OSHA Inspection: MIAMI VALLEY POLISHING, LLC

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 29, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $3,700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1):  The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    a) For the polishing employee who was given a baseline audiogram on August 4, 2010 and never retested, who was exposed to 93.7 dBA or 168.1% of the daily dose for a 420 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 60 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012 which was above the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 90 dBA or 100% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     b) For the polishing employee who was hired March 19, 2012 and never received an audiogram from the employer, who was exposed to noise levels of 92.0 dBA or 132.8% of the daily dose for a 435 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 45 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     c) For the polishing employee who was given a baseline audiogram on April 21, 2011 and never retested, who was exposed to noise levels of 91.8 dBA or 128.9% of the daily dose for a 333 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 147 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;    d) For the polishing employee who was hired March 1, 2011 and never received an audiogram from the employer, who was exposed to noise levels of 91.2 dBA or 118.3% of the daily dose for a 427 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 53 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     e) For the inspection employee who was hired March 12, 2012 and never received an audiogram from the employer, who was exposed to noise levels of 88.4 dBA or 80.6% of the daily dose for a 448 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 32 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     f) For the polishing employee who was given a baseline audiogram March 18, 2011 and never retested, who was exposed to noise levels of 87.9 dBA or 74.6% of the daily dose for a 412 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 68 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;    g) For the inspection employee who was hired May 31, 2012 and never received an audiogram from the employer, who was exposed to noise levels of 85.3 dBA or 52.0% of the daily dose for a 421 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 59 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;        In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 29, 2012

Penalty

Initial $9,240 · Current $0 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 1910.95(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) For the polishing employee who was exposed to 93.7 dBA or 168.1% of the daily dose for a 420 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 60 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012 which was above the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 90 dBA or 100% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     b) For the polishing employee who was exposed to noise levels of 92.0 dBA or 132.8% of the daily dose for a 435 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 45 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     c) For the polishing employee who was exposed to noise levels of 91.8 dBA or 128.9% of the daily dose for a 333 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 147 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;    d) For the polishing employee who was exposed to noise levels of 91.2 dBA or 118.3% of the daily dose for a 427 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 53 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     e) For the inspection employee who was exposed to noise levels of 88.4 dBA or 80.6% of the daily dose for a 448 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 32 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;     f) For the polishing employee who was exposed to noise levels of 87.9 dBA or 74.6% of the daily dose for a 412 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 68 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;    g) For the inspection employee who was exposed to noise levels of 85.3 dBA or 52.0% of the daily dose for a 421 minute sampling period with a value of zero added for the 59 minutes not sampled on August 1, 2012, which was above the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA or 50% of the daily dose in 480 minutes;        The employer, Miami Valley Polishing, LLC, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number IMIS 314456161/OIS 90380, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on May 23, 2011, with respect to the workplace located at 220 Fox Drive, Piqua, OH.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $2,500 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) Compressed air was measured at 85 p.s.i. on one compressed air hose and 60 p.s.i. on the other compressed air hose and no pressure-reducing nozzle was used to reduce the pressure to 30 p.s.i. for cleaning purposes.     The employer, Miami Valley Polishing, LLC, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.242(b), which was contained in OSHA inspection number IMIS 314456161/OIS 90380, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on May 23, 2011, with respect to the workplace located at 220 Fox Drive, Piqua, OH.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $11,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 06860689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1):  The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to chromium (VI) were provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200:    (a)  The employer did not provide information and traianing on hazardous chemicals in the workplace for employees who worked at buffing and polishing stainless steel and aluminum parts, when those employees were exposed to airborne dust containing hexavalent chromium (CrVI) in the polishing and inspection areas.    The employer, Miami Valley Polishing, LLC, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number IMIS 314456161/OIS 90380, citation number 1, item number 4b and was affirmed as a final order on May 23, 2011, with respect to the workplace located at 220 Fox Drive, Piqua, OH.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 06850686068915201840

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):  Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program which at included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):     (a)  The employer did not effectively implement or maintain a written hazard communication program by the providing information contained in the written program to "all employees, including temporary employees, working with or potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals."    (b)  The employer did not effectively implement or maintain a written hazard communication program with a list of the hazardous chemicals used in the workplace for employees who worked at buffing and polishing stainless steel and aluminum parts, when those employees were exposed to airborne dust containing hexavalent chromium (CrVI).    The employer, Miami Valley Polishing, LLC, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number IMIS 314456161/OIS 90380, citation number 1, item number 4b and was affirmed as a final order on May 23, 2011, with respect to the workplace located at 220 Fox Drive, Piqua, OH.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 06850686068915201840

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)  The employer did not provide information and traianing on hazardous chemicals in the workplace, for employees who worked at buffing and polishing stainless steel and aluminum parts, when those employees were exposed to airborne dust containing hexavalent chromium (CrVI).    The employer, Miami Valley Polishing, LLC, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number IMIS 314456161/OIS 90380, citation number 1, item number 4b and was affirmed as a final order on May 23, 2011, with respect to the workplace located at 220 Fox Drive, Piqua, OH.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 29, 2012

Penalty

Initial $770 · Current $400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(b):  An emergency action plan was not in writing, kept in the workplace, and available to employees for review:    (a)  The employer did not provide a written emergency evacuation plan for the 43 employees who polished and inspected stainless steel and aluminum parts, in a dusty environment, where flash fires were known to occur.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET)

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Nov 6, 2012

Penalty

Initial $770 · Current $300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(1):  The employer was not responsible for the inspection, maintenance and testing of all portable fire extinguishers in the workplace:    (a)  Two fire extinguishers which were hanging on poles along the open area between production and shipping had not been inspected since March 14 and July 25, 2011 respectively.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET)