OSHA Inspection: TULIP CORPORATION

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,160 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(a)(3)(ii):  Floor(s) of workroom(s) were not maintained, so far as practical, in a dry condition:    a)  Reprocessing department, chip processing room - On or about 11/20/2012, floors of the room were not maintained, so far as practical, in a dry condition.

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,160 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv):  Flexible cords and/ or cables were used for purposes prohibited by paragraphs (A) through (F) of 29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv):    a)   West wall, oil recovery area, main plant - On or about 11/20/2012, a flexible cords was run through a hole in an exterior wall which is prohibited by paragraph (B) of the standard.

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Abate by

Dec 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1):   Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period:    a)  Reprocessing Department -  On or about 11/20/2012, millwright employee(s) performing daily routine were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) level of approximately 85.5 ug/m3.  This level is approximately 1.71 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/m3.  The TWA exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 93-minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 387-minutes not sampled.    b)  Reprocessing Department -  On or about 11/20/2012, material handler employee(s) were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) level of approximately 57.3ug/m3.  This level is approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50ug/m3.  The TWA exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 396-minute sampling period.  Exposure calculationss included a zero increment for the 84-minutes not sampled.    c)  Reprocessing Department -  On or about 1/16/2013, millwright employee(s) performing daily routine were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) level of approximately 121.0 ug/m3.  This level is approximately 2.4 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/m3.  The TWA exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 70-minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 387-minutes not sampled.    d)  Reprocessing Department -  On or about 1/16/2013, millwright employee(s) performing auger replacement were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) level of approximately 103.1 ug/m3.  This level is approximately 2.06 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/m3.  The TWA exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 45-minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 387-minutes not sampled.

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 5, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1)(ii):  Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment, including gloves, hats, and shoes or disposable shoe coverlets were not used when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists:    a)  Reprocessing department, chip processing room - On or about 11/20/2013, material handler employee(s) were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) level of approximately 57.3ug/m3.  This level is approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50ug/m3.  The TWA exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 396-minute sampling period.  Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment, including shoes or disposable shoe coverlets were not used when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists.

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1):  All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead:    a)  Reprocessing department, chip processing room:  On or about 11/20/2012 - All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead.  Water and sludge accumulation on the floor contained approximately 2.35% lead.

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 5, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(ii):  The employer did not train each employee who is subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    a)  Reprocessing department - On or about 11/20/2012, material handler employee(s) were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) level of approximately 57.3ug/m3.  This level is approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50ug/m3.  The TWA exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 396-minute sampling period.  Exposure calculationss included a zero increment for the 84-minutes not sampled.  The employer did not train material handler(s), subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025.

Issued

Mar 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 17, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(v)(G):  Employees exposed to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed, were not given instructions about not using chelating agents:    a)  On or about 01/10/2013 - Employees exposed to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed, were not given instructions about not using chelating agents.