OSHA Inspection: SANCO, INC.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,339 · Current $3,308 Reduced

Hazardous substances 90109130

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) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program for an employee, adding powder to bags, exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 25.903 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 5.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 315 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled 165 minute period.      b) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program for an employee, adding powder to bags, exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.      c) Powder Plant; On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program for an employee, operating a forklift to move bags of powder, exposed to particulate not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 14.506 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 2.9 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 495 minutes.     d) Polymer Plant; On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program for employees required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511).

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

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; On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to ensure that the respiratory protection program administrator was qualified by appropriate training or experience.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,339 · Current $3,308 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i): Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:    a) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to select an appropriate respirator for an employee, adding powder to bags, exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,339 · Current $3,308 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:    a) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer did not identify or evaluate the respiratory hazards for an employee, adding powder to bags, exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 25.903 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 5.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 315 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled 165 minute period.     b) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer did not identify or evaluate the respiratory hazards for an employee, adding powder to bags, exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.      c) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer did not identify or evaluate the respiratory hazards for an employee, operating a forklift to move bags of powder, exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 14.506 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 2.9 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 495 minutes.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $1,985 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9130

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) Powder Plant; On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer had not provided employees required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) with medical evaluations prior to fit testing or wearing the respirators.      b) Polymer Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer had not provided employees required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) with medical evaluations prior to fit testing or wearing the respirators.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $1,985 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    a) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer had not provided employees required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) with fit testing prior to wearing the respirators.      b) Polymer Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer had not provided employees required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) with fit testing prior to wearing the respirators.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,070 · Current $2,638 Reduced

Hazardous substances 90109130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:    a) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer allowed an employee to retain facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face. The employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 25.903 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 5.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 315 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled 165 minute period.      b) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer allowed an employee to retain facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face. The employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.     c) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer allowed the employee to retain facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face. The employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulate not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.      d) Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer allowed the employee to retain facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face. The employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulate not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 14.506 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 2.9 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 495 minutes.     e) Polymer Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer allowed employees to retain facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) and the face.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,070 · Current $2,638 Reduced

Hazardous substances 90109130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:    a)    Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to provide respiratory protection training for an employee required to wear 3M N95 disposable filtering facepieces (Model 8511) when adding powder to bags exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 25.903 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 5.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 315 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled 165 minute period.      b)    Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to provide respiratory protection training for an employee required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) when adding powder to bags exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.      c)    Powder Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to provide respiratory protection training for an employee required to wear a 3M N95 disposable filtering facepiece (Model 8511) when adding powder to bags exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at14.506 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 2.9 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 495 minutes.     d) Polymer Plant: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that the employer failed to provide respiratory protection training for employees required to wear 3M N95 disposable filtering facepieces (Model 8511).

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $7,606 · Current $3,970 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of particulate not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 5 mg/m3.    a) Powder Plant:  On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer exposed an employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 25.903 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 5.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 315 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled 165 minute period.      b) Powder Plant:  On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer exposed an employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.     c) Powder Plant:  On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the employer exposed an employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) respirable fraction at 14.506 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 2.9 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 495 minutes.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    a) Powder Plant:  On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the dust collection system in place did not reduce airborne concentrations of dry powder to below the respirable dust permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3. The employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 25.903 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 5.18 times the PEL.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 315 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled 165 minute period.      b) Powder Plant:  On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the dust collection system in place did not reduce airborne concentrations of dry powder to below the respirable dust permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3. The employee, adding powder to bags, was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 93.446 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 18.69 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 492 minutes.      c) Powder Plant:  On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that the dust collection system in place did not reduce airborne concentrations of dry powder to below the respirable dust permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3. The employee, operating a forklift to move bags of powder , was exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR), respirable fraction at 14.506 mg/m3, which is an equivalent of 2.9 times the PEL of 5 mg/m3.  This exposure was determined from two samples totaling 495 minutes.

Issued

Nov 6, 2017

Abate by

Dec 4, 2017

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: On or about August 2, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that a chemical inventory was not provided to employees working in the establishment.