OSHA Inspection: AMTECH SOUTHEAST LLC

Issued

Feb 11, 2014

Abate by

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

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)      Laborer:  On October 23, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee cutting, sanding and grinding fiberglass parts to noise at levels of 72.0% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 87.6 dBA) which is 1.44 times the action level of 50 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85 dBA) while working in the Building 10 of the facility.  Results were calculated for a 456 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 24 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.     b)      Laborer:  On October 23, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee cutting, sanding and grinding fiberglass parts to noise at levels of 132.3% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 92.0 dBA) which is 2.64 times the action level of 50 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85 dBA) while working in the Building 10 of the facility.  Results were calculated for a 441 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 39 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.     c)       Laborer:  On October 23, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employee cutting, sanding and grinding fiberglass parts to noise at levels of 75.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 88.0 dBA) which is 1.56 times the action level of 50 % (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85 dBA) while working in the Building 10 of the facility.  Results were calculated for a 432 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 48 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.

Issued

Feb 11, 2014

Abate by

Oct 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(m)(1): Spraying operations involving the use of organic peroxides and other dual component coatings were not conducted in approved sprinklered spray booths meeting the requirements of this section.  a)  Building 10:  On or about October 23, 2013 and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to chemical inhalation hazards and to fire and explosion hazards by permitting gel coating operations in a non-approved sprinklered spray booth.

Issued

Feb 11, 2014

Abate by

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical  a) Building #10: On or about October 23, 2013 and at times prior; employees were exposed to burns, inhalation, and/or fire hazards when the employer failed to ensure that chemicals containers with acetone were properly labeled with the appropriate chemical name and hazard warnings.

Issued

Feb 11, 2014

Abate by

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $2,500 Reduced

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 October 23, 2013 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to chemical hazards in that employees were allowed to handle paints, catalysts, methyl ethyl ketone, peroxide, acetone, gel coat and/or polyester resin without being trained on the methods that may be used to protect themselves from health and safety hazards.

Issued

Feb 11, 2014

Abate by

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done.  a) On October 23, 2013 and at times prior; the employer fails to have a written job hazard assessment to determine the kind of Personal Protective Equipment that the employees need to perform a specific task.

Issued

Feb 11, 2014

Abate by

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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.  a)  On or about October 23, 2013 the employer failed to implement their written respiratory protection program exposing employees to respiratory hazards.