OSHA Inspection: ORIG-EQUIP

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $400.00 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:    On or about April 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer utilized a stock respirator program developed by Rhino Linings USA, Inc.   Multiple respiratory protection devices were used without an effective program administrator.      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 respirator is made to be site specific and have a program adminstrator listed within the written program.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):     Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    On or about April 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer required the sprayer to wear a half-face tight fitting respirator while using acetone to wipe down truck bets prior to spraying without implementing fit testing for employees.    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 employees that are expected to use tight fitting respirators are fit tested prior to use.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(a):     Hand and portable powered tools or equipment were not kept in safe condition:    On or about April 23, 2012 and at times prior thereto, a compressed air nozzle had been altered such that the trigger was disabled by using tape to keep the nozzle in the open position.    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 tape is removed or the air nozzle is replaced.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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.:     On or about April 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees in the facility used compressed air in excess of 30 psig for cleaning purposes.  The high pressure jet of the compressed air can project debris with dangerous force and the high pressures can damage skin, eyes and other body organs.  Air pressure from nozzles was measured to be up to approximately 100 psi.    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 air pressure is reduced to 30 psi or less for cleaning purposes.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1020.00 · Current $400.00 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:    A surge protective device (SPD) was being used in lieu of permanent wiring to power the spray gun pump.  The SPD was mounted with zip ties to the chemical storage rack. Such devices are not designed for industrial use or mounting.    Flexible cord use in violation of this standard is likely to be damaged by activities in the area, machinery, by abrasion from adjacent materials, or simply by aging.  If the conductors become partially exposed over a period of time, there will be an increased potential for damaged electrical installations, heating, sparks, fire and electrical shock.     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 pump is plugged into an approved receptacle.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1020.00 · Current $400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii):     Flexible cords and cables were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief was provided that would prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws:    On or about April 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the extension cord used for the heater in the spray area did not have a strain relief device, exposing the inner insulation near the plug end.    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 strain relief is provided on extension cords.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1100.00 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/m3:    On or about April 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employee was exposed to MDI 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. One such engineering control would be to provide 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 that feasible engineering controls are implemented in the spray booth.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the set-up of the truck bed liner operation increased employee exposure to MDI.  Ventilation is behind 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. One such engineering control would be to provide 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 that effective engineering controlls are implemented in the spray booth.

Issued

2012-06-07 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-06-21 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1020.00 · Current $400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iii):     Employee training did not include the measures employees can take to protect themselves from chemical hazards, including specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures and personal protective equipment to be used:     The employer did not provide employees with effective hazard communication training that included the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in their work area in that the employee in the spray area was not trained on the skin and respiratory sensitization effects or hyper-reactive responses that may be caused by repeated exposure to levels of Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (MDI) exceeding the occupational exposure limit.  Communication of these hazards is essential for early recognition of respiratory distress caused by sensitization to isocyanates.    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 are trained on the hazards of the chemicals in the work place and protective measures to limit the hazards.