OSHA Inspection: REPUBLIC METALS INC

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

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:    On or about August 13, 2014, the employer did not establish a baseline for an employee who was required to be included in the hearing conservation program. The lead burner sampled was exposed to continuous noise levels at 117.1% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 442 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 38 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Dec 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protective equipment:    On or about August 4, 2014, employees required to wear personal protective equipment have not been trained on its use. Employees are working with propane, hydrogen, oxygen, methylene chloride, lead, copper fume, plastisolve, and machine oil. Employees are required to wear respirators, safety glasses, and gloves during certain work activities.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Dec 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1): Portable fire extinguishers were not mounted, located and identified so that they were readily accessible without subjecting the employees to injuries:    On or about August 4, 2014, the employer did not make an ABC fire extinguisher readily accessible to employees located near the lead burning department. The fire extinguisher was missing, but the sign was still indicating a fire extinguisher was available for use and fire extinguishers hooks were being used as coat racks.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Mar 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(4)(i): Oxygen cylinders were stored near highly combustible material, especially oil and grease; or near reserve stocks of carbide and acetylene or other fuel-gas cylinders, or near other substance likely to cause or accelerate fire:     On or about August 4, 2014, the employer had oxygen tanks and hydrogen tanks stored together throughout the Lead Burning Department that were not in use. Oxygen tanks were also stored near hydrogen cylinders and propane tanks. The stock reserves of hydrogen, propane, and oxygen were stored near the man door in the Lead Burning Department.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Oct 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0731

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): An employee was exposed to copper fumes in excess of the 8-hour time weighted average limits of 0.10 mg/m3 listed in Table Z-3:    On or about August 13, 2014, the Burner working in the Lead Burning Department was exposed to copper fume at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.1235 mg/m3 which is approximately 1.23 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.10 mg/m3, for 441 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Oct 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0731

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):    For the employees including, but not limited to, those as described in Citation 1, Item 6(a).      On or about August 13, 2014, the Burner working in the Lead Burning Department was exposed to copper fume at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.1235 mg/m3 which is approximately 1.23 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.10 mg/m3, for 441 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    General methods of control applicable in this circumstance include, but are not limited to the following:    1) Re-evaluate the overhead ventilation systems for ways  to improve air movement/capture of the high levels of metal fumes generated while lead burning to further ensure the most adequate removal of the metal fume from the worker exposure;    2) Re-evaluate the existing work practices in the in the lead burning department to reduce the worker exposures to the airborne metal fume;    3) Explore the utilization of a downdraft table with local exhaust ventilation to further assist in removal of the high levels of metal fumes.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Oct 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period:     a) On or about August 13, 2014, an employee working in the Lead Burning Department was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.059 mg/m3, which is approximately 1.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3, for 441 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    b) On or about August 13, 2014, an employee working in the Lead Burning Department was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.054 mg/m3, which is approximately 1.08 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3, for 439 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Oct 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(i): For any employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year the employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls (including administrative controls) were not implemented to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead:    a) On or about August 13, 2014, an employee working in the Lead Burning Department was exposed to lead at a time weighted average of 0.059 mg/m3, which is above the permissible exposure limit of 0.05 mg/m3.    b) On or about August 13, 2014, an employee working in the Lead Burning Department was exposed to lead at a time weighted average of 0.054 mg/m3, which is above the permissible exposure limit of 0.05 mg/m3.    General methods of control applicable in this circumstance include, but are not limited to the following:    1) Re-evaluate the overhead ventilation systems for ways  to improve air movement/capture of the high levels of metal fumes generated while lead burning to further ensure the most adequate removal of the metal fume from the worker exposure;    2) Re-evaluate the existing work practices in the in the lead burning department to reduce the worker exposures to the airborne metal fume;    3) Explore the utilization of a downdraft table with local exhaust ventilation to further assist in removal of the high levels of metal fumes.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Dec 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(3): Vacuums were not used and/or emptied in a manner which minimized the reentry of lead into the workplace:    On or about August 4, 2014, employees were dry sweeping lead dust into pans instead of using a HEPA-filter vacuum.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(iv): Employees entering lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment were not required to remove surface lead dust by vacuuming, downdraft booth, or other cleaning method(s):    On or about August 4, 2014, the employer did provide employees with a way to remove lead from their clothing before entering the lunchroom.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Dec 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(iv): A training program was not repeated at least annually for each employee subject to lead exposure at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed:    On or about August 4, 2014, an employee who had an overexposure to lead was not retrained on an annual basis on the company lead program.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Dec 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 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:    On or about August 4, 2014, the employer did not provide chemical resistant gloves for employees who are exposed to methylene chloride when removing plastisolve from metal poles.

Issued

Dec 9, 2014

Abate by

Dec 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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:      On or about August 4, 2014, the employer did not label drums of methylene chloride and had not included methylene chloride in the hazard communication program.