OSHA Inspection: NIKO INDUSTRIES, LLC

Issued

Mar 4, 2019

Abate by

Mar 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,273 · Current $1,364 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:  a) On or about February 12, 2019, at 42391 S. Airport Rd., Hammond, LA 70403, the employer required employees to wear respirators for sandblasting and powder coating operations without first implementing a Respiratory Protection Program.

Issued

Mar 4, 2019

Abate by

Mar 22, 2019

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:  a) On or about February 12, 2019, in the shop, the employer required employees to wear respirators for sandblasting and powder coating operations without first ensuring employees are able to do so with an appropriate fit test.

Issued

Mar 4, 2019

Abate by

Mar 22, 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 employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:  a) On or about February 12, 2019, at 42391 S. Airport Rd., Hammond, LA 70403, the employer allowed an employee who had facial hair to wear a 3M Half Facepiece Reusable Respirator (7502 Medium) for sandblasting operations.

Issued

Mar 4, 2019

Abate by

Mar 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(vii): The employer did not ensure that each user could demonstrate knowledge of the general requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134:  a) On or about February 12, 2019, at 42391 S. Airport Rd., Hammond, LA 70403, the employer required employees to wear respirators for sandblasting operations without first ensuring each employee was properly trained on the elements of Respiratory Protection.

Issued

Mar 4, 2019

Abate by

Mar 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,273 · Current $1,364 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  a) On or about February 12, 2019, at 42391 S. Airport Rd., Hammond, LA 70403, the employer failed to implement a written Hazard Communication Program to protect employees who were exposed to various chemicals in the workplace, including but not limited to Ral 9018 Paint (which contains polyester resin), Eco-Black Tex coating powder (which contains titanium dioxide), and SW 6871 Positive Red paint (which contains barium sulfate).