OSHA Inspection: STEEL AND ALLOY UTILITY PRODUCTS INC.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $5,398 · Current $1,388 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:    On or about December 5, 2019, an employee with a standard threshold shift conducting grinding activities was exposed to continuous noise levels at 580% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 319 minute sampling period. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 161 minutes not sampled.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $3,084 · Current $1,850 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(3): Hot surfaces were located in spraying area(s) where deposits of combustible residues could readily accumulate:    On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that hot surfaces, such as natural gas heaters, were not located in the spraying area where deposits of combustible dust could readily accumulate.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(5): Electrical equipment not approved for locations containing both deposits of readily ignitable residues and explosive vapors was present in spraying area(s):    On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that electrical equipment in the painting area was approved for locations containing deposits of readily ignitable residues.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(d)(2): Spraying areas were not provided with adequate mechanical ventilation to remove flammable vapors, mists, or powders to a safe location and to confine and control combustible residues so that life was not endangered:    On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that the paint area was provided with adequate mechanical ventilation to remove flammable vapors and combustible residues. No mechanical ventilation system was present in the area.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $3,084 · Current $1,850 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c): The employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use:    On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to develop and implement a written respiratory protection program when employees were required to wear supplied air respirators when conducting sandblasting activities.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

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 December 5, 2019, the employer failed provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator prior to requiring a supplied air respirator during abrasive blasting work processes.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(5)(iv): The employer did not ensure that the person authorized to perform the necessary sorbent bed and filter changes filled out a tag indicating by the signature and date that maintenance changes were performed:  On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that the person authorized to perform the necessary sorbent bed and filter changes filled out a tag indicating the date maintenance changes were performed. The employer did not know the last time the filter had been changed.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(1)(ii): Breathing air did not meet requirements for Grade D breathing air as described in the ANSI/Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification G-7.1-1989:    On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that the air provided to employees using supplied air respirators during sand blasting activities was Grade D breathing air.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $3,084 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of iron oxide and  listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of:    a.) On or about March 18, 2020, an employee performing abrasive blasting activities was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 29.93 mg/m3 of iron oxide, approximately 5.986 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 253 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 227 minutes.     b.) On or about March 18, 2020, an employee performing abrasive blasting activities was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 226.14 mg/m3 of iron oxide, approximately 15.076 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 253 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 227 minutes.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):      a.) On or about March 18, 2020, an employee performing abrasive blasting activities was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 29.93 mg/m3 of iron oxide, approximately 5.986 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 253 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 227 minutes. The employer failed to implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to limit employee exposure.     b.) On or about March 18, 2020, an employee performing abrasive blasting activities was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 226.14 mg/m3 of iron oxide, approximately 15.076 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 253 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 227 minutes. The employer failed to implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to limit employee exposure.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $5,398 · Current $2,699 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:    On or about March 18, 2020, an employee welding on stainless steel was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of   15.14 ug/m3 of chromium (VI), approximately 3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 ug/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 312 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the sampled period of   168 minutes.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): Where feasible engineering and work practice controls would not reduce employee exposures to chromium (VI) to or below the permissible exposure limit, the employer did not supplement these controls with respirators:    On or about March 18, 2020, the employer failed to provide respiratory protection to an employee welding on stainless steel who was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 15.14 ug/m3 of chromium (VI), approximately 3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 ug/m3, when local ventilation was in use.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Penalty

Initial $5,398 · Current $2,699 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:    On or about March 18, 2020, the employer failed to determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium for an employee welding on stainless steel.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $5,398 · Current $2,699 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI) was, or could reasonably be expected to be, in excess of the permissible exposure limit:    On or about March 18, 2020, the employer failed to establish a regulated area when an employee welding on stainless steel was exposed to airborne concentrations of chromium VI was determined to be approximately 15.14 ug/m3 of chromium (VI), 3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 ug/m3.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $5,398 · Current $2,699 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not address at least the following hazards with employees exposed to hexavalent chromium: Cancer, eye irritation, and skin sensitization:    On or about March 18, 2020 the employer failed to address at least cancer, eye irritation, and skin sensitization as hazards associated with hexavalent chromium exposures with an employee who was exposed when welding on stainless steel.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1)(iii): The employer had not included chromium (VI) in the hazard communication program, established to comply with the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, ensured that each employee had access to labels on containers of chromium (VI) and to safety data sheets, and was trained in accordance with the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard and 29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2), including the contents of the Hexavalent Chromium Standard, the purpose and a description of the medical surveillance program, and made copies of this standard available to all affected employees:     On or about March 18, 2020, the employer failed to include hexavalent chromium in the hazard communication standard and failed to ensure that each employee was trained in accordance with the requirements of the hazard communication standard and 1910.1026(l)(2). Employees were not familiar with hexavalent chromium, the potential health effects of working with hexavalent chromium, or with the requirements of the hexavalent chromium standard.

Issued

May 19, 2020

Abate by

Sep 30, 2021

Penalty

Initial $4,626 · Current $1,388 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3): Employee training did not include at least: (i) Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical in the work area (such as monitoring conducted by the employer, continuous monitoring devices, visual appearance or odor of hazardous chemicals when being released, etc.); (ii) The physical, health, simple asphyxiation, combustible dust, and pyrophoric gas hazards, as well as hazards not otherwise classified, of the chemicals in the work area; (iii) The measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used; and, (iv) The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, including an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:    On or about December 5, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that effective training on various hazardous chemicals, including, but not limited to paint, paint thinner, and abrasive blasting materials, was provided to employees at the time of initial assignment. The training failed to include the hazards associated with the specific chemicals in the work area and the measures employees can take to protect themselves.