OSHA Inspection: MFB HOLDINGS, LLC

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,430 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five parts per million (25 ppm) as an 8-hour TWA.         a. Fourth floor, laminating area : On or about December 19, 2014, an employee performing laminating spray activities was overexposed to methylene chloride at an eight-hour time weighted average concentration of 38.6 parts per million (ppm), which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm by 54%. This limit has been established to prevent, among other affects, mental confusion, light-headedness, nausea, vomiting and headache. Continued exposure may cause increased light-headedness, staggering, unconsciousness and even death.  Methylene Chloride is also metabolized to carbon monoxide in the human body and is a suspected human carcinogen.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(2): The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of one-hundred and twenty-five parts per million (125 ppm) as determined over a sampling period of fifteen minutes.        a. Fourth floor, laminating area : On or about December 19, 2014, an employee performing laminating spray activities was overexposed to methylene chloride at fifteen minute short-term exposure limit concentration of 247.9 parts per million (ppm), which exceeded the OSHA short-term exposure limit of 125 ppm by 98.4%. This limit has been established to prevent, among other affects, mental confusion, light-headedness, nausea, vomiting and headache. Continued exposure may cause increased light-headedness, staggering, unconsciousness and even death.  Methylene Chloride is also metabolized to carbon monoxide in the human body and is a suspected human carcinogen.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1): The employer did not institute engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the PELs except to the extent that the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible. Wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices which can be instituted are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the 8-TWA PEL or STEL, the employer shall use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels achievable by these controls and shall supplement them by the use of respiratory protection.  a. Fourth floor, laminating are: On or about December 19, 2014,  engineering controls were not determined and implemented to protect employees from overexposures to methylene chloride for employees who are using a large spray tank containing 40-50% methylene chloride.  An employee was overexposed to methylene chloride at an eight-hour time weighted average concentration of 38.6 ppm which exceeded the OSHA permissible limit of 25 ppm by 54%.  b. Fourth floor, laminating area: On or about December 19, 2014, engineering controls were not determined and implemented to protect employees from overexposures to methylene chloride for employees who are using a large spray tank containing 40-50% methylene chloride.  An employee was overexposed to methylene chloride at a Short-term Exposure Limit for 15 minutes of 247.9 ppm which exceeded the OSHA permissible limit of 125 ppm by 98.4%.       Feasible engineering controls for fourth floor laminating area include, but are not limited to, performing laminating spray operations in a suitable exhaust ventilation spray booth.  Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or work practice controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance with collection of personal air samples.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,430 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeded or can reasonably be expected to exceed either the 8-hour TWA PEL or the STEL.            a. Fourth floor, laminating area - On or about December 19, 2014, the employer did not establish a regulated area for employees who are using a large spray tank containing 40-50% methylene chloride and are exposed to air concentrations above the STEL and 8-hour PEL.            b. Sixth floor, acrylic area - On or about March 5, 2015, the employer did not establish a regulated area for employees who are using 100% methylene chloride on clear acrylic parts, and are exposed to air concentrations above the 8-hour PEL.            c. Sixth floor, acrylic area - On or about March 20, 2015, the employer did not establish a regulated area for employees who are using greater than 30% methylene chloride on clear acrylic parts, and are reasonably anticipated to be exposed to air concentrations above the 8-hour PEL.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,430 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(1)(i): The employer did not provide each employee an appropriate respirator to protect workers from methylene chloride.  Respirators must be used during periods when an employee's exposure to methylene chloride exceeds the 8-hour TWA PEL or STEL.        a. Fourth floor, laminating area - On or about December 19, 2014, the employer did not provide respirators to employees who were using a large spray tank containing 40-50% methylene chloride and who were exposed to air concentrations above the STEL and 8-hour PEL.        Abatement Note:   Appropriate respirators for workers to use are atmosphere-supplying respirators.  See the OSHA respiratory standard 1910.134(d)(3)(I)(A) for selection of appropriate respirators.  Ensure that effective respiratory protection is used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering, work practice, or administrative controls can be implemented or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b) through (m) (except (d)(1)(iii)), which covers each employee required by this section to use a respirator.  29 CFR 1910.134 requires the employer to develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use. The program must be administered by a suitably trained program administrator.       a. Fourth floor, laminating area - On or about December 19, 2014, the employer did not implement a respiratory protection program for employees who are using a large spray tank containing 40-50% methylene chloride and are exposed to air concentrations above the STEL and 8-hour PEL, which requires a respirator.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $9,800 · Current $6,860 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(i): Where methylene chloride is present in the workplace, the employer did not determine each employee's exposure:         a.     Fourth floor, laminating area - As of December 19, 2014, the employer had not performed an initial determination for employees who had potential exposure to methylene chloride while laminating materials with a spray chemical containing methylene chloride.    MFB Holdings, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(i),which was contained in OSHA inspection number 914985, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on 25 October, 2013, with respect to a workplace located at MFB Holdings, LLC.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Abate by

May 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $8,400 · Current $5,880 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:          a.     Sixth floor, Acrylic Department  On December 1, 2014, during syringe filling work when employees were exposed to liquid methylene chloride, gloves that were resistant to methylene chloride were not provided to employees to prevent skin contact with liquid methylene chloride. Barrier creams provided were not protective against methylene chloride.        b.     Sixth floor, Acrylic Department - On December 1, 2014, eye goggles were not provided to employees to prevent contact with eyes in the event of a splash or spill of liquid methylene chloride.  Eye glasses that were provided were not effective against splashes.        c.     Fourth floor, laminating area -   On December 19, 2014, gloves that were resistant to methylene chloride were not provided to employees to prevent skin contact with liquid methylene chloride.        d.     Fourth floor, laminating area - On December 19, 2014, eye goggles were not provided to employees to prevent contact with eyes in the event of a splash or spill of liquid methylene chloride.  Eye glasses that were provided were not effective against spraying of methylene chloride.    MFB Holdings, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1),which was contained in OSHA inspection number 914985, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on 25 October, 2013, with respect to a workplace located at MFB Holdings, LLC.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Abate by

May 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $9,800 · Current $6,860 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available for employees who were or potentially were  exposed to methylene chloride at or above the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or the short term exposure limit on 10 or more days per year:          a.     Fourth floor, Laminating/Woodworking Department  On or about December 19, 2014, the employer did not make medical surveillance available for all production employees who work with methylene chloride who were potentially exposed above the 8-hour PEL or above the STEL for 10 or more days per year.    Abatement assistance note: Medical surveillance procedures shall be performed by a physician or other licensed health care professional, and shall include:     Medical and work history, as described in 1910.1052(j)(5(i);  Physical examination, as described in 1910.1052(j)(5)(ii);  Laboratory surveillance, as described in 1910.1052(j)(5)(iii).    MFB Holdings, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(1)(i),which was contained in OSHA inspection number 914985, citation number 1, item number 3 and was affirmed as a final order on 25 October, 2013, with respect to a workplace located at MFB Holdings, LLC.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $9,800 · Current $6,860 Reduced

Hazardous substances 00401730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals, and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, did not provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:        a.  Sixth floor acrylic department- On December 4, 2014, the employer had not correctly labeled secondary containers with appropriate hazard warnings.  A jar containing acetone was not labeled with the correct hazard warnings, as it was not identified as flammable.           b.  Sixth floor acrylic department- On March 5, 2015, the employer had incorrectly labeled secondary containers with appropriate product identifier.  A jar containing a hazardous chemical used by workers in the gluing process, was labeled with the wrong product identity in that the label reflected 30% methylene chloride (MC) when it contained 100% MC.  This incorrect product identity labeling did not communicate the more serious health hazard of the chemical.          c.  Sixth floor acrylic department- On March 20, 2015, the employer had incorrectly labeled secondary containers with appropriate product identifier.  Five jars containing a hazardous chemical used by workers in the gluing process, were labeled with the wrong product identity in that the label reflected 30% methylene chloride (MC) when they all contained a higher percent of MC (42% - 79%).  This incorrect product identity labeling did not communicate the more serious health hazard of the chemical.      MFB Holdings, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 914985, citation number 1, item number 4b and was affirmed as a final order on 25 October, 2013, with respect to a workplace located at MFB Holdings, LLC.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(5)(ii): Whenever monitoring results indicate that employee exposure is above the 8-hour TWA PEL or the STEL, the employer shall describe in the written notification the corrective action being taken to reduce employee exposure to or below the 8-hour TWA PEL or STEL and the schedule for completion of this action.  a.  Sixth floor acrylic department: On or about December 1, 2014, the employer did not provide the corrective actions in writing that would be taken after air sampling results showed employees to be exposed to levels of methylene chloride above the PEL.

Issued

Apr 10, 2015

Abate by

May 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(8): The employer did not provide the following information to a physician or other licensed health care professional who is involved in the diagnosis of methylene chloride-induced health effects: a copy of 1910.1052 and appendices, a description of the affected employee's past, current and anticipated future duties related to MC exposure, the employee's former or current exposure levels or anticipated exposure levels and the frequency and exposure levels anticipated to be associated with emergencies, a description of any personal protective equipment, and information from previous employment-related medical surveillance of the affected employee.        a.  On or about December 1, 2014, the employer did not provide Seacoast physicians with the documents or information required by 1910.1052(j)(8).