OSHA Inspection: A & L INDUSTRIES, INC.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    a) Powder coating area    Two employees operating the manual powder coating system were exposed to continuous noise at 73.2% and 68.5% of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) eight hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA.  The action level is 85 dBA.  The equivalent sound level of the measured dose is  89.2 and 88.6 dBA, respectively.  Sampling was performed for 395 and 402 minutes, respectively on 3/10/2016, with the un-sampled portion of time considered to represent zero exposure for the exposure calculation.      Violation occurred on or about 3/10/2016.    Abatement Note:  The employer shall implement a comprehensive hearing conservation program whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed the action level.  A hearing conservation program includes at a minimum the following items:        1.  Exposure monitoring      2.  Use of hearing protection      3.  Audiometric testing and evaluation      4.  Employee training      5.  Recordkeeping

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Sep 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(h)(12):     All areas used for spraying, including the interior of the booth, were not protected by automatic sprinklers where this protection is available. Where this protection is not available, other approved automatic extinguishing equipment was not provided:    a) Powder coating area    Employees apply combustible powder coatings to products transported by conveyer inside of a spray booth which was not provided with automatic sprinklers or other approved automatic extinguishing equipment.    Condition observed on or about 3/10/16

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(7): Electric lamps outside of but within 20 feet of spraying area(s), and not separated therefrom by partition(s), were not protected from mechanical injury by suitable guards or by location:    a) Dry powder coating area    Fluorescent lights located directly outside spray booth used for application of dry powder coating did not have protective covers to prevent damage from mechanical injury.        Condition observed on or about 1/14/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Oct 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(8): Portable lamp(s) were used in the spraying area(s) during spraying operations:    a) Powder coating area    Employees used portable drop lights inside spray booth during spraying operations exposing employees to a fire hazard.      Condition observed on or about 1/14/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(g)(1): Employees who worked with liquids that could burn, irritate, or otherwise harm their skin were not provided with locker space or other storage space to prevent contamination of their street clothes:    (a) Electroplating    Employees who conduct electroplating and are exposed to acids, caustics and cyanides were not provided with storage space for their street clothes to prevent contamination.      Condition observed on or about 11/16/15.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    (a) Throughout facility    The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present which necessitate the use of PPE.  Employees working with acids, corrosives and cyanides during electroplating were not required to wear eye protection and aprons; and employees working with Polyester TGIC, a skin sensitizer, during powder coating were not required to wear gloves.       Condition observed on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/16 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    (a) Electroplating area    Employees conducting electroplating using acids, corrosives and cyanides were not required to wear eye protection.      Condition observed on or about 11/16/15 and 1/14/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and 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 abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:    a) Powder coating area    The employer did not require employees performing powder coating to wear gloves while working with chemicals, including but not limited to, Polyester TGIC, a skin sensitizer.       Condition observed on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/16 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

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:    a)  Throughout facility    The employer did not develop or implement a written respiratory policy for employees exposed to chemicals, including but not limited to silica, respirable dust and triglycidylisocyanurate (TGIC) and required to wear  a Supplied Air Respirator (SAR) with an Allegro hood during the application of dry powder coating or a Bullard SAR Type C respirator while conducting abrasive blasting; and for employees who voluntarily wear 3M disposable filtering facepiece (N95) or 3M half facepiece respirators.            Conditions noted on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/2016 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(3): The employer did not designate a program administrator who was qualified by appropriate training or experience to administer or oversee the respiratory protection program and to conduct the required evaluations of program effectiveness:    a) Throughout facility    The employer did not designate a qualified program administrator to oversee the respiratory protection program and to conduct the required evaluations for employees exposed to chemicals, including but not limited to silica, respirable dust and triglycidylisocyanurate (TGIC) and required to wear  a Supplied Air Respirator (SAR) with an Allegro hood during the application of dry powder coating or a Bullard SAR Type C respirator while conducting abrasive blasting; and for employees who voluntarily wear 3M disposable filtering facepiece (N95) or 3M half facepiece respirators.            Conditions noted on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/2016 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Throughout facility    The employer failed to provide a medical evaluation for employees exposed to chemicals, including but not limited to silica, respirable dust and triglycidylisocyanurate (TGIC) and required to wear a Supplied Air Respirator (SAR) with an Allegro hood during the application of dry powder coating or a Bullard SAR Type C respirator while conducting abrasive blasting; and for employees who voluntarily wear 3M half facepiece respirators.       Conditions noted on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/2016 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not provide initial and annual effective training to employees who are required to use respirators:    a)Throughout facility    The employer did not provide effective training for employees exposed to chemicals, including but not limited to silica, respirable dust and triglycidylisocyanurate (TGIC) and required to wear  a Supplied Air Respirator (SAR) with an Allegro hood during the application of dry powder coating or a Bullard SAR Type C respirator while conducting abrasive blasting.       Conditions noted on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/2016 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6): The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:    a) Throughout the facility    Employees who voluntarily wear 3M disposable filtering facepiece (N95) or 3M half facepiece respirators in electroplating area were not given the basic information on respirator usage, maintenance, storage, and the respirator's physiological effects when worn.         Conditions noted on or about 11/16/15, 1/14/2016 and 3/10/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by ingoing nip points, rotating wheels, breaking belts or flying particles:      a) Polishing Dept. 2nd floor    Inadequate guarding was provided for the belt and wheel of a horizontal belt grinder with a 2.5 inch belt between a 14 inch and 9 inch wheel set 4 feet apart.  A piece of sheet metal approximately one inch above the front wheel did not provide adequate protection from breaking belts, flying particles and ingoing nip point at the rear wheel when metal objects were ground.      Condition observed on or about 1/14/16.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1)(iii): The employer had not included chromium (VI) in the hazard communication program, established to comply with the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, ensured that each employee had access to labels on containers of chromium (VI) and to safety data sheets, and was trained in accordance with the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard and 29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2):    a) Electroplating area    The employer did not properly label electroplating tanks containing chromium (VI) with the hazards and did not train employees on the health hazards, including but not limited to cancer, eye irritation, and skin sensitization.    Conditions observed on or about 11/16/15.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  Throughout facility    The employer did not implement a written hazard communication program for employees who use chemicals, including but not limited to, silica, sulfuric acid, nickel sulfate, chromic acid, copper cyanide, borax, epoxy polyester and polyester TGIC, during sand blasting, electroplating and powder coating operations.      Condition observed on or about 11/16/2015.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The employer did not compile a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present using a product identifier that was referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet    a)  Throughout facility    The employer did not compile a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present at the workplace as part of the written hazard communication program for employees who use chemicals, including but not limited to, silica, sulfuric acid, nickel sulfate, chromic acid, copper cyanide, borax, epoxy polyester and polyester TGIC so safety data sheets could be referenced.       Condition observed on or about 11/16/2015.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:    a) Electroplating    1)  The employer did not label the nickel plating tank containing chemicals, including but not limited to: nickel chloride, nickel sulfate and boric acid with words, pictures or symbols indicating general hazard information associated with the chemicals.      2)  The employer did not label the trivalent chrome plating tank with the chemical identity and words, pictures or symbols indicating general hazard information associated with the chemicals.     3)  The employer did not label the "acid deep" tank containing sulfuric acid with words, pictures or symbols indicating general hazard information associated with the chemicals.      4)  The employer did not label the Caustic soda tank with the chemical identity and words, pictures or symbols indicating general hazard information associated with the chemicals.         Condition observed on or about 11/16/15.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Abate by

Aug 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h): Employees were not provided effective information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and -2 on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced in their work area:    a)  Throughout facility    The employer did not provide effective information and training, including health hazards and requirements of 1910.1200, for employees who use chemicals, including but not limited to, silica, sulfuric acid, nickel sulfate, chromic acid, copper cyanide, borax, epoxy polyester and polyester TGIC, during sand blasting, electroplating and powder coating operations.      Condition observed on or about 11/16/2015.

Issued

May 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $400 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.32(a)(3): The employer did not certify an OSHA 300A Form or equivalent.    a) 23 George St., Newark, NJ    On or about 3/16/2106 the employer failed to certify the annual summary of work related injuries and illnesses.    Condition observed on 3/16/2016.