OSHA Inspection: POWER ENGINEERING COMPANY

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-03-15 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1963.00 · Current $981.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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 physical harm to employees, in that employees were exposed to a chemical hazard:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause serious physical harm to employees, in that employees were exposed to a chemical hazard.  One employee used hazardous chemicals, such as chromic acid, sodium hydroxide, methanol, chromate solutions, and acetic acid, in the laboratory performing quality assurance tests.  The fumehood used provided ventilation with a face velocity of 30-40 feet per minute.  The employer did not ensure that adequate ventilation was provided for the fumehood.  This condition exposed one employee to a chemical hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-03-15 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1450(e)(1): Where hazardous chemicals were used in the workplace, the employer did not develop and carry out the provisions of a written Chemical Hygiene Plan which was capable of protecting employees from health hazards associated with hazardous chemicals and which was capable of keeping exposures below the limits specified in 29 CFR 1910 1450(c):    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not develop and carry out the provisions of a written Chemical Hygiene Plan which was capable of protecting employees from health hazards associated with hazardous chemicals.  One employee used hazardous chemicals, such as chromic acid, sodium hydroxide, methanol, chromate solutions, and acetic acid, in the laboratory performing quality assurance tests.  The employer did not develop a written Chemical Hygiene Plan.  This condition exposed one employee to a chemical hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-16 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1963.00 · Current $1963.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee use 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:     Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not ensure that each affected employee use appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids.  One employee performed work with liquid chemicals, acids, and caustics in the laboratory.  The employee used non-safety prescription glasses or safety glasses when working with the liquids.  The employer did not ensure that the employee used appropriate eye protection that would protect the employee's eyes from a splash of liquid chemical, acid, or caustic.  This condition exposed one employee to a chemical burn hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-16 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(b): The employer did not base the selection of the appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/8/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not base the selection of the appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified.  One employee used Sealed Air Instapak Component A (containing 45% 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate) and Sealed Air Instafill Component B to make polyurethane foam insulation for packaging crankshafts.  The employee used Instapak Disperser Solution (containing tripropylene glycolmethyl ether) to clean the head of the spraygun.  The employee used leather gloves during these operations.  Leather gloves do not provide adequate protection from exposure to 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate or tripropylene glycolmethyl ether.  The employer did not provide appropriate gloves.  This condition exposed one employee to a chemical hazard.    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not base the selection of the appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified.  One employee used acidic and caustic liquid chemicals in the laboraratory to perform quality assurance tests.  The employee used Best Glove disposable medical exam type nitrile gloves while in the lab and VWR disposable medical exam type nitrile gloves when collecting samples from the electroplating tanks containing chromic acid.  Disposable medical exam type gloves do not provide adequate protection from exposure to corrosive liquid chemicals.  The employer did not provide appropriate gloves.  This condition exposed one employee to a chemical hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-22 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1963.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment which is resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and did not ensure that each affected employee used it:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not provide clean protective equipment which is resistant to methylene chloride and did not ensure that each affected employee used it.  One employee used methylene chloride to repair plexiglass anode shields.  The employee used Best Glove disposable latex medical exam type gloves when using methylene chloride.  Disposable latex medical exam type gloves do not provide adequate protection from exposure to methylene chloride.  The employer did not provide gloves that were resistant to methylene chloride and did not ensure that they were worn.  This condition exposed one employee to a methylene chloride hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-16 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1963.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.141(g)(2): Employees were permitted to consume food or beverage in area(s) exposed to toxic materials:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/8/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company permitted employees to consume food or beverage in an area exposed to toxic materials.  One employee used Sealed Air Instapak Component A (containing 45% 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate) and Sealed Air Instafill Component B to make polyurethane foam insulation for packaging crankshafts.  The employee used Instapak Disperser Solution (containing tripropylene glycolmethyl ether) to clean the spraygun head.  The employee stored and consumed water, coffee, and fish oil pills in this area.  The employer did not prohibit storing or consuming food or beverages where chemicals were stored or used.   This condition exposed the employee to a chemical hazard.    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company permitted employees to consume food or beverage in an area exposed to toxic materials.  One employee used hazardous chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, to perform quality assurance tests in the laboratory.  The employee stored food in the refrigerator where hazardous chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, were stored.  The employer did not prohibit storing or consuming food or beverages where chemicals were stored or used.   This condition exposed the employee to a chemical hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1963.00 · Current $980.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not ensure that where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.  Maintenance employees used 5-8% solutions of acetic acid to remove calcium deposits from the air scrubber filters.  Acetic acid is a corrosive liquid.  An emergency eyewash or shower was not located in the scrubber room where this work took place.  This condition exposed employees to a chemical burn hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard in the workplace:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/21/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard in the workplace.  One employee used Sealed Air Instapak Component A (containing 45% 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate) and Sealed Air Instafill Component B to make polyurethane foam insulation for packaging crankshafts.  The employer did not evaluate employee exposure to 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate.  This condition potentially exposed the employee to a respiratory hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(5):  The employer did not ensure that the fit test was administered using an OSHA-accepted QLFT or QNFT protocol:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/6/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not ensure that the fit test was administered using an OSHA-accepted QLFT or QNFT protocol.  Employees who were required to wear full face or half mask tight fitting air purifying respiratory protection were qualitatively fit tested using irritant smoke.  The employer did not follow the QLFT protocol in Appendix A, in that each exercise was performed for approximately twenty to thirty seconds.  This condition potentially exposed employees to a respiratory hazard.

Issued

2011-12-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2011-12-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(i): The employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of this section and information available in its appendices, as well as how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace:    Power Engineering Company, at 2525 S Delaware Street, Denver, CO: On 9/9/11 and preceding, Power Engineering Company did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of this section and information available in its appendices, as well as how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace.  One employee used methylene chloride to repair plexiglass anode shields.  The employer provided Hazard Communication training, access to Material Safety Data Sheets, and ensured the container was labelled with regards to methylene chloride.  The employer did not inform the employee of the requirements of the methylene chloride standard and information available in its appendices.  This condition potentially exposed one employee to a methylene chloride hazard.