OSHA Inspection: STARFLITE SYSTEMS INC.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): A representative monitoring program was not developed and implemented when information indicated that an employee's exposure may equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 31, 2012 -  The employer did not monitor noise exposure levels in the workplace to accurately identify employees' exposure to noise at or above 85 decibels (dB) averaged over 8 working hours, or an 8-hour time-weighted average.  An employee designated as a laborer was exposed to continuous noise at 84.3% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA for the exposure was 88.8 dBA, and a representative noise monitoring program was not developed.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): An audiometric testing program was not established and maintained for all employees whose noise exposure equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 31, 2012 - The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for an employee designated as a laborer and exposed to continuous noise at 84.3% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level for the exposure was 88.8 dBA.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): A training program was not instituted for all employees who were exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 31, 2012 - The employer did not train employees exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour TWA level of 85 dBA in the effects of noise; the purposes, advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types of hearing protectors; the selection, fit, and care of various types of protectors; and the purpose and procedures of audiometric testing.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(2): The employer did not ensure that there was no open flame or spark producing equipment in any spraying area nor within 20-feet thereof, unless separated by a partition.    a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 10, 2012 - The employer did not ensure that there was no open flame or spark producing equipment in a paint spraying area.  Employees were MIG welding in a spray area while painting was being conducted.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(5): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses equipment with filter lenses that have a shade number appropriate for the work being performed for protection from injurious light radiation.    a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 31, 2012 - The employer did not ensure that employees operating a Thermal Dynamics Plasma Cutting System used a welding helmet, shield, or goggles with an appropriate filter lens for protection from ultraviolet radiation.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in the workplace, including a reasonable estimate of employee exposure to respiratory hazards:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 10, 2012 - The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in the workplace that included a reasonable estimate of employee exposure to paint vapors.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 10, 2012 - The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to an employee required to wear a tight-fitting half-mask respirator in the workplace for protection from spray paint vapors.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece was used, and at least annually thereafter:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 10, 2012 - The employer did not ensure that an employee required to wear a tight-fitting respirator in the workplace for protection from paint vapors was provided with a fit test prior to initial use of the respirator.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): The employer did not provide respirator training prior to requiring the employee to use a respirator in the workplace:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 10, 2012 - The employer did not provide respirator training to employees required to wear tight-fitting respirators in the workplace for protection from paint vapors.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees hands are exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 10, 2012 - Employees who were mixing paints and cleaning spray guns with chemcals such as, but not limited to naphtha, xylene, and toluene were using cotton gloves as protection against skin contact.

Issued

2012-10-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $600.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(iii): Workers and other persons adjacent to the welding area were not protected from the rays by noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields or were not required to wear appropriate goggles:     a) In the Saxonburg, Pennsylvania facility, on or about May 31, 2012 - The employer did not ensure that employees working adjacent to a welding area were required to wear appropriate goggles when noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields were not used.