OSHA Inspection: A-1 AMERICAN METAL REFINISHING, INC.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances M112

General-duty citation text

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 exposed to hazardous levels of manganese which may cause blindness, dyspnea, pulmonary edema, bronchitis, pneumonitis, methemoglobinemia, parkinsonism, kidney damage and liver damage:    On or about 09/20/2012, an employee was exposed to manganese dust at an 8-hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 0.43 mg/m3 of during sandblasting. The employee was monitored for 328 minutes with zero dose assumed for the 152 minutes of un-sampled time.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:    On or about 09/20/2102, the employer did not utilize engineering and administrative controls to address an employee's exposure to noise at the facility. An employee was exposed to an 8-hour TWA of 105 dBA (790% dose) during sandblasting. The employee was monitored for 328 minutes and a zero dose was assumed for the un-sampled time.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    On or about 09/20/2102, the employer did not develop nor implement a hearing conservation to address an employee's exposure to noise at the facility. An employee was exposed to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 105 dBA (790% dose) during sandblasting. The employee was monitored for 328 minutes and a zero dose was assumed for the un-sampled time.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(1): The employer did not develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not develop nor implement an emergency response plan to address methylene chloride spills and cleanup activities by employees at the facility.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(3)(i): The employer did not implement procedures to detect leaks of methylene chloride in the workplace and did not make provisions to contain any spills and to safely dispose of any methylene chloride contaminated waste materials:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not develop nor implement procedures to address the detection of leaks and containment of methylene chloride spills at the facility.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that the employees exposed to splashes from lacquer thinner or exposed to flying particles while dismantling and assembling furniture wore eye protection.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 073015921730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(7): Oil lubricated compressor(s) used to supply breathing air did not have a high-temperature or carbon monoxide alarm(s) or both:    On or about 09/20/2012, the air compressor used to supply breathing air during sandblasting was not equipped with a high temperature alarm or carbon monoxide alarm.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(6): The employer did not certify that each operator had been trained and evaluated as required by this paragraph (l)    On or about, 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that employees operating the Yale forklift at the facility were trained and certified to do so.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure an Alva Fallen Press in use by employees at the facility was guarded.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 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):    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that that the pulley of an Alva Fallen Press in use by employees at the facility was guarded.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii): Unused openings in boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not effectively closed:    On or about, 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that all openings in the electrical panel next to the sandblasting booth were effectively closed.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2): Each outlet box in completed installations did not have a cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy:29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii):     On or about, 09/20/2012, the outlet box with switch used to power the oven at the facility did not have a faceplate.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $600 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(2): An initial determination was not made to determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level:    On or about 09/20/2012, an employee was exposed to 34.2 micrograms per cubic meter of lead during sandblasting. This exposure was 1.1 times the action level for lead. The employee was monitored for 328 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(1)(i):  The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who are or may be exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days per year:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not implement a medical surveillance program for an employee who was exposed to 34.2 micrograms per cubic meter of lead during sandblasting.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i): Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    On or about 09/20/2012, employees exposed to airborne lead during sandblasting were not informed of the contents of Appendices A and B.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, an employee was exposed to 39 ppm of methylene chloride during paint stripping. The employee was monitored for 199 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not institute engineering controls for an employee was exposed to 39 ppm of methylene chloride during paint stripping.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(i): Where methylene chloride was present in the workplace, the employer did not determine each employee's exposure:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not perform an exposure evaluation for an employee exposed to methylene chloride at the facility. The employee was exposed to 39 ppm of methylene chloride during paint stripping. The employee was monitored for 199 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (m) (except (d)(1)(iii)), which covers each employee required by 29 CFR 1910.1052 to use a respirator:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not develop nor implement a written respiratory protection program to address the use of a supplied-air respirator by employees at the facility. An employee was exposed to 39 ppm of methylene chloride during paint stripping.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 06850720073015922229

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not develop nor implement a written respiratory protection program to address the use of a supplied-air respirator by employees during sandblasting activities at the facility.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not provide washing facilities for employees who were exposed to methylene chloride at the facility.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

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    On or about 09/20/2012, employees working with methylene chloride at the facility did not have access to eye washing facilities.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not implement a medical surveillance program for employees who were exposed to methylene chloride above the permissible exposure limit. An employee was exposed to 39 ppm of methylene chloride during

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, an employee who was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average concentration of methylene chloride of 39 ppm was not provided with information and training related to the potential exposure to methylene chloride.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 07209010C113M112SL07

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:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not develop nor implement a written hazard communication program to address employee use of and exposure to chemicals such as DuPont Starblast Blasting Agent, Lacquer Thinner, Jamson Labs Paint Remover, Iron, Copper, Cobalt, Chromium, Zinc, Manganese and Vanadium dusts.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(1): Washing facilities were not maintained in a sanitary condition:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that the employee restroom at the facility was maintained in a sanitary condition.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(2)(iii): Lavatories were not provided with hand soap or similar cleansing agent:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that the employee restroom at the facility was supplied with soap.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(2)(iv): Lavatories were not provided with individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper, warm air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth toweling:    On or about 09/20/2012, the employer did not ensure that the employee restroom at the facility was supplied with clean towels.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

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 (PEL) or the Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL):    On or about 09/20/2012, the area in which airborne methylene chloride exposures exceeded the PEL was not regulated or marked to alert employees at the facility of the hazard.