OSHA Inspection: MFB HOLDINGS, LLC

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Jan 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,660 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(i): Where methylene chloride was present in the workplace, the employer did not determine each employee's exposure:         a.     Sixth floor - The employer had not performed an initial determination for employees who had potential exposure to methylene chloride.

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Nov 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,660 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:         a.     Sixth floor, Acrylic Department - Gloves that were resistant to methylene chloride were not provided to employees to prevent skin contact with liquid methylene chloride.         b.     Sixth floor, Acrylic Department - Eye protection was not provided to employees to prevent contact with eyes in the event of a splash or spill of liquid methylene chloride.

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Nov 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,660 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available for employees who were or potentially were  exposed to methylene chloride at or above the action level on 30 or more days per year, or above the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or the short term exposure limit on 10 or more days per year:         a.     Sixth floor, Acrylic Department - The employer did not make medical survaillance available for all production employees who work with methylene chloride who were potentially exposed above the action level for 30 or more days per year.    Abatement assistance note: Medical surveillance procedures shall be performed by a physician or other licensed health care professional, and shall include:      Medical and work history, as described in 1910.1052(j)(5(i);   Physical examination, as described in 1910.1052(j)(5)(ii);   Laboratory surveillance, as described in 1910.1052(j)(5)(iii).

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Nov 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,660 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(k)(1)(iii): 29 CFR 1910.1052(k)(1)(iii):  The employer did not include methylene chloride in the hazard communication program and did not ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of methylene chloride and to safety data sheets:         a.      Sixth floor, Acrylic Department -  Secondary containers of methylene chloride ("Glue"), which were used by more than one employee, were not labeled, tagged, or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings.

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Nov 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:         a.      Sixth floor, Acrylic Department -  Secondary containers of methylene chloride ("Glue"), which were used by more than one employee, were not labeled, tagged, or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings.

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Nov 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1): The employer did not provide information and training for each affected employee prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride:         a.     Sixth floor, Acrylic Department - Employees working with methylene chloride (Camger T-600) on a daily basis had not been provided information and training about the hazards of methylene chloride prior to or at the time of their initial assignment to the gluing operation.    Abatement Note: The following describes the additional requirements for employee training about methylene chloride:  (1) The employer shall ensure that information and training is presented in a manner that is understandable to the employees.     (2) In addition to the information required under the Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200, as appropriate:  (a) The employer shall inform each affected employee of the requirements of this section and information available in its appendices, as well as how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace;  (b) Wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of MC exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the action level, the employer shall inform each affected employee of the quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of MC and the specific operations in the workplace that could result in exposure to MC, particularly noting where exposures may be above the 8-hour TWA PEL or STEL;     (3) The employer shall re-train each affected employee as necessary to ensure that each employee exposed above the action level or the STEL maintains the requisite understanding of the principles of safe use and handling of MC in the workplace.     (4) Whenever there are workplace changes, such as modifications of tasks or procedures or the institution of new tasks or procedures, which increase employee exposure, and where those exposures exceed or can reasonably be expected to exceed the action level, the employer shall update the training as necessary to ensure that each affected employee has the requisite proficiency.

Issued

Sep 26, 2013

Abate by

Jan 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,260 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures in the workplace where respirators were necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators were required by the employer:         a.     Fourth floor, Spray finishing - The employer had not implemented the respiratory protection program for the fourth floor spray finishing operation in that the employee was required to wear an air purifying respirator during spray finishing operations, but had not been medically evaluated or fit-tested, had facial hair that interfered with the facepiece-to-face seal, and had not been trained in proper selection, use, care, and cleaning of the respirator.