OSHA Inspection: FLEETMASTER MAINTAINANCE INC.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $2,956

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, were not provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.  On or about December 19, 2017, employees were exposed to hazardous chemicals by absorption through the skin and the employees were not provided a chemical protective suit when they applied the following powder coatings:  a) Axalta Coating Systems Alesta Agricultural Green PFG 678S9;  b) PPG Yellow Primer Hybrid PCF30124; and  c) Axalta Coating Systems Matte Black UFB551S2055.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 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 had been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:  On or about December 19, 2107, the employer did not evaluate, develop and document a suitable personal protective equipment hazard assessment for the powder coat painting performed that includes a written certification with the name of the person who certified the evaluation and the date the hazard assessment was completed.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective eye and face equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment.  On or about December 19, 2017, employees were exposed to chemicals that can cause skin and eye injury and the employees were not required to wear suitable protective equipment for the face nor were they provided tight fitting eye protection to protect their eyes when applying the following powder coatings:  a) Axalta Coating Systems Alesta Agricultural Green PFG 678S9;  b) PPG Yellow Primer Hybrid PCF30124; and  c) Axalta Coating Systems Matte Black UFB551S2055.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $2,956

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 December 19, 2017, the employer provided respiratory protection (N95 filtering facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators) for employee use and the employer did not establish and implement elements of a respiratory protection program to include:  * Procedures for proper use of respirators; * Procedures and schedules for storing, inspecting, and discarding respirators/filters; * Training for employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed; * Training for employees in the proper use of the N95 respirators, including putting them on/off and limitations on use; and * Procedures used to regularly evaluate the program effectiveness.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 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 December 19, 2018, the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator and employees wore N95 filtering facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators when applying powder coat.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 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, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter:   On or about December 19, 2017, the employer did not provide an annual fit test for the employees who wore N95 tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 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 December 19, 2017, employees wore the N95 tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators and the employer did not prohibit employees with facial hair that interfered with the seal of the respirator from using a tight fitting respirator.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(ii): Corrective glasses, goggles or other personal protective equipment were worn in a manner that interfered with the seal of the respirator facepiece:  On or about December 19, 2017, employees wore N95 tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators and the employer did not prohibit employees from wearing a balaclava that interfered with the seal of the tight-fitting respirators.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1):  The employer did not provide effective training that covered the required elements in 1910.134(k)(1)(i) through 1910.134(k)(1)(vii):  On or about December 19, 2017, the employer required the employees powder coating metal to wear a N95 tight-fitting filtering facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators and the employer did not ensure employees were trained on the following at least annually:    a. Why respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the respirator;  b. What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are;  c. How to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions;   d. How to inspect, put on and remove, use, and check the seals of the respirator;  e. What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the respirator;  f. How to recognize the medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators; and  g. The general requirements of this section.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(l)(1): Evaluations of the workplace were not conducted to ensure the written respiratory protection program was being effectively implemented:  On or about December 19, 2017, the employer required the employees powder coating metal parts to wear a tight-fitting facepiece respirators and tight-fitting elastomeric respirators and the employer did not conduct evaluations of the workplace to ensure the written program was effectively implemented.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $2,956

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where the eyes or body of any person may be 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.  On or about December 19, 2017, employees were exposed to injurious corrosive powder coatings and the employees were not provided suitable facilities for flushing the eyes and body:  a) Axalta Coating Systems Alesta Agricultural Green PFG 678S9; and  b) PPG Industries CAT Yellow Polyester PCT239104.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $2,956

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): Employer did not have a safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical which they use:  On or about December 19, 2017, employees applied Axalta Coating Systems Alesta Agricultural Green PFG 678S9 to metal parts and the employer had not obtained the safety data sheet and made it available at the site.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 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:  On or about December 19, 2017, employees applied powder coatings to metal parts and the employer did not provide employees information and training on the hazardous chemicals in their work area and the pictograms including, but not limited to:  a) Axalta Coating Systems Alesta Agricultural Green PFG 678S9;  b) PPG Industries Yellow Primer Hybrid PCF30124;   c) Axalta Coating Systems Matte Black UFB551S2055; and   d) PPG Industries CAT Yellow Polyester PCTZ39104.