PONTIAC, IL —
OSHA Inspection: INTERLAKE MECALUX, INC.
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of INTERLAKE MECALUX, INC. in 701 INTERLAKE DRIVE, PONTIAC, IL 61764 (NAICS 337215). OSHA activity number 342604410.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- INTERLAKE MECALUX, INC.
- Site address
- 701 INTERLAKE DRIVE
- City
- PONTIAC
- State
- IL
- ZIP
- 61764
- Mailing
- 701 INTERLAKE DRIVE, PONTIAC, IL 61764
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- A
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 337215
- Employees
- 240
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
7 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $6,911 · Current $0 Reduced
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 August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities were required to wear a Honeywell Type C loose fitting supplied air hood respirator or a 95N disposable respirator to operate in the area and the employer did not have in place a written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures established and implemented for the required respirator use.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $6911
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Mar 16, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $3,800
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: Note: The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator. On or about August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities were required to wear a Honeywell Type C loose fitting supplied air hood respirator or a 95N disposable respirator to operate in the area and 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
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3800
- — Z (S) $0
1910.134 D01 III
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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: On or about August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities were required to wear a supplied air respirator or a 95N disposable respirator to operate in the area and the employer did not assess the respiratory hazard.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1200 E01
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $9,239 · Current $0 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): On or about August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities used material with potential to cause cancer, skin sensitization and combustible dust, among other, and the 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).
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $9239
1910.1200 H03 II
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $5,100
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area: On or about August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities used material with potential to cause cancer, skin sensitization and combustible dust, among other, and the employer did not provide employee training that included the physical and health hazards of the powder coating materials.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5100
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1200 H03 IV
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer: On or about August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities used material with potential to cause cancer, skin sensitization and combustible dust, among other, and the employer did not provide employee training that included an explanation of Signal word(s), Hazard statement(s), Pictogram(s), and Precautionary statement(s).
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.134 F02
- Issued
- Jan 19, 2018
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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: On or about August 31, 2017, employees engaged in powder coating activities were required to wear a 95N disposable respirator to operate in the area and the employer did not provide a fit test to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator prior to initial use of the respirator.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections at Interlake Mecalux, INC.
View Interlake Mecalux, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 337215)
More inspections in IL
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 342604410.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.