OSHA Inspection: OUTDOOR FURNITURE REFINISHING, INC.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Nov 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,410 · Current $2,205 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(2)(ii): The concentration of respirable dust or fume in the breathing zone of the abrasive-blasting operator or any other worker was not kept below the levels specified in 1910.1000:    a)  In the Blasting Building, where an employee performing abrasive blasting with Sharp Jet Garnet was exposed to respirable dust containing 13% crystalline quartz at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 10 milligrams per cubic meter.  The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for respirable dust containing 13% crystalline quartz is 0.667 milligrams per cubic meter.  The employee's exposure was 15 times the PEL.  Sampling was conducted for 398 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 82 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Nov 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): An employee(s) was exposed to respirable Silica in excess of the 8-hour time weighted average limit listed in Table Z-3:  a)  In the Blasting Building, where an employee performing abrasive blasting with Sharp Jet Garnet was exposed to respirable dust containing 13% crystalline quartz at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 10 milligrams per cubic meter.  The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for respirable dust containing 13% crystalline quartz is 0.667 milligrams per cubic meter.  The employee's exposure was 15 times the PEL.  Sampling was conducted for 398 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 82 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Sep 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,410 · Current $2,205 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceeded the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    a)  In the Blasting Building, where a noise monitoring program had not been developed and implemented.  An employee was exposed to 626.6% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 103.2 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 380 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 100 minutes.    b)  In the Batch Building, where a noise monitoring program had not been developed and implemented for employees performing powder coating activities in the big batch spray booth.  An employee was exposed to 154.5% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 93.1 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 420 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 60 minutes.    c)  In the Batch Building, where a noise monitoring program had not been developed and implemented for employees performing powder coating activities in the small batch spray booth.  An employee was exposed to 114.1% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 90.9 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 404 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 76 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Sep 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,410 · Current $2,205 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    a)  In the Blasting Building, where an employee performing blasting activities had not received an audiogram.  An employee was exposed to 626.6% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 103.2 dBA.  Sampling was conducted for 380 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 100 minutes.    b)  In the Batch Building, where an employee performing powder coating activities in the big batch booth had not received an audiogram.  An employee was exposed to 154.5% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 93.1 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 420 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 60 minutes.    c)  In the Batch Building, where an employee performing powder coating activities in the small batch booth had not received an audiogram. An employee was exposed to 114.1% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 90.9 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 404 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 76 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Sep 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:    a)  In the Blasting Building, where an employee performing blasting activities had not received a baseline audiogram.  An employee was exposed to 626.6% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 103.2 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 380 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 100 minutes.    b)  In the Batch Building, where an employee performing powder coating activities in the big batch booth had not received a baseline audiogram.  An employee was exposed to 154.5% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 93.1 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 420 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 60 minutes.    c)  In the Batch Building, where an employee performing powder coating activities in the small batch booth had not received a baseline audiogram.   An employee was exposed to 114.1% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 90.9 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 404 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 76 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,410 · Current $2,205 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors were worn by any employee who was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater:    a)  In the Batch Building, where an employee performing powder coating activities in the big batch booth did not utilize hearing protection.  An employee was exposed to 154.5% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 93.1 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 420 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 60 minutes.    b)  In the Batch Building, where an employee performing powder coating activities in the small batch booth did not utilize hearing protection.  An employee was exposed to 114.1% of noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 90.9 dBA. Sampling was conducted for 404 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 76 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,520 · Current $1,260 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(2): The interior surfaces of spray booths were not smooth and continuous without edges and otherwise designed to prevent pocketing of residues and facilitate cleaning and washing without injury:    a) In the Batch Building, where there was a portable stereo system mounted on the interior wall of the big batch powder coating booth.     b) In the Batch Building, where there were portable stereo speakers mounted on the interior wall of the small batch powder coating booth.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jul 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,150 · Current $1,575 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i): Visible gauges, audible alarms, or pressure activated devices were not installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity was maintained:    a) In the Batch Building, where the big batch spray booth was not equipped with gauges or alarms.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,780 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv): Space within the spray booth on the downstream and upstream sides of filters were not protected with approved automatic sprinklers:    a)  In the Batch Building, where the big batch spray booth was not equipped with automatic sprinklers on the downstream and upstream sides of the filters. Employees spray a flammable powder coating.     b)  In the Batch Building, where the small batch spray booth was not equipped with automatic sprinklers on the downstream and upstream sides of the filters. Employees spray a flammable powder coating.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,150 · Current $1,575 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(d)(3):  Each spray booth did not have an independent exhaust duct system discharging to the exterior of the building:    a)  In the Batch Building, where the big batch spray booth exhaust system discharged into the interior of the building.    b)  In the Batch Building, where the small batch spray booth exhaust system discharged into the interior of the building.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Apr 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(d)(9):  Air exhaust from spray operations was directed so that it could contaminate makeup air being introduced into the spraying area or other ventilating intakes, or directed so as to create a nuisance. Air exhausted from spray operations was recirculated:    a) In the Batch Building, where the big batch spray booth exhaust system discharged into the interior of the building.    b) In the Batch Building, where the small batch spray booth exhaust system discharged into the interior of the building.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,410 · Current $2,205 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(ii): The employer did not select and use a NIOSH-certified respirator in compliance with the conditions of its certification:    a) In the Blasting Building, where the respirator combination being used for protection from air contaminants, a 3M N95 particulate respirator being worn beneath a Bullard airline respirator, was not certified by NIOSH.    b)  In the Blasting Building, where the use of plastic and duct tape to repair a Bullard airline respirator negated the NIOSH certification.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(3)(i)(A): Respirators used in routine situations were not inspected before each use and during cleaning:  a) In the Blasting Building, where the Bullard airline respirators were not inspected prior to each use.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jul 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,150 · Current $1,575 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    a) In the Batch Building, where employees required to use 3M full face respirators, model #6800, were not fit-tested prior to their initial use.  Employees use the respirators for protection from 1,3,5-triglycidyl isocyanurate and total dusts when applying powder coating to steel parts.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jul 21, 2014

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 the Batch Building, where employees who were required to use 3M full face respirators, model #6800, during the powder coating process were not provided with medical evaluations.      b) In the Blasting Building, where employees who were required to use Bullard MB30 Airline Respirators during the abrasive blasting process were not provided with medical evaluations.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i): Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  a) In the Batch Building, where 3M full face respirators, model #6800, were stored unprotected from damage in and around the powder coating spray booths.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,150 · Current $1,575 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(7): Oil lubricated compressor(s) used to supply breathing air did not have a high-temperature or carbon monoxide alarm(s) or both:    a) At the facility, where the Quincy air compressor was not equipped with a carbon monoxide alarm.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(5)(iv): The employer did not ensure that the person authorized to perform the necessary sorbent bed and filter changes filled out a tag indicating by the signature and date that maintenance changes were performed:  a) At the facility, where sorbent bed and filter changes for the Bullard airline filters, model 41-P2, were not documented on a tag.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,780 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(3): A safe place to ride was not provided where riding a powered industrial truck(s) was authorized:    a) At the facility, where an employee rode on the attachment forks of the Mitsubishi Forklift, model FG45K-LP, serial #AF29C90236.  This condition exposed the employee to a struck-by hazard.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jul 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,780 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    a) In the Batch Building, where compressed air used to remove the excess powder coating material off of Tyvek suits was greater than 100 p.s.i.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jul 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,780 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(b): Areas designated as hazardous (classified) locations under the Class and Zone system and areas designated under the Class and Division system established after August 13, 2007 were not properly documented:    a) In the Batch Building, where hazardous (classified) locations, such as areas subject to deposits of combustible residue, and areas in close proximity to powder coating operations, were not properly documented.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Jun 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 Batch Building, where the fluorescent lighting above the spray booths were not approved for classified locations.    b) In the Batch Building, where the wiring for a portable stereo system mounted on the interior wall of the big batch powder coating booth was not approved for the location.  c) In the Batch Building, where the wiring for the portable stereo speakers mounted on the interior wall of the small batch powder coating booth was not approved for the location.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Nov 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,150 · Current $1,575 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) total dust fraction listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) concentration of 15 milligrams per cubic meter:    a) In the Batch Building, Big Batch Spray Booth, where an employee performing powder coating activities was exposed to total dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 32.34 milligrams per cubic meter, 2.2 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for total dust of 15 milligrams per cubic meter.  Sampling was conducted for 377 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 103 minutes.     b) In the Batch Building, Small Batch Spray Booth, where an employee performing powder coating activities was exposed to total dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 28.15 milligrams per cubic meter, 1.9 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for total dust of 15 milligrams per cubic meter.  Sampling was conducted for 412 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 68 minutes.

Issued

May 22, 2014

Abate by

Apr 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    a) In the Batch Building, Big Batch Spray Booth, where an employee performing powder coating activities was exposed to total dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 32.34 milligrams per cubic meter, 2.2 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for total dust of 15 milligrams per cubic meter.  Sampling was conducted for 377 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 103 minutes.    b) In the Batch Building, Small Batch Spray Booth, where an employee performing powder coating activities was exposed to total dust at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 28.15 milligrams per cubic meter, 1.9 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for total dust of 15 milligrams per cubic meter.  Sampling was conducted for 412 minutes on December 11, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 68 minutes.