OSHA Inspection: MIFAB, INC.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,650 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): A continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (n) was not instituted when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or 50% of the permissible exposure limit of 90 dBA:  On or about May 18, 2012, in the facility, an employee required to perform arc spraying (i.e. galvanizing) was exposed to continuous noise at 514% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA), or an equivalent 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of approximately 101.8 dBA, during a 270 minute sampling period; exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 210 minutes not sampled.  The employer had not instituted a continuing effective hearing conservation program.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,050 Reduced

Hazardous substances 2610

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of Zinc Oxide Fume listed in Table Z-1 in excess of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration (8-hr TWA):  On or about May 18, 2012, in the facility, an employee required to perform arc spraying (i.e. galvanizing) was exposed to airborne Zinc Oxide Fume at an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 45.3 mg/m3, approximately 9.1 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA), during a 145 minute sampling period.  Zero exposure assumed for the minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):  Where respirators were necessary in the workplace to protect the health of the employee, or required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures:    On or about May 18, 2012, in the facility, an employee required to perform arc spraying (i.e. galvanizing) was exposed to Zinc Oxide Fume in excess of the permissible exposure limit (see Citation 1, Item 2a).  The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures when respirators were necessary in the workplace to protect the health of the employee or required by the employer.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,050 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:  On or about April 19, 2012, in the facility, employees required to perform metal fabrication (i.e. welding, spray coating) were exposed to contact with hazardous materials such as, but not limited to, metal fume and powder coatings.  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.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):  The employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical, and ensure that they were readily accessible during each work shift to employees when they are in their work area(s):    On or about April 19, 2012, in the facility, employees required to perform metal fabrication (i.e. welding, spray coating)were exposed to contact with hazardous materials such as, but not limited to, metal fume and powder coatings.  The employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous material and ensure that they were readily accessible during each work shift to employees.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h):  Employees were not provided information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and (2) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced into their work area:    On or about April 19, 2012, in the facility, employees required to perform metal fabrication (i.e. welding, spray coating) were exposed to contact with hazardous materials such as, but not limited to, metal fume and powder coatings.  Employees were not provided with the required information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and (2).

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i):  Visible gauges or audible alarm or pressure activated devices were not installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity was maintained:    On or about April 19, 2012, in the facility, the Dwyer manometer for the Col-Met spray booth was not operable for employees required to perform spray coating.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Abate by

Aug 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification that identified the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identified the document as a certification of hazard assessment:    On or about April 19, 2012, in the facility, employees required to perform metal fabrication (i.e. welding, spray coating) were exposed to skin and eye hazards necessitating the use of personal protective equipment.  The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed.