OSHA Inspection: LARK UNITED MANUFACTURING, INC.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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 1910.9(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:    a) In the metal trim/doors area, on or about May 1, 2012, a hearing conservation program was not implemented for the door installer who was exposed to noise at 165% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 88.6 dBA during the 463 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.    b) In the frame shop, on or about May 1, 2012, a hearing conservation program was not implemented for the floor welder who was exposed to noise at 216% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 90.5 dBA during the 445 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.    c) In the frame shop, on or about May 1, 2012, a hearing conservation program was not implemented for the axle installer who was exposed to noise at 138% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 87.3 dBA during the 329 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.    d) In the frame shop, on or about May 1, 2012, a hearing conservation program was not implemented for the frame grinder who was exposed to noise at 627% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 98.2 dBA during the 445 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.      Abatement Note:    An effective hearing conservation program [See CFR 1910.95(c) through (n)] shall include, at  a minimum [for all employees exposed to noise levels with an 8-hour time-weighted average  (TWA) of 85 dBA] the following elements:    1.  Representative noise sampling to determine who must be included in the hearing conservation  program [see 1910.95(d)].    2.  The notification of employees exposed to the above noise levels [see 1910.95(e)].    3.  Employee observation of the above monitoring [see 1910.95(f)].    4.  A baseline audiogram for all employees exposed to noise levels equal to ro in excess of an  8-hour TWA of 85 dBA [see 1910.95(g)].    5.  Yearly audiograms for each overexposed employee.  These audiograms shall meet the  requirements of 1910.95(h).  Testing shall be performed on instruments that meet the  performance an calibration requirements of 1910.95(h) and appendices C,D, and E of 1910.95.    6.  A variety of hearing protectors made available to all overexposed employees [see  1910.95(i)].  Hearing protection mandatory for employees exposed to noise levels above 90 dBA  [see 191.95(k)].    7.  A training program emphasizing the following: the purpose of fitting, advantages and  disadvantages of hearing protectors, the purpose and explanation of audiometric testing, and the  effects of noise [see 1910.95(l)].    8.  Employee access to copies of the noise standard (1910.95) and information pertaining to the  standard [see 1910.95(l)].    9.  Maintenance of employee exposure records and access to those records [see 1910.95(m)].

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(i):     The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by an employee who is required by 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) to wear personal protective equipment:    a) In the frame shop, on or about May 1, 2012, the employer did not require the use of hearing protection for the frame grinder who was exposed to sound levels exceeding the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit.  The frame grinder was exposed to continuous noise at 294% of the permissible daily noise (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 97.7 dBA during the 445 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the thirty-five minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,120 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):     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) In the finish department, on or about May 1, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not assess the workplace to determine the need for personal protective equipment for employees who used Awesome Orange degreaser, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

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) In the finish department, on or about May 1, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not ensure that an employee who was using Awesome Orange degreaser wore protective gloves, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,120 Reduced

Hazardous substances 04350461

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):     The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    a) In the spray painting area, on or about April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, the employee who was using a spray gun to paint the trailer frames was not using eye protection, resulting in a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3):     The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards wore eye protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection that could be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses.    a) In the plywood department, on or about May 1, 2012 and at times prior to, an employee who was wearing prescription eye-glasses while cutting plywood using a table saw was not using any other means of eye protection, resulting in a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Aug 3, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,120 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(b):     Machine(s) designed for fixed location(s) were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving:    a) Near the tool room, on or about May 1, 2012 and at times prior to, the pedestal drill press was not anchored to the floor, resulting in a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $840 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b):     Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    a) Near the painting area, on or about May 1, 2012 and at times prior to, an employee used compressed air to clean the trailer floors with an air nozzle that did not reduce the air pressure to less than 30 psi under static conditions, resulting in an injection hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $840 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(i):     Flexible cords and cables were not approved or conditions of use and location:    a) In the plywood department, on or about April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, a flexible cord was used to power the table saw, which was not an approved use, resulting in an electrical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $840 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A):     Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:    a) In the tool room, on or about April 30, 2012 and at time prior to, instead of installing additional fixed wiring in the tool room, a non-metallic sheathed electric cable that was powered from a wall mounted outlet box was run along the outer edge of the workbench to power two duplex receptacle outlet boxes that were mounted on the workbench, resulting in an electrical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Oct 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $1,680 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) Throughout the production area, on April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program for employees who used hazardous chemicals including but not limited to paints, adhesives, sealants, bleach, denatured alcohol, glass cleaner, degreasers, and welding products, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i):     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(s) contained therein:    a) Throughout the production area, on April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, employees used unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals including denatured alcohol, glass cleaner, bleach, and degreaser, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:    a) Throughout the production area, on April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, employees used unlabeled containers of hazardous chemicals including denatured alcohol, glass cleaner, bleach, and degreaser, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1):     The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use:    a) In the final finish department, on April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not maintain material safety data sheets for employees who used hazardous chemicals including but not limited to denatured alcohol, an aerosol degreaser, and bleach, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

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) Throughout the production area, on April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not provide hazard communication training for employees who used hazardous chemicals including but not limited to paints, adhesives, sealants, bleach, denatured alcohol, glass cleaner, degreasers, and welding products, resulting in a chemical hazard.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 2012

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:    a) Throughout the production area, on or about April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not document that the job hazard assessment had been completed with a written certification.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Oct 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $700 · Current $280 Reduced

Hazardous substances 04350461

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    a) In the spray painting area, on or about May 1, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not implement a written respiratory protection program for employees who were required to wear respirators while spray painting trailer frames, resulting in a respiratory hazard.      Abatement Note:    A minimally acceptable respiratory protection program shall include all of the following requirements:    1.  Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators shall be established.    2.  Only approved respirators shall be used.  Respirators shall be selected on the basis of hazards to which the worker is exposed.    3.  Respirators must be provided free-of-charge where respirators are needed to protect the health of the employees.    4.  Employers must provide (free-of-charge) a medical evaluation to determine each employee's fitness to wear a respirator before initial use.    5.  Before initial respirator use, fit testing is required for all employees using negative or positive pressure tight-fitting respirators where such respirators are required by OSHA or where the employer requires the use of such a respirator.    6.  The user shall be instructed and trained in the proper use of respirators and their limitations.    7.  Surveillance of work area conditions and degree of employee exposure or stress shall be conducted.    8.  Employer must ensure the use of respirators where respirators are needed to protect the health of the employees.    9.  Respirators shall be regularly cleaned and disinfected to keep them in a sanitary condition.    10. Respirators shall be stored in a clean and sanitary location to prevent damage and contamination.    11. Respirators shall be inspected during cleaning and repaired when necessary.    12. There shall be regular inspection and evaluation to determine the continued effectiveness of the program.

Issued

Jul 27, 2012

Abate by

Sep 15, 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) Throughout the production area, on or about April 30, 2012 and at times prior to, the employer did not provide basic advisory information contained in Appendix D to employees who used filtering facepiece respirators on a voluntary basis, resulting in a respiratory and dermal hazard.