OSHA Inspection: IMACC CORPORATION

Issued

Mar 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,900

Hazardous substances 8110

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 failed to implement a monitoring program that included an initial determination of employees exposure to noise levels in excess of the PEL (permissible exposure limit) of 90 decibels (dBA). Employees were exposed to the hazard of hearing loss while performing assigned work activity involving the process of reconditioning of totes, drums and other containers.    a) A grinder operator was exposed to continuous noise levels of 114.4 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 91.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 307 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.    b) Wash operator 1 was exposed to continuous noise levels of 114.8 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 91.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 306 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.    c) Wash operator 2 was exposed to continuous noise levels of 108.3 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 90.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 306 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.

Issued

Mar 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

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:    The employer failed to implement an audiometric testing program that included an initial baseline test and/or annual audiometric test for employees exposed to noise levels in excess of the PEL (permissible exposure limit) of 90 decibels (dBA). Employees were exposed to the hazard of hearing loss while performing assigned work activity involving the process of reconditioning of totes, drums and other containers.    a) A grinder operator was exposed to continuous noise levels of 114.4 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 91.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 307 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.    b) Wash operator 1 was exposed to continuous noise levels of 114.8 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 91.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 306 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.    c) Wash operator 2 was exposed to continuous noise levels of 108.3 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 90.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 306 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.

Issued

Mar 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k). The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:    The employer failed to implement a training program on hearing conservation for employees exposed to noise levels in excess of the PEL (permissible exposure limit) of 90 decibels (dBA). Employees were exposed to the hazard of hearing loss while performing assigned work activity involving the process of reconditioning of totes, drums and other containers.    a) A grinder operator was exposed to continuous noise levels of 114.4 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 91.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 307 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.    b) Wash operator 1 was exposed to continuous noise levels of 114.8 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 91.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 306 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.    c) Wash operator 2 was exposed to continuous noise levels of 108.3 % dose of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average of 90 decibels (dBA). The equivalent dBA level was approximately 90.0 decibels. A sampling survey was conducted on February 12, 2013 for approximately 306 minutes. A zero time exposure was assumed for the period of time that was not sampled.