OSHA Inspection: S & T INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:  a) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented a monitoring program.  A welder was exposed to 106.9% of the noise dose during one work shift which is equivalent to approximately 90.4 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 463 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 17 minutes.  b) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented a monitoring program.  A welder was exposed to 95.4% of the noise dose during one work shift which is equivalent to approximately 89.6 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 410 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 70 minutes.  c) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented a monitoring program.  A helper was exposed to 67% of the noise dose during one work shift which is equivalent to approximately 87.1 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 465 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 15 minutes.  d) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented a monitoring program.  A roll operator was exposed to 64.2% of the noise dose during one work shift which is equivalent to approximately 86.8 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 466 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 14 minutes.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:  a) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented an audiometric testing program.  A welder was exposed to 106.9% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 90.4 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 463 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 17 minutes.  b) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented an audiometric testing program.  A welder was exposed to 95.4% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 89.6 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 410 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 70 minutes.  c) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented an audiometric testing program.  A helper was exposed to 67% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 87.1 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 465 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 15 minutes.  d) In the main production building, where the employer had not implemented an audiometric testing program.  A roll operator was exposed to 64.2% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 86.8 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 466 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 14 minutes.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:  a) In the main production building, where the employer had not provided baseline audiograms.  A welder was exposed to 106.9% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 90.4 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 463 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 17 minutes.  b) In the main production building, where the employer had not provided baseline audiograms.  A welder was exposed to 95.4% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 89.6 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 410 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 70 minutes.  c) In the main production building, where the employer had not provided baseline audiograms.  A helper was exposed to 67% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 87.1 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 465 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 15 minutes.  d) In the main production building, where the employer had not provided baseline audiograms.  A roll operator was exposed to 64.2% of the noise dose during one work shift which equivalent to approximately 86.8 dbA.  The employee was sampled for 466 minutes August 22, 2014.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 14 minutes.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.135(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee wear a protective helmet when working in areas where there is a potential for injury to the head from falling objects:  a) In the main production building, where protective helmets were not provided to employees while operating overhead gantry cranes to move steel plates and pipes.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.136(a): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical hazards:  a) In the main production building, where protective footwear was not provided to employees while operating overhead gantry cranes to move steel plates and pipes.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 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) In the lab area, where the unused portion of the blade on the Work-A-Matic vertical band saw was not guarded.  b) In the main production area, where the 10 foot roll plate machine was not guarded.  c) In the main production area, where the roll plate machine on the south end was not guarded.  d) In the main production area, where the roll plate machine on the north end was not guarded.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(b): Machine(s) designed for fixed location(s) were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving:  a) In the lab area, where the Work-A-Matic vertical band saw was not anchored to the ground.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1): Abrasive wheel(s) were used on portable grinder(s) which were not provided with safety guard(s) meeting the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1) through (c)(4):  a) In the lab area, where the DeWalt angle grinder model number D28402, serial number 471290, was missing the guard.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(i)(A): During arc welding or arc cutting, helpers or attendants were not provided with proper eye protection:  a) In the main production building near the small plate roller, where eye protection was not used during welding activities.

Issued

Oct 27, 2014

Abate by

Nov 27, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(iii): Workers and other persons adjacent to the welding area were not required to wear appropriate goggles to protect them from the rays when noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields were not used:  a) Near the exterior diameter welding station, goggles are not required to protect surrounding employees from the welding rays during welding activities.   b) Near the small plate roller, goggles are not required to protect surrounding employees from the welding rays during welding activities.