OSHA Inspection: UNIVERSAL COATINGS

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(8): Every floor hole into which persons can accidentally walk were not guarded:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not guard the floor holes in the shot blasting booth in a way that would prevent employees from accidentally walking into them. The hole was 7 feet 5 inches long and 1 foot wide.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jan 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $838 Reduced

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) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 135.7% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 335 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 145 minutes not sampled. 92.20 dBA    b) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 197.8% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 434 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 46 minutes not sampled. 94.92 dBA

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by an employee who is required by 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) to wear personal protective equipment:    a) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 135.7% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 335 minute sampling period. Did not wear hearing protection when required. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 145 minutes not sampled. 92.20 dBA    b) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 197.8% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 434 minute sampling period. Did not wear hearing protection when required. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 46 minutes not sampled. 94.92 dBA

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jan 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $838 Reduced

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 May 15, 2015, the powder coater was exposed to continuous noise levels at 84.9% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 426 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 54 minutes not sampled. 89.7 dBA    b) On May 15, 2015, the powder coater was exposed to continuous noise levels at 76.6% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 416 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 64 minutes not sampled. 89.1 dBA    c) On May 15, 2015, the powder coater was exposed to continuous noise levels at 84.3% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 414 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 66 minutes not sampled. 89.9 dBA    d) On May 15, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 97.9% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 268 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 212 minutes not sampled. 94.1 dBA    e) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 215% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 434 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 46 minutes not sampled. 96.3 dBA    f) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 149.2% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 335 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 145 minutes not sampled. 95.5 dBA    g) On June 12, 2015, the shot blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 131% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 434 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 46 minutes not sampled. 92.7 dBA

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $624 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(2): All spraying areas were not kept as free from the accumulation of deposits of combustible residues as practical, with cleaning conducted daily if necessary:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not keep surfaces, such as but not limited to, walls and floors free from the accumulation of combustible powder coating dust.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Oct 31, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 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 that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:      On or about April 3, 2015, the workplace hazard assessment had not been put in writing and certified with the person conducting the evaluation and the dates the hazard assessment was completed.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee required to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that covered when PPE is necessary, what PPE is necessary, how to don, doff, adjust and wear PPE, the limitations of PPE and the proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE:  On or about April 3, 2015, the employees required to wear PPE have not been trained on when PPE is necessary, what PPE is necessary; how to don, doff, adjust and wear PPE; the limitations of PPE;  and the proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE. Employees work with shot blasting material, powder coating, and sulfuric acid.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 April 3, 2015, the employer did not ensure employees were using safety glasses when powder coating.   b) On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not ensure employees were using safety glasses when exposed to sulfuric acid when adding water the forklift battery.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:  On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not ensure employees were using chemical resistant gloves when exposed to sulfuric acid when adding water the forklift battery.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(1): The employer did not evaluate the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit-required confined spaces:    On or about April 3, 2015 the employer did not adequately evaluate the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit-required confinded spaces.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jan 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1):  The employer did not establish an energy control program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, start up or release of stored energy could occurr and cause injury, the machine or equipment would be isolated, and rendered inoperative:    On or about April 3, 2015, the company did not establish a program to protect employees involved with servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment from the unexpected energizing, start up or release of stored energy.  Energy sources included, but are not limited to, electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic.  The company maintains and services equipment such as, but not limited to, the burn off ovens, blaster, wash lines, conveyors, powder coater lines, and sand belter.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

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:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not provide a eye wash station to employees who were exposed to sulfuric acid from the forklift battery.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(2): Portable fire extinguishers were not visually inspected at least monthly:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not have ABC fire extinguishers located throughout the manufacturing department visually inspected monthly.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2): The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter:  On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not provide annual training for portable fire extinguishers when available for employee use.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer had not trained or evaluated employees who drive powered industrial trucks on a daily basis.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operators performance was not conducted at least once every 3 years:  On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not conduct an evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator at least once every 3 years. Evaluation would encompass watching employees operate the forklift properly and evaluating them on their driving.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1): Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe had not been  taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition.    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not remove from service the Hyster Forklift that did not have an operable warning device and had bald tires.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $312 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not guard the in-running nip point on the belt sander.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $520 Reduced

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.:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer had compressed air in the powder coating department that was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i. The compressed air measured at 60 p.s.i. was being used to blow the powder off there clothes.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2): Listed or labeled electrical equipment was not used or installed in accordance with instructions included in the listing or labeling:    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer was using an outlet box to power the powder coating gun in the 10x10x10 booth. The box was on the floor and attached to an extension cord.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $416 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(i): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the information required by 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)(i) through 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(1)(v):    On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not ensure that tanks of phosphoric acid and multi kleen 1267 were labeled with the identity of the chemical. Unlabeled containers were located on the wash line.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area;  On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not provide training to new employees on the hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, powder coating at the time of their initial assignment.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  On or about April 3, 2015, the employer did not provide training or information to employees working with hazardous chemicals on the details of the new hazard communication standard which encompasses the Global Harminization System(GHS).

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Oct 31, 2016

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:    On or about April 3, 2015, employees were required to wear respiratory protection while shot blasting. The company did not have a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Oct 31, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 April 3, 2015, employees were required to wear respiratory protection while shot blasting and have not received a medical evaluation.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Nov 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1):  The employer did not provide effective training that covered the required elements in 1910.134(k)(1)(i) through 1910.134(k)(1)(vii):    On or about April 3, 2015, employees were required to wear respiratory protection while shot blasting. Employees have not received respiratory protection training in accordance with the standard.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  On or about April 3, 2014 the employer did not provide employees with Appendix D of the respiratory standard when voluntarily using N-95 filtering face piece respirators while powder coating.