OSHA Inspection: PETROLEUM CONTAINMENT, INC

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,856 Reduced

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. On August 13, 2014, an employee working in the grinding booth was exposed to a noise dose of 77.9%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels, A scale) of 88.2 dBA.  The sampling was performed on for 399 minutes during one work shift. The employer did not administer a continuing and effective hearing conservation program as describe in paragraph (c) through (o) of the OSHA hearing conservation standard. The employer did not:    1. Develop and implement a monitoring program,  2. Establish and maintain an audiometric testing program,  3. Institute a training program with the requirements of this section, and  4. Have available for the employees a copy of OSHA hearing conservation standard.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Nov 10, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,856 Reduced

Hazardous substances 17502280

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):  Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, was not provided, used, or maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it was necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact:    a. On or about July 8, 2014, the employer did not provide personal protective equipment that would protect the employees from severe skin irritation and/or chemical burns in the forearms, body and legs while the employees handled corrosives such as the resin and catalyst mixture used to layup fiber glass sheets to the meter boxes.  The employees were provided with a cloth-type apron that permitted the chemical go through and did not covered forearms and legs.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,856 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification which included the requirements as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):    a. On or about July 8, 2014, the employer required employees to use gloves, apron, safety glasses, N95 dust masks, hearing protectors, and half face respirators while handling or working around hazardous chemicals and the employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification that identified the workplace evaluated, the name of the person certifying that the evaluation was performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and which identified the document as a certification of hazard assessment.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,856 Reduced

Hazardous substances 175022809685

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(g)(2): Employees were permitted to consume food or beverage in area(s) exposed to toxic materials:    a.  On or about July 8, 2014, the employer allowed employees to consume beverages while working with toxic chemicals such as, but not limited to, Norox MEKP-9 and resin which were capable of causing human systemic effects by ingestion and chemical pneumonitis.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,856 Reduced

Hazardous substances 17502280

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    a.  On or about July 8, 2014, employees working with organic peroxides and corrosive chemicals were not provided with a suitable facility for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body close to the production area for them to use in case of an immediate emergency.  The only eye and body wash station available in the facility required more than 10 second to be reached and the path of travel was obstructed by pallets, raw material, and machinery.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,856 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(2): All exposed parts of horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform, excepting runways used exclusively for oiling, or running adjustments, were not protected by a stationary casing enclosing shafting completely:    a.  On or about July 8, 2014, on the Hopper Machine, there were 4 pumps with exposed rotating shafts and couplings, exposing employees to being caught-in the rotary shaft.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

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. On or about September 12, 2014, employees were exposed to being struck-by debris while cleaning the grinding booth at the end of the shift and clearing their clothing from dust throughout the shift because the air pressure was not reduced to less than 30 psi.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Nov 10, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,856 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1): Abrasive wheel(s) were used on portable grinder(s) which were not provided with safety guard(s) meeting the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1) through (c)(4):    a. On or about July 8, 2014, an employee was using a hand held portable grinder with a 7-inches grinding wheel without a safety guard to smooth the edges of the molds.    b. On or about September 11, 2014, an employee was using a hand held portable grinder with a 7-inches grinding wheel without a safety guard to smooth the edges of the molds.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,856 Reduced

Hazardous substances 175022809685

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2): Employees were not informed of:  (i) The requirements of this section;  (ii) Any operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present; and, (iii) The location and availability of the written hazard communication program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and material safety data sheets required by this section.    a. On or about July 8, 2014, employees working with organic peroxides such as Norox MEKP-9 (catalyst) and Cadox D-50, and flammable chemicals such as acetone, mold releases, and resin, were not provided with effective information and training on the requirements under OSHA Hazard Communication standard 29 CFR 1910.1200, and the location and availability of the employer's written hazard communication program, including the chemical inventory and safety data sheets.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 175022809685

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3): The employee training did not include the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(iv):    a. On or about July 8, 2014, employees working with organic peroxides such as Norox MEKP-9 (catalyst) and Cadox D-50, and flammable chemicals such as acetone, mold releases, and resin, were not provided with effective information and training on:    1. Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical in the work area,  2. Specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices and emergency procedures, and  3. The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, including and explanations of the labels received on shipped containers, and the new labeling system and safety data sheets, including the order of information and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $9,800 · Current $2,912 Reduced

Hazardous substances 17502280

General-duty citation text

Petroleum Containment, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 315483644, citation number 1, item number 2a and was affirmed as a final order on July 19, 2012, with respect to a workplace located at 3511 Walnut Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206.    29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    a. On or about July 8, 2014, at Meter Box/Lamination area, employees dispensed corrosive, flammable, and oxidizing chemicals such as, but not limited to, resin, MEKP-9, and acetone, to a secondary containers and the employer did not ensure that each container was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of chemical contained.    b. On or about July 8, 2014, at spray booth area, employees dispensed catalyst to a secondary container and the employer did not ensure that the container was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of chemical contained.    c. On or about July 8, 2014, throughout the production area, there were orange buckets with different type of hazardous chemicals in them, used for various reasons, and the employer did not ensure that the buckets were labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of chemical contained.    d. On or about July 8, 2014, at Line Assembly area, employees work with or around a mixer containing catalyst mixture and the employer did not ensure that the mixer was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of chemical contained.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 17502280

General-duty citation text

Petroleum Containment, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 315483644, citation number 1, item number 2b and was affirmed as a final order on July 19, 2012, with respect to a workplace located at 3511 Walnut Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206.    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. On or about July 8, 2014, at Meter Box/Lamination area, employees dispensed corrosive, flammable, and oxidizing chemicals such as, but not limited to, resin, MEKP-9, and acetone, to a secondary containers and the employer did not ensure that each container was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings.    b. On or about July 8, 2014, at spray booth area, employees dispensed catalyst to a secondary container and the employer did not ensure that the container was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings.    c. On or about July 8, 2014, throughout the production area, there were orange buckets with different type of hazardous chemicals in them, used for various reasons, and the employer did not ensure that the buckets were labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings.    d. On or about July 8, 2014, at Line Assembly area, employees work with or around a mixer containing catalyst mixture and the employer did not ensure that the mixer was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings.

Issued

Oct 15, 2014

Abate by

Dec 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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. On or about July 8, 2014, at the spray both, employees were required to use a half face negative pressure elastomeric respirator while spraying a mixture of gel coat, catalyst, and fiber glass, and the employer did not developed nor implemented a respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures:  1. The employer did not have a written program; 2. The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards; 3. The employer did not provide medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator; 4. The employer did not provide fit testing; 5. The employer did not provide training on the proper use, storage and limitations of the respirator, or OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard; 6. The employer did not establish a cartridge exchange schedule; and 7.  The employees were allowed to have facial hair while wearing the respirator.