OSHA Inspection: E.C. HARMS METAL FABRICATORS, INC.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(g)(2): Exit access(es) were not at least 28 inches (71.1 cm) wide at all points.     Employees in the northwest end of the shop near the blasting booth and laser cutters were exposed to smoke inhalation and burn hazards and they were not provided an adequate exit route for emergency use because metal was stored along the exit route and reduced the route to 5-inches wide.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(3)(i)(a): All air inlets and access openings were not baffled or so arranged that by the combination of inward air flow and baffling the escape of abrasive or dust particles into an adjacent work area will be minimized and visible spurts of dust will not be observed.    Employees were exposed to visible spurts of abrasive dusts when the blue tarp used to prevent the escape of dust particles was blown into the adjacent spaces by the compressed air flowing from the nozzle used in the blasting process.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(3)(i)(e)(1): Doors were not flanged and tight when closed.  Employees were exposed to visible spurts of abrasive dusts when a blue tarp suspended by hooks on a rail was used to prevent the escape of dust particles.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(4)(iii): Air exhausted from blast-cleaning equipment was not discharged through dust collecting equipment.  The employer provided an exhaust system for the blasting booth without a dust collector and the exhaust air discharged immediately outside the spray booth and adjacent to an opened garage door.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(7): Abrasive blasting dust(s) were permitted to accumulate on the floor or on ledges outside of the abrasive blasting enclosure(s):  The employer permitted abrasive blasting dusts to accumulate on the floors outside of the blasting booth.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(5)(ii): An abrasive-blasting respirators was not worn by all abrasive-blasting operators when working inside of blast-cleaning rooms, or when using silica sand in manual blasting operations where the nozzle and blast are not physically separated from the operator in an exhaust ventilated enclosure, or where concentrations of toxic dust dispersed by the abrasive blasting may exceed the limits set in �1910.1000 and the nozzle and blast are not physically separated from the operator in an exhaust-ventilated enclosure.     Employees conducting abrasive blasting inside the blasting booth wore Bullard disposable supplied air hoods and abrasive-blasting respirators were not worn as required.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Nov 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace to include a reasonable estimate of employee exposure to respiratory hazards and an identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:  The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards and have a reasonable estimate of employee exposure to respiratory hazards nor identify chemical contaminants (state and form) for the employees powder coating and abrasive blasting metal parts.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Nov 10, 2015

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:  Employees in the abrasive blasting enclosure wore a supplied air hood respirator and the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter:   The employer did not provide an annual fit test for the painter who wore tight-fitting half-mask respirator equipped with particulate cartridges.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Nov 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  An employee exposed to hazardous paints wore a tight-fitting respirator equipped with particulate cartridges and the employer did not prohibit employees with facial hair that interfered with the seal of the respirator from using a tight fitting respirator.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Nov 10, 2015

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):  The employer required the painter to wear a 3M tight-fitting half-mask respirator with P100 filtration and the abrasive blasters to wear a Bullard disposable supplied air hood, and the employer did not ensure employees were trained on the following at least annually:    a. Why respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the respirator;  b. What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are;  c. How to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions;   d. How to inspect, put on and remove, use, and check the seals of the respirator;  e. What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the respirator;  f. How to recognize the medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators; and  g. The general requirements of this section.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 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:    The employer did not administer an effective hearing conservation program that included noise monitoring, audiometric testing, required use of suitable hearing protectors, training, and recordkeeping for employees abrasive blasting metal and an employee was exposed to continuous noise levels at 1607% of the permissible daily noise exposure, or an equivalent sound level of approximately 105 dBA,  during the 543-minute sampling period on May 26, 2015; exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 63-minutes not sampled.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:    The employer did not evaluate, develop and document a suitable personal protective equipment hazard assessment for the abrasive blasting tasks and painting performed, nor did they complete a written certification that included the name of the person who certified that the evaluation had been performed and the date that the hazard assessment was completed.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective eye and face equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment.  An employee was exposed to known toxic and sensitizing chemicals in the paints, TIGER Drylac RAL 2008 SM GL and Zinc Gray EFH615P6, and was not provided suitable protective equipment for the face and tight fitting eye protection to protect their eyes.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are 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.  An employee was exposed to known toxic and sensitizing chemicals in the paints, TIGER Drylac RAL 2008 SM GL and Zinc Gray EFH615P6, and the employer did not ensure the use of suitable gloves for the hands.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(iii): Workers and other persons adjacent to the welding area were not protected from the rays by noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields.    In the welding areas, adjacent employees were exposed to weld flash hazards and weld screens or shields were not placed around the welding operations to minimize the exposure.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(7)(i): Unused openings in boxes, raceways, auxiliary gutters, cabinets, equipment cases, or housings were not effectively closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment.    Employees were exposed to electrical shock and burn hazards when they used an electrical switch inside the blasting enclosure to operate the breathing air compressor (General Electric motor Model 5KCR49ZG89X) and the internal switch components were not enclosed.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(7)(iii):  Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, were damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues:  Employees used an electrical switch inside the abrasive blasting booth to operate an air compressor (General Electric motor Model 5KCR49ZG89X) and were exposed to electrical shock and burn hazards because the internal switch components were contaminated by abrasive blasting media.

Issued

Sep 23, 2015

Abate by

Oct 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:    Employees were exposed to electrical shock and electrical burn hazards from two flexible cords used as permanent wiring:    a)  Orange flexible cord outside the abrasive blasting area was used to provide power to the breathing air compressor.     b)  Grey flexible cord used to provide power to a switch inside the abrasive blasting booth for the breathing air compressor.