OSHA Inspection: SCHAEFFLER AEROSPACE USA CORPORATION

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $13,394 · Current $12,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.120(q)(1):The employer did not develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations:  Facility-Wide:  On or about December 23, 2022, the employer failed to develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations when an employee was required to assist in handling an emergency response during a chemical release of a Solven PB degreaser containing N-propyl bromide, a Category 3 target organ toxicant, when a pump connected to the water separator in the Pero Machine leaked.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.120(q)(3)(i): The senior emergency response official responding to an emergency did not become the individual in charge of a site-specific Incident Command System (ICS):   Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, the employer failed to ensure that there was an established site-specific Incident Command System (ICS) in advance of a response to a chemical release by a senior emergency response official when a Category 3 target organ toxicant, Solven PB, leaked from the Pero Machine.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.120(q)(3)(ii): The individual in charge of the incident command system did not identify, to the extent possible, all hazardous substances or conditions present and did not address, as appropriate, site analysis, use of engineering controls, maximum exposure limits, hazardous substance handling procedures and the use of any new technologies:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, the employer failed to ensure that a hazard characterization was performed when the identification of site conditions and, to the extent possible, an appropriate site analysis; use of engineering controls; maximum exposure limits; and hazardous substance handling procedures were not performed in response to a chemical release during the first shift.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.120(q)(3)(iii):Based on the hazardous substances and/or conditions present, the individual in charge of the ICS did not implement appropriate emergency operations and did not ensure that the personal protective equipment worn was appropriate for the hazards encountered:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, the individual in charge of the ICS did not implement the appropriate emergency operations and did not ensure that the personal protective equipment worn was appropriate for the hazards encountered during the response to a chemical release from a leak in the Pero Machine.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.120(q)(3)(iv): Employees engaged in emergency response and exposed to hazardous substances presenting an inhalation hazard or potential inhalation hazard, did not wear positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus until such time that the individual in charge of the incident command system determined through the use of air monitoring that a decreased level of respiratory protection would not result in hazardous exposures to employees:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, an employee engaged in emergency response activities during a chemical release was not provided with the highest level of protection suitable for unkown chemical inhalation hazards that required the use of a positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) until a determination of a decreased level of resiratory proctection could be made.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $8,929 · Current $8,000 Reduced

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.  *Note: The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, an employee was required to use an MSA Ultra-Twin Full Face Respirator while assisting with an emergency response from a chemical release of a Solven PB degreaser containing N-propyl bromide, a Category 3 target organ toxicant, when a pump connected to the water separator in the Pero Machine leaked. The respirator was worn without the employer ensuring that they provided the employee with a medical evaluation to assess if the respirator presented a respiratory hazard prior to requiring the use during emergency response activities.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $8,929 · Current $8,000 Reduced

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:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, an employee was required to use an MSA Ultra-Twin Full Face Respirator while assisting with an emergency response from a chemical release of a Solven PB degreaser containing N-propyl bromide, a Category 3 target organ toxicant, when a pump connected to the water separator in the Pero Machine leaked. The respirator was used without the employer ensuring that a proper tight-fitting respirator was provided before an employee was required to initially use it during an emergency situation that resulted in central nervous system depression producing narcotic effects from inhaled exposures.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $13,394 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(g)(1)(i): The employer permitted respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or interfered with valve function:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, an employee was required to use an MSA Ultra-Twin Full Face Respirator while assisting with an emergency response from a chemical release of a Solven PB degreaser containing N-propyl bromide, a Category 3 target organ toxicant, when a pump connected to the water separator in the Pero Machine leaked. The employer permitted respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or interfered with valve function when an employee was required to use it during an emergency situation that resulted in central nervous system depression producing narcotic effects from inhaled exposures.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(g)(2)(i): When there was a change in the work area, conditions, or degree of employee exposure or stress that may affect respirator effectiveness, the employer did not reevaluate the continued effectiveness of the respirator:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, the employer permitted respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn without reevaluating the continued effectiveness of the respirator following a chemical release of N-propyl bromide that required an employee to use an MSA Ultra-Twin Full Face Respirator during an emergency situation, which resulted in central nervous system depression producing narcotic effects from inhaled exposures.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $13,394 · Current $8,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k)(1)(i):The employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of why the respirator was necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance could compromise the protective effect of the respirator:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, an employee was required to use an MSA Ultra-Twin Full Face Respirator while assisting with an emergency response from a chemical release of a Solven PB degreaser containing N-propyl bromide, a Category 3 target organ toxicant, when a pump connected to the water separator in the Pero Machine leaked. The respirator was used without the employer ensuring that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of why the respirator was necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance could compromise the protective effect of the respirator before an employee was required to initially use it during an emergency situation that resulted in central nervous system depression producing narcotic effects from inhaled exposures.

Issued

Jun 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k)(1)(iii):The employer did not ensure that each user could demonstrate knowledge of how to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions:  Pero Room:  On or about December 23, 2022, an employee was required to use an MSA Ultra-Twin Full Face Respirator while assisting with an emergency response from a chemical release of a Solven PB degreaser containing N-propyl bromide, a Category 3 target organ toxicant, when a pump connected to the water separator in the Pero Machine leaked. The respirator was used without the employer ensuring that each user could demonstrate knowledge of how to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions before an employee was required to initially use it during an emergency situation that resulted in central nervous system depression producing narcotic effects from inhaled exposures.