OSHA Inspection: WEBB BROTHERS TRANSFER, INC.

Issued

Apr 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,020 · Current $1,020

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(e)(2):     The quantity of flammable or combustible liquids kept in the vicinity of spraying operations exceeded minimum required for operations and ordinarily exceeded a supply for 1 day or one shift:    In the spray booth (north end of body shop), on November 14, 2012 and at times prior to, approximately 20 gallons of paints and primers, as well as a waste receptacle, were stored inside the spray booth exposing employees to a fire hazard.    Fire Hazard:  One employee utilized a pneumatic sprayer to apply paints and primers to automobiles in the spray room.  The employee filled the pneumatic sprayer from 1-gallon and 5-gallon containers that were stored inside the spray booth.  A waste receptacle was located inside the spray booth.  The waste receptacle was used to discard paper and tape from spraying activities.

Issued

Apr 16, 2013

Abate by

May 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(9):     A clear space of not less than 3 feet on all sides was not kept free from storage or combustible construction:    In the area surrounding the spray booth (north end of body shop), on November 14, 2012 and at times prior to, automobile parts, furniture and various supplies, were stored adjacent to, and within three feet of the outside of the paint booth, exposing employees to a fire hazard.    Fire Hazard:  Supplies utilized inside the paint booth as well as various automobile parts and furniture were stored either adjacent to or within three feet of the exterior of the spray booth limiting access for cleaning and inspection of combustible dust.

Issued

Apr 16, 2013

Abate by

May 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i):     Visible gauges or audible alarms or pressure activated devices were not installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity is maintained:    In the spray booth (north end of body shop), on November 14, 2012 and at times prior to, visible gauges or audible alarm or pressure activated devices were not properly installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity was maintained, exposing employees to a fire hazard.    Fire Hazard:  The spray booth had a Dwyer Mark II manometer installed on the exterior of the spray booth (south side) left of the interior entrance; however, the manometer was not properly installed nor functional.  The Body Man/Painter stated that filters associated with the spray booth were changed on an as needed/visual assessment, basis.

Issued

Apr 16, 2013

Abate by

May 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    (a) In both the spray booth located in the body shop builiding, on or about November 14, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not implement a written respiratory protection program for an employee who was required to wear a respirator while spray painting, resulting in a respiratory hazard.    Respiratory Hazard.  One employee was issued a  face elastomeric air purifying respirator with organic vapor cartridges and pre-filters to wear while spray painting with paints and primers that contained n-butyl acetate, ethyl benzene, xylene and toluene among other volatile organic compounds.  The employer required the employee to wear the respirator while spraying.  OSHA sampling indicated that the employee airborne exposures to n-butyl acetate, ethyl benzene, xylene and toluene did not exceed the OSHA PEL (See below for measurement details).  The employee who wore the respirator was the only employee who worked in the spray booth.  The employee sprayed approximately 1 hour per day, approximately 5 days a week.    The employer had not developed a written respiratory protection program.  The employer gave the employee the respirator and replacement cartridges, etc. without any instruction.  The employee was told that he had to wear the respirator by the employer.  No medical evaluation was provided to determine the employees ability to safely wear the respirator.  No fit testing was performed.  The employee did not maintain a face-to-facepiece seal in that he was allowed to maintain facial hair.  The employer had never performed an exposure assessment to determine the painters exposure level to the paint constituents.  The employer had not implemented a respiratory protection training program in that the employee was not knowledgeable about the elements of a respiratory protection program.