SPRINGFIELD, OH ·
OSHA Inspection: CORROTEC, INC.
Planned inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned health inspection of CORROTEC, INC. in 1125 W NORTH ST, SPRINGFIELD, OH 45504 (NAICS 333298). OSHA activity number 332429125.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- CORROTEC, INC.
- Site address
- 1125 W NORTH ST
- City
- SPRINGFIELD
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 45504
- Mailing
- 1125 W NORTH ST, SPRINGFIELD, OH 45504
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 333298
- Employees
- 27
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
8 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.95 G06
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $1,785 · Current $500 Reduced
81108111
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels : a) The employer failed to provide a new annual audiogram for employees working in the Blasting Area exposed at or above the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $500
- · Z (S) $1785
1910.107 B05 I
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Abate by
- May 15, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $1,785 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i): The spraying operations except electrostatic spraying operations shall be so designed, installed and maintained that the average air velocity over the open face of the booth (or booth cross section during spraying operations) shall be not less than 100 linear feet per minute. Electrostatic spraying operations may be conducted with an air velocity over the open face of the booth of not less than 60 linear feet per minute, or more, depending on the volume of the finishing material being applied and its flammability and explosion characteristics. Visible gauges or audible alarm or pressure activated devices shall be installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity is maintained. Filter rolls shall be inspected to insure proper replacement of filter media. a) The employer failed to install a visual gauge or an audible alarm or pressure to maintain the required air velocity for a spray booth used to spray catwalks and other metal parts with flammable paints.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $0
- · Z (S) $1785
1910.107 B05 IV
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Abate by
- Jul 16, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $1,785 · Current $500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv): Space within the spray booth on the downstream and upstream sides of filters were not protected with approved automatic sprinklers: a) The employer failed to install automatic sprinklers inside the dry filtered spray booth where employees continued to spray catwallks and other metal parts with flammable paint.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $500
- · Z (S) $1785
1910.107 E02
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Abate by
- May 15, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $1,785 · Current $900 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.107(e)(2): The quantity of flammable or combustible liquids kept in the vicinity of spraying operations exceeded minimum required for operations and ordinarily exceeded a supply for 1 day or one shift: a) The employer stored flammable materials and liquids such as but not limited to 55 gallon drums of MEK, Reducer and waste inside a spray booth, which was not equipped with automatic sprinklers.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $900
- · Z (S) $1785
1910.1026 D01
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $1,785 · Current $900 Reduced
0689
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer did not determine, in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section, the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI) a) The employer did not perform initial air monitoring on employees welding on stainless steel in the Welding Department who were exposed to hexavalent chromium (CrVI).
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $900
- · Z (S) $1785
1910.1200 H01
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Abate by
- May 31, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $1,785 · Current $900 Reduced
06890691
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 was introduced into their work area: a) Employees welding on stainless steel in the Welding Department were not trained on the chemical and physical hazards of hexavalent chromium (CrVi).
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $900
- · Z (S) $1785
1910.1000 A02
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Abate by
- May 15, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $595 · Current $0 Reduced
9135
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of iron oxide fumes listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3): a) On or about March 19, 2012 during a Shot Blasting Operation with steel grit an employee was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated (Total Dust) at 30.25 mg/m3 over a 42 minute sampling period, the exposure was 2.02 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15 mg/m3 for total dust.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $0
- · Z (O) $595
1910.1000 E
- Issued
- Apr 25, 2012
- Abate by
- Jul 20, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
9135
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): To achieve compliance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must first be determined and implemented whenever feasible. When such controls are not feasible to achieve full compliance, protective equipment or any other protective measures shall be used to keep the exposure of employees to air contaminants within the limits prescribed in this section. Any equipment and/or technical measures used for this purpose must be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Whenever respirators are used, their use shall comply with 1910.134.[71 FR 16673, April 3, 2006] a) Feasbile engineering controls to reduce employee exposures to Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated (Total Dust) had not been implemented in the Blasting Area while blasting with steel grit on metal pieces. Feasible controls may include, but may not be limited to: (1) Installtion of an improved diluation ventilation system in the Blasting Area. ABATEMENT WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: STEP 1: SUBMIT TO THE AREA DIRECTOR A WRITTEN, DETAILED PLAN OF ABATEMENT OUTLINING A SCHEDULE FOR THE IMPLEMENT OF ENGINEERING AND/OR ADMINSTRATIVE MEASURES TO CONTROL EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AS REFERENCED IN THIS CITATION. THIS PLAN SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, TARGET DATES FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WHICH MUST ABE CONSISTENT WITH THE ABATEMBENT DATES REQUIRED BY THIS CITATION. (1) EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING/ADMINSTRATION CONTROL OPTIONS; (2) SELECTION OF OPTIMUM CONTROL METHODS AND COMPLETION OF DESIGN; (3) PROCUREMENT, INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SELECTED MEASURES; (4) TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE OF MODIFICATION/DESIGN OF CONTROLS. Date by which Step 1 Msust Be Abated: July 25, 2012 STEP 2: ABATEMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE IMPLENTATION OF FEASIBLE ENGINEERING AND/OR ADMINSTRATIVE CONTROLS UPON VERIFICATION OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $0
- · Z (O) $0
More inspections at Corrotec, INC.
View Corrotec, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 333298)
More inspections in OH
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 332429125.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.