OSHA Inspection: REA POLISHING INC.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Dec 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $1,960 Reduced

Hazardous substances E200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): All places of employment, passageways, storerooms or service rooms were not kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary condition:    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about October 25, 2012, the employer failed to keep ductwork and walls free of combustible dust in the polishing area, exposing employees to hazards from fire and explosion.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Apr 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $1,960 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.94(b)(5)(x): Grinding and polishing belt hoods were not constructed as close to the operation as possible. The hood did not extend almost to the belt:     a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: the employer failed to ensure that exhaust hoods for polishing were close to the belts. Employees were exposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (total dust) while polishing with the exhaust hood approximately 5 feet from the belt.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Apr 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of particulates not otherwise regulated (total dust) listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 15.0 milligrams per cubic meter:    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 27, 2012, an employee working at polishing station #11 was overexposed to particulates not otherwise regulated (total dust) at an 8 hour time weighted average of 29.36 mg/m3, which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 15 mg/m3 by 196%.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Apr 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 27, 2012, the employer failed to implement adequate engineering and/or administrative controls to reduce employees exposure to particulates not otherwise regulated (total dust). An employee working at polishing station #11 was overexposed to total dust at an 8 hour time weighted average of 29.36 mg/m3, which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 15 mg/m3 by 196%.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Jan 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $1,960 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

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, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 27, 2012, the employer failed to implement a hearing conservation program to control employee's exposure to occupational noise. An employee working at stations #1 and 8 in the polishing area was overexposed to noise at an 8 hour time weighted average of 94.7 dBA, which exceeded the action limit of 85 dBA and the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 90 dBA.     b) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 27, 2012, the employer failed to implement a hearing conservation program to control employee's exposure to occupational noise. An employee working at station #10 in the polishing area was overexposed to noise at an 8 hour time weighted average of 95.0 dBA, which exceeded the action limit of 85 dBA and the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 90 dBA.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Apr 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 22, 2012, the employer failed to require the utilization of energy control procedures for belt changes on the polishers. An employee working on Polish #6 (Mfg: Hammond, Model: 7-RRO-8) was exposed to caught-by hazards and in-going nip points while changing belts.    b) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 27, 2012, the employer failed to require the utilization of energy control procedures for belt changes on the polishers. An employee working on Polish #9 (Mfg: G&P, Model: 2MVS-500) was exposed to caught-by hazards and in-going nip points while changing belts.    c) Rea Polishing Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 26, 2012, the employer failed to require the utilization of energy control procedures for changing buffing wheels. An employee working on the American, Inc. buffer was exposed to struck-by hazards while changing the wheel.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Apr 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 ingoing nip points and rotating parts:    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 22, 2012, the employer failed to ensure that the belts on the polishing machines were adequately guarded. An employee working on Polish #6 (Mfg: Hammond, Model: 7-RRO-8) was exposed to ingoing nip points and rotating parts at a distance of approximately 5 inches while operating the machine with the guard door open.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Jan 7, 2013

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances E101E200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c): Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of equipment in hazardous (classified) locations were not intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location:    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 27, 2012, the employer failed to install electrical equipment that was approved for Class II Division 2 dust environments in the buffing area, exposing employees to hazards from fire and explosion.

Issued

Dec 11, 2012

Abate by

Dec 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.145(c)(3): Safety instruction sign(s) were not used where there was a need for general instructions and suggestions relative to safety measure(s):    a) Rea Polishing, Inc. - Toledo, Ohio: On or about June 22, 2012, the employer failed to ensure that warning signs were posted in areas of the plant where there was potential exposure to combustible dust.