OSHA Inspection: VAN LINDA IRON WORKS, INC.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 26, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 06892587

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:    On or about September 13, 2016, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program for employees who were required to wear GVS Elipse P100 respirators while performing welding operations on stainless steel.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Mar 29, 2017

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:  On or about September 13, 2016, the employer did not provide medical evaluations for the employees who used Elipse P100 half-mask respirators when preforming welding operations.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Mar 29, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer shall ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph.  On or about September 13, 2016 the employer did not ensure that employees passed an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as required before being required to wear an Elipse P100 half-mask respirator.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Mar 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): The employer shall not permit respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function.  On or about September 13, 2016, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer permitted employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the users face and the face piece, to wear tight-fitting respirators, GVS Elipse P100 respirators during the welding of stainless steel.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Mar 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(1): The employer did not require the use of respiratory protection as required by this section.  On or about, at the above worksite, the employer did not require the use of respiratory protection for the welders who are exposed to Chromium (VI) in excess of the permissible exposure level.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) which exceeded 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an 8-hour time-weighted average:    On or about September 13, 2016, at the worksite, a welder was exposed to 6.75 micrograms per cubic meter of hexavalent chromium.  The employee was monitored for 360 minutes and a zero exposure was calculated for the remaining 120 minutes that sampling was not performed.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): Feasible engineering controls and work practices were not instituted to reduce and maintain employee exposures to chromium (VI) at or below the permissible exposure limit:  On or about September 13, 2016, at the worksite, the employer did not implement engineering or administrative controls to reduce employees exposure to Chromium (VI) when performing welding operations.  An employee  was monitored for 360 minutes with zero exposure calculated for the 120 minutes that sampling was not performed, and his exposure level was determined to be 6.75 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(1): A hazard was present or was likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI); however, the employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and/or did not ensure that employees used such clothing and equipment:    On or about September 13, 2016, the employer did not furnish welders, who were exposed to Chromium (VI) in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), with the appropriate protective clothing.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 21, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(1): The employer did not provide change rooms, in conformance with the Sanitation standard, 29 CFR 1910.141, for employees who were required to change their clothes to use protective clothing and equipment for chromium (VI) exposures:    On or about September 13, 2016, at the above jobsite, the employer did not provide appropriate change rooms for employees who were exposed to Chromium (VI) in excess of the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance for chromium (VI) exposures available at no cost to the employees, and/or at a reasonable time and place:    On or about September 13, 2016, the employer did not make medical surveillance for chromium (VI) exposures available at no cost to the employees.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Mar 29, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

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:    On or about September 13, 2016, at the above jobsite, the employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program, for the employees who were exposed, to  hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to welding fume and chromium (VI) .

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h): 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 into their work area:  On or about September 13, 2016, the employer did not provide effective information and training to the employees who were performing welding operations and exposed to metal fumes.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Mar 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1): The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to chromium (VI) were provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200:  On or about September 13, 2016, at the above worksite, the employer did not provide information and training to employees who were exposed to hazardous substances such as chromium (VI) while performing welding operations.

Issued

Mar 10, 2017

Abate by

Apr 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of Chromium (VI) was, or could reasonably be expected to be, in excess of the permissible exposure limit:  On or about September 13, 2016, at the worksite, the employer did not establish a regulated work area at a facility where employees were exposed to Chromium (VI) at levels of 5.0 and 6.75 micrograms per cubic meter of air.