OSHA Inspection: PROSYS FINISHING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(1): The employer did not develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations:    Facility: When employees were expected to respond to an uncontrolled release of hazardous chemicals, the employer did not develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6): The employer did not provide training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i) through (q)(6)(v) for employees who participated in or were expected to participate in emergency response:  Facility: When employees were expected to participate in an emergency response incident, the employer did not provide training as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(i) through (v).

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,400 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:    Facility: When employees were expected to use half-mask elastomeric and fullface respirators as protection against hazardous chemicals, the employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) through (ix).

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 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:  Facility:  When employees wore half-mask elastomeric respirators and fullface respirators as protection against chemical exposure, the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine an employee's ability to use the respiratory protection.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 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:  Facility: When employees were expected to use tight-fitting elastomeric half-mask and fullface respirators, the employer did not ensure the users were fit tested prior to initial use, and at least annually afterwards.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:    Facility:  An employee operating a forklift had not received an evaluation of performance for powered industrial truck operation as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) within the previous three years.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,326 · Current $2,300 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):     Facility: Prior to employees handling, and being exposed to, hazardous chemicals during shipping and disposal activities, the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (ii).  This includes, but is not limited to, a complete inventory list of chemicals present in the facility.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1): The chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor did not ensure that each container of classified hazardous chemicals leaving the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the information required in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)(i) through 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)(vi): (ii): The chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals leaving the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings; (iii): The chemical manufacturer, importer, or distributor did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals leaving the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the name and address of the chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party.  Facility: The employer did not ensure that each container of classified hazardous materials was labeled, tagged, or marked with the required information.  A container of Mercuric Nitrate, used in the production of plating electrolytes, was present in the facility and not marked, labeled, or tagged, with appropriate hazard warnings.  In addition, the employer did not add the required information prior to shipping out the container during recycling and disposal activities.

Issued

Apr 17, 2018

Abate by

May 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h): Employees were not provided effective information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and (2) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced:  Facility: When employees are handling, and exposed, to hazardous chemicals during mixing, blending, and chemical waste recycling, the employer did not provide effective information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h) and (h)(2) and when new hazards were introduced.