OSHA Inspection: LANE PLATING WORKS, INC.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer does not furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized fire and/or explosion hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees:    This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014, and at times prior thereto, in the chrome plating area where; the employer by storing a 225 pound barrel of 96%-100% sodium hydroxide together with a 225 pound barrel of 77%-100% sulfuric acid, exposed employees to fire and/or explosion hazards.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer does not furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized struck-by and/or crushed-by hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees:    This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014, and at times prior thereto; where employees who operated overhead, unhung electric hoists were exposed to struck-by and/or crushed by hazards:    a) In the chrome plating area by the back loading dock, the employer by not ensuring that each actuator on the pendant control box was clearly marked or identified with its function, exposed employees to struck-by and/or crushed-by hazards.    b) In the chrome plating area in the chemical storage area, the employer by not ensuring that each actuator on the pendant control box was clearly marked or identified with its function, exposed employees to stuck-by and/or crushed-by hazards.    c) In the grinding area, the employer by not ensuring that the self-closing safe latch of a hook attached to an overhead hoist was functional, exposed employees to struck-by and/or crushed by hazards.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(5): Every pit and trapdoor floor opening, infrequently used, shall be guarded by a floor opening cover of standard strength and construction. While the cover is not in place, the pit or trap opening shall be constantly attended by someone or shall be protected on all exposed sides by removable standard railings:     The employer does not assure that employees are protected from falling through floor openings.  This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014 and at times prior thereto, in the chrome plating area; where the floor grating used to cover the secondary containment areas for the chromium dip tanks and strip tanks were removed and employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 8-feet.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1): Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards:    The employer does not ensure that open-sided floors, four feet or more above a lower level, are guarded with standard railings.  This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014 and at times prior thereto, in the chrome plating area; where employees working near the back loading dock were not protected from falling to the lower level.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(e)(6)(i): Adequate precautions were not taken to prevent the ignition of flammable vapors:    The employer does not ensure that precautions are taken to prevent flammable vapors from igniting.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, and at times prior thereto, at the front loading dock where; employees smoking near a storage cabinet containing gasoline and other flammable chemicals created a fire and explosion hazard.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:      The employer does not provide suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body for employees exposed to injurious corrosive materials.  This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; when the employer did not provide eye wash stations or safety showers to employees working with chromic acid.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1): Pulleys, with any part seven (7) feet or less from the floor or working platform, were not guarded in accordance with the standards specified in 29 CFR 1910.219 paragraphs (m) and (o):                                               The employer does not ensure that pulleys with parts seven feet or less above floors or platforms are guarded. This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014, and at times prior thereto; where:                                               a) In the grinding area, the pulleys to a homemade fan were not guarded and exposed employees to in-going nip points.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3)(i): Vertical and inclined belts were not enclosed by a guard conforming to standards in 29 CFR 1910.219 paragraphs (m) and (o):                                               The employer does not ensure that vertical and inclined belts are guarded. This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014, and at times prior thereto; where:                                               a) In the grinding area, the vertical belt to a homemade fan was not guarded and exposed employees to in-going nip points.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1): Electrical equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees:                 The employer does not assure that electrical equipment is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.  This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014 and at times prior thereto in the grinding area; where employees were exposed to electrical hazards from an improperly spliced power cord to a homemade fan.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

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:      The employer does not ensure that an employee's exposure to hexavalent chromium does not exceed 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an eight-hour time-weighted average.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter in the chrome plating area; where a chrome plater was exposed to hexavalent chromium at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 6.8 µg/m3 of air, approximately 1.36 times the OSHA PEL of 5.0 µg/m3.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was, or could reasonably be expected to be, in excess of the permissible exposure limit:      The employer does not ensure that regulated work areas are established for employees who are, or could reasonably be exposed to airborne concentrations of hexavalent chromium in excess of the permissible exposure limit.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014 and at times prior thereto, in the chromium plating area; where the employer did not establish regulated work areas for employees working with hexavalent chromium.  The facility contains two areas where chromium plating is done:      a) The first set of dip tanks are found in the chemical storage area near a work room where employees prepare parts for chromium plating.  All employees entering the building through the front entrance must pass through this plating area to access any other part of the facility;      b) The second set of dip tanks are found in the back loading dock.  Employees working in the grinding area must pass through this plating area to access the grinding area, mens restrooms, and break room.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:      The employer did not provide employees voluntarily using respirators with the information contained in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134.This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014 and at times prior thereto when employees in the chromium plating area voluntarily used MSA half-face respirators were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:      The employer does not establish and implement the elements of a written program necessary to ensure that employees using a respirator voluntarily are medically able to do so, and that the respirator is cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, and at times prior thereto, in the chrome plating area; where employees voluntarily used MSA half-face respirators without being medically evaluated and without being trained on how to properly clean, store, and maintain respirators.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

1910.1026(g)(2) Where respirator use was required by 29 CFR 1910.1026, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134, which covers each employee required to use a respirator:      The employer did not institute a respirators protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014 and at times prior thereto when employees in the chromium plating area used MSA half-face respirators without having a written respiratory protection program consisting on the elements described in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)-(c)(1)(ix).

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

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 require employees to wear appropriate personal protective clothing, including, but not limited to, chemical resistant aprons, chemical resistant gloves, and safety glasses.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter, in the chrome plating area; where the employer did not require employees to wear chemical resistant gloves, chemical resistant aprons, or safety glasses when handling parts being placed in or being taken out of the chromium dip tanks.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 that employees using hazardous chemicals use appropriate eye or face protection.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; when employees were exposed to splash hazards from the following hazardous chemicals:    a) Employees in the chromium plating area are exposed to splash hazards from chromic acid while rinsing parts removed from the chromium plating baths;    b) Employees cleaning parts in the chromium plating prep room were using Stop-off lacquer without wearing proper eye protection.  Stop-off lacquer contains MEK, Vinyl chloride, xylene, and butyl acetate;    c) Employees in the chromium plating area used methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and WF Thinner without wearing eye protection.  WF Thinner is a solvent containing methanol, 2-butoxethanol, toluene, and acetone.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes                                  The employer does not require employees to use appropriate hand protection when working with hazardous chemicals.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter in the chromium plating area when the employer did not require employees to use appropriate hand protection while performing the following actions:    a)  Employees in the chromium plating area are exposed to chromic acid and were not required to wear chemical resistant gloves when handling wet parts being removed from the chromium dip tanks;    b)  Employees in the chromium plating area were not required to wear hand protection while applying Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) and WF Thinner to clean parts before placing them in the chromium dip tanks;                                                                                                        c)  Employees in the chromium plating prep area were not required to wear hand protection while applying Stop-off Lacquer while preparing parts to be placed in the chromium dip tanks.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

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 did not ensure that employees remove all protective clothing and equipment contaminated with hexavalent chromium at the end of the work shift.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter when employees exposed to hexavalent chromium did not remove clothing with hexavalent chromium at the end of the work shift.  Full-shift air monitoring showed that employees working in the chromium plating area were exposed to levels of hexavalent chromium above OSHAs permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(2)(iii): Chromium (VI)-contaminated protective clothing or equipment was removed for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal; however, the employer did not ensure that it was stored and transported in sealed, impermeable bags or other closed, impermeable containers:    The employer does not ensure that protective clothing or equipment contaminated with hexavalent chromium is removed for laundering, cleaning, or disposal and does not ensure that protective clothing or equipment is stored in sealed, impermeable bags or other closed, impermeable containers that are labeled with product identifiers, signal words, and hazard statements.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; when N-95 respirators and disposable gloves contaminated with hexavalent chromium were removed for disposal and placed in the trash.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(3)(i): The employer did not clean, launder, repair and replace all protective clothing and equipment for chromium (VI) exposures, as needed to maintain effectiveness:      The employer does not clean or launder protective clothing and equipment contaminated with hexavalent chromium.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; when the employer did not launder and/or provide a laundry service to wash clothing contaminated with hexavalent chromium.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(3)(ii): The employer did not ensure that employees who had skin contact with chromium (VI) wash their hands and faces at the end of the work shift and/or prior to eating, drinking, smoking, chewing tobacco or gum, applying cosmetics, or using the toilet:      The employer does not ensure that employees who have skin contact with hexavalent chromium wash their hands prior to eating, drinking, smoking, chewing tobacco or gum, applying cosmetics, or using the toilet.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; when the employer did not implement a hand washing policy and did not ensure that employees who had skin contact with hexavalent chromium wash their hands at the end of the work shift and/or prior to eating, drinking, smoking, or using the toilet.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(i): Employees were allowed to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present; however, the employer did not ensure that the eating and drinking areas were maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI):      The employer allows employees to consume food or beverage at a worksite where hexavalent chromium is present and does not ensure that the eating and drinking areas are maintained as free as practicable of hexavalent chromium.  This violation occurred on or about September 11, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; where the employer did not ensure that the break room and other areas where employees eat and drink were maintained as free as practicable of hexavalent chromium.  The following areas where employees eat and drink were found to be contaminated with hexavalent chromium:      a) Two tables and the sink in the break room were found to be contaminated with 2.4029 µg, 0.9616 µg, and 1.8208 µg of hexavalent chromium;      b) The secretarys desk in the front office was found to be contaminated with 5.5382 µg of hexavalent chromium;      c) The table on the front loading dock where employees smoke was found to be contaminated with 32.3731 µg of hexavalent chromium.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

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 that all surfaces are maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of hexavalent chromium.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; where employees were exposed to the following surfaces contaminated with hexavalent chromium:      a) The table in the break room across from the stove was found to be contaminated with 2.4029 µg of hexavalent chromium;      b) The table in corner of the break room was found to be contaminated with 0.9616 µg of hexavalent chromium;      c) The sink in the break room was found to be contaminated with 1.8208 µg of hexavalent chromium;      d) The sink in the men's bathroom was found to be contaminated with 5.4218 µg of hexavalent chromium;      e) The sink  in the women's bathroom was found to be contaminated with 5.6905 µg of hexavalent chromium;      f) The work bench in the chrome plating preparation room was found to be contaminated with 66.8952 µg of hexavalent chromium;      g) The phone at the secretarys desk in the front office was found to be contaminated with 2.1715 µg of hexavalent chromium;      h) The surface of the secretarys desk in the front office was found to be contaminated with 5.5382 µg of hexavalent chromium;      i) The table in the front loading dock was found to be contaminated with 32.3731 µg of hexavalent chromium.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not make medical surveillance available for all employees who were or could be occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year:      The employer does not make medical surveillance available for all employees who are or could be occupationally exposed to hexavalent chromium at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter, in the chrome plating area; where employees, who were occupationally exposed to hexavalent chromium, did not receive medical surveillance.  A chromium plater was exposed to hexavalent chromium at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 6.8 µg/m3 of air, approximately 1.36 times the OSHA PEL of 5.0 µg/m3.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $3,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1): The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to chromium (VI) were provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200:      The employer does not ensure that all employees who are exposed to hexavalent chromium are provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014 and at times prior thereto and at times thereafter; when employees exposed to hexavalent chromium had not been provided information and training on the hazards associated with hexavalent chromium exposure; the purpose, selection, and use of respiratory protection and protective clothing, and measures employees can take to protect themselves.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2015

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:    The employer does not ensure that a written hazard communication program is developed, implemented, and/or maintained.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014 and at times prior thereto and at times thereafter when the employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain a written hazard communication program describing how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200 (f), (g), and (h) will be met.    a) Employees in the chromium plating area near the back loading dock poured WF Thinner from an improperly labeled container;    b) Employees in the chromium prep area applied Stop-off Lacquer from an unlabeled bottle;    c) Employees using chromic acid in the chromium plating area were not provided with safety material data sheets (MSDS) for chromic acid, sulfuric acid, and sodium hydroxide;  d) Employees using chromic acid, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), WF Thinner, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, Stop-off Lacquer and other hazardous chemicals were not provided with effective information and training.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $28,000 · Current $27,400 Reduced

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 determine and implement administrative and engineering controls to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1026(c).  This violation occurred on or about August 5, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter, in the chromium plating area; where the employer had not implemented feasible administrative or engineering controls to achieve compliance with the permissible exposure limit for hexavalent chromium.  A chromium plater was exposed to hexavalent chromium at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 6.8 µg/m3 of air, approximately 1.36 times the OSHA PEL of 5.0 µg/m3.

Issued

Jan 28, 2015

Abate by

Feb 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $28,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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:      The employer does not perform periodic monitoring, at least every three months, for employees exposed to hexavalent chromium above the permissible exposure limit.  This violation occurred on or about August 28, 2014, at times prior thereto and at times thereafter in the chrome plating area; where a chrome plater was exposed to hexavalent  chromium at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 6.8 µg/m3 of air, approximately 1.26 times the OSHA PEL of 5.0 µg/m3.