OSHA Inspection: KING FABRICATION, LLC

Issued

Sep 21, 2012

Abate by

Sep 24, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,310 · Current $1,386 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(9):     Every floor hole into which persons cannot accidentally walk (on account of fixed machinery, equipment, or walls) shall be protected by a cover that leaves no openings more than 1 inch wide. The cover shall be securely held in place to prevent tools or materials from falling through.    The employer does not provide covers for floor hole openings.  This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in the Fit Up Area of Fabrication Shop#2 where employees were exposed to a trip hazard while walking on the metal floor with uncovered floors holes.

Issued

Sep 21, 2012

Abate by

Nov 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $3,234 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 1910.95(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:    The employer does not provide a hearing conservation program for employees exposed to noise levels at or above the 8-hour time-weighted-average of 85dbA or a dose of fifty percent.     a.   This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in Building #1 where an employee operating a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 246.0 % of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average sound level.  The equivalent dBA level of 246 % is approximatley 96.5 dBA.  The survey was conducted for 452 minutes during one shift on March 23, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time (28 minutes).    b.  This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in Building #1 where an employee operating a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 118.5 % of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average sound level.  The equivalent dBA level of 118.5 % is approximately 91.2 dBA.  The survey was conducted for 435 minutes during one shift on March 23, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time 45 minutes    c.  This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in Building #2 where an employee operating a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 111.0 % of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average sound level.  The equivalent dBA level of 111.0 % is approximately 90.8 dBA.  The survey was conducted for 458 minutes during one shift on March 23, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time 22 minutes    d.  This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in Building #1 where an employee operating a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 105.6 % of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average sound level.  The equivalent dBA level of 105.6 % is approximately 90.4 dBA.  The survey was conducted for 423 minutes during one shift on March 23, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time 57 minutes    e.  This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in Building #1 where an employee operating a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 78.7 % of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average sound level.  The equivalent dBA level of 78.7 % is approximately 88.3 dBA.  The survey was conducted for 474 minutes during one shift on March 23, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time 6 minutes.    f.  This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012, in Building #2 where an employee operating a grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 71.4 % of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average sound level.  The equivalent dBA level of 71.4 % is approximately 87.6 dBA.  The survey was conducted for 427 minutes during one shift on March 23, 2012.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time 53 minutes

Issued

Sep 21, 2012

Abate by

Oct 22, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,310 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):     One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    The employer does not guard the point of operation of machines whose opertion exposes an employee to injury.    This violation was observed on or about March 22, 2012, in Building #1 where employees were exposed to a struck-by hazard when operating a horizontal band saw without guarding the non-working portion of the blade.

Issued

Sep 21, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,310 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(f)(1):     Each disconnecting means required by Subpart S of Part 1910 for motors and appliances was not legibly marked to indicate its purpose, nor located and arranged so the purpose was evident:    The employer does not ensure that the disconnecting means is correctly labeled to indicate its purpose.    This violation was observed on or about March 23, 2012 in Building #1 where employees were exposed to electrical shock and struck-by hazards when conducting servicing and/or maintenance activities in that the disconnect switch labeled crane also operated the Whitney punch.