OSHA Inspection: CONTINENTAL MFG. COMPANY, INC.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Aug 2, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $5,500

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:   a) At the facility, in the blast and prime area, a blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 883.4% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 883.4% is approximately 105.7 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 324 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 156 minutes.   b) At the facility, in the blast and prime area, a blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 723.2% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 723.2% is approximately 104.2 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 333 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 147 minutes.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $5,500

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:  a) At the facility, in the blast and prime area, a blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 895.8% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 895.8% is approximately 105.8 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 324 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 156 minutes.   b) At the facility, in the blast and prime area, a blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 735.4% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 735.4% is approximately 104.3 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 333 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 147 minutes.   c) At the facility, in Parts 1 fabrication area, a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 112.8% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 112.8% is approximately 90.8 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 411 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 69 minutes.   d) At the facility, in the drum shop fabrication area, a welder/fitter was exposed to continuous noise levels at 73.71% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 73.71% is approximately 87.7 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 379 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 101 minutes.   e) At the facility, in the drum shop fabrication area, a welder/fitter was exposed to continuous noise levels at 78.41% of the allowable 8-hour time weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 78.41% is approximately 88.2 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 421 minutes during one shift on January 8, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 59 minutes.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,300 · Current $3,300

Hazardous substances 9902

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(e)(2)(iii): Drainage or other means to control spills was not provided in areas where flammable or combustible liquids were transferred from one tank or container to another container:    At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about February 25, 2014 Valspar R-Cure Flush Solvent, a flammable liquid, was dispensed from a storage drum to other containers with no secondary containment or means to control a spill, exposing employees to flammable liquid spill hazards.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,600 · Current $6,600

Hazardous substances 9902

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i): The spraying operations was not designed, installed or maintained that the average air velocity over the open face of the booth (or booth cross section during spraying operations) shall be not less than 100 linear feet per minute. Visible gauges or audible alarm or pressure activated devices shall be installed to indicate or insure that the required air velocity is maintained. Filter rolls shall be inspected to insure proper replacement of filter media.  a)  At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about January 8, 2014, the average primer spray booth cross section air velocity was 46.3 linear feet per minute, exposing employees to a flammable vapor hazard.    b)  At the facility, in the finishing area:  On or about January 8, 2014, the average finishing paint spray booth cross section air velocity was 51.8 linear feet per minute, exposing employees to a flammable vapor hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,300 · Current $3,300

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:   At the facility, in the finishing area:  On or about January 8, 2014 the finishing paint spray booth used to apply flammable coatings was not equipped with a fire suppression system, exposing employees to a fire hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $5,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition:    At the facility, in the blast and prime area: On or about January 8, 2014, personal protective equipment was used and not maintained in a reliable condition , such as but not limited to, blast hood apron, blast hood helmet and foot protection.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

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 finishing area:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees required to wear 3M N95 filtering facepiece (dust mask) respirators during sanding of components were not medically evaluated to determine their ability to wear a respirator, exposing employees to cardio-pulmonary hazards.     b)  At the facility, in the paint finishing area:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees required to wear 3M elastomeric half mask respirators during paint spraying of components outside the spray booth were not medically evaluated to determine their ability to wear a respirator, exposing employees to cardio-pulmonary hazards.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of Particles Not Otherwise Classified (PNOC) Total Dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 15 mg/m3:   At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about January 8, 2014 a blaster was exposed to 144 mg/m3 Particles Not Otherwise Classified (PNOC) Total Dust as an 8-hour time weighted average concentration, approximately 9.6 times greater than the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15 mg/m3, exposing the employee to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(5)(iii): The compressor's sorbent bed and filters were not maintained and replaced or refurbished periodically as instructed by the manufacturer:     At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about December 4, 2014 the Air System International filters for the supply of breathing air to employees performing blasting were not maintained, exposing employees to inhalation and asphyxiation hazards.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

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:    At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about December 4, 2014 the carbon monoxide sensor and alarm were inoperable when employees conducted blasting, exposing employees to an asphyxiation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $4,400

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:   At the facility, in the prime and finish painting areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 and times thereafter, gloves selected by the employer for use by painters spraying and mixing isocyanate based coatings and using solvent to clean the spray nozzles and components were not evaluated to determine performance characteristics for the work being performed and chemicals in use, exposing employees to a chemical absorption hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $4,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2)(i): The employer did not provide information to the employees on the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200:   At the facility, in the prime and finish paint areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees using chemicals including isocyanate based paints, fillers, and flammable solvent were not provided information on the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard, exposing employees to inhalation and absorption hazards.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area:  At the facility, in the prime and finish paint areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees using chemicals including isocyanate based paints, chemical fillers, and flammable solvent were not provided required information including the physical and health hazards of the chemicals, exposing employees to inhalation and absorption hazards.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(h)(1): The employer did not provide the protective equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), used to comply with this part, at no cost to employees.   At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer required employees performing steel grit blasting of steel components to provide and pay for foot protection.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards 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 finish painting area:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not make reasonable assessment of exposure to respirable dust of employees performing finish sanding of primed components to be painted, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   a)  At the facility, in the finish painting area:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not make reasonable assessment of exposure to paint chemical components of employees performing finish painting of components outside of the spray booth, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   b)  At the facility, in the prime and finish painting areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not make reasonable assessment of exposure to respirable dust of employees performing sanding of components, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   c)  At the facility, in the prime and finish painting areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not make reasonable assessment of exposure to isocyanates of employees performing mixing and spray painting using isocyanate containing coatings, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   d)  At the facility, in the blast and prime area:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not make reasonable assessment of exposure to respirable dust of employees performing steel grit blasting, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   e)  At the facility, in the Drum Fabrication Shop:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not make reasonable assessment of exposure to respirable fume of employees performing interior and exterior welding of steel drums, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2): The employer did not include the basis for his the change schedule in the respirator program:     At the facility, in the prime and finish painting areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not establish a basis for chemical cartridge change schedule in the respirator program when employees were required to wear 3M half mask elastomeric respirators with chemical cartridges for spray painting outside of the booth, exposing employee to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

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)  At the facility, in the paint finishing area:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees required to wear 3M N95 filtering facepiece (dust mask) respirators during sanding of components were not fit tested, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.     b)  At the facility, in the paint finishing area:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees required to wear 3M elastomeric half mask respirators during paint spraying of components outside the spray booth were not fit tested, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of the limitations and capabilities of the respirator    At the facility, in the prime and finish painting areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees required to use elastomeric and filtering facepiece air purifying respirators were not provided training on the proper use and limitations of the respirators, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6): The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:   At the facility, in the fabrication shops:  On or about January 8, 2014 employees provided voluntary use filtering facepiece (dust mask) respirators for use when welding and grinding were not provided with Appendix D advisory information, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Jul 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $1,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(l)(1): Evaluations of the workplace were not conducted to ensure the written respiratory protection program was being effectively implemented:   At the facility, in the fabrication, blast, prime and painting areas:  On or about January 8, 2014 the employer did not evaluate the workplace to ensure respiratory protection was effectively implemented, as evidenced by deficiencies in multiple program areas and lack of documentation including: training, cartridge change schedule basis, fit testing, medical evaluation, exposure assessment, and maintenance and condition of respiratory protection equipment, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.