OSHA Inspection: WORLD WATER WORKS, INC.

Issued

2014-12-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-12-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2380.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards wore eye protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection that could be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses:    On or about August 18, 2014, the employer did not ensure employees with prescription glasses wore appropriate eye protection while cutting and drilling holes in fiberglass and while cleaning fiberglass with toluene. Employees were exposed to the hazard of contact-with flying particles and liquid chemicals resulting in injuries to the eye including, but not limited to, eye irritation and possible blindness.

Issued

2014-12-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-12-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not 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 abrasions, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, and harmful temperature extremes:    On or about August 18, 2014, the employer did not require employees to wear appropriate hand protection while cleaning fiberglass parts with toluene as a part of the manufacturing process. Employees were exposed to the hazard of contact-with a hazardous substances.

Issued

2014-12-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-12-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1785.00 · Current $500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not 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:    On or about August 18, 2014, the employer allows employees to voluntarily wear tight-fitting respiratory protection without implementing the elements of the respiratory protection program needed to ensure the employees are medically able to use the respirator and that the respirator is properly cleaned, stored, and maintained.

Issued

2014-12-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-12-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:    On or about August 18, 2014, the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to employees.  Employees were exposed to health hazards associated with lack of medical evaluation:      a) Employees are required to wear N95 filtering facepiece respiratory protection while drilling holes into and cutting fiberglass materials.      b) Employees are allowed to voluntarily wear elastomeric respirators before ensuring they are medically able to use that respirator.

Issued

2014-12-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-12-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting respirator is fit tested prior to initial use, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, make or model) is used, and at least annually thereafter:    On or about August 18, 2014, the employer did not provide fit tests to employees required to wear respiratory protection resulting in possible overexposure to fiberglass dust.

Issued

2014-12-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-12-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2380.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    On or about August 18, 2014, the employer did not provide machine guarding for the Jet horizontal band saw. Employees were exposed to the hazard of contact-with a saw blade resulting in injuries including, but not limited to, amputation.