OSHA Inspection: SHORE CORPORATION

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Jun 26, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $624 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1): Open-sided floor(s) or platform(s) 4 feet (1.22 m) or more above the adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded by standard railings (or the equivalent as specified in 29 CFR 1910.23(e)(3)(i) through (v)), on all open sides:    a) In the facility, on or about March 17, 2014 - The employer did not ensure that an open sided floor approximately 4-feet above the adjacent floor was guarded by a standard railing.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Aug 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,040 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1460

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:    a) In the facility, on or about January 29, 2014 - The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program that includes the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures for employees required to wear tight-fitting respirators in the workplace.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,040 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1460

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 contaminants chemical state and physical form:    a) In the Acid Blending Area, on or about January 29, 2014 - The employer did nto evaluate the respiratory hazards in the work place; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposure to hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids.  Personal air sampling conducted on March 17, 2014 revealed an employee was exposed to hydrofluoric acid 40 times the OSHA PEL of 3 ppm.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Sep 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $624 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:    a) In the facility, on or about January 29, 2014 - The employer did not ensure that employees required to wear tight-fitting respirators in the workplace were provided a medical evaluation prior to their use.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Sep 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,040 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1460

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee(s) using a tight-fitting respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece was used, and at least annually thereafter:     a) In the facility, on or about January 29, 2014 - The employer did not ensure that employees wearing tight-fitting respirators for the acid blending operation were fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator and annually thereafter.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Oct 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,040 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1460

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(b)(1): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of hydrogen fluoride listed in Table Z-2 in excess of the 8-hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 3 parts per million (ppm):    a) In the facility, on or about March 17, 2014 - The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of hydrogen fluoride in excess of 3 part hydrogen fluoride per millions parts of air (3 ppm) as an 8-hour time-weighted average limit (TWA).  On Monday, March 17, 2014, an employee designated as a Mixer/Technician was exposed to a hydrogen fluoride in air concentration of 121 ppm calculated as an 8-hour TWA.  Zero exposure was assumed for any unsampled time when calculating the 8-hour TWA.  The exposure was 40 times the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 3 ppm.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Oct 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1460

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):    a) In the facility, on or about March 17, 2014 - The employer did not implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to hydrogen fluoride to or below the permissible exposure limit (PEL).  On Monday, March 17, 2014, an employee designated as a Mixer/Technician was exposed to a hydrogen fluoride in air concentration of 121 ppm calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure.  Zero exposure was assumed for any unsampled time when calculating the 8-hour TWA.  The exposure was 40 times the OSHA PEL of 3 ppm and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented.

Issued

May 21, 2014

Abate by

Aug 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    a) In the facility, on or about January 29, 2014 - The employer did not develop a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to hazardous materials in the workplace, such as, but not limited to hydrofluoric acid and hydrochloric acid.