OSHA Inspection: VANTAGE KITTRICH, LLC

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,605 · Current $3,334 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:    a) Tank Farm; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns in that the employer failed to select personal protective equipment that would protect affected employees from corrosive liquid splashes.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 3, 2018

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) Tank Farm; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns in that the employer allowed employees to handle corrosive chemicals without the use of safety goggles while mixing product.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,605 · Current $3,333 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    a) Tank Farm; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer failed to ensure that an eyewash/shower unit was available for employees immediate use in the event of emergency. Employees were exposed to corrosives including, but not limited to potassium hydroxide (45%) and sorbic acid potassium salt while manufacturing pesticides.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,605 · Current $3,333 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):     a) Throughout; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns, in that the employer failed to develop and implement a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to material such as, but not limited to potassium hydroxide (45%) and sorbic acid potassium salt.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 3, 2018

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 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns, in that a chemical inventory was not provided to employees working in the establishment.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): Employers did not have a safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical which they use:  a) Production Area; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns, in that safety data sheets for raw ingredients used to make the final product were not provided to employees working in the establishment.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:  a) Production Area; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns and irritation, in that the employer failed to provide training specific to the hazards of chemicals used at the establishment including, but not limited to corrosives and irritants.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification which included the requirements as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  a) Throughout; On or about August 16, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to skin burns in that the employer failed to certify that an assessment of the workplace to determine the presence of hazards that would warrant the use of personal protective equipment had been conducted.