OSHA Inspection: J & J IMPORTS AND FABRICATION, INC.

Issued

Apr 28, 2014

Abate by

May 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,020 · Current $510 Reduced

Hazardous substances 00202280

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 March 17, 2014, the employer did not provide effective information and training to an employee who had exposure to hazardous materials such as but not limited to Silicone Rubber Sealant Clear, Integra Adhesive, K-Bond Polyester (Resin), and Cream Hardener.

Issued

Apr 28, 2014

Abate by

May 22, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 00202280

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:    a.   On or about March 17, 2014, the employer did not provide the information and training on the new label elements and the new Safety Data Sheet format to employees who had exposure to hazardous materials such as but not limited to Silicone Rubber Sealant Clear, Integra Adhesive, K-Bond Polyester (Resin), and Cream Hardener.

Issued

Apr 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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 1910.9(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, polishing, cutting and sanding granite countertops, was exposed to a noise dose of 95.27%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 89.6 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 429 minutes during one work shift on March 18, 2014.      b.    An employee, polishing and sanding granite countertops, was exposed to a noise dose of 89.20%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 89.1 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 445 minutes during one work shift on March 18, 2014.      c.    An employee, polishing, cutting and sanding granite countertops, was exposed to a noise dose of 69.67%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 87.4 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 456 minutes during one work shift on March 18, 2014.       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 equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1);  3)       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);  4)       The employer did not ensure that each employee was informed of the information contained in paragraph (k)(3), such as but not limited to the use and care of the hearing protection, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3);