OSHA Inspection: UNITED AVIATION ACCESSORIES INC.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i): Filter rolls were not inspected to insure proper replacement of filter media.    On or about November 7, 2012 a spray painting employee removed extraction filters from the paint booth and crushed paint residue out of them to extend the usable life of the filters.  This practice resulted in combustible residues being drawn into the mechanical exhaust system.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(d)(2): Mechanical ventilation was not kept in operation at all times while spraying operations were being conducted and for a sufficient time thereafter to allow vapors from drying coated articles and drying finishing material residue to be exhausted.    On or about August 1, 2012, in the Paint Department, racks of painted parts were removed from the spray booth as soon as the parts were painted.  Employees were exposed to a fire hazard as a result of this work practice.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Mar 5, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,410 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures.    On or about August 1, 2012, a painting employee was required to wear a negative pressure half-facepiece respirator for protection against paint mists containing chromium (VI) compounds and against organic vapors.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 14, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was required to use the respirator in the workplace.     On or about August 1, 2012, a painting employee, who was required to wear a negative pressure half-facepiece respirator during spray painting and sanding activities, had not been medically evaluated to wear the equipment.  The employee was exposed to inhalation and skin contact hazards associated with chromium (VI) compounds and organic vapors.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 14, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter.    On or about August 1, 2012, a painting employee, who was required to wear a negative pressure half-facepiece respirator during spray painting and sanding activities, had not been fit tested to wear the equipment.  The employee was exposed to inhalation and skin contact hazards associated with chromium (VI) compounds and organic vapors.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1): The employer did not ensure that respirators were cleaned and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of this section, or procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer, provided that such procedures are of equivalent effectiveness.       On or about August 1, 2012, a painting employee, who was required to wear a negative pressure half-facepiece respirator during spray painting and sanding activities, did not have a means of cleaning and disinfecting the equipment.  This was needed to prevent contamination from chromates and for hygienic puprposes.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $900 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(h)(4): Hooks did not meet the manufacturer's recommendations.    On or about August 1, 2012, the latch for a hook on a Dayton 1-Ton electric chain hoist for a wall crane, located in the Heat Treatment Room, was not functional.  The crane was used to lift and move baskets of metal parts.  Employees were exposed to a struck-by hazard as a result of this condition.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Apr 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,410 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5 g/m3), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).    On or about November 7, 2012, a spray painting employee applied coating products such as, 513X390 Pigmented Epoxy Resin Yellow and 9100X624 Activator, containing strontium chromates (chromium VI) to parts inside the paint booth, located in the Paint Department of the factory.  The employee also sanded parts outside of the paint booth in preparation for touch up painting of the parts.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour time-weighted-average (TWA) level of 34.0 micrograms per cubic meter (34.0 ug/m3), 6.8 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 ug/m3.  This limit is established to prevent lung cancer, occupational asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as skin dermatitis and ulcerations.  The exposure level was derived from five samples collected for 448 minutes on November 7, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 32 minutes.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Apr 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): Except as permitted in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) and paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, the employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) to or below the PEL unless the employer could demonstrate that such controls are not feasible.    On or about November 7, 2012, a spray painting employee applied coating products such as, 513X390 Pigmented Epoxy Resin Yellow and 9100X624 Activator, containing strontium chromates (chromium VI) to parts inside the paint booth, located in the paint department of the factory.  The employee also sanded parts for touch up painting outside of the paint booth.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour time-weighted-average (TWA) level of 34.0 micrograms per cubic meter (34.0 ug/m3), 6.8 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 ug/m3.  This limit is established to prevent lung cancer, occupational asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as skin dermatitis and ulcerations.  The exposure level was derived from five samples collected for 448 minutes on November 7, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 32 minutes.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,410 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): For a workplace or work operation covered by this section, the employer did not determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI). This determination shall be made in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2) or paragraph (d)(3) of this section.    On or about August 1, 2012, in the Paint Department, a spray painting employee used 513X390 Pigmented Epoxy Resin Yellow and 9100X624 Activator, containing strontium chromate (chromium VI), to paint various parts.  The unknown levels of chromium VI compounds in the mist placed the employee at risk of exposure to skin contact and inhalation hazards.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).    On or about August 1, 2012, in the Paint Department, dust containing chromate residues was observed on surfaces such as table tops, a conveyor system, and the outside surfaces of the paint spray booth.  Employees were exposed to contact and inhalation hazards from the loose dust.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that surfaces contaminated with chromium (VI) were cleaned by HEPA-filter vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure to chromium (VI).    On or about August 1, 2012, employees were exposed to skin and inhalation hazards of chromate dust from the practice of dry sweeping up dust in the Paint Department.  No HEPA filter vacuum was available for housekeeping tasks.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(1): Where a hazard is present or is likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI), the employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and shall ensure that employees use such clothing and equipment.    On or about August 1, 2012, no protective clothing was provided for the painter when performing painting and housekeeping tasks.  This condition resulted in skin contact hazards from chromium (VI) compounds to the head, neck, arms and hands.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,440 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employers did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees have not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area.    On or about August 1, 2012, employees were exposed to skin contact and inhalation hazards during tasks involving the use of adhesives and glues as well as solvents such as methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), primers such as 513X390 Pigmented Epoxy Resin Yellow and 9100X624 Activator.  No training program had been implemented to communicate chemical hazards and protection measures to employees.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Jan 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(5): The employer did not ensure that employees do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in regulated areas, or in areas where skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) occurs; or carry the products associated with these activities, or store such products in these areas.    On or about November 7, 2012, a painting employee consumed soft drink beverages near the mixing table where paint products containing chromates (chromium VI) were mixed and sanded.  This work practice resulted in an ingestion hazard.

Issued

Jan 18, 2013

Abate by

Feb 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0686

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(k)(1)(i)(A): Medical surveillance was not offered for employees who were or who may be occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) at or above the action level for 30 or more days a year.    On or about August 1, 2012, no medical surveillance was offered for a spray painting employee who applied coatings such as 513X390 Pigmented Epoxy Resin Yellow and 9100X624 Activator that contained strontium chromate (chromium VI).  The employee was exposed to skin contact and to inhalation hazards that exceeded the permissible exposure limit.