OSHA Inspection: PRIDE PLATING, INC.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(a)(1): Scaffolds were not furnished and erected in accordance with this standard for persons engaged in work that cannot be done safely from the ground or from solid construction, except that ladders used for such work shall conform to 1910.25 and 1910.26:      The employer does not furnish scaffolding for work that could not be done safely from an eight foot step ladder on the walkway around the anodize tanks on the 600 line. This violation was observed on or about April 14, 2014.  Employees are exposed to the hazards of falling and contact with hazardous chemicals.       a) A maintenance employee insulating a steam pipe on the 600 anodize line was standing on the second step of an eight foot step ladder beside Tank 607, Chromic Acid Anodize, and Tank 605, Deoxidize (nitric acid tank).      b) A maintenance employee insulating a steam pipe on the 600 anodize line was standing on the second step of an eight foot step ladder beside the railing surrounding the deck of the 600 anodize line.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure employees are protected while working above anodize tanks and railings.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $6,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(h)(4): Employees working with chromic acid were not provided with periodic examinations of their exposed body parts, especially their nostrils:    The employer does not provide periodic examinations of exposed body parts of anodize employees working with hexavalent chromium on the 100 anodize line. This violation was observed on or about April 2, 2014.  Employees are exposed to the hazard of hexavalent chromium exposure.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure periodic examinations of exposed body parts of 100 anodize line employees.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $7,000

Hazardous substances 06941377

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:       The employer permits respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face.  This violation occurred on or about as follows:      a.  May 6, 2014, at the paint department, an employee has facial hair between the sealing surface of the tight-fitting respirator facepiece and the face during spraying of coating containing chromium (VI) which exposes the employee to skin contact and chromium (VI) health hazards.       b. April 24, 2014, at the paint department, an employee has facial hair between the sealing surface of the tight-fitting respirator facepiece and the face during spraying of top coat which contains isocyanate and exposes the employee to isocyanate health hazards.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure employer does not permit respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,950 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(2)(i): When there was a change in the work area, conditions, or degree of employee exposure or stress that may effect respirator effectiveness, the employer did not reevaluate the continued effectiveness of the respirator:       The employer does not ensure they reevaluate the continued effectiveness of the respirator when there is a change in work area conditions or degree of employee exposure or stress.  This violation occurred on or about May 19, 2014, small parts paint area, the employer did not reevaluate respirator effectiveness when there were changes in employees degree of exposure or stress for employees who spray chromium (VI) containing primers and coatings.         Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure when there is a change in work area conditions or degree of employee exposure or stress that may affect respirator effectiveness, the employer reevaluates the continued effectiveness of the respirator.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,950 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i): Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or  were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:       The employer does not ensure all respirators are stored to protect them from contamination and dust. This violation occurred on or about as follows:       a.  April 15, 2014, spray booth 1, where a half face respirator was left hanging under the spray gun at the front of spray booth #1 and the respirator is not stored to prevent contamination with epoxy primer.        b.  April 15, 2014, spray booth 2, where a half face respirator was left uncovered on top of a cabinet next to spray booth 2 and the respirator is not stored to prevent contamination with epoxy primer.        c.  April 16, 2014, spray booth 6 and 5, where a half face respirators were left hanging at the walls of the spray booths and are not stored to prevent contamination with isocyanate containing coatings.        d.  May 19, 2014, small parts paint area, where a full face respirator was stored on top of a file cabinet and is not protected from contamination with chromium (VI).       e.  May 20, 2014, spray booth 1, where a full face respirator was left hanging at the front of spray booth #1 and the respirator is not stored to prevent contamination with chromium (VI) containing primer.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure all respirators be stored to protect them from contamination and dust.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(2): The employer required respirator use for protection against chromium (VI); however, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, which covers each employee required to use a respirator:        The employer does not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1910.134.  This violation occurred on or about April 14, 2014, at the paint department, where employees were required to wear respirators during spray operations for chromate primers and coatings.  The employer does not ensure respirators selected for employee use maintains the employees exposure to chromium (VI), when measured outside the respirator, at or below the maximum use concentration of the respirator.          Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that where respirator use is required, the employer shall institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1910.134, which covers each employee required to use a respirator.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials:      The employer does not provide suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body exposing employees to the hazard of contact with corrosive chemicals. This violation was observed on or about March 6, 2014.      a) An eyewash or shower is not provided in the waste treatment area for use by employees as they add chemicals such as, but not limited to, sulfuric acid, caustic soda and metabisulfite to treatment tanks and as they process waste from the plating process.      b) Eye wash provided in the change room of the 600 line is blocked and not accessible.      c) An eyewash or shower is not provided in the chemical storage area for use by employees handling corrosive chemicals such as, but not limited to, hydrofluoric acid, nitric acid,  and sulfuric acid.      d) Eyewash stations located on the 100 anodize line, the 600 anodize line and in the change room for the 600 anodize line are not checked regularly to ensure they are in proper functioning order.       e) Eyewash stations provided in the 600 anodize line change room and on the 600 anodize line walkway do not have the caps in place allowing contaminants to collect on the nozzles.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body are provided in the work area and are properly maintained.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,950 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3)(i): Vertical or inclined belt(s) were not enclosed by guard(s) conforming to the requirements specified at 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o):      The employer does not provide adequate guarding for the belt connecting the motor and shaft on the ventilation system for the 600 anodize line, This violation was observed on or about May 21, 2014, exposing employees to caught-in hazards.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that adequate guarding is provided for the belt connecting the motor and shaft of the 600 anodize ventilation system.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(m)(1)(iii): The employer did not ensure that employee exposure records for chromium (VI) were maintained and made available in accordance with the standard for Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records, 29 CFR 1910.1020:      The employer does not ensure exposure records for chromium (VI) are maintained and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.  This violation occurred on or about as follows:    a.  April 14, 2014, at the paint department, where employees sand and spray chromate coatings, employees are not annually informed on the existence, location, and availability of employee exposure records.        b. April 14, 2014, at the anodize department, where employees process parts in dip tanks containing chromate solutions, employees are not annually informed on the existence, location, and availability of employee exposure records.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure upon an employees first entering into employment, and at least annually thereafter, the employer informs current employees covered by 29 C.F.R. 1910.2010 on the existence, location, and availability of employee exposure records.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,950 · Current $3,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(i): The employer using the scheduled monitoring option did not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium (VI) for each employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:       The employer does not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI).  This violation occurred on or about May 5, 2014, abrasive blasting area, the employer does not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium (VI) for employees who use an abrasive blasting nozzle inside an enclosed room to remove coatings from metal parts.            Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure the employer performs initial monitoring to determine 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI) .

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that employees removed all protective clothing and equipment contaminated with chromium (VI) at the end of the work shift or at the completion of their tasks involving chromium (VI) exposure, whichever came first:       The employer does not ensure employees remove all protective clothing and equipment contaminated with chromium (VI) at completion of their tasks involving chromium (VI) exposure. This violation occurred on or about as follows:    a.  May 19, 2014, at spray booths 1, 2, and 4, employees wear coveralls during spraying of chromate containing primers and coatings and do not remove the coveralls for breaks.      b. May 19,  2014, at spray booths 1, 2, and 4, employees wear protective shoes during spraying of chromate containing primers and coatings and do not remove the protective shoes for breaks or at the end of the work shift.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure employees remove all protective clothing and equipment contaminated with chromium (VI) at the end of the work shift or at the completion of their tasks involving chromium (VI) exposure, whichever comes first.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,950 · Current $4,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(1): The employer did not provide change rooms, in conformance with the Sanitation standard, 29 CFR 1910.141, for employees who were required to change their clothes to use protective clothing and equipment for chromium (VI) exposures:    a.  Where protective clothing and equipment is required, the employer does not provide change rooms.  On or about May 19, 2014, small parts paint area, a change room was not provided to employees who sprayed chromium (VI) containing materials and who wore street shoes during spray operations which exposes employees to skin contact and chromium (VI) health hazards.           Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure change rooms are equipped with separate storage facilities for protective clothing and equipment and for street clothes, and that these facilities prevent cross-contamination.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(e): Where employees were required by a particular standard to wear protective clothing because of the possibility of contamination with toxic materials, the employer did not provide change rooms equipped with storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage facilities for the protective clothing.    The employer does not provide change rooms equipped with storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage facilities for protective clothing.  On or about May 19, 2014, small parts paint area, employees who sprayed chromium (VI) containing materials were not provided with a change room equipped with storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage facilities for protective clothing.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure change rooms are equipped with separate storage facilities for protective clothing and equipment and for street clothes, and that these facilities prevent cross-contamination.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(5)(i)(A): The employer did not obtain a written medical opinion from the physician or other licensed health care professional which contained the physician's or other licensed health care professional's opinion as to whether the employee had any detected medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of material impairment to health from further exposure to chromium (VI):       The employer does not obtain a written medical opinion from the physician or licensed health care professional (PLHCP), within 30 days for each medical examination performed on each employee, which contains the PLHCPs opinion as to whether the employee has any detected medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of material impairment of health from further chromium (VI) exposure.  This violation occurred on or about as follows:        a.  April 19, 2014, paint department, for 2nd shift employees who spray chromate containing primers and coatings and are exposed at or above the chromium (VI) action level 30 days or more a year, the employer does not have a written medical opinion from the PLHCP stating the PLHCP's opinion as to whether there is any detected medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of material impairment of health from further exposure to chromium (VI).       b. May 20, 2014, paint department, for 2nd shift employees who spray chromate containing primers and coatings and are exposed at or above the chromium (VI) action level 30 days or more a year, the employer does not have a written medical opinion from the PLHCP stating the PLHCPs opinion as to whether there is any detected medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of material impairment of health from further exposure to chromium (VI).         Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure the employer obtains a written medical opinion from the physician or licensed health care professional (PLHCP), within 30 days for each medical examination performed on each employee, which contains the PLHCPs opinion as to whether the employee has any detected medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of material impairment of health from further chromium (VI) exposure.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $28,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): The employer did not provide and require the use of appropriate protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment and chemical hazards encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact:      The employer does not provide and require the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect employees from chemical hazards such as, but not limited to, caustic and corrosive liquids and contact with chromium (VI). This violation occurred on or about March 6, 2014 for the following instances:       a. Anodize employees on the 600 anodize lines are not provided with and required to wear protective clothing for their extremities.      b. Anodize employees on the 600 anodize line are not required to wear protective foot wear while lowering parts into and removing parts from process tanks.       c. Anodize employees on the 100 anodize lines are not provided with and required to wear protective clothing for their extremities.      d. Anodize employees on the 100 anodize line are not required to wear protective foot wear while lowering parts into and removing parts from process tanks.      e. Employees in the paint department are not required to wear appropriate hand protection while spraying chromate containing primers.      f. Employees in the paint department are not required to wear appropriate hand protection while spraying isocyanate containing paint.    Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 3, Item Number 3a, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that powered industrial truck operators receive training that consists of a combination of formal instruction, practical training, and an evaluation of the operators performance in the workplace.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer does not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:    The employer does not ensure employees use appropriate hand protection while using hazardous chemicals in the facility.  Employees are exposed to the hazard of contact with hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, chromium (VI), isocyanates, hydrofluoric acid, nitric acid and MEK.  This violation occurred on or about as follows:  a. April 2, 2014,  employees working on both the 100 and 600 anodize lines wear latex gloves that come to the wrist while setting parts by hand into anodize tanks and while setting parts using the overhead hoist into the tanks.     b. April 2, 2014,  paint assist employees use latex gloves to clean parts with MEK in preparing the parts to receive a topcoat.     c. April 2, 2014, demask employees use latex gloves to clean tape residue from parts after the parts have been painted.    d. April 2, 2014, masking employees use latex gloves to clean parts before applying masking tape in preparation for anodizing, painting or priming.    e. April 2, 2014, anodize employees use latex gloves while cleaning parts with MEK prior to the anodize process.    f. April 2, 2014, painting employees use latex gloves to clean parts and painting equipment with MEK.    g. April 2, 2014,  employees using paints and primers containing isocyanates and chromium (VI) use latex gloves.  h. April 14, 2014, at spray booth 4, an employee wore latex gloves and not a chemical resistant glove for spraying epoxy primers.      i. April 15, 2014, at spray booths 1 and 2, employees wore latex gloves and not chemical resistant gloves for spraying epoxy primers.    j. April 16, 2014, at spray booths 5 and 6, employees wore latex gloves and not chemical resistant gloves for spraying isocyanate containing coatings.    k. May 19, 2014, at spray booths 1, 2 and 4, employees wore latex gloves and not chemical resistant gloves for spraying chromium (VI) containing and epoxy containing coatings and primers.    l. May 20, 2014, at spray booth 1, 2, and 5, employees wore latex gloves and not chemical resistant gloves for spraying chromium (VI) containing and epoxy containing coatings and primers.  Pride Plating, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312381817, citation number 03, item number 003c and was affirmed as a final order on September 7, 2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10 Grove, Oklahoma 74344.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that employees are using proper hand protection.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694SL06

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:       The employer does not ensure affected employees use appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids.  This violation occurred on or about as follows:          a. March 6, 2014, at 100 anodize line, anodize employees do not wear protection for their facial skin while working at or around tanks that contained corrosive solutions of nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, or chromic acid.         b. March 6, 2014 at the 600 anodize line, anodize employees do not wear protection for their facial skin while working at or around tanks that contained corrosive solutions of nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, or chromic acid.         c. April 14, 2014, at spray booth 4, eye protection is not worn by an employee who spray metal parts with primer.         d. April 15, 2014, at spray booths 1 and 2, eye protection is not worn by employees who spray metal parts with primer.            e. April 16, 2014, at spray booth 6 and 5, eye protection is not worn by employees who spray metal parts with isocyanate containing coating.       Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 3, Item Number 3b, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.           Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure affected employee use appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye of face hazards from flying particles, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, and chemical gases or vapors.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(1): A hazard was present or was likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI); however, the employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and/or did not ensure that employees used such clothing and equipment:       The employer does not ensure employees use appropriate personal protective clothing where a hazard is likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI).  This violation occurred on or about as follows at sprays booths 1 and 2 where employees spray chromate containing primers and coatings:        a. May 19, 2014, spray booths 1, 2 and 4; protective shoe covers for street shoes are not worn by employees during spraying of chromate containing primers and coatings.       b. May 20, 2014, spray booths 1, and 2, protective shoe covers for street shoes are not worn by employees during spraying of chromate containing primers and coatings.       Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 3, Item Number 3d, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure employees use appropriate personal protective clothing where a hazard is likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI).

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:      This violation occurred on or about March 6, 2014, where the employer does not select, identify, and ensure the proper selection of personal protective equipment including but not limited to the following hazards:    a. hexavalent chromium  b. isocyanates  c. lead  d. physical injury to head, hand, eye, and foot    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure personal protective equipment assessments are complete.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(b): The employer did not base the selection of the appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified:    The employer does not base the selection of hand protection on the characteristics of the hand protection relative to tasks to be performed. Employees are exposed to the hazard of contact with hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, hexavalent chromium, MEK, isocyanate containing paint and chemicals used in anodizing. The violation was observed on or about March 6, 2014.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that appropriate hand protection is provided to employees.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $70,000

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) which exceeded 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an 8-hour time-weighted average:       a.  The employer does not ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5ugm/m3), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).  This violation occurred on or about May 19, 2014 as follows:          1.  At booth 4 of small parts paint room, an employees personal 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was 11.4 micrograms per cubic meter of air during spray operations for chromate containing coatings.  This exposure exceeds the OSHA 8-hour TWA chromium (VI) PEL of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 2.3 times.  Personal samples were collected during a 391minute sampling period on 5/19/14. The remaining un-sampled time of 89 minutes was included in the 8-Hr TWA as a zero chromium (VI) exposure period.                  2.  At booth 2 of small parts paint room, an employees personal 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was 9.7 micrograms per cubic meter of air during spray operations for chromate containing coatings.  This exposure exceeds the OSHA 8-hour TWA chromium (VI) PEL of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 1.9 times.  Personal samples were collected during a 395 minute sampling period on 5/19/14. The remaining un-sampled time of 85 minutes was included in the 8-Hr TWA as a zero chromium (VI) exposure period.                 b.  The employer does not ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5ugm/m3), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).  This violation occurred on or about May 20, 2014 as follows:           1.  At booth 1 of small parts paint room, an employees personal 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was 16.9 micrograms per cubic meter of air during spray operations for chromate containing coatings.  This exposure exceeds the OSHA 8-hour TWA chromium (VI) PEL of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 3.4 times.  Personal samples were collected during a 444 minute sampling period on 5/20/14. The remaining un-sampled time of 36 minutes was included in the 8-Hr TWA as a zero chromium (VI) exposure period.               2.  At booth 6, an employees personal 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was 5.8 micrograms per cubic meter of air during spray operations for chromate containing coatings.  This exposure exceeds the OSHA 8-hour TWA chromium (VI) PEL of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 1.2 times.  The personal sample was collected during a 280 minute sampling period on 5/20/14. The remaining un-sampled time of 200 minutes was included in the 8-Hr TWA as a zero chromium (VI) exposure period.         Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026(c) which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 3, Item Number 6a, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5ugm/m3), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): Feasible engineering controls and work practices were not instituted to reduce and maintain employee exposures to chromium (VI) at or below the permissible exposure limit:       The employer does not ensure use of engineering and work practice exposure to chromium (VI) to or below the PEL.  This violation occurred where employees who spray chromium (VI) containing primers and coatings have personal breathing zone exposures which exceed the OSHA chromium (VI) PEL.  The employer, who implemented engineering and work practice controls, did not implement all feasible engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure at or below the chromium (VI) PEL which includes but is not limited to the following:    a)  On or about May 19, 2014 and May 20, 2014, at the small parts paint area, the employer did not ensure all spraying is done within the confines of the spray booth, and did not perform a ventilation assessment of spray booths to determine and ensure adequate ventilation rates;  b)  On or about May, 2014, at spray booth 6, the employer did not enforce the prohibition of placing any body part downstream of spraying parts nearer to the dry filters of the booth.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $69,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(iv): The employer used the scheduled monitoring option, and monitoring revealed employee exposures to chromium (VI) to be above the permissible exposure limit; however, the employer did not perform periodic monitoring at least every three months:        If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be above the PEL, the employer does not perform periodic monitoring every 3 months.  This violation occurred on or about April 14, 2014, at the paint department, when personal breathing zone air sampling exceeded the OSHA chromium (VI) PEL, the employer does not conduct periodic air monitoring for chromium (VI) at least every 3 months for employees who spray chromium (VI) containing primers and coatings which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.       Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(iv) which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 2, Item Number 1, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure periodic monitoring is done every 3 months to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI) .

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $27,000

Hazardous substances 0694

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(2): The employer did not ensure that a regulated area for chromium (VI) was demarcated from the rest of the workplace in a manner that adequately established and alerted employees of the boundaries of the regulated area:       The employer does not ensure regulated areas are demarcated from the rest of the workplace in a manner that adequately establishes and alerts employees of regulated area boundaries.  This violation occurred on or about April 14 2014, at spray booths 1, 2, 4, and 6, there is no demarcation of regulated areas boundaries where employees spray chromate containing coatings and primers which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.              Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(2) which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 1, Item Number 1, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure the employer demarcates regulated areas from the rest of the workplace in a manner that adequately establishes and alerts employees of the regulated area boundaries.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(i): The employer does not ensure eating and drinking areas used by employees to consume food or beverages are maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI):      The employer does not ensure common eating and drinking areas are maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI) exposing employees to the hazard of contact with chromium (VI).  This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2014, including but not limited to the following instances:      a. A table used for eating and drinking in the break room.      b. A counter top near the microwave in the break room.       c. The middle sink in the break room.    Pride Plating, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312381817, citation number 03, item number 008b and was affirmed as a final order on September 7, 2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10 Grove, Oklahoma 74344.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure eating and drinking areas used by employees to consume food and beverages are maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI).

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that all surfaces were maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI):       The employer does not ensure all surfaces are maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).  This violation occurred on or about May 19, 2014, at small parts paint area, the top surface of a file cabinet contained  chromium (VI)  with an uncovered respirator exposing employees to skin contact and chromium (VI) health hazards.     Pride Plating, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312381817, citation number 03, item number 008a and was affirmed as a final order on September 7, 2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10 Grove, Oklahoma 74344.        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure all surfaces are maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(5): The employer does not ensure that employees do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in regulated areas, or in areas where skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) occurs; or carry the products associated with these activities, or store such products in these areas:      The employer does not ensure employees do not eat, carry cigarettes or store drinks in areas where contact with chromium (VI) occurs exposing employees to the hazard of contact with chromium (VI). This violation was observed on or about March 6, 2014  in the following instances:      a. An open package of candy was on the worktable in the waste treatment area.      b. Employees carry cigarettes into work areas where they are exposed to chromium (VI).      c. A small refrigerator holding drinks is kept in the change room for the 600 anodize line.    Pride Plating, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312381817, citation number 01, item number 003 and was affirmed as a final order on September 7, 2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10 Grove, Oklahoma 74344.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure employees do not eat, drink, smoke or store drinks in areas where they are exposed to chromium (VI).

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $13,860 · Current $29,500

Hazardous substances 0694SL06

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i): Prior to initial job assignment to an area where employees were subject to chromium (VI) exposure, the employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge in the content of this section, and the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required by paragraph (k) of this section.     The employer does not ensure employees can demonstrate knowledge of the contents of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026 and the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required by paragraph (k) of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026.  This violation occurred on or about April 14, 2014, for the paint department, the employer did not ensure painters and paint assist employees demonstrate knowledge of the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1026 including the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required by paragraph (k) of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026.  Employees sand chromate containing metal parts or spray chromate primers and coatings which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.               The employer does not ensure employees can demonstrate knowledge of the contents of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026 and the purpose and description of the medical description required by paragraph (k) of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026.  This violation occurred on or about April 14, 2014, for the anodize department, the employer did not ensure that anodize department employees demonstrated knowledge of the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1026 including the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required by paragraph (k) of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026.  Anodize employees work with or around chromium (VI) containing solutions which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.            Pride Plating, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312381817, citation number 03, item number 010a and was affirmed as a final order on September 7, 2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10 Grove, Oklahoma 74344.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure each employee can demonstrate knowledge of the contents of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026 and the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required by paragraph (k) of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training does not include at least the physical, health, simple asphyxiation, combustible dust, and pyrophoric gas hazards, as well as hazards not otherwise classified, of the chemicals in the work area:    The employer does not provide effective information and training to employees including both the physical and health hazards of chemicals used in the work area. This violation was observed on or about March 6, 2014 were employees are exposed to the hazard of contact with hazardous chemicals:    a. New employees do not receive effective information and training on both the physical and health hazards of chemicals such as, but not limited to, hexavalent chromium, isocyanates and MEK used in the work area before the time of their initial exposure.    b. Employees doing tasks such as, but not limited to, anodizing, spray painting, abrasive blasting and sanding do not receive effective information and training on the physical and health hazards of hexavalent chromium.    c. Employees mixing and spraying paints containing isocyanates have not received effective information and training on the physical and health hazards of the isocyanates.   Pride Plating Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iii) which was contained in OSHA inspection Number 312381817, Citation Number 3, Item Number 10b, and was affirmed as a final order on 9/7/2010 with respect to a workplace located at 2900 East Highway 10, Grove, OK 74344.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that powered industrial truck operators receive training that consists of a combination of formal instruction, practical training, and an evaluation of the operators performance in the workplace.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,950 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The hazard communication program does not include a list of hazardous chemicals known to be present using a product identifier that is referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet:      The employer does not furnish a complete list of hazardous chemicals known to be present in the facility.  This violation was occurred on or about March 6, 2014.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure a complete list of hazardous chemicals is provided as a part of the written hazard communication program

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:      The employer does not ensure each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked, exposing employees to the hazard of contact with hazardous chemicals. This violation was observed on or about March 6, 2014 for the following instances.      a) A legible label for the sulfuric acid tank used in the waste treatment area is not provided.      b) Legible labels for four nitric acid barrels in the chemical storage area are not provided.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure each container of hazardous chemical in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:      The employer does not ensure each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged, or marked, with the appropriate hazards warning, exposing employees to the hazard of contact with hazardous chemicals. This violation was observed on or about March 6, 2014 for the following instances.      a) Legible warning labels for the sulfuric acid tank used in the waste treatment area are not provided.      b) Legible warning labels for four nitric acid barrels in the chemical storage area are not provided.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure each container of hazardous chemical in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked.

Issued

Sep 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $990 · Current $1,000

Hazardous substances 0694SL06

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(ii): The employer did not make a copy of the Chromium (VI) standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026, readily available to all employees who were exposed to chromium (VI):       The employer does not make a copy of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026 readily available to all affected employees.  This violation occurred on or about April 14, 2014, at the paint department and anodize department, the employer did not make a copy of 29 CFR 1910.1026 readily available to paint and anodize employees in that they had to contact a manager or supervisor to access a copy.  Paint employees  sand chromate containing metal parts or spray chromate primers and coatings.  Anodize employees work with or around chromium (VI) containing solutions.     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure a copy of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1026 readily available without cost to all affected employees.