OSHA Inspection: LIFEFORMATIONS, INC.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(d)(6): Belts shall not enter the duct or booth unless the belt and pulley within the duct or booth are thoroughly enclosed.    The employer did not ensure that the belt and pulley located in the spray booth of the Upper Shop were enclosed.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(e)(2): The quantity of flammable liquids or liquids with a flashpoint greater than 199.4 degrees F (93 degrees C) kept in the vicinity of spraying operations were not a minimum required for operations or they exceeded a supply for one day or one shift:     The spray booth in the Upper Shop was used as a storage area for Keystone Key5 Gun Wash (flammable liquid).

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,497 · Current $2,749 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(7): "No smoking" signs in large letters on contrasting color background were not posted at all spraying areas and paint storage rooms.    The employer did not post "No smoking" signs around the spray booth in the Upper Shop.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(m)(2): No Smoking signs were not prominently displayed in any area where organic peroxides were stored, mixed or applied:    The employer did not post "No Smoking" signs around the Lower Shop where methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (an organic peroxide) was stored, mixed, and sprayed.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(m)(1): Spraying operations involving the use of organic peroxides and other dual component coatings were not conducted in approved sprinklered spray booths meeting the requirements of this section:    The employer did not provide an approved sprinklered spray booth for operation of a dual component chop gun wherein one component was methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (an organic peroxide).

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $3,234 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:    The employer required tight-fitting facepiece respirator use for employees who conduct grinding of material, spray painting, welding, and application of resins, but did not develop a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Jun 19, 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 5/3/2018, in the Upper and Lower Shops, the employer did not evaluate employee exposure to particles not otherwise regulated (PNOR) (total dust) while grinding materials including fiberglass.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 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:    The employer required tight-fitting facepiece respirator use for employees who conduct grinding of material, spray painting, welding, and application of resins, but did not ensure that employees received medical evaluations.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 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):    The employer required tight-fitting facepiece respirator use for employees who conduct grinding of material, spray painting, welding, and application of resins, but did not ensure that employees received fit-testing.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 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:    The employer required tight-fitting facepiece respirator use for employees who conduct grinding of material, spray painting, welding, and application of resins, but did not ensure that employees were free from facial hair which interfered with respirator seal.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $3,881 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:      Employees clean inside the Robotic Arm Enclosure located in the Upper Shop and the employer did not establish an energy control program consisting of energy control, procedures, employee training, and periodic inspections.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $3,234 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(d)(1): Circular handfed crosscut table saw(s) were not guarded by an automatically adjusting hood which completely enclosed that portion of the saw above the table and above the material being cut:    On or about 5/3/2018, in the Lower Shop, employees used a circular table saw to cut wood pieces and the employer did not ensure that the portion of the blade above the table was guarded.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $3,234 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):      The employer did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium(VI) while welding and/or cutting stainless steel in the Upper Shop.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1): The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to chromium (VI) were provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200:    Employees were exposed to hexavalent chromium (carcinogen) while welding and cutting stainless steel and the employer did not ensure that employees received information and training on the hazards associated with hexavalent chromium.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2): The employer did not ensure that employees could demonstrate knowledge of the contents of this section and the purpose of medical surveillance; and in addition the employer did not make a copy of this section available without cost to all affected employees:    Employees were exposed to hexavalent chromium generated during welding and cutting of stainless steel in the Upper Shop and the employer did not ensure that employees could demonstrate knowledge of the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1026 and the purpose of medical surveillance; and did not make a copy of 29 CFR 1910.1026 available without cost to affected employees.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $3,261 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):     Employees were exposed to chemicals such as fiberglass (skin irritation), methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (oxidizer), acetone (flammable), helium (compressed gas/asphyxiant), acetylene (compressed gas/flammable), and styrene (flammable) and the employer did not develop a written hazard communication program.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Jul 23, 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:    Employees were exposed to chemicals such as fiberglass (skin irritation), methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (oxidizer), acetone (flammable), helium (compressed gas/asphyxiant), acetylene (compressed gas/flammable), and styrene (flammable) and the employer did not ensure that employees received hazard communication training.