OSHA Inspection: SAINT LOUIS RESTORATION

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $210 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1) All places of employment, passageways, storerooms or service rooms were not kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary condition:    1) The shop and spray room were not kept clean, orderly and in sanitary condition.  Passageways were blocked and housekeeping was not maintained.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $270 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(d)(3)(ii)  Flammable and combustible liquid storage cabinet(s) were not labeled in conspicuous lettering, "Flammable - Keep Fire Away":    1)  In the shop the wooden flammable and combustible liquid storage cabinets were not labeled with conspicuous lettering, "Flammable - Keep Fire Away".

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(e)(9)(iii) Combustible waste material and residues in a building or unit operating area shall be kept to a minimum, stored in covered metal receptacles and disposed of daily.    1)  Employee workbench area, rags impregnated with combustible residue (Wiping Wood Stain) were stored in an open cardboard box and not disposed daily.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv) Space within the spray booth on the downstream and upstream sides of filters were not protected with approved automatic sprinklers:    1) Spray room, for the spray finisher who performed spraying operations daily, the spray room was not sprinklered.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(3)  Approved metal waste cans were not provided for rags or waste impregnated with finishing materials (combustible residue).  All such rags or waste were not deposited therein immediately after use:    1)  Spray room, rags impregnated with combustible residue (Aliphatic Urethane (L801-1), DuraCoat Pre-Catalyzed Lacquer Satin 40, and E-Z Vinyl Sealer) were stored in an open cardboard box.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $270 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(6)  Electrical wiring, motors, and other equipment outside of but within twenty (20) feet of any spray area, and not separated therefrom by partitions, produced sparks under normal operating conditions and did not otherwise conform to the provisions of subpart S of this part for Class I, Division 2 Hazardous Locations:    1)  Spray room, an extension cord was used to service a portable electric lamp during spraying operations, and was not approved for hazardous Class I locations.    2)  Spray room, a space heater was sometimes used right outside the spray room door to assist drying of refinished furniture, and was not approved for hazardous Class I locations.     3) Spray room, a compressor located outside the spray room wall opening was used to blow off pieces, and was not approved for hazardous Class I locations.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(8)  Portable electric lamps shall not be used in spraying areas during spraying operations.  Portable electric lamps, if used during cleaning or repairing operations, were not of the type approved for hazardous Class I locations:    1)  In the spray room, a portable electric lamp was used in the spray room during spraying operations and was not approved for hazardous Class I locations.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $210 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(e)(2)  The quantity of flammable or combustible liquids kept in the vicinity of spraying operations exceeded minimum required for operations and ordinarily exceeded a supply for 1 day or one shift:    1)  In the spray room, flammable and combustible paints, thinners, etc. exceeded a 1 day's supply.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)  A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    1) For spray finisher(s) who wore a 3M 1/2 face negative pressure respirator 6001 with OV cartridges during spraying operations, a respiratory protection program including but not limited to, a written program, medical evaluation, fit-testing, and training, had not been implemented.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(g)(2)  Employees were permitted to consume food or beverage in area(s) exposed to toxic materials:    1) Employee(s) ate lunch at a table approximately 21 1/2 feet from the methylene chloride flow over tray.  Wipe samples for lead taken on 6/6/12 indicated 43.6 ug of lead present.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $270 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1)  Portable fire extinguishers were not mounted, located and identified so that they were readily accessible without subjecting the employees to injuries:    1)  At the shop, portable fire extinguishers were not mounted:        a)  An unmounted portable fire extinguisher was located by the open door from the office area into the shop.        b)  An unmounted portable fire extinguisher was located by the open door from the shop into the spray room.        c)  Two unmounted portable fire extinguishers were located near the employee workbenches.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    1)  For employees who would use a fire extinguisher to fight an incipient stage fire, fire extinguisher training had not been conducted.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $270 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5)  Fan blade guards, where the periphery of the blades was less than seven feet above the floor or working level, had openings larger than one half inch:    1) In the shop, by employee workbench #1, a pedestal fan in use had a fan blade guard with openings greater than one half inch.  One large opening measured at the largest point, approximately 17 inches high X 8 inches wide.      2) In the spray room, when the filters were removed to provide room ventilation, the rotating exhaust fan was not guarded.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(d)(1)  Circular handfed crosscut table saw(s) were not guarded by an automatically adjusting hood which completely enclosed that portion of the saw above the table and above the material being cut:    1)  For the table saw (RIGID) in the shop used approximately several times per week without a guard.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $270 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9) Guard for abrasive wheel machine where the operator stands in front of the machine was not constructed so that the peripheral protecting member could be adjusted to the constantly decreasing diameter of the wheel:    1)  In the employee workbench area, a Dayton pedestal grinder (1Z707Y) was missing a tongue guard on the left side when facing the grinder.   The opening between the periphery of the abrasive wheel and the grinder measured approximately 1/2 inch.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(f)(2) Each service, feeder, and branch circuit, at its disconnecting means or overcurrent device, was not legibly marked to indicate its purpose, nor located and arranged so the purpose was evident:    1) On the south wall of the shop, the electrical panel box circuit breakers were not labeled.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(B) Flexible cords and cables were run through holes in walls, ceilings, or floors:    1) In the Glass and Veneer room, the extension cord servicing the light in the room ran through a hole in the wall above the door.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii)  Flexible cords were not connected to devices and fittings so that tension would not be transmitted to joints or terminal screws:    1)  Employee workbench #4,  the extension cord servicing the Rockwell drill (Model 70 1/4" drill) lacked strain relief.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(i)  Portable cord and plug connected equipment and flexible cord sets (extension cords) were not visually inspected before use on any shift for external defects (such as loose parts, deformed and missing pins, or damage to outer jacket or insulation) and for evidence of possible internal damage (such as pinched or crushed outer jacket):    1)  Glass and veneer room, the plug for the light was missing a ground pin.  2)  Wet area, the extension cord servicing the pedestal fan in use on 6/6/12 by the methylene chloride flow over tray had damaged outer insulation.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1) The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five parts per million as an 8-hour TWA:    1) For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 85.85 ppm for an 8-hour TWA (time-weighted average) who was sampled for 477 minutes on 6/6/2012 with a zero exposure given for the 3 minutes not sampled.  This exposure was approximately 3.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 25 ppm.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(2)  The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of 125 parts per million as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes:    1)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 160.86 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.    2)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 505.58 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012. The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  3)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 335.5 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 6/6/2012.  The employee was stripping shelves in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1)  The employer did not institute and maintain the effectiveness of engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limits and wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices which can be instituted were not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or short term exposure limit, the employer did not use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels achievable and did not supplement them by the use of respiratory protection that compiled with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1052(g):    1)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 160.86 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 1.28 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.  2)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 505.58 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 4.04 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.  3)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 335.5 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 6/6/2012.  The employee was stripping shelves in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 2.68 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.   4)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 85.85 ppm for an 8-hour TWA (time-weighted average) who was sampled for 477 minutes on 6/6/2012 with a zero exposure given for the 3 minutes not sampled.  This exposure was approximately 3.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 25 ppm.          This permissible exposure limit (PEL) and short term exposure limits (STELs) were in excess of the permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm and short term exposure limit of 125 ppm for methylene chloride and engineering controls had not been implemented, including, but not necessarily limited to:                a) Local exhaust ventilation for the flow-over tray.  For flow-over systems there are two common local exhaust controls for methylene chloride - a slot hood and a downdraft hood. All designs require a centrifugal fan to exhaust the fumes, ductwork to connect the hood and the fan, and a replacement air system to bring conditioned air into the building to replace the air exhausted.       b)  Substitution of a stripping solution that does not contain methylene chloride.    STEPS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS:    STEP 1:  EFFECTIVE RESPIRATORY PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED AND USED BY EXPOSED EMPLOYEES AS AN INTERIM PROTECTIVE MEASURE UNTIL FEASIBLE ENGINEERING CONTROLS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED, OR WHENEVER SUCH CONTROLS FAIL TO REDUCE EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO WITHIN PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS.    STEP 2:  SUBMIT TO THE AREA DIRECTOR A WRITTEN DETAILED PLAN OF ABATEMENT OUTLINING A SCHEDULE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENGINEERING MEASURES TO CONTROL EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE 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 THE ABATEMENT DATES REQUIRED BY THIS CITATION:           (1)  EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING CONTROL OPTIONS:         (2)  SELECTION OF OPTIMUM CONTROL METHODS AND COMPLETION OF DESIGN:         (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 APRROVED FOR EACH PARTICULAR USE BY A COMPETENT INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST OR OTHER TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED PERSON.  THIRTY (30) DAY PROGRESS REPORTS ARE REQUIRED DURING THE ABATEMENT PERIOD.    STEP 3:  ABATEMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEASIBLE ENGINEERING CONTROLS UPON VERIFICATION OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2)  The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:    1)   In the wet area, for employees who stripped furniture in the flow over tray with methylene chloride several days per week, initial monitoring had not been performed.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(1)  The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeded or could reasonably be expected to exceed either the 8-hour Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit or the Short Term Exposure Limit:    1)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 160.86 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 1.28 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.  2)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 505.58 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 4.04 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.  3)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 335.5 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 6/6/2012.  The employee was stripping shelves in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 2.68 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.   4)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 85.85 ppm for an 8-hour TWA (time-weighted average) who was sampled for 477 minutes on 6/6/2012 with a zero exposure given for the 3 minutes not sampled.  This exposure was approximately 3.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 25 ppm.      A regulated area with limited access to authorized employees had not been established.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(1)(i)  Respirators were not used during periods when an employee's exposure to methylene chloride exceeded the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or short term exposure limit:    1)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 160.86 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 1.28 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.  2)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 505.58 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 4.04 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.  3)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 335.5 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 6/6/2012.  The employee was stripping shelves in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 2.68 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.   4)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 85.85 ppm for an 8-hour TWA (time-weighted average) who was sampled for 477 minutes on 6/6/2012 with a zero exposure given for the 3 minutes not sampled.  This exposure was approximately 3.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 25 ppm.      Respiratory protection was not provided or used.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1)  Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:    1)  In the wet area, the employer did not ensure that employees who stripped furniture in the flow over methylene chloride tray were protected with personal protective equipment to prevent methylene chloride from contact with the hands and arms:

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(1)  It was reasonably foreseeable that employee's skin may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater methylene chloride and the employer did not provide conveniently located washing facilities capable of removing the methylene chloride and did not ensure that affected employees use these facilities as needed:    1)  In the wet area, for employees who stripped furniture in the flow over tray with Besway Systems Inc. Paint Removing Compound (70-80% methylene chloride) several days per week, the rinse tub for washing off arm burns, was also used for washing gloves and contained overspray from rinsing in the area, was not clean.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(2)  Where it was reasonably foreseeable that employees eyes may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater MC (for example through splashes, spills or improper work practices), the employer did not provide appropriate eyewash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use, and did not ensure that affected employees used those facilities when necessary:    1)   In the wet area, for employees who stripped furniture in the flow over tray with Besway Systems Inc. Paint Removing Compound (70-80% methylene chloride) several days per week, an approved eyewash with a continual upright stream of water was not provided for immediate emergency use.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Dec 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(1)(i)  The employer did not make medical surveillance available for employees who were or potentially were  exposed to methylene chloride at or above the action level on 30 or more days per year, or above the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or the short term exposure limit on 10 or more days per year:    1)  For the employee(s) who stripped furniture in the methylene chloride flow over tray several days per week, medical surveillance (initial and periodic) was not provided:           a)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 160.86 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 1.28 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.        b)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 505.58 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 5/30/2012.  The employee was stripping a mantle in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 4.04 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.        c)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 335.5 ppm for a short term exposure limit (STEL) who was sampled for 15 minutes on 6/6/2012.  The employee was stripping shelves in the flow over tray with methylene chloride.  This exposure was approximately 2.68 times the Short Term Exposure Limit of 125 ppm.         d)  For the stripper in the wet area exposed to methylene chloride at an exposure level of 85.85 ppm for an 8-hour TWA  (time-weighted average) who was sampled for 477 minutes on 6/6/2012 with a zero exposure given for the 3 minutes not sampled.  This exposure was approximately 3.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 25 ppm.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1) The employer did not provide information and training for each affected employee prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride:    1) For the employee(s) who stripped furniture at the methylene chloride flow over tray several days per week, training on methylene chloride had not been conducted.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(i)  The employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of 20 CFR 1910.1052 and the information available in its appendices and/or how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace:    1) For the employee(s) who stripped furniture at the methylene chloride flow over tray several days per week, training on the methylene chloride standard, appendices and how to obtain a copy in the workplace had not been provided.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(ii)  Where an employee(s) exposed to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeded or can reasonably be expected to exceed the action level, the employer did not inform each affected employee of the quantity, location, manner of use, release, storage, and/or specific operations that could result in exposure to methylene chloride particulary noting where exposures may be above the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or the short term exposure limit:    1) For the employee(s) who stripped furniture at the methylene chloride flow over tray several days per week, training on operations that could result in overexposure to methylene chloride had not been conducted.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $150 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:    1)  For employees who used chemicals including but not limited to sodium hydroxide, muriatic acid,wood stains, urethanes, and lacquers, a hazard communication program had not been developed.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i) The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    1.  Wet area, methylene chloride flow over tray was not labeled with the identity of the chemical contained.  2.  Wet area, open sodium hydroxide tank was not labeled with the identity of the chemical contained.   3.  Wet area, open muriatic acid tank was not labeled with the identity of the chemical contained.  4.  Spray room, two 8-oz applicator plastic bottles of thinner and cleaner were not labeled with the identity of the chemical contained.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii)  The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:    1.  Wet area, methylene chloride flow over tray was not labeled with a hazard warning.  2.  Wet area, open sodium hydroxide tank was not labeled with a hazard warning.  3.  Wet area, open muriatic acid tank was not labeled with a hazard warning.  4.  Spray room, two 8-oz applicator plastic bottles of thinner and cleaner were not labeled with a hazard warning.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h) Employees were not provided effective 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 physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area:    1)  For employees who used chemicals including but not limited to sodium hydroxide, muriatic acid,wood stains, urethanes, and lacquers, hazard communication training (including material safety data sheet training) had not been conducted.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

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. Filter rolls were not inspected to insure proper replacement of filter media:    1) In the spray room a manometer or gauge was not present to indicate or insure the required air velocity was maintained.  2) In the spray room, the filters had never been changed.

Issued

Sep 10, 2012

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(d)(8) Discharge clearance.  The terminal discharge point of the spray booth exhaust duct terminal was not less than 6 feet from any combustible exterior wall or roof:      1)    The terminal discharge point of the spray booth exhaust duct did not extend beyond the spray room wall opening.