HORICON, WI —
OSHA Inspection: GARDNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of GARDNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY in 1201 W LAKE STREET, HORICON, WI 53032 (NAICS 332322). OSHA activity number 342124526.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- GARDNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
- Site address
- 1201 W LAKE STREET
- City
- HORICON
- State
- WI
- ZIP
- 53032
- Mailing
- 1201 W. LAKE STREET, HORICON, WI 53032
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- A
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 332322
- Employees
- 94
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
3 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Aug 11, 2017
- Abate by
- Nov 30, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,387 · Current $3,772 Reduced
General-duty citation text
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that was causing or were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to combustible dust explosion, deflagration, or other fire hazards presented by a cartridge-media dust collector handling combustible powder paint dust that was installed and operated in a manner that exposed employees to several hazardous outcomes in the event of an internal deflagration or fire: a) On or about February 21, 2017 an indoor cartridge media dust collector (Camfil Farr Gold Series) was used to collect combustible powder paint dust from the upstream powder paint booth and powder mixing booth: (i) The dust collector lacked a means of deflagration (flame front) propagation protection (isolation) for the following connections: The upstream process (dirty air inlet) connected to the mixing feed booth and the return air exhaust (clean air outlet) discharging into the occupied building. This exposed employees to propagating flame front hazards that could result in severe burns in the event of an internal deflagration that propagated through unprotected vessel connections. (ii) The dust collector recirculated exhausted filtered air indoors and lacked a means to protect building occupants from the hazardous byproducts of a developing fire (i.e. smoke, embers, toxic gases). This exposed employees to fire hazards including smoke inhalation, exposure to toxic gases, and flames/embers. Among other methods, feasible methods to correct these hazards would be to follow the applicable guidance in the following National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards: NFPA 652 Standards on the Fundamentals of Combustible Dust, 2016 ed. including, but not limited to, Sections 8.9.4 (equipment isolation) and 8.3.5 (clean air exhaust). NFPA 69 Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2014 ed. Chapter 11 (deflagration control by active isolation) and Chapter 12 (deflagration control by passive isolation). Specifically, for the indoor dust collector: (1) For the incoming (dirty air) inlet: Provide deflagration propagation (isolation) between the indoor dust collector and the last branch entry point (i.e. to protect both the powder mixing booth/feed booth and paint booth) in accordance with NFPA 69. One example of a feasible isolation device that would likely work in this location is a flow-actuated flap valve designed in accordance with the guidelines in NFPA 69. (2) For the return air exhaust (clean air) outlet: Provide deflagration propagation (isolation) between the indoor dust collector and the exhaust ducting in accordance with NFPA 69 and/or manufacturers tested and certified devices. One example of a feasible isolation device that may work in this location is an active isolation system in accordance with NFPA 69 such as a chemical flame front extinguishing system or a fast-acting mechanical valve (explosion isolation valve). Alternatively, the dust collector manufacturer may have optional alternative systems available that may be able to material reduce the hazard of flame front propagation through this ducting system. Alternatively, the exhaust air could be permanently ducted to a safe outdoor location away from air intakes and occupied areas. (3) For the return air exhaust (clean air) outlet: Provide a system to prevent the transmission of smoke and flame from a fire back into the facility. Systems may include spark/flame detection and extinguishment systems or spark/flame detection and abort systems (i.e. temporary discharge to a safe outdoor location away from air intakes and occupied areas). Alternatively, the exhaust could be permanently ducted to a safe outdoor location away from air intakes and occupied areas.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3771.8
- — Z (S) $5387
1910.134 I07
- Issued
- Aug 11, 2017
- Abate by
- Sep 1, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,387 · Current $3,770 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(i)(7): Oil lubricated compressor(s) used to supply breathing air did not have a high-temperature or carbon monoxide alarm(s) or both: On or about February 21, 2017, the employer did not ensure that the supply breathing air from an oil lubricated compressor was properly monitored to prevent carbon monoxide in the breathing air to exceed 10 ppm in that the carbon monoxide detectors were reading erratically and providing a negative readout, indicating they were in need of calibration.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3770
- — Z (S) $5387
1910.134 L01
- Issued
- Aug 11, 2017
- Abate by
- Sep 1, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(l)(1): Evaluations of the workplace were not conducted to ensure the written respiratory protection program was being effectively implemented: On or about February 21, 2017, the employer did not conduct a workplace evaluation to ensure that the written respiratory protection program, specifically the maintenance and care of the supplied air system and carbon monoxide alarms, was effectively implemented.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections at Gardner Manufacturing Company
View Gardner Manufacturing Company's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 332322)
More inspections in WI
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 342124526.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.