OSHA Inspection: SENCON INCORPORATED

Issued

2024-01-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2024-01-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4687.00 · Current $3281.00 Reduced

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):                 a)  On or about October 25, 2023, throughout the facility, the employer had not completed personal protective equipment assessments to identify the potential hazards for job tasks that may necessitate the use of personal protective equipment.  Employees were exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to HumiSeal 1A33 and Tin.

Issued

2024-01-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2024-02-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.  a.  On October 10, 2023, in the production area, employees are required to cut small wires to assemble product. The employer did not ensure that the employees used protective safety glasses, googles or face shields. Employees were thereby exposed to potential eye injuries from wire cutting.

Issued

2024-01-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2024-02-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR?1910.138(a): The?employer did?not select?and require?employee(s) to?use appropriate?hand protection?when employees'?hands were?exposed to?hazards such?as those?from skin?absorption of?harmful substances;?severe cuts?or lacerations;?severe abrasion;?punctures; chemical?burns; thermal?burns; and?harmful temperature?extremes:     a)?On or?about October 10, 2023, employees?were required?to cut wires in the production area to assemble circuit boards.??The employer?did not?require and?ensure the?use of  gloves?to protect?affected employee's?hands. The?lack of?proper gloves?exposed the?employee's hands?to cuts and laceration.