OSHA Inspection: SMITH FACING & SUPPLY CO.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):     5(a) (1):  Section 5(a) (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  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 to employees in that employees were potentially exposed to dust explosion, deflagration or other fire hazards while working at or near a coal tar pitch grinding and bagging operation which was not designed to prevent or minimize employee exposure in the event of an explosion or other catastrophic event:    a. The indoor Raymond roller mill (1) lacked a means of explosion protection, (2) lacked a means of fire protection, (3) allowed for the escape of dust in a cloud form during normal operation, and (4) lacked a means to remove or exclude any foreign materials prior to introduction into the roller mill.    b. The bucket elevator was located indoors and lacked a means of explosion protection.    c. The air-material separator (dust collector) was located indoors and (1) lacked a means of deflagration protection and (2) lacked a means of fire protection.     d. Means of deflagration propagation protection (isolation) were not provided between pieces of interconnected equipment such as, but not limited to:    i.	The Raymond roller mill and the bagging station  ii.	The Raymond roller mill and the air-material separator (dust collector)  iii.	The air-material separator (dust collector) and its material discharge    e. Combustible particulate solids were passed directly through the blower (air-moving device) located between the Raymond roller mill and the air-material separator (dust collector).

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2):     Floor(s) of workroom(s) were not maintained in a clean and, so far as possible, a dry condition:    On July 26th the floor of Carter Road Pitch Bagging department was covered with a layer of combustible coal tar pitch dust which was between 1/4 and 3 deep.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    No written respirator program was developed for employees who were overexposed to coal tar pitch volatiles.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii):     The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:    No evaluation was made to determine employee exposure so that respiratory selection could be made.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A):     The employer did not use the assigned protection factors listed in Table 1 of 29 CFR 1910.134 to select a respirator that meets or exceeds the required level of employee protection:    Two employees were overexposed to coal tar pitch volatiles at 24 and 26 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and were only provided with dust masks which are listed in the table as having a protection factor of only 10 times the PEL.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1):     The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees' ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    Two employees were overexposed to coal tar pitch volatiles at 24 and 26 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and were provided with dust masks; no medical evaluation was provided for employees.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of why the respirator was necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance could compromise the protective effect of the respirator:    Two employees were overexposed to coal tar pitch volatiles at 24 and 26 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and were provided with dust masks; respirator training was not provided.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2):     Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPV)  listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 0.2 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3):    a.  On 7/6/2012, an employee bagging coal tar pitch was exposed to 4.827 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3) of CTPV; this exposure was approximately 24 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 mg/m3.  This exposure was calculated from two samples collected over a 317 minute period; a zero increment was included for the 163 minutes not sampled.    b.  On 7/6/2012, an employee handling coal tar pitch using a Bobcat front end loader was exposed to 5.333 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3) of CTPV; this exposure was approximately 26 times the PEL of 0.2 mg/m3.  This exposure was calculated from two samples collected over a 336 minute period; a zero increment was included for the 144 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

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 7/6/2012, an employee bagging coal tar pitch was exposed to 4.827 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3) of CTPV; this exposure was approximately 24 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 mg/m3.  This exposure was calculated from two samples collected over a 317 minute period; a zero increment was included for the 163 minutes not sampled.    b.  On 7/6/2012, an employee handling coal tar pitch using a Bobcat front end loader was exposed to 5.333 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3) of CTPV; this exposure was approximately 26 times the PEL of 0.2 mg/m3.  This exposure was calculated from two samples collected over a 336 minute period; a zero increment was included for the 144 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(c)(2)(vi)(a):     Only approved power-operated industrial trucks designated as EX were used in atmospheres in which combustible dust is or may be in suspension in quantities sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures, or where mechanical failure or abnormal operation might cause such mixtures to be produced:    The Hyster forklift truck used in the production area was not an EX designated truck.  Use of this general duty truck can cause fire or explosion.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(1):     Any power-operated industrial truck not in safe operating condition was not taken out of service, and/or repairs were not made by authorized personnel:    The Hyster forklift truck used in the production area was in use with an unsecured propane fuel cylinder.  The cylinder strap was not clamped to hold the cylinder secure.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1):     Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o):    The mill feed pulleys located on the side of the mill were approximately 4 feet above the floor and were not guarded.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i):     Pull boxes, junction boxes, and fittings were not provided with covers approved for the purpose:    a.  The fuse panel located on the wall in the production area, used to supply power to the drag line conveyor was open, live parts were exposed.    b.  The fuse panel located on the wall in the production area, used to supply power to the bucket elevator was open, live parts were exposed.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A):     Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:    Extension cords were lying on the floor were used to power lighting in the production department.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c):     Equipment in hazardous (classified) location(s) was not intrinsically safe or approved for the hazardous location:    General duty electrical equipment was used in the area where there were large quantities of combustible coal tar pitch on the floors, inside electrical boxes and on building structural members.  This electrical equipment included:    a.  At least two general duty clip-on lights in the bagging area.    b.  Extension cords in the bagging department.    c.  Open electrical boxes which had accumulations of combustible dust in the production department near the bucket elevator.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Abate by

Nov 24, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 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:    The written program which was developed for employees who are exposed to hazardous chemicals including, but not limited to coal tar pitch, did not include procedures which describe how labeling will be done, how material safety data sheets will be maintained and how training will be done for employees.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):     Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    Employees working in the bagging department had coal tar pitch on their clothing and bodies at the end of the day; protective clothing was not provided to prevent skin contact.

Issued

Oct 25, 2012

Abate by

Nov 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):     The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done:    No certification was prepared for employees working in the bagging department who had coal tar pitch on their clothing and bodies at the end of the day.