing product display are using glue containing methylene chloride without wearing appropriate protective clothing which is resistant to methylene chloride, on or about 12/23/14.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(2): It was reasonably foreseeable that an employee's eyes may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater methylene chloride and the employer did not provide appropriate eyewash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use and did not ensure that affected employees use those facilities when necessary:   a) Model shop:  The employer did not provide eye wash facilities in the vicinity of work area to those who handle glue containing 60-100% Methylene Chloride, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available for employees who were or potentially were  exposed to methylene chloride at or above the action level on 30 or more days per year, or above the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or the short term exposure limit on 10 or more days per year:     a) Model shop: Two model makers were exposed to Methylene Chloride at levels of 68 ppm and 130 ppm for 8-hour time weighted average which is in excess of the OSHA-PEL value of 25 ppm. The employer did not make medical surveillance available to affected employees, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1): The employer did not provide information and training for each affected employee prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride:    a) Model shop: Employees were not provided the information and training on the hazard(s) associated with exposure to methylene chloride, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):       a) Model department: Employees handle adhesive material containing hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, methylene chloride and methyl ethyl ketone.  The employer did not develop and implement a worksite specific written hazard communication program, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 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) Model shop:  Employees were not provided the information and training on the hazard(s) associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, methyl ethyl ketone, on or about 12/23/13.

Issued

Apr 15, 2014

Abate by

Jul 2, 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) Model shop: The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to those required to wear negative pressure air-purifying respirators, on or about 12/23/14.