OSHA Inspection: AMERICAN SPINCAST, INC.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,900

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:    The employer did not utilize feasible administrative or engineering controls, such as employee rotation or installation of sound absorbing coverings for walls and floor, when Foundry Floor Workers were exposed to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table G-16.     Instance (a): On or about 10/22/2014, where noise sampling performed for 475 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 681.7% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 103.80 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 5 minutes not sampled.    Instance (b): On or about 10/22/2014, where noise sampling performed for 359 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 490.0% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 101.46 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 121 minutes not sampled; however, the projected 8-hour TWA exposure was 653.9% which is equivalent to approximately 103.5 dBA.     Instance (c): On or about 10/22/2014, where noise sampling performed for 478 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 452.2% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 100.89 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 2 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 19, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

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 1910.95(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:  On or about 10/22/2014 the employer did not administer a continuous, effective hearing conservation program in that employees exposed to hazardous levels of noise were not afforded timely baseline and annual audiograms to detect hearing loss:   Instance (a): A Foundry Floor Worker who was hired in 2012 was not provided a baseline audiogram for 21 months. The noise sampling performed for 475 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 681.7% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 103.80 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 5 minutes not sampled.  Instance (b): A Foundry Floor Worker who was hired in 2007 was not provided audiograms each year, including 2011 and 2012, and had no baseline comparison when audiometric testing resumed in 2013. Noise sampling performed for 359 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 490.0% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 101.46 dBA. Zero exposure was assumed for the 121 minutes not sampled; however, the projected 8-hour TWA exposure was 653.9% which is equivalent to approximately 103.5 dBA.   Instance (c): A Foundry Floor Worker hired in 1989 was not provided an audiogram every year, including 2011 and 2012, and had no baseline comparison when audiometric testing resumed in 2013. Noise sampling performed for 478 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 452.2% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 100.89 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 2 minutes not sampled.  Instance (d): A Cut Off Operator hired in 1992 was not provided an audiogram every year, including 2011 and 2012, and had no baseline comparison when audiometric testing resumed in 2013. Noise sampling performed for 480 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 242.1% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 96.38 dBA.    Instance (e): A Machine Operator hired in 1996 was not provided an audiogram every year, including 2011 and 2012, and had no baseline comparison when audiometric testing resumed in 2013. Noise sampling performed for 478 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 127.7% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 91.76 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 2 minutes not sampled.  Instance (f): A Cut Off Operator hired in 1994 was not provided a baseline audiogram until 2013. Noise sampling performed for 483 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 99.49% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 89.96 dBA. The projected 8-hour TWA exposure was 98.66% which is equivalent to approximately 89.9 dBA.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not post a copy of 29 CFR 1910.95 in the workplace:  At the inspection site, a copy of 29 CFR 1910.95 Occupational Noise Exposure was not posted for employees who were exposed to noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dBA while engaged in production of stainless steel centrifugal castings, exposing employees to the hazards of occupational noise.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 19, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(m)(3)(ii): The employer did not retain audiometric test records for the duration of the affected employee's employment as required by 29 CFR 1910.95(m):  At the inspection site, where employees were exposed to noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dBA while engaged in production of stainless steel centrifugal castings, records of annual audiometric testing were not retained for employees exposed to the hazards of occupational noise.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances K107

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(d)(2)(i): Approved containers and/or portable tanks were not used for the storage of flammable liquids:     On or about October 8, 2014, in the CNC shop, five-gallon buckets containing Kerosene, a Class 3 flammable liquid, used by employees to clean chucks and jaws were not approved for storage of flammable liquids, exposing employees to the hazards of fire.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances K107

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(e)(2)(ii): Flammable liquids were not stored in tanks or closed containers:    On or about October 8, 2014, in the CNC shop, a gallon can containing Kerosene used by employees to clean chucks and jaws was stored without a cover in the Safety-Kleen parts washer with the lid in the open position, exposing employees to the hazards of fire.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 2150K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(e)(9)(iii): Combustible waste material and residues in a building or unit operating area were not kept to a minimum, stored in covered metal receptacles and disposed of daily:    On or about October 8, 2014, in the machine shop, shop towels contaminated with residues of flammable Crack Check PHF Penetrant were discarded in open metal containers by employees after wiping excess liquid from casting surfaces, exposing employees to the hazards of fire.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:    On or about October 8, 2014, in the foundry, the employer did not enforce use of aluminized suits by employees that were pouring molten metal, and use of long-sleeved arm protection for employees performing tasks on melt platforms, including, but not limited to, charging furnaces, skimming slag, and pulling buttons (samples) from molten metal for the lab, exposing employees to the hazards of molten metal splashes.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances S245

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    (a) On or about October 8, 2014, in revert / raw materials, employees were wearing safety glasses with sideshields in lieu of appropriate eye/face protection while using corrosive Bulldozer Industrial Strength Equipment Wash to degrease borings, exposing employees to the hazards of corrosive chemical splashes.    (b) Amstock Supply and Shipping & Receiving, on 10/08/2014 an employee was wearing regular prescription glasses in lieu of appropriate personal protective equipment for the eyes and/or face while cutting castings with an abrasive cutting wheel, using compressed air to clean the stock saw, and moving materials with a forklift, exposing employee(s) to the hazards of being struck by flying particles in the eyes.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 19, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010S103

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:    On or about October 8, 2014, in the Blast Department, airborne exposures to silica, crystalline quartz (respirable) were not evaluated for employee(s) who were wearing Bullard continuous flow supplied air respirators during abrasive blasting operation on rough castings in the blast booth and Saf-T-Fit N95 filtering facepiece respirators for processes associated with blasting operations, including dry sweeping and shoveling blasting media in the booth, reloading the blasting hopper with the sweepings, moving castings in and out of the booth with a forklift, and shoveling out the dust collection box for the bag house, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of silica.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 19, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010S103

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): Employee(s) were exposed to silica, crystalline quartz (respirable) listed in Table Z-3, in excess of 10 mg/m3 / %SiO2 + 2 as an 8 hour Time-Weighted Average concentration:  On or about October 22, 2014, in the blast booth, airborne exposure to silica, crystalline quartz (respirable) measured 25.6 times the PEL for dust containing 5.0% silica for an employee who was conducting abrasive blasting operations. Bullard continuous flow supplied-air respirators were worn while blasting rough castings. However, during other operations in the blast booth such as dry sweeping and shoveling used blasting media, Saf-T-Fit N95 filtering facepiece respirators with an Assigned Protection Factor of 10xPEL when properly fit-tested were worn, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of silica.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010S103

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:    On or about October 8, 2014, at the inspection site, where employee(s) were required to wear Bullard continuous flow supplied air respirators and N95 filtering facepiece respirators for protection from particulates, including silica, while engaged in abrasive blasting operations, the employer did not provide medical evaluations prior to respirator use, exposing employees to health hazards associated with increased metabolic rate, pulse rate and blood pressure.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010S103

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:  On or about October 8, 2014, in the blasting department, respirator fit testing was not provided to employees who were wearing Saf-T-Fit N95 filtering facepiece respirators for tasks associated with abrasive blasting, including dry sweeping and shoveling used blasting media into buckets for reloading the blasting hopper, cleaning the blast booth, and shoveling out the dust collector for the baghouse, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of silica.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010S103

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:  On or about October 8, 2014, in the blast booth, employee(s) were allowed to wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators with beards while cleaning dust from abrasive blasting operations out of the booth, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of silica.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010S103

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:    On or about October 8, 2014, outside the blast booth, employee(s) were storing supplied air abrasive blasting respirators in loosely covered drums with steel shot blast media, subjecting interiors of helmets and shrouds to contamination with dust from blasting operations on rough castings, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of silica.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1430K107

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:    (a) On or about October 8, 2014, and at times prior thereto and thereafter, in the foundry, employees were wearing leather/canvas gloves in lieu of chemical-resistant gloves while using corrosive Muriatic Acid to wash machine oil off molds, exposing employees to the skin contact hazards of corrosive chemical, including tissue destruction.     (b) On or about October 8, 2014, in the foundry, where employees were wearing leather/canvas gloves in lieu of heat and water-resistant gloves while cooling hot molds with water spray, employees were exposed to the hazards of steam burns when wet canvas contacted hot molds.     (c) On or about October 9, 2014, in the CNC shop, employees were not provided personal protective equipment for the hands while using Kerosene to clean parts, exposing employees to skin contact hazards of Kerosene, including skin irritation and dermatitis.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(2)(iii): Lavatories were not provided with hand soap or similar cleansing agent:    On or about October 8, 2014, in the machine shop, where employees were using hazardous chemicals including, but not limited to, Crack Check DNF Developer containing methylene chloride, hand soap or similar cleansing agent was not provided at the sink used for hand washing on the east wall, exposing employees to the hazards of chemicals and bacterial contamination.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(d)(2)(iv): Lavatories were not provided with individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper, warm air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth toweling:  On or about October 8, 2014, in the machine shop, where employees were using hazardous chemicals including, but not limited to, Crack Check DNF Developer containing methylene chloride, there were no provisions for employees to dry their hands after washing at the sink on the east wall, exposing employees to the contact hazards of chemicals and bacterial contamination.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1460

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(b): Adequate first aid supplies were not readily available:    On or about October 8, 2014, at the inspection site, where employee(s) were using Airtron Corporation Action A/C Condenser Coil Cleaner Concentrate containing hydrofluoric acid to clean coils on window air-conditioning units, calcium gluconate solution or gel, or other appropriate topical agent, was not provided for first aid treatment of fluoride burns, exposing employees to the skin contact hazards of hydrofluoric acid.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1430S245

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 October 8, 2014, in the foundry, where employees were using corrosive Muriatic Acid to wash machine oil off molds, the Bradley eyewash near the chemical storage cabinet was blocked by a safety can and trash, exposing employees to the hazards of corrosive chemical splashes.    (b) On or about October 8, 2014, in revert / raw materials, where employees were using corrosive Bulldozer Industrial Strength Equipment Wash to degrease borings, facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided, exposing employees to the hazards of corrosive chemical splashes.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(2): Where reasonably foreseeable that an employee's eyes may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater methylene chloride, the employer did not provide appropriate eyewash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use:  On or about October 8, 2014, in the machine shop, where employees were spray coating castings with aerosol Crack Check DNF Developer for crack checking and cleaning castings with Crack Check CNF Cleaner for I.D. marking, the eyewash was not available for immediate emergency use in that rust-contaminated water flowed from the eyewash when tested, exposing employees to the hazards of contact with methylene chloride.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0691

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):    In revert/raw materials, airborne exposures to chromium (VI) were not evaluated for employees who were using an oxylance to cut stainless steel castings for re-melting, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of chromium (VI).

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0691

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1)(iii): The employer did not include chromium (VI) in the hazard communication program established to comply with the HCS (1910.1200), and did not ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of chromium (VI) and to safety data sheets, and was trained in accordance with the requirements of HCS and paragraph (l)(2) of this section:  At the inspection site, where employees were exposed to chromium (VI) while melting chromium-containing metal and performing hot work on stainless steel, including oxylance cutting of stainless steel castings, information and training on the hazards of chromium (VI) was not provided, exposing employees to chromium (VI) inhalation and contact hazards.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 14, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0691

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2)(i)(A): The employer did not provide appropriate information and training for all employees exposed to chromium (VI), in that employees could not demonstrate knowledge of the contents of the Chromium (VI) standard, 29 CFR 1910.1026:  At the inspection site, information and training on the contents of the chromium (VI) standard was not provided to employees who were melting chromium-containing metal and performing hot work, such as oxylance cutting of stainless steel castings for re-melting, exposing employees to chromium (VI) inhalation and contact hazards.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 19, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:    In the machine shop, the employer did not perform initial monitoring for employees who were using Crack Check DNF Developer (aerosol) containing methylene chloride to test castings, exposing employees to the hazards of methylene chloride.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  In the machine shop, the employer did not provide protective clothing to employee(s) whose clothing and skin were subject to contamination while coating casting surfaces (interior and exterior) with aerosol Crack Check DNF Developer and wiping away excess liquid with shop towels, exposing employees to the hazards of methylene chloride.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1): The employer did not provide information and training for each affected employee prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride:    In the machine shop, the employer did not provide information and training for employees who were using Crack Check DNF Developer (aerosol) to test castings and Crack Check CNF Cleaner (aerosol) to clean casting surfaces for marking , exposing employees to the hazards of methylene chloride.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 10301460K107

General-duty citation text

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 October 8, 2014, and at times prior thereto and thereafter, in the maintenance department, employee(s) were using chemicals from quart spray bottles that were not labeled with the contents, including, but not limited to, corrosive Action A/C Condenser Coil Cleaner Concentrate containing hydrofluoric acid for cleaning coils on window air-conditioning units, exposing employees to the contact hazards of chemicals.    (b) On or about October 9, 2014, in the machine shop, employees were using Maxus GS.8 Premium Metalworking Fluid (ethanolamine) in a recycled Wesco Refractories "ThermoCote 90" (corrosive) bucket that was not labeled with the actual contents for cooling tools during abrasive grinding, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical contact.    (c) On or about October 9, 2014, in the CNC shop, employees were using Kerosene 3 as a parts washing solvent from a gallon can labeled Parts Cleaner, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical contact.     (d) On or about October 8, 2014, outside the blasting booth, drums containing steel shot abrasive blasting media used for shot blasting rough castings were not labeled with the contents, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical inhalation.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 10301460K107

General-duty citation text

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) In the maintenance department, employee(s) were using chemicals from quart spray bottles that were not labeled with hazard warnings, including, but not limited to, corrosive Action AC Coil Cleaner containing hydrofluoric acid for cleaning coils on window air-conditioning units, exposing employees to the contact hazards of chemicals.    (b) In the machine shop, employees were cooling tools during abrasive grinding by dipping in Maxus GS.8 Premium Metalworking Fluid (ethanolamine) in a recycled Wesco Refractories "ThermoCote 90" bucket that was not labeled with hazard warnings for the Metalworking Fluid, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical contact.    (c) In the CNC shop, employees were using Kerosene, 3 as a parts washing solvent from a gallon can labeled only "Parts Cleaner", exposing employees to the hazards of chemical contact.     (d) Outside the blasting booth, drums containing steel shot abrasive blasting media used for shot blasting rough castings were not labeled, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical inhalation.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

May 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 14309010S103

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iii): Employee training did not include the measures employees can take to protect themselves from chemical hazards, including specific procedures the employer had implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures and personal protective equipment to be used:    (a) In the foundry, where employees were using corrosive Muriatic Acid to wash machine oil off dies, employees were pouring concentrated Muriatic Acid into a bucket and adding water to acid, exposing employees to the hazards of corrosive chemical splashes.    (b) In the foundry, where employees were grinding dried refractory slurry containing silica, crystalline quartz off end plates, employees were not trained to use the updraft booth to reduce silica exposures, and were grinding end plates outside the booth, exposing employees to inhalation hazards of silica.    (c) In shot blasting, on October 8, 2014 a Maintenance employee used compressed air to blow dust containing silica, crystalline quartz out of the exhaust duct for the bag house while the blast booth door was open, allowing escape of dust into the work area and exposing employees to inhalation hazards of silica.    (d) In shot blasting, employees were using compressed air to blow dust containing silica, crystalline quartz off clothing after leaving the blast booth and removing their supplied-air helmets, exposing employees to inhalation hazards of silica.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 14, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 068507311620I200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical which they used:     At the inspection site, the employer did not have material safety data sheets for each chemical which they used including, but not limited to, steel shot abrasive blasting media, exposing employees to the inhalation hazards of blasting media.

Issued

Apr 7, 2015

Abate by

Apr 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(k)(1)(iii): The employer did not ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of methylene chloride and to safety data sheets:  (a) In the machine shop, safety data sheets (or material safety data sheets) were not accessible in the work area while employees were using Crack Check DNF Developer and Crack Check CNF Cleaner containing methylene chloride, exposing employees to the hazards of methylene chloride.