OSHA Inspection: GASPAR INC.

Issued

Mar 11, 2013

Abate by

Jun 17, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,700 · Current $4,620 Reduced

Hazardous substances 91309135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c):  An employee was exposed to respirable dust and total dust in excess of the 8-hour time weighted average limits of 5 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) for respirable dust and 15 mg/m3 for total dust as listed in Table Z-3:    a)   An employee working in the blasting booth, on 11/28/2012, using abrasive media to clean a vessel, was exposed to respirable dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 24.53 mg/m3. This level is approximately 5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  The exposure was derived from one sample collected over a 69 minute sample period; a zero increment was added for the 411 minutes not sampled.    b)   An employee working in the blasting booth, on 11/28/2012, using abrasive media to clean a vessel, was exposed to total dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 422.19 mg/m3. This level is approximately 28 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15 mg/m3.  The exposure was derived from one sample collected over a 69 minute sample period; a zero increment was added for the 411 minutes not sampled    Note:  Gaspar, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 315443598 citation number 1, item number 7a and was affirmed as a final order on 10/3/2011.

Issued

Mar 11, 2013

Abate by

Jun 17, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 91309135

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)   An employee working in the blasting booth, on 11/28/2012, using abrasive media to clean a vessel, was exposed to respirable dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 24.53 mg/m3. This level is approximately 5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3.  The exposure was derived from one sample collected over a 69 minute sample period; a zero increment was added for the 411 minutes not sampled.    b)   An employee working in the blasting booth, on 11/28/2012, using abrasive media to clean a vessel, was exposed to total dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 422.19 mg/m3. This level is approximately 28 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15 mg/m3.  The exposure was derived from one sample collected over a 69 minute sample period; a zero increment was added for the 411 minutes not sampled.    Abatement methods usually applicable in these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:    1.  Improve the existing ventilation system so that more of the dust is collected from the air in the booth.    2.  Position the work piece so that abrasive is always sprayed towards the exhauset collection system.    Abatement steps:    STEP 1:  Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposure to levels below the PEL as referenced in this citation.  This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the dates required by this citation.    1)  Evaluation of engineering control options.    2)  Selection of optimum control method and completion of design.    3)  Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures.    4)  Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of controls.    All proposed control measures shall be evaluated 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.  Abatement must be completed by ***30 days***.    STEP 2:  Abatement should have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.  This verification should include noise monitoring results showing levels of noise below the permissible exposure limit. Abatement must be completed by ***60 DAYS***.    Note:  Gaspar, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 315443598 citation number 1, item number 7b and was affirmed as a final order on 10/3/2011.

Issued

Jan 2, 2013

Abate by

Feb 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,618 · Current $1,570 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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 was free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to the hazard of being struck by falling loads:    Lifting clamps were manufactured on the site for use on the site; these clamps were used by employees to lift steel plates and partially completed vessels, undergoing fabrication:    a)  On or about July 13, 2012, below the hook lifting devices which were made by the employer had no rated load capacity markings, manufacturers name or serial number.    b)  The lifting devices were not tested, load rated or inspected.

Issued

Jan 2, 2013

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,964 · Current $1,180 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief is provided to prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws:      The Cotterman Hi-Jacker portable lift, serial number 33076, had a flexible cord connected to a control electrical box that had a failed strain relief. The cord was hanging from the box by the inner wires.

Issued

Jan 2, 2013

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(1): Alloy steel sling(s) did not have permanently affixed durable identification stating size, grade, rated capacity, and reach:    Two alloy chain slings in the machine shop did not have tags.

Issued

Jan 2, 2013

Abate by

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(3)(ii): Records of the most recent month in which each alloy steel chain sling was thoroughly inspected were not available for examination:    No records of inspections of alloy chain slings were maintained.