OSHA Inspection: C.T. AND S. METALWORKS, INC.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1100.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees:    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, in the loading/unloading area, where employees of C.T. and S. Metalworks, Inc. were exposed to struck-by and/or crushed-by hazards while operating a Hyster forklift without a seat belt.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(5)(v): Operators were not equipped with heavy canvas or leather gloves and aprons or equivalent protection to protect them from the impact of abrasives:    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, in the abrasive blasting area located outdoors, where an abrasive blasting operator was not equipped with heavy canvas or leather gloves and aprons or equivalent protection and was exposed to the impact of rebounding abrasives.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(5)(ii)[b]: Abrasive-blasting respirators were not worn by all abrasive-blasting operators when using silica sand in manual blasting operations where the nozzle and blast were not physically separated from the operator in an exhaust ventilated enclosure:    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, in the abrasive blasting area located outdoors, where an abrasive blasting operator using silica sand in blasting operations was not provided with an abrasive blasting respirator.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1100.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, when employees operated a forklift without having first completed a training program consisting of formal instruction, practical training, and evaluation.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1200.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(2): Employee(s) stood under or passed under the elevated portion of a powered industrial truck(s):    This violation occurred on or about December 9, 2014, in the abrasive blasting area located outdoors, where an employee stood and passed under the elevated portion of a forklift while performing abrasive blasting on material that had been lifted with the forklift.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(5)(iii): Powered industrial truck(s), with the operator dismounted and within 25 feet of the truck still in his view, did not have the load engaging means fully lowered:  This violation occurred on or about December 9, 2014, in the abrasive blasting area located outdoors, where an employee dismounted a forklift and performed abrasive blasting on material lifted with the forklift and the forks were not fully lowered.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.244(b): Abrasive blast cleaning nozzle(s) were not equipped with an operating valve which had to be held open manually:    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, in the abrasive blasting area located outdoors, where the abrasive blasting nozzle was not equipped with a valve that had to be held open manually.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(g)(5): The path to ground from circuits, equipment, and enclosures was not permanent, continuous, and effective:    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, in the paint shop, where a pedestal fan was missing its ground prong.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(ii): There was a defect or evidence of damage that could have exposed an employee to injury and the defective or damaged item was not removed from service:    This violation was discovered on or about December 9, 2014, in the paint shop:     a. The power cord to a Dewalt paint mixing drill had damaged insulation.    b. An extension cord used to supply power to a pedestal fan had damaged insulation.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-04-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

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:    This violation occurred on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, during spray application of chromate primer:    a. A painter was exposed to chromium (VI) at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 118 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 24 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter.     b. A painter assistant was exposed to chromium (VI) at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 85 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 17 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-04-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  This violation occurred on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where the employer had not instituted feasible engineering controls and work practices to reduce and maintain employee exposures to chromium (VI) at or below the permissible exposure limit during spray application of chromate primer.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-04-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  This violation occurred on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where two employees were exposed to chromium (VI) at concentrations greater than the permissible exposure limit during spray application of chromate primer and the employer had not instituted a respiratory protection program in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, including development and implementation of a written program; evaluation of respiratory hazards and selection of appropriate respirators; medical evaluations prior to respirator wear; fit testing of tight-fitting respirators; maintenance and care of respirators; and training and information.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-04-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  This violation was discovered on or about September 8, 2014, when the employer had not established and implemented a written respiratory protection program for employees required to wear respirators during painting, priming, and abrasive blasting operations.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(B)(1): The employer did not select a respirator for employee use that maintained the employee's exposure to the hazardous substance, when measured outside the respirator, at or below the maximum use concentration:  This violation occurred on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop:  a. A painter who was exposed to chromium (VI) at an airborne concentration of 118 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an eight-hour time-weighted average, was provided with a half-mask respirator that had a maximum use concentration of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air.  b. A painter assistant who was exposed to chromium (VI) at an airborne concentration of 85 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an eight-hour time-weighted average, was provided with a half-mask respirator that had a maximum use concentration of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 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:  This violation was discovered on or about September 8, 2014, in the paint shop and in the abrasive blasting area located outdoors, where employees who were required to wear respirators during painting, priming, and abrasive blasting operations had not been medically evaluated to determine their fitness to wear the respirators.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-04-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):    This violation was discovered on or about September 8, 2014, in the paint shop, where the employer had not determined the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for at least two employees who were exposed to chromium (VI) during spray application of chromate primer.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

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:    This violation occurred on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where the employer did not establish a regulated area and employees were exposed to chromium (VI) in excess of the permissible exposure limit during spray application of chromate primer.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

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:    This violation occurred on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where a painter assistant who was exposed to chromium (VI) during priming operations wore street clothes.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

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:    This violation was discovered on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where the employer did not ensure that employees who had contact with chromium (VI) washed their hands and faces prior to eating and drinking.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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):  This violation occurred on or about January 26, 2015, in the break room, where wipe samples taken from the lunch table indicated the presence of chromium (VI).

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(5): The employer did not ensure that employees did not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in regulated areas, and/or in areas where skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) occurred; and/or did not carry the products associated with these activities, and did not store such products in these areas:  This violation was discovered on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where the employer did not ensure that employees did not eat or drink, or carry or store food and beverages in areas where skin and eye contact with chromium (VI) occurred.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

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:    This violation was discovered on or about October 30, 2014, when the employer had not made medical surveillance available for two employees who were or could be exposed to chromium (VI) at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year during spray application of chromate primer.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $500.00 Reduced

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:    This violation was discovered on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where employees exposed to chromium (VI) had not been provided information and training on the hazards associated with chromium (VI) exposure; the purpose, selection, and use of respiratory protection and protective clothing; and measures employees can take to protect themselves.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i)(A): The employer did not provide appropriate information and training for all employees exposed to chromium (VI), in that employees could not demonstrate knowledge of the contents of the Chromium (VI) standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026:    This violation was discovered on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where employees who were exposed to chromium (VI) were not provided appropriate information and training and could not demonstrate knowledge of the chromium (VI) standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026.

Issued

2015-03-03 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i)(B): The employer did not provide appropriate information and training for all employees exposed to chromium (VI) in that employees could not demonstrate knowledge of the purpose and description of the requirements for a medical surveillance program as outlined by the Chromium (VI) standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026(k):  This violation was discovered on or about October 30, 2014, in the paint shop, where employees who were exposed to airborne chromium (VI) were not provided appropriate information and training and could not demonstrate knowledge of the purpose of the medical surveillance program or the frequency of medical examinations.