OSHA Inspection: SKOLNIK INDUSTRIES, INC

Issued

Sep 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): General. The employer shall provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.       a. On or about April 24, 2015,  employees working in the painting area were required to wear half mask respirators but were not medically evaluated before they were provided the respirator as required by the standard.

Issued

Sep 22, 2015

Abate by

Nov 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be 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. Examples of guarding methods are-barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.     a. Painting Area - On or about April 24, 2015, the employer did not provide a guard to protect employees from coming in contact with the rotating shaft  on the  Liner Paint Machine.  Employees were exposed to fractures and lacerations

Issued

Sep 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,260 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(i): The employer shall perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area. Where an employer does representative sampling instead of sampling all employees in order to meet this requirement, the employer shall sample the employee(s) expected to have the highest chromium (VI) exposures.       a. On or about April 24, 2015, in the seam welding area, the welders weld on stainless steel parts. The employer did not perform air monitoring to determine the exposure of the employees.

Issued

Sep 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1)(iii): Employers shall include chromium (VI) in the hazard communication program established to comply with the HCS (� 1910.1200). Employers shall ensure that each employee has access to labels on containers of chromium (VI) and to safety data sheets, and is trained in accordance with the requirements of HCS and paragraph (l)(2) of this section.     a. On or about  April 24, 2015, at the plant, employees required to weld on stainless steel were exposed to chromium (VI). The employer did not train the employees on the hazards associated with chromium (VI) as required by the standard.

Issued

Sep 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(d)(2): Initial monitoring. The employer shall identify all employees who may be exposed at or above the action level or at or above the STEL and accurately determine the exposure of each employee so identified.    a. On or about April 24, 2015, in the painting are, the employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine the formaldehyde exposure for the employees running the drum liner painting task.

Issued

Sep 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(n)(1): Participation. The employer shall assure that all employees who are assigned to workplaces where there is exposure to formaldehyde participate in a training program, except that where the employer can show, using objective data, that employees are not exposed to formaldehyde at or above 0.1 ppm, the employer is not required to provide training.    a. On or about April 24, 2015, in the painting area, the employer did not provided formaldehyde training for employees required to use a paint containing 0.7% formaldehyde and exposed to over 0.1 ppm.