OSHA Inspection: STEELCON, LLC

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

Sep 14, 2020

Penalty

Initial $3,789 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(a)(2)(ii): The concentration of respirable dust or fume in the breathing zone of the abrasive-blasting operator or any other worker was not kept below the levels specified in 1910.1000:    a) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to respirable dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 20.840 mg/m3 which is approximately 4.168 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5.0 mg/m3, for 237 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    b) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to respirable dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 34.018 mg/m3 which is approximately 6.804 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5.0 mg/m3, for 230 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

Sep 14, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): Employee(s) were exposed to total dust in excess of the 8-hour time weighted average limits of 15.0 mg/m3 listed in Table Z-3:    a) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to total dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 1495.462 mg/m3 which is approximately 99.697 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3, for 233 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    b) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to total dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 379.938 mg/m3 which is approximately 25.329 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3, for 230 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

Sep 14, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented for the employees including the abrasive blaster to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    For the employees including, but not limited to , those as described in Citation 1, Item 1(a) and Citation 1, Item1(b).    a) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to respirable dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 20.840 mg/m3 which is approximately 4.168 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5.0 mg/m3, for 237 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    b) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to respirable dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 34.018 mg/m3 which is approximately 6.804 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5.0 mg/m3, for 230 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    c) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to total dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 1495.462 mg/m3 which is approximately 99.697 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3, for 233 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    d) On or about February 15, 2019, the abrasive blaster working with aluminum oxide shot was exposed to total dust at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 379.938 mg/m3 which is approximately 25.329 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3, for 230 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    General methods of control applicable in these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:    1) Installing a downdraft exhaust system at the manual abrasive blasting booth that averages 80 fpm over the entire floor.    2) Installing a cross ventilation system at the manual abrasive blasting booth that averages 100 fpm velocity over the vertical cross section of the room.    3) Administratively rotate employees to insure that exposures are below the allowable exposure limits for all air contaminants involved.    4) Provide adequate respiratory protection to prohibit abrasive blasters from inhaling the dust.    STEP 1: Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering and/or administrative controls can be implemented, or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposure to the respirable dust permissible exposure limits. Abatement period by (5 working days)    STEP 2: Submit to the area director a written, detail plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measure to control employee exposure to hazardous substances as referenced in this citation. This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following action which must be consistent with the abatement dates required by this citation. Abatement period by (15 working days)    1) Evaluation of engineering/administrative control options;    2) Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design;    3) Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures; and    4) Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of controls.    STEP 3: Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance. Abatement period by (30 working days)

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

Sep 14, 2020

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $4,000 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 February 15, 2019, the blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 895% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 252 minute sampling period. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 228 minutes not sampled.     b) On February 15, 2019, the blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 1686% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 254 minute sampling period. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 226 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

Apr 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 1910.95(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 February 15, 2019, the blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 901% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 252 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 228 minutes not sampled.  b.) On February 15, 2019, the blaster was exposed to continuous noise levels at 1689% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 50 percent), during the 254 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 226 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,789 · Current $2,000 Reduced

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:    a.) On or about November 29, 2018, the blasters were required to wear an Rpb Nova 3 supplied air respirator by the employer; however, the company had not provided a medical evaluation.    b.) On or about November 29, 2018, the painters were required to wear a half face 3M tight fitting respirator by the employer; however, the company had not provided a medical evaluation.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) on a annual basis:   On or about November 29, 2018, the painters were required to wear 3M half face tight fitting respirators by the employer; however, the company had not provided a fit test.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(1)(ii): Compressed breathing air shall meet at least the requirements for Grade D breathing air described in ANSI/Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification for Air, G-7.1-1989, to include:     (A): Oxygen content (v/v) of 19.5-23.5%;   (B): Hydrocarbon (condensed) content of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air or less;   (C): Carbon monoxide (CO) content of 10 ppm or less;   (D): Carbon dioxide content of 1,000 ppm or less; and   (E): Lack of noticeable odor.    On or about November 29, 2018, the employer did not ensure the compressed breathing air supplied used for a supplied respirator met the requirements set forth in the ANSI Specifications used by the blasters.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(5)(iv): The employer did not ensure that the person authorized to perform the necessary sorbent bed and filter changes filled out a tag indicating by the signature and date that maintenance changes were performed:  On or about November 29, 2018, the employer did not complete the maintenance tag on the sorbent bed with the date filter changes were performed.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 November 29, 2018, the company's oil-lubricated compressor did not have a carbon monoxide alarm to monitor the supplied air being provided to the blaster.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

Apr 8, 2019

Penalty

Initial $10,608 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(vi): The written program did not contain procedures to ensure adequate air quality, quantity, and flow of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators:    On or about November 29, 2018, the employer did not have procedures in the written respiratory protection program that ensured the compressor provided adequate grade D air to the supplied air respirator.    Steelcon, LLC. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.134(c), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 994739, citation number 2, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on 01/8/2015, with respect to a workplace located at 47287 State Rt. 558 New Waterford, OH 44445.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(5): Respiratory protection retraining was not conducted annually:    a) On or about November 29, 2018, the blasters were required to wear an Rpb Nova 3 supplied air respirator by the employer; however, the company had not provided annual training to the employees.    b.) On or about November 29, 2018, the painters were required to wear a half face 3M tight fitting respirator by the employer; however, the company had not provided annual training to the employees.    Steelcon, LLC. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.134(k)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 994739, citation number 2, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on 01/8/2015, with respect to a workplace located at 47287 State Rt. 558 New Waterford, OH 44445.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $4,546 · Current $1,500 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:    On or about November 29, 2018, the employer did not provide effective information and training to employees, to include but not limited too hazards associated with working with black beauty, aluminum oxide and paints.    Steelcon, LLC. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 994739, citation number 2, item number 3 and was affirmed as a final order on 01/8/2015, with respect to a workplace located at 47287 State Rt. 558 New Waterford, OH 44445.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): Employees had not been provided with GHS 2012 training including an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system to be used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information, and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:    On or about November 29, 2018, the employer did not provide employees with training on the Global Harmonization System.     Steelcon, LLC. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 994739, citation number 2, item number 3 and was affirmed as a final order on 01/8/2015, with respect to a workplace located at 47287 State Rt. 558 New Waterford, OH 44445.

Issued

Mar 19, 2019

Abate by

May 13, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 November 29, 2018, 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. Safety glasses, gloves, supplied air respirators, and ear plugs are required when performing blasting.