OSHA Inspection: CAMERON GREAT LAKES INC.

Issued

Jan 10, 2012

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 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 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 dust explosion, deflagration, or other fire hazards as a result of working at or near a dust collection system, handling combustible carbon dust, that was not designed to prevent or minimize employee exposure in the event of a deflagration or other uncontrolled fire event:    (a) The bag house dust collector, next to the kiln, lacked a method of (1) fire protection, (2) explosion protection and (3) deflagration isolation to the upstream process.    Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable means of abatement would be to comply with the guidelines outlined in the National Fire Protection Associations Standard 654  Standard for the Prevention or Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids Sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.5, 7.13.1.1.1, 7.13.1.3.1, and 7.13.1.5, and FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 7-73, Dust Collectors and Collection Systems, May 2008, Sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.2.2, 2.1.4.2 and Data Sheet 7-76,  Prevention and Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fire, May 2006, Section 2.4.1.1.

Issued

Jan 10, 2012

Abate by

Apr 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c):     The employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use:     a)  On 10/27/11, employee was exposed above the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for total dust and was not provided with a respiratory protection program.

Issued

Jan 10, 2012

Abate by

Apr 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c):     An employee(s) was exposed to carbon dust in excess of the 8-hour time weighted average limits of 15 milligrams per cubic meter as listed in Table Z-3:    a)  On 10/27/11, employee was exposed to an eight hour time weighted average of carbon dust of 31.2 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) over the 230 minute sampling period.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time period.  The exposure is 2 times over the OSHA PEL 15 mg/m3.

Issued

Jan 10, 2012

Abate by

Apr 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e):     Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    a) On 10/27/11,employee was exposed to carbon dust in excess of the permissible exposure limit and the employer did not implement engineering or administrative controls to reduce the exposure.    Possible controls include:    a)  Assuring employee stands away from the dust cloud created during the blending of ZK6.    b)  Capture the dust created during the blending of ZK6 by enclosing the process.

Issued

Jan 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,620 · Current $810 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):     Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program which included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):     (a) Employees use hazardous materials such as but not limited to carbon dust, potassium permanganate, caustic potash, phophoric acid, and zeolite and had not been provided with a hazard communication program.

Issued

Jan 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1):     Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about what was introduced into their work area:       Employees had not been consistently provided with information and training on the hazardous chemicals in their work area such as but not limited to the combustible nature of carbon dust and potential hazardous materials adsorbed to spent carbon (i.e access to intake sheets).