OSHA Inspection: INDUSTRIAL METAL FINISHING CO.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i):   Visible gages or audible alarms or pressure activated devices were not installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity is maintained:     a) At the facility, paint booth number 1:  On December 18, 2012, the average face velocity of 73 fpm was less than the minimum of 100 fpm, and the manometer mounted on the booth to indicate flow across the filters was not functional.     b) At the facility, paint booth number 2:  On December 18, 2012, the manometer mounted on the booth to indicate flow across the filters was not working.     c) At the facility, paint booth number 3:  On December 18, 2012, the manometer mounted on the booth to indicate flow across the filters was painted over and not able to be used.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(6): Electrical wiring and equipment not subject to deposits of combustible residues but located in a spraying area as herein defined were not explosion-proof type approved for Class I, group D locations and did not otherwise conform to the provisions of subpart S of this part, for Class I, Division 1, Hazardous Locations:  a)  At the facility, in paint booth 3:  On December 18, 2012, the flourescent light fixture hanging down inside the spray booth was missing a cover, was not of a type approved for Class I, Division 1 electrical locations, and had live electrical components open to the booth interior where flammable paints were being sprayed, exposing employees to a fire and explosion hazard.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2):   Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of Total Dust, Particles Not Otherwise Classified listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 15 mg/m3:     a) At the facility, in the painting shop:  On December 18, 2012, a sandblaster was exposed to an airborne concentration of total particulate of 24.2 mg/m3 as an 8-hour time weighted average during one shift, exceeding the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 15 mg/m3 total dust, during sandblasting, changing filters, and sweeping in the paint area,  exposing employees to a pulmonary hazard.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a) At the facility, in the paint area:  On December 18, 2013, the employer required employees to wear filtering face piece respirators (dust masks) for sandblasting, changing filters, and sweeping blast grit and debris and did not provide the employees a medical evaluation to determine their ability to use a respirator, exposing employees to a cardio-pulmonary distress hazard.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1):   The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    a)  At the facility, in the paint area:  On December 18, 2012 the employer required employees to use a filtering facepiece respirator (dust mask) during blasting, filter change and clean up operations and did not ensure employees had passed the appropriate qualitative or quantitative fit test.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $1,750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c):   Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:     a)  At the facility, on the D coating line: On December 18, 2012, maximum distance from exposure to injurious corrosive materials to the eyewash/emergency shower station was approximately 65 feet with obstructions in the path, exposing employees to a chemical eye and skin burn hazard.      b)  At the facility, on the I coating line: On January 8, 2013, maximum distance from exposure to injurious corrosive materials to the eyewash/emergency shower station was approximately 68 feet with obstructions in the path, exposing employees to a chemical eye and skin burn hazard.      c)  At the facility, on the M coating line: On January 8, 2013, maximum distance from exposure to injurious corrosive materials to the eyewash/emergency shower station was approximately 48 feet with obstructions in the path, exposing employees to a chemical eye and skin burn hazard.      d)  At the facility, on the A coating line: On January 8, 2013, maximum distance from exposure to injurious corrosive materials to the eyewash/emergency shower station was approximately 100 feet with obstructions in the path, exposing employees to a chemical eye and skin burn hazard.      e)  At the facility, on the C coating line: On December 18, 2012, the eyewash/emergency shower station located at the end of the line was found to be inoperable, and approximately 60 feet from the chromic acid tank at the other end with obstructions in the path, exposing employees to a chemical eye and skin burn hazard.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $351

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(1)(i):   The employer did not determine whether any employee was exposed to cadmium at or above the action level:      a)  At the facility, in the D-Line area: On January 3, 2013, an employee performing cadmium plating was exposed to cadmium at a time weighted average concentration of 5.5 ug/m3, an exposure level 2.2 times the action level of 2.5 ug/m3.        b)  At the facility, in the D-Line area: On January 4, 2013, an employee performing cadmium plating was exposed to cadmium at a time weighted average concentration of 3.54 ug/m3,  an exposure level 1.4 times the action level of 2.5 ug/m3.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(l)(1)(i)(A):   The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who were or potentially were exposed to cadmium at or above the action level on 30 or more days per year (twelve consecutive months):    a)  At the facility, in the D-Line area: On January 3, 2013 an employee performing cadmium plating was exposed to cadmium at a time weighted average concentration of 5.5 ug/m3, an exposure level 2.2 times the action level of 2.5 ug/m3, and a medical surveillance program had not been instituted.   b) At the facility, in the D-Line area: On January 4, 2013 an employee performing cadmium plating was exposed to cadmium at a time weighted average concentration of 3.54 ug/m3,  an exposure level 1.4 times the action level of 2.5 ug/m3, and a medical surveillance program had not been instituted.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):   The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):     a)  At the facility, all areas:  On December 18, 2012, the employer had not conducted a written hazard assessment of the workplace to determine which hazards necessitate the use of personal protective equipment including but not limited to exposure to paints, solvents, cyanides, acids, bases, hot ovens, toxic metals, and rotating machinery.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii):   The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:     a)  At the facility, in the plating, anodizing and painting areas:  On December 18, 2012, a reasonable assessment of employee exposure was not conducted for employees exposed to air contaminants  including but not limited to:  sulfuric acid during anodizing; isocyanate compounds in paint; respirable and total dust from sandblasting, filter change, and clean up; hexavalent chromium form strontium chromate in chromated epoxy paints; and hexavalent chromium from chromium trioxide in Whitford Xylar basecoat.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2):   The employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator that would ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life:   a)  At the facility, in the paint area:  On December 18, 2012, painters were required to wear half face air purifying respirators during spray painting and mixing paint components including isocyanate hardener, and no cartridge change out schedule was implemented based on objective information or data.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(g)(2):   Employees were permitted to consume food or beverage in area(s) exposed to toxic materials:     a)  At the facility, in the lunch area area: On January 8, 2013, tables in the lunch eating area were found to have extensive metal dust residue including copper and cadmium, toxic materials.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(b):  First aid supplies approved by a consulting physician were not readily available:     a)  At the facility:  On December 18, 2012, a cyanide antidote kit was not available to administer first aid per the material safety data sheet exposure and medical treatment requirements in the case of inhalation or absorption of cyanide from one of several cyanide containing compounds used at the facility including but not limited to sodium cyanide.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(ii):  Each employee exposure record was not preserved and maintained for at least thirty years.      a) At the facility: On December 18, 2013, employee records of exposure monitoring conducted in the last 30 years by the company insurance carrier were not maintained by the employer.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(l)(2)(ii)(B)(2):   The initial (preplacement) medical examination did not include biological monitoring that included beta-2 microglobulin in urine (B2-M), standardized to grams of creatinine (g/Cr), with pH specified as described in Appendix F :     a)  At the facility, in the D-Line area: On December 18, 2012,  the employer conducted biological monitoring of employees exposed to cadmium including cadmium in blood, but did not include cadmium in urine or Beta-2 microglobulin standardized to grams of creatinine, pH specified, as described in appendix F to 29 CFR 1910.1027.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(m)(4)(iii)(A):   The employer did not ensure that the employee's training program included the health hazards associated with cadmium exposure, with special attention to the information incorporated in Appendix A:     a)  At the facility in cadmium plating areas: On December 18, 2012, employees exposed to cadmium during plating were not informed of the health hazards associated with cadmium exposure, with special attention to information incorporated in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1027, the substance safety data sheet.

Issued

Apr 15, 2013

Abate by

May 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5):   The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged, or marked with the identity and appropriate hazard warnings regarding the chemicals contained therein:     a)  At the facility in the zinc phosphate, mechanical galvanizing and precious metals plating areas:  On January 8, 2013, chemical drums in racks with spigots installed were not labeled with identity or hazard warnings of the chemical contents, exposing employees to chemical hazards.