OSHA Inspection: ULTIMATE AUTO BODY LLC

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Jan 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,550 · Current $1,430 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards which were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that, employees were exposed to chemical exposure hazards:\r\n\r\na)  On or about June 14, 2011, and at times prior, an employee was exposed to excessive levels of hexamethylene diisocyanate homopolymer (HDIH) while he spray applied a variety of coatings to automobiles and automobile parts in an inadequately ventilated spray area.  The employee was determined to be exposed to approximately 2.34 mg/m3 of HDIH during a 19 minute sampling period on June 14, 2011.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAbatement:  \r\nAmong other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct the hazard is to perform spray finishing operations within an adequately ventilated spray booth that reduces the HDIH exposure level to the recommended exposure levels of 0.5 mg/m3 as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) and 1.0 mg/m3 as a 15-minute short term exposure limit (STEL).  Both the TWA and STEL are Manufacturer\u0019s Guideline Levels (MGL) established by Bayer Polymers, a major manufacturer of HDIH.  \r\n

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Nov 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):  A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented \tfor required respirator use:\r\n\r\n\r\na)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not establish a written respiratory protection program and provide training to employees who used respirators to protect themselves from isocyanates, methylene chloride, and other hazardous chemicals and respirable dusts.  Employees used elastomeric half-face respirators with organic vapor cartridges and particulate filters without being provided medical evaluations and basic training in respirator selection, use, cleaning, storage and maintenance which ensured that the use of the respirators themselves did not present a health hazard to the employees.  \r\n

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Nov 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,040 · Current $1,020 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1):  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program, as described in paragraphs (c) through (o) of this section, whenever employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent:\\r\\n\\r\\na)  On or about June 14, 2011 and at times prior, the employer did not protect the hearing of employees by developing and implementing a hearing conservation program which included initial noise monitoring, baseline and annual audiograms, and employee training for employees that worked with equipment including grinders, sanders and air hammers  and were exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of greater than 85dBA (50% dose).  On June 14, 2011, and employee operating some of this equipment was exposed to noise at a level of 89.7 dBA (95.9% dose) as an 8-hour TWA.  The sampling was conducted for a period of 249 minutes, and the calculation assumed zero exposure for the unsampled portion of the shift.  \\r\\n

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 fro 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 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 May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards while they spray-applied primers, paints and resins to auto body parts in the curtained off spray area of the shop.  The spraying was conducted within five to ten feet of electrical equipment such as junction boxes, outlets, a radio and a large box fan which were not explosion proof or rated for a Class I, Division I hazardous location.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(e)(3):  Original closed container(s), approved portable tanks, approved safety cans, or a properly arranged system of piping was not used for bringing flammable or combustible liquids into spray finishing room(s):    a)  On or about June 14, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards while they worked in and around the curtained-off paint spray area where several containers of flammable liquid solvents which were not in use did not have lids or caps, thereby allowing the escape of flammable vapors.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(3):  Residue Disposal.  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 May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards while they worked near open plastic trash cans where spray finishing waste was collected and was not disposed of daily.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Nov 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $765 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:    a)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not verify, through written certification, that a hazard assessment of the workplace had been performed to determine the type of personal protective equipment necessary to protect employees from such hazards as chemicals, flying chips and particles, power tools, welding equipment and noise.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b):  Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i. and effective chip guarding and personal protective equipment was not used by employees:       a)  On or about June 14, 2011, and a times prior, employees were exposed to eye injuries when they used an air hose with a lance attachment to clean themselves.  An employee was observed blowing himself off while not wearing safety glasses.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1):  Electrical equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees:      a)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock and fire hazards because the cover plate on an outlet box near the paint storage area was damaged and not properly affixed to cover the inner wiring.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv):  Flexibles cords and cables were used for purposes prohibited by subparagraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph:     a)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock and fire hazards because flexible cord was run from one wall/junction box to another in the spray area in place of conduit or other permanent means of wiring.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords were not connected to devices and fittings so that tension would not be transmitted to joints or terminal screws:                                                                 a)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock and fire hazards while they used extension cords in the paint storage area which had strained and damaged insulation at the joint where the cord entered the plug.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,040 · Current $1,020 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2):  The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:      a)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to unknown concentrations of methylene chloride because the employer failed to conduct an initial exposure assessment for employees that used Tal-Strip Paint Remover (60-100% methylene chloride) and Safety Klean Heavy Duty Lacquer Thinner 6782 to remove paint from paint guns.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(2):  Though it was reasonably foreseeable that an employees eyes may have contacted solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater MC (for example through splashes, spills or improper work practices), the employer did not provide appropriate eye wash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use:    a)  On or about May 10, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to eye injuries from methylene chloride while they used Tal Strip (60-100% methylene chloride) and Safety Klean Heavy Duty Lacquer Thinner 6782 without immediate access to an eyewash station.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Nov 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $765 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:      a)  On or about May 10, 2011 and at times prior, the employer failed to develop and implement a hazard communication program in order to minimize hazardous chemical exposures for employees that used a variety of chemicals to perform painting and other body shop tasks.