OSHA Inspection: SPILLAR CUSTOM HITCHES, INC.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 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, administated by a suitably trained program administrator:    On or about April 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, The employer used a stock respirator program developed by Rhino Linings USA, Inc.   Respiratory protection devices were used without an effective program administrator being designated and identified in the program.     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that the respriator program is made site specific.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2):     The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter, for emplolyees required to fight fires:    On or about April 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not provide annual fire extinguisher training to employees who may be required to use portable fire extinguishers to fight incipient stage fires.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that employees required to fight fires are trained annually on the use of fire extinguishers.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2):     Listed or labeled electrical equipment was not used or installed in accordance with instructions included in the listing or labeling:    On or about April 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, a surge protective device (SPD) was being used in lieu of permanent wiring to power the spray gun pump.  The SPD was mounted to the wall behind the pump and chemical storage drums. Such devices are not designed for industrial use or mounting.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that the SPD is used in accordance with its included instructions.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(C):     Flexible cords and cables were run through doorways, windows, or similar openings:    On or about April 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, flexible cords were exposed to damage where used as a substitute for fixed wiring of a structure and run through a doorways.  The cords ran from the mixing room to the spray area to power a heater and portable radio.  Although the cords are unplugged from the wall nightly, they are left on the floor through the doorway.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure  that the flexible cords are removed from the doorway.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(1):     Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of MDI listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the ceiling concentration of 0.2 mg:    On or about April 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, an employee was exposed to MDI at a concentration of was twelve times allowable ceiling limit of 0.2 mg/m3.  Although the sprayer wears a supplied air respirator, engineering controls are the preferred method of hazard abatement. Such controls could include ventilation designed to direct vapors away from the worker.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure adequate engineering controls are used to lower exposure level.

Issued

Jun 6, 2012

Abate by

Jun 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1):     Atmospheric contamination was not prevented as far as feasible by accepted engineering control measures:    On or about April 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the setup of the truck bed liner operation increases employee exposure to MDI.  Ventilation is above the employee causing MDI vapor to pass the breathing zone during spraying.  The measured exposure to MDI was twelve times allowable ceiling limit of 0.2 mg/m3.  Although the sprayer wears a supplied air respirator, engineering controls are the preferred method of hazard abatement. Such controls could include ventilation designed to direct vapors away from the worker.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure