OSHA Inspection: KETTLE MORAINE COATINGS, INC.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Oct 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $5,400

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)  The company had not implemented an effective hearing conservation program for employees performing powder coating operations exposed to continuous noise above 85 dBA with employees not using hearing protection and/or lacking baseline audiometric examinations.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Oct 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1):     When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    a)  The company had not developed or implemented a monitoring program for employees performing powder coating operations to determine those for inclusion in a hearing conservation program.  The use of hearing protection is not enforced with exposure monitoring performed on May 8, 2012 ranging from 87.3 to 91.2 dBA as an 8 hour time weighted average.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Aug 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by any employee who is exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater:      a)  Employees working in the powder coating operations were monitored on May 8, 2012 by OSHA with exposure to noise ranging from 87.3 to 91.2 dBA as an 8 hour time weighted average that were not using hearing protection.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Jul 24, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(ii):     Where mobile test vans were used to meet the audiometric testing obligation, the employer did not obtain a valid baseline audiogram within 1 year of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level and where baseline audiograms were obtained more than 6 months after the employee's first exposure at or above the action level, employees did not wear hearing protectors for any period exceeding six months after first exposure until the baseline audiogram was obtained:    a)  Use of hearing protection was not required or enforced for powder coating employees exposed daily to noise in excess of 85 dBA as an eight-hour time weighted average exposure that had worked at the company for more than 6 months with no audiogram received from the mobile van service utilized.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Jul 24, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1):     The employer did not post of copy of 29 CFR 1910.95 in the workplace:    a)  The company had not posted a copy of the noise standard 1910.95 on the bulletin board with other notices or any other location in the facility.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Oct 2, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(m)(1):     The employer did not maintain an accurate record of all employee exposure measurements required by 29 CFR 1910.95(d):    a)  The company did not maintain records of noise exposure monitoring performed previously during OSHA inspection #103308664 conducted in 1987 and by the outside consultant who developed the hearing conservation program for determining noise areas and employees to include in the hearing conservation program such as powder coating operations.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Jul 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A):     Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:    a)  A powder coater for the company was observed to use an elastomeric tight fitting 3M respirator with beard growth that interfered with the seal of the unit.

Issued

Jul 19, 2012

Abate by

Aug 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6):     The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:    a)  The company had not provided the information contained in appendix D of the respirator standard 29 CFR 1910.134 for employees using disposable 3M N-95 dust/mist respirators on a voluntary basis.