OSHA Inspection: BECK ALUMINUM ALLOYS, LTD.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,971 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(a)(3): Exit route(s) were not kept free and unobstructed:     (a) In the Ingredients Warehouse area, there were boards on the ground outside of the exterior fire exit door, potentially exposing workers to a trip hazard in the vicinity of the discharge portion of the exit route.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $4,158 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0640

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii): Employees who participated as hazardous materials technicians, or were expected to participate as hazardous materials technicians, had not received at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level, and in addition have competency in the areas outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A) through (q)(6)(iii)(I) and/or the employer did not so certify:        On or around September 5, 2013, a chlorine release emergency, involving leakage of 63 lbs. of chlorine gas, occurred when a 1-ton chlorine tank was being disconnected.  Employees were exposed to possible pulmonary edema from:       (a) The maintenance worker that had been performing the disconnect procedure, initially left the immediate vicinity of the chlorine leak to inform a supervisor about the leak, and subsequently re-entered the vicinity of the leak and attempted to contain the leak.   However, this maintenance worker had not been provided training at the hazardous materials technician level to enable safe performance of this task.      (b) After the maintenance worker that had been performing the disconnect procedure left the immediate vicinity of the chlorine leak to inform a supervisor about the leak, the supervisor donned personal protective equipment (half-face respirator with acid gas cartridges, goggles, and helmet/face shield) entered the vicinity of chlorine tank and contained the leak by closing the cylinder shut-off valve.  However, this supervisor had not been provided training at the hazardous materials technician level to enable safe performance of this task.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,930

Hazardous substances 0640

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 the Cooling Room, half-face air purifying respirators with acid gas cartridges were required to be used by workers performing maintenance of valves and connection hoses on 1-Ton Chlorine cylinders.  However, no written program was established, and adequate site-specific procedures were not implemented to assure proper use of these respirators in routine and emergency situations.  This exposed employees to possible pulmonary edema.        For example, in the Chlorine Room on 9/5/2013 when a chlorine release occurred and was ongoing, both a maintenance worker and a supervisor used half-face respirators in the presence of unknown chlorine concentrations, which likely exceeded the maximum use concentration of these respirators.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0640

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) The employer had no record of having provided a medical evaluation for the maintenance worker that used a half-face air purifying chemical cartridge respirator during the chlorine release incident in the Cooling Room on or around September 5, 2013.  These conditions potentially exposed the worker to cardiopulmonary stress.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0640

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:    (a) The employer had no record of having provided an annual fit test (either qualitative or quantitative) for the maintenance worker who was using a tight-fitting half-face air purifying respirator during the chlorine gas release incident in the Cooling Room on or around September 5, 2013.  Poor respirator fit would enable chlorine gas to leak around the mask into the respiratory system, potentially causing adverse effects, such as pulmonary edema.    (b) The employer had no record of having provided an annual fit test (either qualitative or quantitative) for the supervisor who was using a tight-fitting half-face air purifying respirator during the chlorine gas release incident in the Cooling Room on or around September 5, 2013.  Poor respirator fit would enable chlorine gas to leak around the mask into the respiratory system, potentially causing adverse effects, such as pulmonary edema.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0640

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide respirator training that would ensure each employee could demonstrate knowledge of items in section (i)-(vii):     (a) Maintenance workers and supervisors were not adequately trained on the limitations of the half-face respirators which were equipped with acid gas cartridges, and which were used during maintenance operations involving the chlorine gas system.  For example, there was not adequate training regarding the maximum use concentration (meaning the maximum concentration of chlorine gas in which the respirator could safely be used).  Also, training did not provide explanation of what would be considered an IDLH concentration of chlorine gas, and that air purifying respirators would not provide adequate protection at or above an IDLH concentration.  Use of these respirators in atmospheres exceeding the limitations of the respirator could result in respirator failure and exposure of the respirator user to hazardous effects of chlorine, such as severe irritation to the respiratory tract, and potential for pulmonary edema.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,930

Hazardous substances 0640

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): When the employer was unable to identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH:     (a) In the Chlorine Room (AKA: Cooling Room), where workers performed maintenance tasks involving 1-ton Chlorine cylinders, there was no means in place to measure airborne concentrations of chlorine gas.  On or around September 5, 2013, when a chlorine release was ongoing, the employer did not consider that the resulting concentration of chlorine gas in the vicinity of the chlorine release could be at or above the IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) level.  Consequently, a maintenance worker and a supervisor both used half-face air purifying respirators when approaching the leaking cylinder.  This condition potentially exposed these workers to respirator filter breakthrough and inhalation of hazardous concentrations of chlorine gas, which could result in pulmonary edema.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0640

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(2)(i): When there was a change in the work area, conditions, or degree of employee exposure or stress that may affect respirator effectiveness, the employer did not reevaluate the continued effectiveness of the respirator:       (a) The employer had no means, such as a chlorine monitor, to determine the concentration of chlorine gas in the vicinity the Cooling Room, where chlorine cylinders were stored and where a chlorine cylinder was attached to piping.  For example, on or around September 5, 2013, when a chlorine release was ongoing, a maintenance worker and a supervisor responded using half-face air purifying respirators, without any prior determination of the concentration of chlorine gas present and no evaluation of whether that level of respiratory protection continued to be adequate.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Apr 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,930

Hazardous substances 0640

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): Procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance including, but not limited to, 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(A), (c)(4)(ii)(B), (c)(4)(ii)(C) and (c)(4)(ii)(D):        (a) The procedure for disconnecting 1-Ton chlorine tanks, as outlined in "Chlorine Operation - General Work Instructions", item #6, did not address techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy.  On or around September 5, 2013, an unexpected release of 63 lbs of chlorine gas (hazardous chemical energy) occurred during the performance of the disconnecting procedure when apparently the tank valve was not in the fully closed position before the valve handle wrench was taken off the tank valve and applied to the yoke fitting.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Apr 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,951 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct an annual or more frequent inspection of the energy control procedure to ensure that the procedure and requirements of this standard were followed:     (a)  Although the employer updated instructions regarding its lockout/tagout procedures during 2013, no actual inspections consisting of an authorized employee observing and evaluating other authorized employee(s) performing energy control procedures on specific equipment such as, but not limited to, the Centrifuge, Pouring Machine, and Air Dryer, were conducted.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,951 · Current $2,970 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.176(b): Material stored in tiers was not stacked, blocked, interlocked or limited in height so that it was stable and secure against sliding and collapse:     (a) In the Ingredients Warehouse, large totes containing crushed aluminum casts were stacked 3 high on pallets.  Some of these stacks of totes were observed to be leaning and were therefore unstable, potentially exposing workers to the hazard of being struck and/or crushed by falling totes which weighed between 2500 to 3000 lbs each.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Abate by

Mar 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,951 · Current $4,951

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years: (a)  Workers who operate forklift trucks, for example in the Material Warehouse and in Shipping/Receiving, have not been evaluated with regard to their performance within the required 3 year frequency.

Issued

Feb 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,208 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were being placed in service after the examination showed condition(s) adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle:    (a) In the Yard Area, the Linde #51 powered industrial truck was being used in spite of having a broken seat belt.  This deficiency potentially exposed the operator to the hazard of falling out of the truck during its operation outdoors in the Yard Area.