OSHA Inspection: KEYMARK CORPORATION

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(A): Unless a physician determines that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer did not ensure, when a standard threshold shift occurs, that employees not using hearing protectors were fitted with hearing protectors, trained in their use and care, and required to use them:    (a) On or about 3/26/2014, for employees working in the casthouse.  An employee was exposed to 70.4% of the dose, which is equivalent to 87.5 dBA during a period of 383 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 97 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B): Unless a physician determines that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer did not ensure, when a standard threshold shift occurs, that for employees already using hearing protectors, employees be refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors and provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary:    (a) On or about 3/26/2014, for employees working in the casthouse.  An employee was exposed to 70.4% of the dose, which is equivalent to 87.5 dBA during a period of 383 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 97 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.     (b) On or about 3/26/2014, for employees working the tail stretcher on the extrusion line.  An employee was exposed to 87.3% of the dose, which is equivalent to 89 dBA during a period of 426 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 54 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.     (c) On or about 3/26/2014, for extrusion line operators.  An employee was exposed to 93.8% of the dose, which is equivalent to 93.8 dBA during a period of 401 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 79 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.     (d) On or about 3/26/2014, for employees working the saw for QA/QC.  An employee was exposed to 92.6% of the dose, which is equivalent to 92.6 dBA during a period of 324 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 156 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.     (e) On or about 3/26/2014, for employees working as fabrication saw helpers.  An employee was exposed to 141.4% of the dose, which is equivalent to 92.5 dBA during a period of 376 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 104 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.    (f) On or about 3/26/2014, for employees working as extrusion line leads.  An employee was exposed to 218.4% of the dose, which is equivalent to 95.6 dBA during a period of 435 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for 45 minutes to total 480 minutes.  The PEL for noise is 90 dBA.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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, was not provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it was 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:    (a) On or about 3/3/2014, for employees working in the cast house. Employees did not wear FR clothing and metatarsal foot protection effectively to control hazards from pouring and melting operations.     (b) On or about 3/3/2014, for employees working on the extrusion line. Employees did not wear sufficient protective clothing and PPE to protect from open flames which were routinely produced during ejection from the log cutter and extrusion by secondary processing methods.    (c) On or about 3/3/2014, for employees working on the extrusion line.  Employees did not wear sufficient metatarsal protection to protect from crushing hazards associated with die change operations and cut logs which rolled across the work area.    (d) On or about 3/3/2014, for employees entering chemical showers.  Employees wore Kleenguard chemical spray coveralls, but did not ensure that the hood was worn, exposing employees to chemical burn hazards from hydrofluoric acid.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(3): When the employer has reason to believe that any affected employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding and skill required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the employer did not retrain each such employee:    (a) On or about 3/3/2014, for employees working in the cast house.  Employer did not retrain employees who experienced burns from molten metal.  Employees did not wear FR clothing and metatarsal protection properly.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances A110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): The respiratory protection program was not updated as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affected respirator use:    (a) On or about 3/3/2014 for employees who worked in the casting area.  The employer's respiratory protection program had not been updated to reflect the mandatory use of the N-95 respirators by employees loading aluminum dross.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances A110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:    (a) On or about 3/3/2014 for employees who were required to wear N-95 respirators while handling dross.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):    (a) On or about 3/27/2014, for assistants helping with cleaning the paintline showers. The employer did not determine the hexavalent chromium exposure for this task. Air sampling found that the employee was exposed to a time weighted average of 0.3 ug/m3 of hexavalent chromium for a sampling period of 80 minutes.  Representative monitoring data or another form of an exposure determination was not available.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that all surfaces were maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI):    (a) On or about 3/27/2014, for surfaces in the clean locker area of the hallway across from wastewater treatment, and in the walkway adjacent to the paintline showers where titrations were done and the emergency eyewash was located.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(2)(iii): Chromium (VI)-contaminated protective clothing or equipment was removed for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal; however, the employer did not ensure that it was stored and transported in sealed, impermeable bags or other closed, impermeable containers:    (a) On or about 3/27/2014, for employees doffing personal protective equipment after popping shower heads.

Issued

Jul 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(2): The employer did not ensure that change room facilities at a worksite with chromium (VI) exposures prevented cross-contamination:    (a) On or about 3/27/2014, for employees with "clean" lockers across from wastewater treatment. Hexavalent chromium was found in front of these lockers.