OSHA Inspection: ABEC INC.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(3): Audiometric tests were not performed by a licensed or certified audiologist, otolaryngologist, or other physician or, by a technician who is certified by the Council of Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation, or who has satisfactorily demonstrated competence in administering audiometric examinations, obtaining valid audiograms, and properly using, maintaining and checking calibration and proper functioning of the audiometers being used:   (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to protect employees when not performing audiometric testing for all employees working in Bays 1, 2, and 3. This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri locations, when audiometric testing was not performed for employees exposed to high noise hazards.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $6,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:   (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to protect employees by not establishing all of the elements of a hearing conversation program. This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, when baseline audiograms were not performed for all employees in order to compare subsequent audiograms.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $6,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to protect employees from respiratory hazards by not providing the required training in order to wear and use a voluntary respirator. This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, where employees were authorized to wear a respiratory without appendix D training prior to use.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:   (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to protect employees when not establishing and implementing all necessary requirements for ensuring any and all employees are medically able to use a respirator who chooses to voluntarily wear a respirator. This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, when employees were authorized to wear a respirator without being medically cleared. The employer has a voluntary respiratory program in place, but have not met implemented the elements of the program which per their abatement certification should have been completed on January 4, 2016.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $6,000

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):   (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to protect employees from ingestion hazards associated with chromium (VI). This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, when wipe sampling was performed with positive results of chromium (VI).Wipe sampling was performed in the break room, at the microwave and a refrigerator.  Both wipe samples had amounts above the reporting limit. The reporting limit for chromium (VI) is 0.114 micrograms/sample. The microwave had a 0.2539 micrograms/sample and the refrigerator had 0.2861 micrograms/sample.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that all surfaces were maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI):   (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to protect employees from ingestion hazards associated with chromium (VI). This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, when wipe sampling was performed with positive results of chromium (VI). Wipe sampling was performed at the wash area in Bay 1. The wipe sample had a result above the reporting limit for chromium (VI), the reporting limit is 0.114 micrograms/sample. The wash area of Bay 1 had 0.3055 micrograms/sample.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $35,000 · Current $35,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(iv): The employer used the scheduled monitoring option, and monitoring revealed employee exposures to chromium (VI) to be above the permissible exposure limit; however, the employer did not perform periodic monitoring at least every three months:     (a)   On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to conduct monitoring every 3 months after initial monitoring revealed an overexposure to chromium (VI). This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, where employees were overexposed to chromium (VI) on March 5, 2015. The employer conducted first their quarter sampling with an overexposure. This resulted in the employer conducting a second sample one month later which resulted in exposures below the action level, but failed to sample again after this first quarter sampling.     (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 µg/m3 of air for the allowable 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 5.0 µg/m3 of air for the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL). The sampling was performed for 480 minutes.    ABEC Inc. was previously cited for one violation of this this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.1026(d)(2)(iv), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1042803. Inspection number 1042803, citation number 01, item number 005(a) and was affirmed as a final order on July 23, 2015 to a workplace located at 4200 E Mustard Way Springfield, MO 65803.

Issued

Apr 12, 2016

Abate by

May 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $35,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i): Prior to initial job assignment to an area where employees were subject to hexavalent chromium exposure, the employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge in the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1026, and the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required  by paragraph (k) of the standard:     (a) On January 14, 2016, the employer is failing to provide information and training to all employees on the hazards associated with chromium (VI) during the grinding and welding operations. This was most recently documented at Abecs Springfield, Missouri location, when the employer did not ensure that each employee cold demonstrate knowledge of at least the content found within the chromium (VI) standard; purpose and description of a medical surveillance program.    ABEC Inc. was previously cited for one violation of this this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.1026(l)(2)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1042803. Inspection number 1042803, citation number 01, item number 011 and was affirmed as a final order on July 23, 2015 to a workplace located at 4200 E Mustard Way Springfield, MO 65803.