OSHA Inspection: REGENT DIE & TOOL COMPANY, INC.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Oct 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,430 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 1910.95(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 machine operator operating the 515 machine #3 was exposed to continuous noise at 106.7 % of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time weighted average sound level of 90 dbA) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 90.4 dbA during the 443 minute sampling period on June 29, 2012;  exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 37 minutes not sampled.      (b)    The machine operator operating the VTC-250D machine #1 was exposed to continuous noise at 65.21 % of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time weighted average sound level of 90 dbA) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 86.9 dbA during the 459 minute sampling period on June 29, 2012;  exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 21 minutes not sampled.      (c)    The machine operator operating the Quick Turn 30 machine was exposed to continuous noise at 54.65 % of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time weighted average sound level of 90 dbA) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 85.6 dbA during the 436 minute sampling period on June 29, 2012;  exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 44 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):     Protective eye equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment:    (a)     The machine operator in the West room was wearing non-safety prescription eyeglasses while grinding the residue off of the part and while blowing metal chips off of the part.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Sep 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,470 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(2):    Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not provided with safety guard(s) which covered the spindle end, nut, flange projections:    (a)    In the West building at the North wall the stand grinder had no guard or cover over the grinding wheel spindle nut.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Sep 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4):   Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:    (a)    In the West building at the North wall the stand grinder had the work rest moved completely away from the grinding wheel.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Sep 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,960 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)     Air nozzles used in the shop exposed employees to air pressures up to 100 p.s.i. and the hazard of embolism.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,960 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(3):   Abrasive wheels used on vertical portable grinder(s) (right angle head grinders) were not provided with safety guard(s) having a maximum exposure angle of 180 degrees and located between the operator and wheel:           (a)  In the production area the 4 1/2 inch angle grinder was used with the type 29 abrasive wheel and had no guard.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Sep 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,450 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)    There was no written chemical hazard communication program developed for employees who handle chemicals such as Quakercool 3474 and Mobilearma 245.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Oct 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

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)    In the production area the plastic spray bottle of Mobilarma 245 rust preventative was not labeled with the identity.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Oct 31, 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)    In the production area the plastic spray bottle of Mobilarma 245 rust preventative was not labeled with the hazards such as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation and hazard of fire from a combustible liquid.

Issued

Aug 30, 2012

Abate by

Oct 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1):    The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area:      (a)    There was no training provided for employees who handle chemicals such as Quakercool 3474 and Mobilearma 245.