OSHA Inspection: IN-LINE PLASTICS, LC

Issued

Dec 6, 2012

Abate by

Dec 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1):  The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.    The employer does not provide its employees with a program entailing written energy control procedures, training, and periodic inspections for conducting Lockout/Tagout activities when performing service, maintenance and setup to equipment. This violation was observed on or about October 18, 2012 at the facility where employees did not adequately perform Lockout/Tagout and did not have specific documented procedures to use. This condition exposed the employees to electrical and struck-by hazards.     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that specific procedures have been developed, documented and followed for Lockout/ Tagout.

Issued

Dec 6, 2012

Abate by

Dec 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

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 point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.    The employer does not guard machines to protect employees from hazards of ingoing nip points and rotating parts.      a. This violation was observed on or about October 18, 2012 in the Extrusion area where employees were exposed to a caught-in hazard when working around the motorized rollers of the extrusion machines that were not guarded.    b. This violation was observed on or about October 18, 2012 in the Geo Products area where employees were exposed to a caught-in hazard when working around the motorized rollers of the Geo Products machines that were not guarded.    c. This violation was observed on or about October 18, 2012 in the Forrest Saw area where employees were exposed to a struck-by hazard when operating a band saw that did not have the unused portions or the blade guarded.     d. This violation was observed on or about October 18, 2012 in the Laminator area where employees were exposed to a caught-in hazard when working around the motorized rollers of the Laminator machine that were not guarded.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that guards are installed on all machines to protect employees.

Issued

Dec 6, 2012

Abate by

Dec 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(4)(i):  Unguarded projecting shaft end(s) did not present a smooth edge and end and projected more than one half the diameter of the shaft.    The employer does not guard projecting shaft ends.  This violation was observed on or about October 18, 2012 on Extrusion Line #2 where employees were exposed to caught-by hazards while working around multiple shaft ends that were not guarded.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that guards are installed on all projecting shaft ends.

Issued

Dec 6, 2012

Abate by

Dec 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1):     When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    The employer does not develop and implement a monitoring program when employee's exposure equals or exceeds an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels.      a. This violation was observed on or about October 24, 2012 at the facility where a Lead Welder Operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 276.4 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 276.4% is approximately 97.3 dBA.    b. This violation was observed on or about October 24, 2012 at the facility where a Lead Welder Operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 166.2 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 166.2% is approximately 93.6 dBA.    c. This violation was observed on or about October 24, 2012 at the facility where a Lead Extrusion Operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 88.9 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 88.9% is approximately 89.1 dBA.    d. This violation was observed on or about October 24, 2012 at the facility where an Extrusion Operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 75.7 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 75.7% is approximately 87.9 dBA.    Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to develop and implement a noise monitoring program.