OSHA Inspection: DUDLEY LUMBER COMPANY, INC.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $3150.00 Reduced

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:   a)       Edger runner:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 166.0% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 93.7 dBA) which is 1.66 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 411 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 69 minutes.  The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were using hearing protection.   b)      Trimsaw operator:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 133.5% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 92.1 dBA) which is 1.33 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 390 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 90 minutes.  The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were using hearing protection.   c)      Diverter operator:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 172.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 93.9 dBA) which is 1.72 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 378 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 102 minutes. The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were using hearing protection.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $3150.00 Reduced

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.  a)      Planer operator:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 261.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 96.9 dBA) which is 2.618 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the planer area of the facility.  Results were calculated for a 318 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 162 minutes.  The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were provided with training on the effects of noise, purpose of hearing protection and audiometric testing.  b)      Edger operator:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 213.9% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 95.5 dBA) which is 2.13 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 371 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 109 minutes.  The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were provided with training on the effects of noise, purpose of hearing protection and audiometric testing.  c)       Edger runner:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 166.0% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 93.7 dBA) which is 1.66 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 411 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 69 minutes.  The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were provided with training on the effects of noise, purpose of hearing protection and audiometric testing.  d)      Trimsaw operator:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 133.5% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 92.1 dBA) which is 1.33 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 390 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 90 minutes.  The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were provided with training on the effects of noise, purpose of hearing protection and audiometric testing.  e)      Diverter operator:  On August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee to noise at levels of 172.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 93.9 dBA) which is 1.72 times the permissible exposure limit of 100 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBA) while working in the flooring plant at the facility.  Results were calculated for a 378 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 102 minutes. The employer failed to ensure employees with noise exposures over the Permissible Exposure Limit were provided with training on the effects of noise, purpose of hearing protection and audiometric testing.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5400.00 · Current $2700.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective eye equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment  a)  Sawmill area:  On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior, the employer fail to enforce the use of eye protection when employees were exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles like wood chips and/or wood dust coming from the different saws cutting logs around the sawmill area.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $2250.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.  a)  Sawmill Area:  On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; employees using sodium hydroxide (corrosive chemical) to clean the radiators are not provided with a functional eye and body wash station.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $2250.00 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)  On or about August 2, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to compressed air hazards in that employees were permitted to use compressed air that was not reduced to less than 30 psi for cleaning and/or blow off themselves.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5400.00 · Current $2700.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(2)(ii): Assigned storage spaces for cylinders was not located away from elevators, stairs, or gangways where cylinders could not be knocked over or damaged by passing or falling objects, or subject to tampering by unauthorized persons.  a)  Hose Making Area:  On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to struck by hazards in that employees were allowed to walk and work in the same area where cylinders were stored but were not secured to prevent the cylinders from being knocked over.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(2)(iv): Valve protection caps, where cylinders were designed to accept caps, were not always in place, hand-tight, except when cylinders were in use or connected for use:  a)  Hose Making Area:  On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to fire / explosion hazards in that employees were allowed to walk and work in the hose making area next to cylinders without no caps in place.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5400.00 · Current $2700.00 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:  (a)  On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer failed to develop, implement and maintain a Hazard communication program to protect employees from hazardous chemicals like but not limited to grinding fluids, welding gases (oxygen, acetylene, argon) and sodium hydroxide.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein  a) Planer Area: On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; employees were exposed to burns, inhalation, and/or fire hazards when the employer failed to ensure that a tank containing hydraulic oil were properly labeled with the chemical contained therein.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings  a) Planer Area: On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; employees were exposed to burns, inhalation, and/or fire hazards when the employer failed to ensure that a tank containing hydraulic oil were properly labeled the appropriate hazard warnings.

Issued

2014-02-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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.  a)  On or about August 14, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to chemical hazards in that employees were allowed to handle grinding fluid, sodium hydrosulfide (corrosive), oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon, acetylene, steam-co. ox treatment 1072 (sodium bisulfite), Steam-co. boiler treatment 1152, sodium hydroxide (corrosive) without being provided with hazard communication training.