Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
2,004,209Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-13 Last loaded 2026-07-17

OSHA Inspection: OPTIMUM FILTER

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of OPTIMUM FILTER in 3725 INTERPARK DR., COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907 (NAICS 333318). OSHA activity number 337304018.

Watch Optimum Filter — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Optimum Filter is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
OPTIMUM FILTER
Site address
3725 INTERPARK DR.
City
COLORADO SPRINGS
State
CO
ZIP
80907
Mailing
3725 INTERPARK DR., COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
333318
Employees
9
Ownership type
A

7 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.178 A04

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Penalty
Initial $1360.00 · Current $680.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4):  Modifications or additions which affect capacity and safe operation of powered industrial truck were performed by the employer without the manufacturer's prior written approval:    1) On or about August 15, 2012, and at prior times, a boom attachment was used to lift a large tank.  The employer had not received the fork lift manufacturer's written approval for this addition.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $680
  • — Z (S) $1360

1910.178 A05

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5):  When powered industrial trucks are equipped with front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments, it was not requested that the truck be marked to identify the attachments and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered:    1)On or about August 15, 2012, and at prior times,  a boom attachment was used to lift a large tank. The employer had not marked the trucks to identify the attachments and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.252 B04 IV

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $1700.00 · Current $850.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.252(b)(4)(iv):  Where the welder must enter a confined space through a manhole or other small opening, means were not provided for quickly removing the welder in case of emergency:    1) On December 12, 2012, and at prior times, employees entered a confined space to conduct welding operations.  The employer did not provide means for quickly removing the employee in case of an emergency, such as life lines, confined space enty rescue teams, or coordination with local fire departments.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $850
  • — Z (S) $1700

1910.1026 C

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $1700.00 · Current $850.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1026(c): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) which exceeded 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an 8-hour time-weighted average:    1) On December 12, 2012, an employee welding inside a stainless steel tank was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour Time Weighted Average of 15.1 ug/M3, or approximately 3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 ug/M3.  Sampling was conducted during the 44 minute period of the shift spent welding inside the tank and the calculation assumed zero exposure for  the unsampled portion of the shift.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $850
  • — Z (S) $1700

1910.252 C04 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.252(c)(4)(i):  All welding and cutting operations carried on in confined spaces were not adequately ventilated to prevent the accumulation of toxic materials or possible oxygen deficiency:  1) On December 12, 2012, an employee welding inside a stainless steel tank was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour Time Weighted Average of 15.1 ug/M3, or approximately 3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 ug/M3.  The employer did not use adequate ventilation to assure that accumulations of chromium (VI) did not exceed the PEL.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1026 D01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):  1) On November 7, 2012, and at prior times, the employer had not determined employees' exposure to chromium (VI) during production welding nor during interior tank welding.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1026 G02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(2): Where respirator use was required by this standard for protection against chromium (VI), the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134:  1) On December 12, 2012, an employee welding inside a stainless steel tank was exposed to chromium (VI) at an 8-hour Time Weighted Average of 15.1 ug/M3, or approximately 3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 5 ug/M3.  The employee was wearing a disposable respirator, but the employer had not provided fit testing in accordance with 1910.134(f).
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 337304018.