OSHA Inspection: JOBSITE, INC.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,550 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(6):  Electrical wiring and equipment not subject to deposits of combustible residues but located in a spraying area as herein defined were not of explosion-proof type approved for Class I, group D locations and did not otherwise conform to the provisions of Subpart S of this part, for Class I, Division 1, Hazardous Locations.  Electrical wiring, motors, and other equipment outside of but within twenty (20) feet of any spraying area, and not separated therefrom by partitions, did not otherwise conform to the provisions of Subpart S of this part for Class I, Division 2 Hazardous Locations:    a)  On or about April 15, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards while they spray-applied coatings on metal parts next to electrical equipment such as junction boxes which were not explosion proof or rated for a Class I, Division I hazardous location.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(3):  Residue scrapings and debris contaminated with residue were not immediately removed from the premises and properly disposed of.  Approved metal waste cans were not provided wherever rags or waste were impregnated with finishing material and all such rags or waste deposited therein immediately after use.  The contents of waste cans were not properly disposed of at least once daily or at the end of each shift:    a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards while they performed spraying in a room which was covered in red paint overspray which had not been removed from surfaces.  In addition, waste material was collected in open plastic buckets and was not disposed of daily.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):  The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:      a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not perform a hazard assessment to determine the type of hazards present in the work environment at the Montrose facility and identify the type of personal protective equipment required to be used to protect employees who faced exposure to isocyanates and a variety of other hazardous chemicals used in the paint department.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii):  The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminants chemical state and physical form:      a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not protect employees against exposure to a variety of hazardous chemicals including but not limited to isocyanates and strontium chromate (hexavalent chromium) by identifying and evaluating the respiratory hazards in the workplace and basing the respiratory selection process on that evaluation.  Employees performed spray finishing operations with half-face air purifying respirators which are not recommended for use with isocyanates unless the spraying is conducted in a downdraft booth.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2):  The employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator that would ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life:      a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not protect employees that used half-face air purifying respirators while spray-applying coatings containing isocyanates and other hazardous chemicals by developing and implementing a cartridge change schedule to prevent breakthrough of the organic vapor cartridges used with the respirators.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

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 employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:      a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, employees wore half-face elastomeric respirators without first being medically evaluated to ensure that they were physiologically able to wear the respirator.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):  The employer shall ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter:      a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, paint shop employees were exposed to isocyanates and other hazardous chemicals while they performed spray finishing work using half-face respirators which had not been fit tested.

Issued

Jul 12, 2011

Abate by

Aug 11, 2011

Penalty

Initial $510 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(1):  A log of all recordable work-related injuries and illnesses (OSHA forms 300 and 300A) was not completed:    a)  On or about April 20, 2011, and at times prior, an injury and illness log (OSHA form 300) had not been completed with entries for injuries and illnesses which occurred in 2011.  The 2011 log had not been developed and a work related injury involving medical treatment on March 16, 2011, had not been recorded.