OSHA Inspection: DCI INDUSTRIES

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $4,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    On or about March 1, 2018, the employer did not administer a continuing and effective hearing conservation program for employees with an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure greater than 85 dBA exposing employees to the hazards associated with noise exposure including hearing loss.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:   On or about March 1, 2018 and at times prior thereto, the employer did not develop and administer a noise monitoring program exposing employees to the hazards associated with noise exposure including hearing loss.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:  On or about March 1, 2018 and at times prior there to, the employer did not establish a baseline audiogram for all employees exposed to noise above an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure greater than 85 dBA exposing employees to the hazards associated with noise exposure including hearing loss.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $4,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(g)(2): Employees who  worked with liquids that could burn, irritate, or otherwise harm their skin were not provided with an emergency shower and eye-wash station close to the dipping and coating operation:     On or about January 10, 2018 and at times prior thereto, the employer did not provide an emergency shower and eyewash station close to the dipping and coating operation exposing employees to hazards associated with contact with corrosive chemicals.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $3,400 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 November 21, 2017, the employer did not implement the respiratory protection program exposing employees to respiratory hazards including caustic chemicals.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

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 November 21, 2017, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to employees before requiring them to wear respiratory protection exposing employees to hazards such as respiratory distress.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):  On or about November 21, 2017, the employer did not provide a fit test to employees required to wear respiratory protection. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards including inhalation of caustics.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Apr 25, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  On or about November 21, 2017 and at times prior thereto, the employer allowed employees with facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face to wear respiratory protection while working on the stripline. The employees were exposed to chemical inhalation hazards.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Apr 25, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1)(i): Respirators issued for the exclusive use of an employee were not cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to be maintained in a sanitary condition:   On or about February 15, 2018, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not ensure that each respirator used by employees while working on the stripline was maintained in a clean and disinfected condition. The employees were exposed to health hazards associated with improperly cleaned respirators.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $4,500 Reduced

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 February 15, 2018, in the chromium (VI) plating area, an employees personal 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was 5.593 micrograms per cubic meter of air during chromium (VI) plating operations.  This exposure exceeds the OSHA 8-hour TWA chromium (VI) PEL of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 1.119 times.  Personal samples were collected during a 471 minute sampling period on February 15, 2018. The remaining un-sampled time of 9 minutes was included in the 8-Hr TWA as a zero chromium (VI) exposure period. Employees were exposed to chromium (VI) health hazards.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 3, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(i): The employer using the scheduled monitoring option did not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium (VI) for each employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:  On or about January 10, 2018, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour time-weighted-average employee exposure to chromium (VI) during plating operations which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Apr 27, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(ii): Employees were allowed to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present; however, the employer did not ensure that employees did not enter the eating and drinking areas with chromium (VI)-contaminated protective clothing or equipment:  On or about January 10, 2018, and at times prior to, the employer allows employees who conduct chromium (VI) plating to enter the eating and drinking area wearing work clothing without removing surface chromium (VI) from the clothing which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Apr 25, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(5): The employer did not ensure that employees did not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in regulated areas, or in areas where skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) occurred:  On or about January 10, 2018 and times prior thereto, the employer allowed plating employees to drink in the plating shop which exposes employees to chromium (VI) health hazards.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Jun 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not make medical surveillance available for all employees who were or could be occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year:    On or about February 15, 2018, and at times prior to, the employer did not make medical surveillance available to all employees who are occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) above the action level for 30 or more days a year. Employees were exposed to chromium (VI) health hazards.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Apr 25, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(g)(2): Employees were permitted to consume food or beverage in area(s) exposed to toxic materials:    On or about January 10, 2018 and at times prior thereto, the employer allowed employees to eat and drink in areas of the facility exposed to toxic materials exposing employees to hazards associated with ingestion of toxic materials.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

Apr 25, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $3,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(10): The employer did not ensure that workplace labels or other forms of warnings were prominently displayed on the container or readily available in the work area throughout each work shift:    On or about November 15, 2017 and at times prior thereto, the employer did not ensure that portable spray bottles in the plating area were properly labeled or marked to indicate the contents and hazards, exposing employees to the hazard of contact with unknown chemicals.

Issued

Apr 23, 2018

Abate by

May 1, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  On or about January 10, 2018 and at times prior thereto, the employer did not provide Appendix D of the Respiratory Protection Standard to employees voluntarily wearing respiratory protection.