OSHA Inspection: ENGINEERED PLASTIC COMPONENTS, INC.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $2,975 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1):     When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table G-16, personal protective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of the table:    An employee working on the paint line were exposed to continuous noise over an 8-hour time weighted average sound level of 90 decibels and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized. A painter was exposed to continuous noise at 173% of the permissible daily dose (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 93.9 dBA during the 477 minute sampling period on February 21, 2013. Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 3 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $2,975 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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:    Employees working on the paint line were exposed to sound levels that exceeded an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels and the employer had not conducted audiometric testing for the exposed employees.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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:    Employees working on the paint line were exposed to noise levels in excess of an 8-hour time weighted average of 85dB and the employer had not implemented a noise training program for the employees.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,400 · Current $2,380 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(3):     The floor surface of a spray booth and operator's working area was not covered with noncombustible material of such character as to facilitate the safe cleaning and removal of residues.    Employees were engaged in spray operations using flammable painting products and the spray booth was lined with cardboard, a combustible material.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,550 · Current $1,785 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    Employees engaged in painting operations were requried to wear respiratory protection and the employer had not established and implemented a written respiratory program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1):     The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    Employees engaged in painting operations were requried to wear respiratory protection and the employer had not provided medical evaluations prior to the employees using respirators in the workplace.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):     Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    Employees engaged in painting operations were requried to wear respiratory protection and the employer had not provided fit-testing prior to the employees using respirators in the workplace.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i):     Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or  were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:    Employees on the paint line wore elastomeric half-mask cartridge-type respirators and the respirators were stored in the open without protective measures to prevent damage or contamination.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3):     Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:    Employees engaged in painting operations were requried to wear respiratory protection and the employer had not provided resiratory protection training prior to the employees using respirators in the workplace.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,400 · Current $2,380 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:    Employees on the paint line were exposed to chemical hazards associated with the painting products, including but not limited to, Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Black, and the employer had not developed and implemented a written hazard communication program.

Issued

Mar 25, 2013

Abate by

Apr 11, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1):     Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    Employees on the paint line were exposed to chemical hazards associated with the painting products, including but not limited to, Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Black, and the employer had not provided hazard communication at initial assigment or when new hazards were introduced.