OSHA Inspection: THE SHYFT GROUP DURAMAG LLC

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

May 13, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $13,653

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):  The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious harm to employees exposed to crushing types of injuries, due to the unsafe operation and maintenance of automotive lifts:  Loading Area - On or about 10/01/2020 the four Rotary MCHW418U1A00 18,000 pound capacity column lifts and the four Rotary MCHF414U1A00 14,000 pound capacity  column lifts were not maintained and utilized safely, in the following instances:  a) The eight lifts have been modified with a homemade, aluminum accessory that extends the steel lifting arms and alters the center of gravity and load capacity of each lift. The employer was notified by the lift inspector that the homemade aluminum extensions were not approved by the manufacturer and prohibited. b) The eight lifts are not subjected to a daily or periodic maintenance inspection as required by the ANSI/ALOIM (Automotive Lift Operation, Installation and Maintenance) and the manufacturer's Installation, Safety, Operation and Maintenance Manual. c) Employees, who use the eight lifts, are not trained or certified to do so as required by the ANSI/ALOIM (Automotive Lift Operation, Installation and Maintenance) and the manufacturer's Installation, Safety, Operation and Maintenance Manual.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $13,653

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.23(c)(11): The employer did not ensure that portable ladders, used to gain access to an upper landing surface, have side rails that extend at least 3 feet (0.9 m) above the upper landing surface:   Production Floor - On or about 10/01/2020, the stepladder, used to access the top of the truck bodies in order to clean and add additional accessories such as roof racks and light bars, did not extend three feet above the landing surface of the truck body, exposing the employees to falls from five to eight feet to the concrete floor below.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $13,653

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.132(d)(1):The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):  On or about 10/01/2020, the employer failed to perform an assessment to determine the appropriate PPE for its employees, in the following instances:  a) Chemical Preparation Area - Employees, who clean and spray metal parts, are exposed to 'Cal Prep 59' which contains phosphoric acid, a corrosive that causes severe skin burns and eye damage. b) Powder Coating Area -Employees, who spray powder coating, are exposed to barium sulphate and kaolin which may cause lung and skin irritation. c) Welding Area - Welders are exposed to weld fumes and light emissions, from the point of operation, which results in flash burns to skin and eyes. d) Machine area - Machine operators are exposed to flying chips and sparks which can damage eyes and skin, and to sharp metal edges that can cause lacerations.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 12, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids:  Chemical Preparation Area - On or about 10/01/2020, an employee was exposed to splash hazards when applying Cal Prep 59 containing phosphoric acid. Employees are wearing safety glasses which do not provide a seal between the glasses and the face to protect against hazardous liquid chemicals from entering the eye.  Appropriate eye protection is chemical splash goggles.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

May 13, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $13,653

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:  Powder Coating  and Bead Blasting Areas - On or about 10/01/2020, the employer did not develop and implement a respiratory protection program where  employees are required to wear N95 respirators and air supplying full hoods while applying powder coating and bead blasting.  The following elements were not developed or implemented: written program, medical evaluations, fit testing, prohibition of facial hair and training.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

May 13, 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 10/01/2020, employees required to wear respirators were not provided with a medical evaluation, in the following instances:  a) Powder Coating Area -  Employees powder coating panels, exposed to barium sulfate were required to wear half face, air purifying masks. b) Bead Blasting Area -  Employees bead blasting parts,  exposed to glass oxide were required to wear RPB NOVA 3 full hood, air supplied respirator.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

May 13, 2021

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 or about 10/01/2020, employees required to wear respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use, in the following instances:  a) Powder Coating Area -  Employees exposed to barium sulfate while powder coating panels and truck bodies are required to wear half face, air purifying masks.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 6, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A):Half face, air purifying 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:  Powder Coating Area - On or about 10/01/2020, an employee had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece of the half face, air purifying respirator and his face.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 6, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(h)(2)(i):Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or  were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  Bead Blast Booth - On or about 10/01/2020 an air supplied, full-hood respirator was left on the floor of the booth in a pile of glass beads, exposing it to damage, contamination, and dust.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k):The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:  On or about 10/01/2020, employees did not receive comprehensive and understandable training to safely use respirators, in the following instances:  a) Powder Coating Area -  Employees powder coating panels, exposed to barium sulfate were required to wear half face, air purifying masks. b) Bead Blast Area - Employee bead blasting parts, exposed to glass oxide was required to wear an RPB Nova 3 air-supplied full hood.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 6, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.138(a):  Employers did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are 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:  Chemical Preparation Area- On or about 10/01/2020, employees were not provided hand protection while performing steam cleaning activities where the compound Cal Prep 59 was being used, containing phosphoric acid, which causes severe skin burns.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $13,653

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.212(a)(1):One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:  On or about 10/22/2020, machine guarding was not provided for tools with rotating parts that create ingoing nip points, flying chips and sparks, in the following instances:  a) Machine Area - The two blue milling machines were not provided with chuck guards. b) Machine Area - The Jet drill press was not provided with a chuck guard.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $5,851 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.212(b):Machine(s) designed for fixed location(s) were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving:  Machine Shop - On or about 10/22/2020, the two blue vertical mills and the JET drill press were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $13,653 · Current $13,653

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.252(b)(2)(iii):Workers and other persons adjacent to the welding area were not required to wear appropriate goggles, to protect them from the rays when noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields were not used:  Welding Area - On or about 10/01/2020, welding assistants and other employees in the vicinity were exposed to welding rays and skin and eye damage due to flash burns and lack of appropriate goggles, screens or shields.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 8, 2021

Penalty

Initial $9,753 · Current $9,753

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.305(b)(1)(i):Openings, through which conductors entered cutout boxes, cabinets, or fittings, were not effectively closed:  Facility - On or about 10/01/2020, the opening, for a conductor entering the top of the PP6/WM2 breaker cabinet, was not effectively closed.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 6, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.305(b)(1)(ii):Unused openings in boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not effectively closed:  Facility - On or about 10/01/2020 , electrical cabinet PP6/WM2 was missing a knockout plug on the top, left surface of the box. Breaker #38 was missing and the hole was covered with black duct tape.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $9,753 · Current $9,753

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:   Machine Area - On or about 10/22/2020, the JET drill press was being powered by a flexible extension cord used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the structure.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

Apr 22, 2021

Penalty

Initial $136,532 · Current $5,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.28(b)(1)(i):The employer did not ensure that each employee, on a walking-working surface with an unprotected side or edge that was 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level, was protected from falling by one or more of the following: guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:  Production Floor - On or about 10/01/2020, employees, working on top of truck bodies, were not protected from falling from a fall height of over five feet, from the R-Series and S-Series truck bodies, and over eight feet, from the Canopy Series truck bodies, to the concrete floor below.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

May 13, 2021

Penalty

Initial $136,532 · Current $113,576 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(c)(1):The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program, as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o), whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently, a dose of fifty percent:  Facility - On or about 10/22/2020, an employee performing steam cleaning operations was exposed to noise in excess of the Action Level of 85 dBa during a 404 minute sampling period.  An eight hour TWA sound level of 90.4 dBA was measured, and an effective hearing conservation program which included noise monitoring, audiometric testing of employees, training of employees, and retention of exposure measurements, as detailed in the standard, was not instituted by the employer.

Issued

Mar 29, 2021

Abate by

May 13, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(d)(1):When information indicated that any employee's noise exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:  Facility-wide - On or about 10/22/2020, the employer did not monitor for noise in the following areas in response to previous company noise screening that indicated levels above the Action Level and OSHA monitoring which indicated the following: a.	Chop saw Operation where screening indicated 88-91 dBA; b.	Sand Blast Booth where screening indicated 85-88 dBA; c.	Steam Cleaning/Acid Etch Area where screening and full shift sampling indicated overexposure to the Action level of 85 dBA; d.	Forklift Operations where screening indicated levels above the Action Level and impact noise of 112 dBA impact noise throughout when the load of metal part were dropped to the concrete floor.