OSHA Inspection: CARDELL CABINETRY, LLC

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-09-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

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)  Main Building:  The employer does not maintain an effective hearing conservation program (HCP) for the pneumatic sander operator who is exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 431 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 187.7% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 94.5 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 49 minutes not sampled.   Inclusion in the HCP was not made available to the pneumatic sanders.      b)  Main Building:  The employer does not maintain an effective hearing conservation program for the STDR#14 operator who is exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 468 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 91.1% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 89.3 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 12 minutes not sampled.  Inclusion in the HCP was not made available to the STDR#14 operator.    c)  Main Building:  The employer does not maintain an an effective hearing conservation program for the DiMiter #2 operator who is exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April, 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 407 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 75.2% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 87.9 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 73 minutes not sampled.  Inclusion in the HCP was not made available to the DiMiter #2 operator.   d) Main Building:  The employer does not maintain an effective hearing conservation program for the sander machine operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 404 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 65.9% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 87.0 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 76 minutes not sampled.  Inclusion in the HCP was not made available to the sander machine operators.    e)  Paint Area, Main Building: The employer does not maintain an effective hearing conservation program for the paint booth #2 operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 477 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 99.9% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 90.0 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 3 minutes not sampled.  Inclusion in the HCP was not made available to the spray paint operators.  f)  Paint Area, Main Building: The employer does not maintain an effective hearing conservation program for the paint booth #9 operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 88.6 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 453 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 82.9% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 88.6 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 27 minutes not sampled.  Inclusion in the HCP was not made available to the spray paint operators.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-09-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:  a)  Rough Mill: The employer does not obtain annual audiograms for the Molder #05 Operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 304 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 125% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 91.6 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 76 minutes not sampled.  Audiometric testing was not made available to each employee enrolled in the hearing conservation program.  b)  Rough Mill: The employer does not maintain an audiometric testing program for the Voorwood #01 Operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about May 30, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 401 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 121.4% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 91.4 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 79 minutes not sampled. Audiometric testing was not made available to each employee enrolled in the hearing conservation program.  c)  Rough Mill: The employer does not maintain an audiometric testing program for the SCMI#01 Operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about May 30, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 450 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 75.1% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 87.9 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 30 minutes not sampled.  Audiometric testing was not made available to each employee enrolled in the hearing conservation program.  d)  Parts Mill: The employer does not maintain an audiometric testing program for the Table Saw #10 Operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about May 30, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 446 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 84.6% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 88.8 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 34 minutes not sampled.  Audiometric testing was not made available to each employee enrolled in the hearing conservation program.  e)  Parts Mill: The employer does not maintain an audiometric testing program for the PRTML #14 Operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA.   This violation was observed on or about May 30, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 442 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 92.4% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 89.4 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 38 minutes not sampled.  Audiometric testing was not made available to each employee enrolled in the hearing conservation program.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(8)(i): When a comparison of the annual audiogram to the baseline audiogram indicates a standard threshold shift, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.95(g)(10) has occurred, the employee was not informed of this fact in writing, within 21 days of the determination:       On or about February 15, 2013 and at times prior thereto, employees were not notified of a standard threshold shift.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by an employee who is required by 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) to wear personal protective equipment:       Rough Mill:  The employer does not ensure that the Molder #05 Operators who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA wore hearing protective devices.  This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where noise sampling performed for 304 minutes indicated that employees were exposed to a 125% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 91.6 dbA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 76 minutes not sampled.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-09-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(5): The employer did not ensure proper initial fitting and supervise the correct use of all hearing protectors:  a)  Rough Mill:  The employer does not ensure employee(s) who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA correctly insert and wear their ear plugs.  This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where ear plugs were not properly inserted and worn by employees.  b)  Parts Mill:  The employer does not ensure employee(s) who are exposed to continuous noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dbA correctly insert and wear their ear plugs.  This violation was observed on or about April 16, 2013, where ear plugs were not properly inserted and worn by employees.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5500.00 · Current $5500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, were not provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact:       Paint Line:  On or about April 16, 2013, an employee was spray painting in booth #9 and was not wearing any protective clothing, such as but not limited to aprons, gloves, coveralls, to prevent skin contact when exposed to hazardous chemicals such as but not limited to 1,2,4 trimethylbenezene, napthalene, 2-heptanone, 4-heptanone, xylene, toulene, benzene, trimethylbenzene, isobutyl acetate  which can be absorbed by the skin during the spraying process.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-09-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5500.00 · Current $5500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee, who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards, used protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection over the prescription glasses or protective lenses with side shields:        a) Main Plant:  On or about April 16, 2013, an employee was operating a pneumatic sander in the sanding area and was wearing normal prescription glasses where dust hazards were present.         b) Rough Mill:  On or about April 16, 2013, an employee was operating the TMPR-01, TMPR-02, and FLUC MC and was wearing normal prescription glasses where dust and chip hazards were present.         c) Main Plant:  On or about April 16, 2013, an employee was operating the DiMiter #02 and was wearing normal prescription lenses where dust and chip hazards were present.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5500.00 · Current $5500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.136(a): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical hazards:       a)  Main Plant:  On or about April 16, 2013, an employee was operating slotter #22 and was wearing tennis shoes where foot hazards were present.       b)  Parts Mill:  On or about April 16, 2013, an employee was operating Weeke #4 and was wearing tennis shoes where foot hazards were present.

Issued

2013-08-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-09-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:       Paint Line:  On or about February 15, 2013, and at times prior to and thereafter, employees who perform spray painting operations and wear tight-fitting respirators were not fit tested.