OSHA Inspection: MTIL, INC

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,149 · Current $4,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(a)(3): Exit route(s) were not kept free and unobstructed:    a.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, employees were required to work on QC area of lines 1 and 2 of the both Clulssi 1 and 2 machines and were exposed to fire hazards from an obstructed exit.  The exit had pipes on the floor with machinery in the route reducing overhead clearance to less than sixty eight (68') inches in height and less than twenty two (22') inches in width.

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,149 · Current $4,100 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:    a.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, the employer had not performed a personal protective equipment assessment which had identified and assessed all the hazards necessitating the use of personal protective equipment.  Employee exposure included but was not limited to exposure to sodium hydroxide, water on hands, arms, body and feet.

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protective equipment:    a.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, employees were not trained to know at least the following:         1.  What PPE is necessary.    2.  When PPE is necessary.    3.  How to properly don, doff, adjust and wear the PPE.    4.  The limitations of PPE.    5.  The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.        Employee exposure included but was not limited to exposure to sodium hydroxide, water on hands, arms, body and feet.

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,149 · Current $4,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(1): The employer did not evaluate the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit-required confined spaces:    a.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, the employer had not evaluated the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit required spaces, thereby exposing employees to hazards associated with permit required confined spaces.

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit space: (NOTE: A sign reading DANGER-PERMIT-REQUIRED CONFINED SPACE, DO NOT ENTER or using other similar language would satisfy the requirement for a sign)    a.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, the employer had not informed employees of the location of permit required confined spaces with proper labeling, thereby exposing employees to hazards associated with permit required confined spaces.

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4): When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not develop and implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:    a.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, the employees were required to enter permit required confined spaces including, but not limited to the Bruel's wash tunnel and Colussi tank(s).  The employer failed to implement an adequate permit required confined space standard with the required elements of a program, thereby exposing employees to the hazards of permit spaces.

Issued

Jun 2, 2017

Abate by

Aug 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,149 · Current $4,100 Reduced

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.  On or about February 10, 2017, in the facility, employees were exposed to chemicals including, but not limited to sodium hydroxide.  The employer had not developed and implemented a written hazard communication program including, but not limited to labeling, material safety data sheet and training programs.