OSHA Inspection: ABEC INC

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer must administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program, as described in paragraphs (c) through (o) of this section, whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent. For purposes of the hearing conservation program, employee noise exposures shall be computed in accordance with appendix A and Table G-16a, and without regard to any attenuation provided by the use of personal protective equipment.    (a) On March 5, 2015, the employees were exposed to noise hazards when the employer failed to implement a continuing and effective hearing conservation program. The action level was calculated based on an 8 hour shift resulting in 85 dBA. The employer failed to provide a safe and healthy work environment free of hazards associated with noise levels:    (1) An employee working in Bay 3 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 134.7% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 92.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 479 minutes during one shift on March 5, 2015; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the one minute not sampled.    (2) An employee, floating between Bay 3 and Systems, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 91.9% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.3 dBA. The sampling was performed for 477 minutes during one shift on March 5, 2015; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the three minutes not sampled.    (3) An employee working in Bay 2 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 85.9% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 481 minutes during one shift on March 5, 2015.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): Except as permitted in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) and paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, the employer must use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) to or below the PEL unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible. Wherever feasible engineering and work practice controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL, the employer must use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels achievable, and must supplement them by the use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section.    (a) On March 5, 2015, the employees were exposed to chromium (VI) hazards when the employer failed to ensure no employee was overexposed to chromium (VI) concentrations in excess of 5.0 micrograms/m3. The employer failed to provide a safe and healthy work environment free of hazards associated with chromium (VI):    (1) An employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5.0  micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).  The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function;    (a) On February 26, 2015, an employee was observed with a full beard wearing a respirator. The employee was exposed to chromium (VI) health hazards. The employee had a full beard which interfered with obtaining a proper seal between the face and the respirator. The employee was using a 3M half face respirator while grinding inside of a tank.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Jul 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rests. On offhand grinding machines, work rests must be used to support the work. They must be of rigid construction and designed to be adjustable to compensate for wheel wear. Work rests must be kept adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one-eighth inch to prevent the work from being jammed between the wheel and the rest, which may cause wheel breakage. The work rest must be securely clamped after each adjustment. The adjustment must not be made with the wheel in motion.    (a) On February 26, 2015: Employees in Bay 3 were exposed to serious struck-by hazards associated with possible breakage of a pedestal grinder from an abrasive wheel. The work rest was not adjusted to 1/8th of an inch or less from the periphery of the wheel on both sides.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Jul 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): Exposure adjustment. Safety guards of the types described in Subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this paragraph, where the operator stands in front of the opening, must be constructed so that the peripheral protecting member can be adjusted to the constantly decreasing diameter of the wheel. The maximum angular exposure above the horizontal plane of the wheel spindle as specified in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section must never be exceeded, and the distance between the wheel periphery and the adjustable tongue or the end of the peripheral member at the top must never exceed one-fourth inch. (See Figures O-18, O-19, O-20, O-21, O-22, and O-23.)  (a) On February 26, 2015: Employees in Bay 3 were exposed to serious struck-by hazards from a fire storm pedestal grinders, which had tongue guards that were improperly adjusted in excess of one-fourth inch.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): Permissible exposure limit (PEL). The employer must ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).     (a) On March 5, 2015, the employees were exposed to chromium (VI) hazards when the employer failed to ensure no employee was overexposed to chromium (VI) concentrations in excess of 5 micrograms/m3. The employer failed to provide a safe and healthy work environment free of hazards associated with chromium (VI):     (1) An employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 µg/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).  The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(iv): If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be above the PEL, the employer must perform periodic monitoring at least every three months.    (a) The employer failed to conduct monitoring every 3 months after initial monitoring revealed an overexposure to chromium (VI). February 19, 2008 the employer conducted air and noise sampling at the facility. The air sampling results conducted by The PMA Insurance Group had one overexposure for chromium (VI). The sampling results were 0.0083 mg/m3 based on 0.005 mg/m3 PEL. No monitoring was conducted after overexposure.    (b) On March 5, 2015, OSHA conducted air sampling for chromium (VI) resulting in an overexposure. An employee working in Bay 2, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5.0 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL). The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(vi): The employer must perform additional monitoring when there has been any change in the production process, raw materials, equipment, personnel, work practices, or control methods that may result in new or additional exposures to chromium (VI), or when the employer has any reason to believe that new or additional exposures have occurred.    (a) On March 5, 2015; the employer failed to conduct additional monitoring for chromium (VI) after two expansions to the facility in 2008 and 2014. The employer failed to conduct monitoring every 3 months after initial monitoring revealed an overexposure to chromium (VI). February 19, 2008 the employer conducted air and noise sampling at the facility. The air sampling results conducted by The PMA Insurance Group had one overexposure for chromium (VI). The sampling results were 0.0083 mg/m3 based on 0.005 mg/m3 PEL. No monitoring was conducted after overexposure.    (b) On March 5, 2015, OSHA conducted air sampling for chromium (VI) resulting in an overexposure. An employee working in Bay 2, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5.0 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL). The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(2): The employer must ensure that regulated areas are demarcated from the rest of the workplace in a manner that adequately establishes and alerts employees of the boundaries of the regulated area.    (a) The employer failed to provide a regulated area that was demarcated from the rest of the workplace.     (1) On March 5, 2015, an employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(1): Where respiratory protection is required by this section, the employer must provide each employee an appropriate respirator that complies with the requirements of this paragraph. Respiratory protection is required during:    (a) On March 5, 2015; Employer failed to require respirator use during the period necessary to install or implement feasible engineering controls and work practice controls.     (1) An employee working in Bay 2, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5.0 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL). The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(2): Respiratory protection program. Where respirator use is required by this section, the employer must institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 1910.134, which covers each employee required to use a respirator.    (a) On March 5, 2015: The employer failed to develop and implement a written respiratory protection program to include all required worksite-specific procedures in order to protect employees from overexposures to chromium (VI) while grinding and welding throughout the facility     (1) An employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5.0  micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).  The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(1): Where a hazard is present or is likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI), the employer must provide appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and must ensure that employees use such clothing and equipment.    (a) The employer failed to provide protective work clothing, changing room facilities; to include eating and drinking areas in compliance with 1910.141 for all employees that were overexposed to chromium (VI) in the workplace.     (1) On March 5, 2015, an employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(1): Where protective clothing and equipment is required, the employer must provide change rooms in conformance with 29 CFR 1910.141. Where skin contact with chromium (VI) occurs, the employer must provide washing facilities in conformance with 29 CFR 1910.141. Eating and drinking areas provided by the employer must also be in conformance with 1910.141.    (a) The employer failed to provide protective work clothing, changing room facilities; to include eating and drinking areas in compliance with 1910.141 for all employees that were overexposed to chromium (VI) in the workplace.     (1) On March 5, 2015, an employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(1)(i): The employer must make medical surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a reasonable time and place, for all employees:    (a) A chromium (VI) medical surveillance program was not instituted for all employees who were or potentially were exposed to chromium (VI) at or above the OSHA PEL of 5.0 micrograms/m3 on 30 or more days per year (twelve consecutive months).      (1) On March 5, 2015, an employee working in Bay 2 who was grinding and welding on a stainless steel tank, was exposed to chromium (VI) levels at 6.85 micrograms/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5 micrograms/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).  The grinding and welding employee was not included in a chromium (VI) medical surveillance program.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Abate by

Nov 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i): The employer must ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the following:    (a) The employer failed to provide information and training to all employees on the hazards associated with chromium (VI) during grinding and welding operations. The employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the content found within the chromium (VI) standard; purpose and description of a medical surveillance program.

Issued

Jul 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6): Workplace labeling. Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of this section, the employer must ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with either:  (a) On February 26, 2015; Employees were exposed to a mix of sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid while working in electroplating department located in Bay 3; the caustic soda (mix of sulfuric and phosphoric acid) did not have a label on it.