OSHA Inspection: VISTA CONTAINERS & CLOSURES, LLC

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Abate by

Mar 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,310 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceeded the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    a)  In the Machine Room, where a noise monitoring program had not been developed and implemented.  An employee was exposed to 71.93% of the allowable 8-hour noise dose.  The equivalent noise level of 71.93% is approximately 87.6 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 344 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 136 minutes of the work shift.

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Abate by

Mar 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,310 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    a)  In the Machine Room, where employees had not received audiograms.  An employee was exposed to 71.93% of the allowable 8-hour noise dose.  The equivalent noise level of 71.93% is approximately 87.6 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 344 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 136 minutes of the work shift.

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Abate by

Mar 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,620 · Current $2,772 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): A training program was not instituted for all employee who were exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA:    a)  In the Machine Room, employees had not recieved training on the hazards of being exposed to elevated noise levels.  An employee was exposed to 71.93% of the allowable 8-hour noise dose.  The equivalent noise level of 71.93% is approximately 87.6 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 344 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 136 minutes of the work shift.

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $3,234 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    a) At the facility, where the point of operation, ingoing nip points, and rotating parts of the automatic blow injection machine, serial number 10058, model cm-65dpe, were not guarded in that the window was removed and the interlocks were bypassed, exposing employees to amputation hazards.     b) At the facility, where the point of operation, ingoing nip points, and rotating parts of the automatic blow injection machine, serial number 08002-atm, model cm90d2d, were not guarded.  The door interlock was bypassed and the bottle retrieving arm was not guarded which exposed employees to amputation hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,310 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(i): Conductors entering cutout boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not protected from abrasions:    a) In the machine room, where the conductors powering the Disk Type Plastic Bottle Top Deflashing Machine was not protected from abrasions as the conduit entered the circuit breaker panel.  This condition exposed employees to electrical hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Abate by

Mar 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not ensure that safety data sheets (SDSs) were readily accessible to the employees in their work area during each work shift:    a) At the facility, the safety data sheet (SDS) for the UV Screen Ink, Polyplus T-207 Red which contained Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide was not readily available in the work area.

Issued

Feb 27, 2014

Abate by

Mar 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area:    a) At the facility, where the employer did not provide effective information and training for the employees who use UV Screen Ink, Polyplus T-207 Red which contains diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide.  This condition exposed the employees to a contact hazard.