OSHA Inspection: WIRE MESH SALES, LLC

Issued

2014-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $11000.00 · Current $7000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

The Wire Mesh Corp. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 422283, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on September 4, 2012, with respect to a workplace located at 42 Marquette Avenue, Oglesby, IL 61348.    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. An employee, operating the wire draw machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 91.3%, or an equivalent dBA of 89.3 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 429 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.        b. An employee, operating the wire draw machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 79.2%, or an equivalent dBA of 88.3 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 348 minutes during the second 12 hour shift on October 30, 2013.        c. An employee, operating the MEP #1 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 113.6%, or an equivalent dBA of 90.8 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 483 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.       d. An employee, operating the MEP #1 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 99.2%, or an equivalent dBA of 89.9 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 455 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.       e. An employee, operating the Promostar machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 88.4%, or an equivalent dBA of 89.1 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 475 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.        f. An employee, operating the QC #7 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 159.7%, or an equivalent dBA of 93.3 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 519 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.        g. An employee, operating the MEP #2 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 67.8%, or an equivalent dBA of 87.2 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 512 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.        h. An employee, operating the MEP #2 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 70.8%, or an equivalent dBA of 87.5 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 511 minutes during the first 12 hour shift on September 3, 2013.       i. An employee, operating the MEP #2 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 81.4%, or an equivalent dBA of 88.5 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 403 minutes during the second 12 hour shift on October 30, 2013.        j. An employee, operating the MEP #1 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 86.1%, or an equivalent dBA of 88.9 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 358 minutes during the second 12 hour shift on October 30, 2013.        k. An employee, operating the MEP #2 machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 71.7%, or an equivalent dBA of 87.5 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 399 minutes during the second 12 hour shift on October 30, 2013.        l. An employee, operating the wire draw machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 69.9%, or an equivalent dBA of 87.4 dBA, which was capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The sampling was performed for 363 minutes during the second 12 hour shift on October 30, 2013.       The employer did not administer an effective hearing conservation program in that they did not implement and administer:    1)       A monitoring program of employee noise exposure in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(d);    2)       The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided in this paragraph by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1);    3)       The employer did not give the employees the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(i)(3);    4)       The employer did not ensure proper initial fitting and supervise the correct use of all hearing protectors in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(i)(5);    5)       The employer did not evaluate hearing protector attenuation for the specific noise environments in which the protector will be used in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(j)(i);    6)       The employer shall ensure that each employee is informed of the following in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3);    7)       The employer did not make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of this standard and shall also post a copy in the workplace in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3);

Issued

2014-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(3): The employer did not designate a program administrator who was qualified by appropriate training or experience to administer or oversee the respiratory protection program and to conduct the required evaluations of program effectiveness:  a. On or about September 3, 2013, employees were required to wear a N95 respirator while vacuuming metal dust from the floor in the wire draw area of the plant.  The employer did not designate a program administrator to oversee the respiratory protection program effectiveness.

Issued

2014-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:  a. On or about September 3, 2013, employees were required to wear a N95 respirator while vacuuming metal dust from the floor in the wire draw area of the plant.  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to employees before use of a N95 respirator.

Issued

2014-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  a. On or about September 3, 2013, employees were required to wear a N95 respirator while vacuuming metal dust from the floor in the wire draw area of the plant.  The employer did not provide a fit test to employees before use of a N95 respirator.

Issued

2014-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  a. On or about September 3, 2013, employees were required to wear a N95 respirator while vacuuming metal dust from the floor in the wire draw area of the plant.  The employer did not provide training to employees before use of a N95 respirator.