OSHA Inspection: RANDOLPH PRODUCTS, LLC

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(6): Qualitative fit tests were performed on negative pressure air-purifying respirators when the required fit factor was greater than 100:    In the small production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, an employee wearing a qualitatively fit tested, full-face, negative pressure air-purifying respirator was exposed to 27.6 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for hexavalent chromium, and the required fit factor was greater than 100.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

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 an employee who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face:  In the small production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, while performing work operations involving the use of chromium (VI) containing material, an employee was required to wear a tight-fitting respirator and the employee had facial hair which interfered with the sealing surface of the facepiece and face.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(2): The employer required respirator use for protection against chromium (VI); however, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, which covers each employee required to use a respirator:  In the facility at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, an employee was required to wear a full-face, negative pressure, tight-fitting respirator while working with hexavalent chromium.  The employee wore the respirator with facial hair and without quantitative fit testing where a fit factor over 100 is required.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

May 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(e): Where employees were required by a particular standard to wear protective clothing because of the possibility of contamination with toxic materials, the employer did not provide change rooms equipped with storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage facilities for the protective clothing     At the facility at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, employees required to change out of street clothes were not provided separate storage facilities for protective clothing and street clothes.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

May 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(2): The employer did not ensure that a change room at a worksite with chromium (VI) exposures was equipped with separate storage facilities for protective clothing and equipment and for street clothing:    In the facility at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, employees required to change out of street clothes were not provided separate storage facilities for protective work clothing and street clothes.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Dec 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,714 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:    In the small production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, three batch maker employees were exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air:    Employee A:  15.7 µg/m3, 3.05 times the PEL  Employee B:  28.0 µg/m3, 5.51 times the PEL  Employee C:  139 µg/m3, 27.6 times the PEL

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(1)(iv): The employer did not provide each employee an appropriate respirator during work operations where the employer had not implemented feasible engineering and work practice controls to achieve the permissible exposure limit for employees who were exposed above the permissible exposure limit for fewer than 30 days per year:  In the small production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, the employer provided an employee a respirator that was not appropriately fit tested and the employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average airborne concentration of chromium (VI) 27.6 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

May 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

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 in each work area:    In the small production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, initial monitoring was not performed on employees making small batches of paint which include chromium (VI) containing materials using the small mixers in the "ECL" room.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(5): The employer used a method of air monitoring and analysis that either could not measure chromium (VI) to within an accuracy of plus or minus 25 percent, or could not produce accurate measurements to within a statistical confidence level of 95 percent for airborne concentrations at or above the action level:    In the facility at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, the employer performed personal air monitoring using a low flow pump with a rate ranging from 0.135-0.185 L/Min, compared to the recommended flow rate for hexavalent chromium of 2.0 L/Min.  Results obtained utilizing the incorrect flow rate were used to exempt the packaging department from monitoring.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(C): The record of all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to chromium (VI) did not include the method of sampling and evidence of its accuracy:  At the facility at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, records of air sampling performed since 2006 do not include record of sampling method or evidence of its accuracy.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that employees removed all protective clothing and equipment contaminated with chromium (VI) at the end their tasks involving chromium (VI) exposure:    In the small production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, employees did not remove hard hats and safety shoes at the end of their tasks involving chromium (VI).  The employees were exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Jun 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(i): Employees were allowed to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present; however, the employer did not ensure that the eating and drinking areas were maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI):    In the employee breakroom at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, surface wipe samples detected hexavalent chromium on the surface in front of the microwave and on a dining table.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Jun 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(ii): The employer did not ensure that employees do not enter eating and drinking areas with protective work clothing or equipment unless surface chromium (VI) has been removed from clothing and equipment by methods that did not disperse chromium (VI) into the air or onto an employee's body:    In the breakrooms at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, prior to entering eating and drinking areas, employees did not remove or clean their shoes which were worn during the utilization and cleanup of chromium (VI) containing material.  Surface wipe samples revealed the presence of chromium (VI) in one of the breakrooms.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

May 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(2)(i): The employer shall ensure that surfaces contaminated with chromium (VI) are cleaned by HEPA-filter vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure to chromium (VI).    In the production area at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA: On and before January 9, 2019, employees used dry sweeping methods to clean up spills of strontium chromate, zinc chromate and other chromium (VI) containing materials.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

May 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $4,632 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(2)(iv): The employer shall ensure that cleaning equipment is handled in a manner that minimizes the reentry of chromium (VI) into the workplace.    In the facility at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA, on and before January 9, 2019, employees used a push broom, hand broom, dustpan, mop and other equipment to clean up spills of chromate powders.  The cleaning equipment had no defined storage area and was returned to general use, for any application, throughout the facility.

Issued

Apr 11, 2019

Abate by

Apr 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1020(g)(1): Employees covered by 29 CFR 1910.1020 were not informed, upon entering employment and at least annually thereafter, of the existence, location, availability of any records covered by this section, of the identity of the person responsible for maintaining and providing access to records, or of each employee's right of access to these records:  At the facility located at 33 Haynes Circle, Chicopee, MA, on and before January 9, 2019, employees were not informed of their rights related to the availability of records, specifically records related to employee exposures to chromium (VI).