OSHA Inspection: SEACAST INC.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

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 in that employees were exposed to struck-by hazards:    (a) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to being  struck-by and/or crushed by storage racks while walking in and around areas such as, but not limited to, the melt area that had free standing, inadequately bolted, and improperly installed storage racks.    (b) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to being struck-by and/or crushed by storage racks while walking in and around areas such as, but not limited to, the main production floor outside the finishing area due to an unanchored and free standing storage racks.    (c) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to being struck-by and/or crushed by storage racks while walking in and around areas such as, but not limited to, the southwest corner of the plant from an unanchored and free standing storage rack.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $4,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1):     All places of employment, passageways, storerooms, and service rooms were not kept clean and orderly and in a sanitary condition:    (a) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to slips, trips, and falls due to inadequate housekeeping in the southwest corner of the plant. Items such as, but not limited to, oily rags in a 5 gallon bucket, empty cardboard boxes, open and unsecure oil containers, and loose paper were not stored or disposed of in a clean and orderly manner.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.176(b):     Bags, containers, bundles, etc., stored in tiers were not stacked, blocked, interlocked and limited in height so that they are stable and secure against sliding or collapse:    (a) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees in areas such as, but not limited to, the melt area were exposed to the hazard of becoming struck-by overhead material such as steel revert and pallets of non-shrink wrapped sand bags on unsecure and free standing storage racks.     (b) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees in areas such as, but not limited to, the main production floor outside the finishing area were exposed to the hazard of becoming struck-by overhead material such as two thousand pound pallets of steel revert on free standing storage racks.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):     One or more methods of machine guarding were not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:     (a) On or about March 7, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazard of becoming struck by grinding belts from grinders such as, but not limited to, 3 inch ICM belt grinders in the finishing area while grinding parts. The belt within the grinder was not guarded or otherwise protected from breaking and striking employees.     (b) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazard of becoming caught in rotating chucks on unguarded drill presses such as, but not limited to, the Yoshidas near the aerospace area.     (d) On or about March 5, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazard of amputation and/or becoming caught in an unguarded chuck on lathes such as, but not limited to, the Enco serial number 8416 in the southwest corner.     (c) On or about March 6, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazard of being struck by flying debris such as metal pieces and shavings from unguarded drill presses such as, but not limited to, a Union Tool, model 0012 in the maintenance area.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(2)(i):     All exposed part(s) of horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform were not protected by stationary casing(s) enclosing shafting completely or by trough(s) enclosing sides and top or sides and bottom of shafting:    (a) On or about March 7, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazard of becoming caught in the rotating parts associated with the inner shafts on machinery such as, but not limited to, 3 inch ICM belt grinders in the finishing area.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $4,000

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.:    (a) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to air embolisms while using compressed air nozzles with approximately 90 p.s.i of air at the nozzle for tasks such as, but not limited to, cleaning surfaces in and around the maintenance area.    (b) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to air embolisms while using compressed air nozzles with approximately 66 p.s.i of air at the nozzle for tasks such as, but not limited to, cleaning and blowing loose sand off shells.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(1)(i)(A):     For electric equipment operating at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground, and likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized, the depth of the working space in the direction of access to live parts (as measured from the live parts where they were exposed or from the enclosure front or opening where they were enclosed) was less than indicated in Table S-1 of Subpart S of Part 1910:    (a) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to electrical shock and burn hazards due to unavailable clear working space in front of the electrical panel (480 volts / three phase) in the southwest corner of the plant.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c):     Employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable cristobalite silica listed in Table Z-3 in excess of the calculated 8-hour Time Weighted Average limit of 0.313 mg/m3:     (a) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, an employee's exposure to respirable cristobalite silica exceeded the calculated 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.313 mg/m3. An employee operating the knockoff hammer in the finishing area was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of respirable cristobalite silica at approximately 0.989 mg/m3, approximately 3 times the PEL. The exposure was derived from a sample collected over a 360 minute period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 120 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Jan 16, 2013

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 or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not ensure feasible and effective engineering controls were implemented at the knockoff booth in the finishing area to reduce employee exposure below the permissible exposure limit (PEL). The knockout operator exceeded the 8-hour calculated Time Weighted Average (TWA) PEL of 0.313 mg/m3 for respirable cristobalite silica with a concentration of approximately 0.989 mg/m3. The exposure was derived from a sample collected over a 360 minute period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 120 minutes not sampled.      STEP 1. EFFECTIVE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED AND USED BY EXPOSED EMPLOYEES AS AN INTERIM PROTECTIVE MEASURE UNTIL FEASIBLE ENGINEERING CONTROLS AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED OR WHENEVER SUCH CONTROLS FAIL TO REDUCE EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO WITHIN PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS.   PPE  (15 days)    STEP 2. A WRITTEN DETAILED PLAN OF ABATEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE AREA DIRECTOR OUTLINING A SCHEDULE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES TO CONTROL EMPLOYEE EXPOSURES TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AS REFERENCED IN THIS CITATION. THIS PLAN SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, TARGET DATES FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WHICH MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ABATEMENT DATES REQUIRED BY THIS CITATION:    1. EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING/ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OPTIONS;  2. SELECTION OF OPTIMUM CONTROL METHODS AND COMPLETION DESIGNS;   3. PROCUREMENT, INSTALLATION, AND OPERATION OF SELECTED CONTROL MEASURES; AND  4. TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE OR MODIFICATION / REDESIGN OF CONTROLS.  NOTE: ALL PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE APPROVED FOR EACH PARTICULAR USE BY A COMPETENT INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST OR OTHER TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED PERSON.   Plan  (45 days)    STEP 3. ABATEMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEASIBLE ENGINEERING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS UPON VERIFICATION OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE.  Engineering Controls  (90 days)    ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii):     29 CFR 1910.134(d)1)(iii):    The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation did not include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of employee exposures to the respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminants chemical state and physical form:    (a) On or about March 7, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards associated with molten metal while conducting melting and pouring activities. The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards to determine employee exposure levels to metals such as, but not limited to, copper, vanadium, manganese, chromium oxide, and hexavalent chromium, specific to the melt crew.  (b) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, an employee was exposed to respirable cristobalite silica at an 8-hour TWA of approximately 0.989 mg/m3. The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards to determine knockout operators employee exposure level to respirable cyrstaline silica.   (c) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to respirable particulates while conducting activities such as, but not limited to, grinding metal in the finishing area and dipping in the shell area. The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards to determine the exposure levels for the finishing and shell crew.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1):     The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    (a) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, an employee was overexposed to respirable cristobalite silica while operating the knockoff hammer in the finishing area. The operator was wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator and was not provided with fit testing. This condition exposes employees to the respiratory hazards of cristobalite silica due to the inability to confirm adequate  respirator fit.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(vii):     The employer did not ensure that each user could demonstrate knowledge of the general requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134:    (a) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, an employee was overexposed to respirable cristobalite silica while operating the knockoff hammer in the finishing area. The operator was wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator and was not provided with adequate training regarding such respirator use.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

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) On or about March 8, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to hazardous chemicals, elements, and minerals such as, but not limited to, bisphenol A, crystalline silica, vanadium, manganese, chromium compounds (including hexavalent chromium), and copper. The employer did not ensure employees were provided with training and information regarding hazardous chemicals in the work area.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $55,000 · Current $7,000 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 29 CFR 1910.95 (c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    (a) On or about March 7, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the knockout operator in the finishing area was exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA. The employer did not implement an effective hearing conservation program in that adequate training and baseline / annual audiometric testing was not conducted. Noise sampling performed for 440 minutes indicated exposure to a 140.7% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 92.4 dbA. Zero exposure was assumed for the 40 minutes not sampled.      (b) On or about March 7, 2012, and at times prior thereto, a finisher in the finishing area was exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA. The employer did not implement an effective hearing conservation program in that adequate training and baseline / annual audiometric testing was not conducted. Noise sampling performed for 430 minutes indicated exposure to a 73.4% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 87.7 dbA. Zero exposure was assumed for the 40 minutes not sampled.