OSHA Inspection: LANNON TANK CORPORATION

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(b): An emergency action plan was not in writing, kept in the workplace, and available to employees for review: (a) The employer stated there was an informal (unwritten) plan for workers to evacuate in event of an emergency, such as a fire.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(f)(1): The employer did not review the emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan: (a) Workers in the Fiberglass Room were not trained on the emergency action plan to be followed in the event of a plant emergency, such as a fire emergency, requiring evacuation.  These workers had not been instructed on where to go (such as a pre-arranged meeting point outside of the plant), in the event of an evacuation, for a head count to be taken.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(1): An educational program was not provided for all employees to familiarize them with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting: (a) Workers in the Fiberglass Room were expected to use portable fire extinguishers to fight small fires, but were not provided training on the proper use of the portable fire extinguishers and were not trained on the hazards associated with incipient stage fire fighting.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 31, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(m)(1):     Spraying operations involving the use of organic peroxides and other dual component coatings were not conducted in approved sprinklered spray booths meeting the requirements of this section:    (a) The fiber glass spraying operation involving the use of MEK peroxide catalyst in combination with a resin containing styrene and a thinner (acetone) was conducted in the Fiber Glass Room,  which was not protected from fire by sprinklers or by other methods.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0040

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(b): The employer did not base selection of appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the tasks to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified:    (a) The employer provided latex-type gloves which were used by workers during the fiber glass chopper gun and roller application processes; however, periodically during the workshift when the chopper gun became clogged and required cleaning with acetone thinner, these goves were too bulky and consequently not worn by the worker(s) during this part of the work operation.  The only other type of gloves available to these workers were blue nitrile gloves which were dissolved by contact with acetone, consequently the gun cleaning part of the job was done without the protection of gloves. This condition resulted in repeated skin exposure to acetone, during chopper gun cleaning, that could cause defatting and drying of the skin, which could result in skin irritation and dermatitis.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,000 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) In the Fiberglass Room the extension cord providing power to the Polylite drum heater was run through and impinged by an exit door.  This condition was apparently in violation of paragraph (C) and potentially exposed workers  to an electrical shock hazard.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c):     Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of equipment in hazardous (classified) locations were not intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location:  (a) In the Fiber Glass Room, where flammable liquids were sprayed, the flexible extension cord, which was the power source for the barrel heater, was not approved for the class 1 hazardous location.  This extension cord could potentially act as an ignition source, and thus could expose workers to a flash fire hazard.  (b) In the Fiber Glass Room, where flammable liquids were sprayed, the barrel heater and associated cord and plug were not approved for the class 1 hazardous location.  This equipment and wiring could potentially act as an ignition source, and thus could expose workers to a flash fire hazard.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

Jun 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

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:     (a) A written hazard communication program had been developed, but it was deficient in that it did not include a description of the labeling system used for labeling of containers of hazardous chemicals, such as those used in the Fiber Glass Room.    (b) Some deficiencies were also noted in the implementation of the hazard communication program.  These deficiencies included that some containers of hazardous chemicals (such as containers of Acetone thinner and MEK Peroxide catalyst in the Fiber Glass Room) were not properly labeled. Not all material safety data sheets were maintained and available (for example a material safety data sheet was not maintained for Kem Aqua paint in the New Building).  In addition, it was found that workers in the Fiber Glass Room had not been provided adequate training on the health hazards of the chemicals used in their work area.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5):   (a) 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) In the Fiberglass Room, the container of Luperox, which contained Methyl Ethyl Ketone  Peroxide catalyst, was not labeled with either  its identity or an appropriate hazard warning.  Exposure to Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide could potentially cause eye burns and blindness, as well as other hazardous effects.  (b) In the Fiberglass Room, the drum of Acetone was not labeled with either its identity or appropriate hazard warning information.  Exposure to Acetone could potentially cause nervous system depression, flammability hazards, as well as other hazardous effects.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):   The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:  (a) In the New Building, the employer was using Kem Aqua paint, but a copy of the material safety data sheet for that substance, which contained 2-butoxyethanol, was not maintained and was, therefore, not available for workers at this work site.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:( a) In the Fiberglass Room, workers were permitted to use elastomeric respirators equipped with combination particulate and organic vapor cartridges, but the employer had not established a written respirator program to ensure that workers were medically able to use the respirators and that they were properly maintained and cleaned.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

Jun 19, 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) In various areas of the plant, such as in the Fiber Glass Room, the employer equipped workers with elastomeric 3M respirators with P100 filters (or organic vapor cartridges with N95 pre-filters when performing chopper gun spraying) and fit tests were done, but medical evaluations were not provided.

Issued

May 2, 2013

Abate by

May 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1): Respirators were not cleaned and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of 29 CFR 1910.134 or equivalent procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer: (a) Workers in the Fiberglass Room voluntarily used elastomeric respirators which were not properly cleaned.  Respirator(s) were observed which were not clean on the inside surface of the mask.  The respirator cleaning process followed by these workers, included use of a solvent (acetone), contrary to manufacturer's instructions (a Technical Data Bulletin from the manufacturer warned that cleaning with solvents may degrade some respiratory components and reduce respirator effectiveness).  In addition, use of acetone for this purpose could further expose these workers to the adverse health effects of acetone.