OSHA Inspection: KANSAS CASTINGS

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Jun 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,050 Reduced

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:   Employees such as those in the shakeout area and those that perform furnace relining activities, were exposed to inhalation hazards from exposure to crystalline silica in that they were not medically evaluated before using the 3M N95 filtering face piece respirators.

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Jun 30, 2014

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph:   Employees such as those in the shakeout area and those that perform furnace relining activities were exposed to inhalation hazards from exposure to crystalline silica in that they were not fit tested before using the N95 filtering facepiece respirators.

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Jun 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)[A]: The employer did not prohibit a tight-fitting facepiece to be worn by employees who had facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face:   Employees were exposed to inhalation hazards from exposure to crystalline silica in that employees were not clean shaven while wearing tight-fitting respirators during furnace relining activities.

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Jun 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,050 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4): When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not develop and implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:    Employees were exposed to hazards from moving parts when working in the shakeout pit, dust collector, muller and Didion drum in that a written confined space program had not been developed.

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Oct 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): The employer did not ensure that an employee's exposure to any substance listed in Table Z-3 in any 8-hour work shift of a 40 hour work week did not exceed the 8-hour time weighted average limit given for that substance in the table.     The following employees were exposed to inhalation hazards of crystalline silica in that their personal exposure exceeded the Permissilbe Exposure Limit (PEL):     a) An employee engaged in furnace relining was exposed to crystalline silica levels in excess of the OSHA PEL of .19 milligrams per cubic meter during the personal sampling performed on 2/14/14. The employee exposure was 1.5 milligrams per cubic meter, 8 times the PEL.     b) An employee engaged in furnace relining was exposed to crystalline silica levels in excess of the OSHA PEL of .19 milligrams per cubic meter during the personal sampling performed on 2/14/14. The employee exposure was 0.7 milligrams per cubic meter, 4 times the PEL.     c) Two employees engaged in furnace relining were exposed to crystalline silica levels in excess of the OSHA PEL of .15 milligrams per cubic meter during the personal sampling performed on 2/14/14.  The employees' exposures were 0.45 and 0.4 milligrams per cubic meter respectively, 3 times the PEL.      d) An employee engaged in grinding and shakeout was exposed to crystalline silica levels in excess of the OSHA PEL of .9 milligrams per cubic meter during the personal sampling performed on 1/28/14.  The employee exposure was 1.0 milligrams per cubic meter, 1 times the PEL.      e) An employee engaged in grinding activities was exposed to crystalline silica levels in excess of the OSHA PEL of .8 milligrams per cubic meter during the personal sampling performed on 1/28/14.  The employee exposure was 1.0 milligrams per cubic meter, 1 times the PEL.

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Jun 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures in any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer:  The written respiratory protection program was not worksite-specific.  The written program did not include specific procedures and elements for respirator use such as which employees were required to wear the N95 dustmasks during which job tasks.

Issued

Apr 4, 2014

Abate by

Jun 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit spaces:(a)(LOCATION)(IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS)NOTE: A sign reading DANGER-PERMIT-REQUIRED CONFINED SPACE, DO NOT ENTER or using other similar language would satisfy the requirement for a sign.  Employees had not been informed of the existence of the permit required confined spaces such as the shakeout pit,  Didion drum, Muller, and dust collectors.