OSHA Inspection: VANVOORST LUMBER COMPANY, INC.

Issued

Apr 13, 2017

Abate by

Jul 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,070 · Current $3,042 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to combustible wood dust deflagration, explosion, and/or other fire hazards while working at or near an  outdoor dust collector and connected upstream equipment:   (a)    Production Area:  On or about November 9, 2016, employees were exposed to combustible wood dust hazards from an outdoor Donaldson fabric filter (Model RJ) dust collector used to collect wood dust from the upstream hand-fed molding machine.       1.       The dust collector lacked recognized means of safe explosion protection.  Explosion venting was installed, but one of the vents was blocked.  Additionally, it was unknown whether the vents were properly sized.  In the case of an internal deflagration event, blocked or undersized vents could fail to reduce the pressure within the dust collector sufficiently to prevent the dust collector from rupturing (i.e. resulting in an explosion).        2.       The equipment lacked deflagration propagation protection (isolation) for the upstream equipment/process, return air, and the unit?s dust discharge area.  In the case of an internal deflagration event, the flame front could propagate through the dirty side ductwork and the exhausted air return ductwork and into the building.       3.       The dust collector lacked a means to protect occupants of the building from the hazardous byproducts of a fire (i.e. smoke, embers, toxic gases) as the exhausted air return ductwork was recycled back into the building.    Among other methods, feasible methods to correct these hazards would be to follow the guidance in the National Fire Protection Association?s (NFPA) Standard NFPA 664 "Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities, 2017 ed." ? Sections 8.2.2.6.3 (dust collectors with deflagration hazards), 8.2.2.7 (recycling of air-material separator exhaust), and 8.2.4 (conveying system isolation).    Specifically:    1) Provide the outdoor dust collector with a recognized method of explosion protection such as deflagration venting to a safe location, ensuring such venting is adequately sized and not impeded in accordance with the guidance in NFPA 68 "Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting".  Data sheets, installation details, and design calculations should be developed and maintained for each vent in accordance with NFPA 68 to ensure effective explosion relief.  The exhaust air ducting should be redesigned so as to ensure that the vent opening is free and clear.    2) Provide either active or  passive deflagration propagation protection (deflagration isolation) device between the outdoor dust collector and the building (via the dirty and clean air ducts) in accordance with NFPA 69 "Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems".  An example of a passive deflagration isolation device is a flow-actuated flap valve. Examples of active deflagration isolation devices include fast-acting mechanical valves, pinch valves, and flame front chemical extinguishing systems.  Deflagration isolation for the collector?s exhaust ducting may not be necessary if the recycling of exhaust air back into the building is prohibited.  If exhaust air is to continue to be returned both deflagration propagation protection (deflagration isolation) and fire byproducts transmission protection would be necessary.  In addition, the rotary air lock used on the collector?s material discharge hopper should be evaluated to determine if it will effectively prevent transmission of a flame front to the downstream trailers (NFPA 69 contains guidance on the design criteria of rotary valves to be relied on as isolation devices).     3) Prohibit the recycling of exhaust air back into the facility unless provisions can be made to prevent the transmission of smoke and flame from a fire through the use of spark detection and abort gate system.

Issued

Apr 13, 2017

Abate by

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,070 · Current $3,042 Reduced

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 1910.9(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. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 164% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 93.6 dBA for the 425 minute sampling time on November 15, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 55 minutes not sampled.     b. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 324% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 98.5 dBA for the 419 minute sampling time on November 15, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 61 minutes not sampled.      c. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 131.7% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 92 dBA for the 423 minute sampling time on November 15, 2016 . Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 57 minutes not sampled.     d. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 136% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 92.2 dBA for the 427 minute sampling time on November 15, 2016 . Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 453minutes not sampled.     e. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 95% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 89.6 dBA for the 423 minute sampling time on .November 15, 2016.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 57 minutes not sampled.     f. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 84.3% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 88.8 dBA for the 426 minute sampling time on November 15, 2016 . Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 54 minutes not sampled.     The employer had not implemented a continuing, effective hearing conservation program

Issued

Apr 13, 2017

Abate by

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,803 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed:     a.  On or about November 9, 2016, in the production area,  the employer had not performed annual periodic inspections to ensure that documented lockout/tagout procedures were being followed by authorized employees.

Issued

Apr 13, 2017

Abate by

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,070 · Current $3,042 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, shall be guarded. The guarding device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standards therefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, shall be so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.     Production area - On or about November 9, 2016, employees were required to operate the GBN Nailer machine  that did not have all points of operation adequately guarded.  Employees were thereby exposed to the hazards associated with unguarded points of operation.

Issued

Apr 13, 2017

Abate by

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,802 · Current $2,281 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:         a. On or about November 9, 2016, in the shop area, the employees were not trained in the hazards associated with chemicals such as, but not limited to, combustible wood dust.