OSHA Inspection: MD AIRFOILS CORPORATION

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(d)(3): An exit route door may be locked from the inside only in mental, penal, or correctional facilities and then only if supervisory personnel are continuously on duty and the employer has a plan to remove occupants from the facility during an emergency:    On or about May 23, 2018, in the finishing and dipping department, there was an exit discharge door that was locked and dead bolted. The door could not be opened from the inside without unlocking both the door handle and dead bolt. There was no panic bar.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(a)(3): Exit route(s) were not kept free and unobstructed:    On and before May 23, 2018, the emergency exit door in the Finishing and Dipping Department was blocked by an internal door that separated the old lobby from the departments and exit. There was also excessive amounts of material obstructing the exit route.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(b)(5): Each doorway or passage along an exit access that could be mistaken for an exit was not marked "Not an Exit" or similar designation, or be identified by a sign indicating its actual use (e.g. closet):    On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not mark the doorway leading to another company in the machine area as "not an exit". The company has designated two doors that lead to the backside of the building which houses another company as not to be used as an exit. Both of the doors were not marked. The company had material in front of the door to prevent anyone going into the other area.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,328 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee required to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that covered when PPE is necessary, what PPE is necessary, how to don, doff, adjust and wear PPE, the limitations of PPE and the proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE:    On or about May 23, 2018, the employees required to wear PPE have not been trained on when PPE is necessary, what PPE is necessary; how to don, doff, adjust and wear PPE; the limitations of PPE;  and the proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE. Employees work with LR-63 and Aerosol OT Solution which contains Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, sulfoacetate, acetone, ethyl alcohol, 2-ethylhexanol, and dioctyl sodium sulfocsuccinate. Employees wear safety glasses, gloves, and respirators when performing different job tasks.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): Appropriate hand protection was not used when employee's hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:         On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not provide and ensure employees used appropriate chemical resistant gloves for handling chemicals such as LR-63 and Aerosol OT Solution.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect employee health or whenever respirators are required by the employer, a written respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented:    On or about May 23, 2018, the employee performing dipping operations in the back dip room was required to wear a 3M tight fitting half face respirator by the employer. The company had not established a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 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 May 23, 2018, the employee performing dipping operations in the back dip room was required to wear a 3M tight fitting half face respirator by the employer. The employer had not provided a medical evaluation to the employee.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 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 a annual basis:     On or about May 23, 2018, the employee performing dipping operations in the back dip room was required to wear a 3M tight fitting half face respirator by the employer. The employer had not provided the employee with a fit test.

Issued

Aug 20, 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 May 23, 2018, the employee performing dipping operations in the back dip room was required to wear a 3M tight fitting half face respirator by the employer. The employer had not provided respiratory protection training in accordance with the standard to the employee.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $2,587 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):    On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not train or evaluate employees who drive powered industrial trucks on an as needed basis to move material and unload trucks.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $1,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1): Electrical equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees:    a) On or about May 23, 2018, the employer spliced 3 wires on the Autowax machine located in the front dipping department. The wires were located at the front of the equipment next to the controls.    b) On or about May 23, 2018, the employer had exposed wiring on the Autowax machine located in the front dipping department. The wires were located at the front of the equipment inside the controls.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(i): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the information required by 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)(i) through 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)(v):  On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not ensure that transfer containers of LR-63 and Aerosol OT Solution were labeled with the identity of the chemical. Unlabeled containers were located in the Dipping and Finishing Department.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:  On or about May 23, 2018, employees working with chemicals such as; but not limited to, LR-63, Aerosol OT Solution, L-161, and D-161 did not have safety data sheets accessible to them.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $3,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not ensure that employees performing dipping in the Dipping and Finishing department were using safety glasses when handling and using LR-63, Aerosol OT Solution, L-161, and D-161 Zircon Prime Powder.    MD Airfoils Corporation was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.133(a)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1006962, citation number 1, item number 2b and was affirmed as a final order on 1/6/2015, with respect to a workplace located in 8815 Herrick Rd. Twinsburg, OH 44087.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2): The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter:    On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not provide initial and annual training for portable fire extinguishers when available for employee use.    MD Airfoils Corporation was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.157(g)(2), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1006962, citation number 1, item number 4 and was affirmed as a final order on 1/6/2015, with respect to a workplace located in 8815 Herrick Rd. Twinsburg, OH 44087.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area:    On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not provide training to employees on hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, LR-63, Aerosol OT Solution, L-161, D-161 and Dry Mist Silicone Mold Release E202 at the time of their initial assignment and when a new chemical was introduced.    MD Airfoils Corporation was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.1200(h)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1006962, citation number 1, item number 6b and was affirmed as a final order on 1/6/2015, with respect to a workplace located in 8815 Herrick Rd. Twinsburg, OH 44087.

Issued

Aug 20, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(2): Portable fire extinguishers were not visually inspected at least monthly:  On or about May 23, 2018, the employer did not inspect portable fire extinguishers throughout the facility when available for employee use.