OSHA Inspection: COMAX ENTERPRISES, INC.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.101(b): The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks were not in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is incorporated by reference as specified in CFR 1910.6:  a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  in the facility,  a compressed gas cylinder of propane was not secured by any type of chain support.  The cylinder was located in a pathway of forklifts,  bobcats and trucks entering and exiting the facility.  Employees were thereby exposed to the dangers associated with falling cylinders.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jul 16, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):  a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  the employer did not assess the workplace to determine the need for personal protective equipment.  Employees were required to blend and package mineral slag fluxes and were exposed to contact with hazardous materials, including but not limited to calcium aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, dolomitic lime, purified carbon, NovaCal, aluminum, propane & calcium metal.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jul 16, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protection equipment (PPE):  a.  On or about December 23, 2014, employees were exposed to hazards during slag flux blending and packaging operations.  Employees were required perform mineral slag flux blending and packaging operations were exposed to contact with hazardous materials, including but not limited to dolomitic lime,  novocal (INSERT) Employees were not trained to know at least the following:  1. When PPE is necessary,  2. What PPE is necessary,  3. How to properly don, doff, adjust and wear PPE,  4. The limitations of PPE,  5. The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of PPE.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $2,400

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer shall establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures. The program shall be updated as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator use. The employer shall include in the program the following provisions of this section, as applicable:   a. On or about January 14, 2015,  in the facility, the employer failed to develop or implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures for employees required to blend mineral slag fluxes.  An employee performing packaging of various mineral slag fluxes were overexposed to airborne total dust at an 8-hr time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 34.7 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3),  approximately 2.3 times the permissible limit of 15 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). This limit was established to prevent pneumoconiosis.    b. On or about January 14, 2015,  in the facility,  the employer failed to develop or implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures for employees required to blend mineral slag fluxes. An employee performing packaging of various mineral slag fluxes were overexposed to airborne total dust at an 8-hr time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 19.3 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3),  approximately 1.3 times the permissible limit of 15 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). This limit was established to prevent pneumoconiosis.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:  a. On or about January 14, 2015,  in the facility, half-mask air-purifying respirators were required for employees performing the task of blending & packaging mineral slag fluxes.  The employer did not provide each employee with a medical evaluation before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):  a. On or about January 14, 2015,  in the facility, employees were required to wear 3M Model 6200 half-mask air-purifying respirators during blending & packaging mineral slag fluxes activities.  The employer did not ensure that employees using tight-fitting respirators were fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator and at least annually thereafter.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:   a. On or about December 30, 2014,  in the facility,  employees were exposed to total dust while blending and packaging mineral slag flux.  An employee was wearing a tight-fitting negative pressure elastomeric respirator and had facial hair between the sealing surface of the facepiece.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1)(i): Respirators issued for the exclusive use of an employee were not cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to be maintained in a sanitary condition:   a. On or about December 30, 2014,  in the facility, multiple 3M 6200 negative pressure respirators with P100 particulate filters utilized by employee(s) were not clean and disinfected.  The employer did not ensure that respirators were maintained in a sanitary condition.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

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:  a. On or about December 30, 2014,  in the facility, multiple 3M 6200 negative pressure respirators with P100 particulate filters were found laying around the facility not protected from damage and dust.  The employer did not ensure that  respirators were stored to protect respirators.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:   a. On or about January 14, 2015, in the facility, employees were required to wear 3M Model 6200 half-mask air-purifying respirators during blending & packaging mineral slag fluxes activities.  The employer did not ensure that employees using tight-fitting respirators were provided with respirator training prior to required use of the respirator. An employee performing packaging of various mineral slag fluxes were overexposed to airborne total dust at an 8-hr time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 34.7 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3),  approximately 2.3 times the permissible limit of 15 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). This limit was established to prevent pneumoconiosis.    b. On or about January 14, 2015, in the facility, employees were required to wear 3M Model 6200 half-mask air-purifying respirators during blending & packaging mineral slag fluxes activities.  The employer did not ensure that employees using tight-fitting respirators were provided with respirator training prior to required use of the respirator. An employee performing packaging of various mineral slag fluxes were overexposed to airborne total dust at an 8-hr time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 19.3 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3),  approximately 1.3 times the permissible limit of 15 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). This limit was established to prevent pneumoconiosis.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1):   Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe, was not taken out of service until it had been restored to safe operating condition:  a.  On or about December 23, 2014, in the facility, powered industrial truck(s) with defect or in any way unsafe had not been withdrawn from service until responded to safe operating condition as follows:  Caterpilar Model Number 262B PIN CAT0262BJPDT02758 - the bucket arm swiftly drops down when a load is lifted; the hydraulic cylinder pin is constantly falling out.  Clark Electric Clarklift SN E355-0529-5397FA - mast hydraulic lift cylinder has a significant hydraulic fluid leak; the tilt back mechanism does not function when loaded; the fork lift will only lift 1450 lbs. despite being rated for 4000 lbs.; the mast will raise only a limited height.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service:  a.  On or about December 30, 2014,  in the facility,  powered industrial vehicles were in use to package and load slag flux and other products.  Powered industrial vehicles were used by employees with significant defects and were not examined before use.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $2,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i): Pull boxes, junction boxes, and fittings were not provided with covers approved for the purpose:  a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  an outlet junction box on a pilar in the packaging area was missing a cover, thereby exposing employees to the hazards of electrical shock.    b.  On or about April 16, 2015,  an outlet in the office was missing an outlet cover,  thereby exposing employees to the hazards of electrical shock.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jul 16, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $2,400

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to reduce employee exposure below the permissible exposure limit and to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):   a. On or about January 14, 2015,  in the facility,  an employee performing packaging of various mineral slag fluxes were overexposed to airborne total dust at an 8-hr time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 34.7 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3),  approximately 2.3 times the permissible limit of 15 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). This limit was established to prevent lung pneumoconiosis.   b.  On or about January 14, 2015,  in the facility,  an employee performing packaging of various mineral slag fluxes were overexposed to airborne total dust at an 8-hr time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 19.3 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3),  approximately 1.3 times the permissible limit of 15 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA). This limit was established to prevent lung pneumoconiosis.    Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to reduce employee exposure below the permissible limit.   1. General engineering methods of control applicable in these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:   a. Design and install a local exhaust ventilation system for the slag flux blending/packaging operation to capture dust generation.   2.  Administrative controls applicable in these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:   a. Develop and implement an employee rotation schedule during slag flux blending/packaging operations to reduce employee exposure to below the PEL.   ABATEMENT NORMALLY WILL BE MULTISTEP AS FOLLOWS:         STEP 1:      EFFECTIVE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 29 CFR 1910.134 SHALL BE PROVIDED AND USED BY EXPOSED EMPLOYEES AS INTERIM PROTECTIVE MEASURE UNTIL FEASIBLE ENGINEERING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED, OR WHENEVER SUCH CONTROLS FAIL TO REDUCE EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO WITHIN PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS.      ABATEMENT PERIOD: 1 DAY                                            INSERT DATE          STEP 2:      SUBMIT TO THE AREA DIRECTOR A WRITTEN, DETAILED PLAN OF ABATEMENT OUTLINING A SCHEDULE FOR THE IMPLENTATION OF ENGINEERING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES TO CONTROL EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AS REFERENCED IN THIS CITATION. THIS PLAN SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, TARGET DATES FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WHICH MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ABATEMENT DATES REQUIRED BY THIS CITATION:      1.      EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING/ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OPTIONS;      2.      SELECTION OF OPTIMUM CONTROL METHODS AND COMPLETION OF DESIGN;      3.      PROCUREMENT, INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SELECTED CONTROL MEASURES; AND      4.      TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE OR MODIFICATION/REDESIGN OF CONTROLS      ABATEMENT PERIOD:  30 DAYS                                       INSERT DATE      NOTE:  ALL PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE APPROVED FOR EACH PARTICULAR USE BY A COMPETENT INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST OR OTHER TECHNICAL QUALIFIED PERSON.              STEP 3:      ABATEMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEASIBLE ENGINEERING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS UPON VERIFICATION OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE.                   ABATEMENT PERIOD:  90 DAYS                                    INSERT DATE

Issued

May 29, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

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:  a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  in the facility,  the employer did not ensure that each pile of mineral slag flux chemicals were labeled as to chemical identity.

Issued

May 29, 2015

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:   a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  in the facility,  the employer did not ensure that each pile of mineral slag flux chemicals were labeled as to hazard warning.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,600 · Current $5,600

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):  a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  in the facility,  employees were required to operate powered industrial vehicles during mineral slag flux blending/packaging operations.  The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator completed the required training & evaluation specified in paragraph (l).  Comax Enterprises, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 957016, citation number 1 , item number 4 and was affirmed as a final order on March 11, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at 83 Hammond St.,  Big Flats, NY 14814.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jul 16, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,800 · Current $4,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  a.  On or about December 23, 2014, in the facility, employees required to package mineral & metal slag fluxes were exposed to contact with hazardous materials, including but not limited to calcium aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, dolomitic lime, purified carbon, NovaCal, aluminum, propane & calcium metal. The employer did not develop, implement and/or maintain at the workplace an adequate written hazard communication program.  Comax Enterprises, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 957016, citation number 1 , item number 1b and was affirmed as a final order on March 11, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at 83 Hammond St.,  Big Flats, NY 14814.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jul 16, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,800 · Current $4,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:   a.  On or about December 23, 2014, in the facility, employees required to blend/package mineral & metal slag fluxes were exposed to contact with hazardous materials, including but not limited to calcium aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, dolomitic lime, purified carbon, NovaCal, aluminum, propane & calcium metal.  Employees were not provided with effective information & training on hazardous chemicals.  Comax Enterprises, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 957016, citation number 1 , item number 1d and was affirmed as a final order on March 11, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at 83 Hammond St.,  Big Flats, NY 14814.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(a)(5): A continuing and effective extermination program was not instituted where rodents, insects, or other vermin were detected:   a.  On or about December 23, 2014,  in the facility,  the employer had not implemented a continuing and effective extermination program.  Employees were required to work or have lunch where mice were present.

Issued

May 29, 2015

Abate by

Jun 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(1): Washing facilities were not maintained in a sanitary condition:  a.  On or about December 30, 2014,  the washroom facility was not maintained in a sanitary condition.