OSHA Inspection: PROTOCAST, INC.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not develop, implement, and maintain at the workplace a site specific written hazard communication program. Employees are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals, including but not limited to the following:    1) BioSet T8000 UNB Pt 1   2) BioSet T8500 UNB Pt 2  3) Techniset Activator 6750  4) Aluminum Metal X356 X Series Alloys  5) Crystalline Silica in the form of Quartz

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Abate by

Feb 4, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6): The employer used written materials, such as signs, placards, process sheets, or batch tickets in lieu of affixing labels to individual stationary process containers that failed to identify the container(s) to which they were applicable and did not convey the information required by 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5):  (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical contained within. A racking system, containing barrels of BioSet T8000 UNB Pt 1 and BioSet T8500 UNB Pt 2 next to the sand pour line, did not have legible or accessible manufacturer labels. The employer did not ensure that the Globally Harmonized System was implemented for the labelling of chemical containers at the establishment.   (b) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical contained within. A plastic squeeze bottle of denatured alcohol was being stored and used in the Ziess CMM measuring machine room. The plastic squeeze bottle was identified by a National Fire Protection Association ethanol label. The employer did not ensure that the Globally Harmonized System was implemented for the labelling of chemical containers at the establishment.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Abate by

Feb 4, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area. Employees did not know the hazards of the chemicals in their work areas. This condition exposed employee to chemical hazards, including but not limited to 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) in BioSet T8500 UNB Pt 2, phenol in BioSet T8000 UNB Pt 1, and crystalline quartz silica in sand.  Abatement Note: Information and training may be designed to cover categories of hazards (e.g., flammability, carcinogenicity) or specific chemicals. Chemical-specific information must always be available through labels and material safety data sheets.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Abate by

Feb 4, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):  (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not verify, through written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed.  Personal protective equipment provided to employees for activities including but not limited to sand pours for mold making, pouring molten metals into molds, cast breakout, and parts cleaning were not documented in a workplace hazard assessment.  This condition exposed employees to chemical and physical hazards.  Abatement Note:  The employer shall 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 identified the document as a certification of hazard assessment.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Abate by

Feb 4, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was provided with the information contained in Appendix D to this section when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible. The employer provided Moldex 2200 N95 Particulate Respirators for voluntary use. This condition potentially exposed the employees to a respiratory hazard.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:  (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not reevaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace after moving to a new establishment. Employees, conducting work activities, including but not limited to working on the sand pour line making molds, pouring molten aluminum into molds, and breaking castings out of molds, were potentially exposed to airborne chemical hazards, including but not limited to 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) and phenol.  Abatement Note: This evaluation shall include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer shall consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(4): The employer did not reassess exposures whenever a change in the production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work practices was reasonably expected to result in new or additional exposures at or above the action level, or when the employer had reason to believe that new or additional exposures at or above the action level have occurred:  (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not reevaluate respiratory hazard in the workplace after moving to a new establishment, which could be reasonably expected to result in new or additional exposures at or above the action level. Employees, conducting work activities, including but not limited to working on the sand pour line making molds, pouring molten aluminum into molds, breaking castings out of molds, and parts cleaners were potentially exposed to respirable quartz silica hazards.

Issued

Dec 31, 2018

Abate by

Feb 4, 2019

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:  (a) Protocast, Inc. at 3900 E. 68th Ave, Commerce City, CO: On and before October 25, 2018, the employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection, when employees hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances. Employees were provided HyFlex 11-840 abrasion resistant glove to protect their hands, while touching sand to pack and evenly distribute it around patterns to create molds. These gloves were not developed to provide chemical resistance. The sand had been treated with BioSet T8000 UNB Pt 1, BioSet T8500 UNB Pt 2. This condition potentially exposed employee to hazards, including but not limited to dermal sensitizers and corrosives.