OSHA Inspection: INTEPLAST GROUP, LTD.

Issued

Apr 9, 2015

Abate by

May 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

Hazardous substances 8111

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:                                   At this establishment, in the IBS Building, employees employed more than 6 months were not provided with baseline audiograms. Employees were exposed to noise levels above the Permissible Exposure Levels:    An employee who performed cleaning operations of the lines of the plastic film rollers on 8-10 machines per day in T-Shirt Extrusion Department, was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 99.75 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted-average sound level of 90 dBA (80 dBA threshold). The equivalent noise level of this 99.75% exposure is approximately 89.98 dBA. This exposure is 1.995 times the Action Level of 85 dBA (85 dBA for 8 hours is 50% of the allowable dose). The noise sampling was conducted on February 5th, 2015 for 475 minutes. Zero Exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 5 minutes.

Issued

Apr 9, 2015

Abate by

May 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    At this establishment, in the IBS Building, employees exposed to noise levels above the Permissible Exposure Level did not have annual audiograms performed:    A) An employee who performed packing operations of the lines of the plastic film products in Coextrusion Department, was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 89.23 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted-average sound level of 90 dBA (80 dBA threshold). The equivalent noise level of this 89.23% exposure is approximately 89.17 dBA. This exposure is 1.7846 times the Action Level of 85 dBA (85 dBA for 8 hours is 50% of the allowable dose). The noise sampling was conducted on February 5th, 2015 for 476 minutes. Zero Exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 4 minutes.    B) An employee who performed cleaning operations of the lines of the plastic film rollers on 8-10 machines per day in T-Shirt Extrusion Department, was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 99.75 % of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted-average sound level of 90 dBA (80 dBA threshold). The equivalent noise level of this 99.75% exposure is approximately 89.98 dBA. This exposure is 1.995 times the Action Level of 85 dBA (85 dBA for 8 hours is 50% of the allowable dose). The noise sampling was conducted on February 5th, 2015 for 475 minutes. Zero Exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 5 minutes.

Issued

Apr 9, 2015

Abate by

May 14, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(B): The energy control procedure did not clearly and specifically specific procedural steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy:      At this establishment, in the IBS Building, the operators of the pelletizer machine (Edge Trim Reclaim System) used inconsistent procedure not in accordance with the company specific procedure to control hazardous energy. The Operators of the pelletizer machine (Edge Trim Reclaim System) did not have specific procedural steps to unjam the pelletizer machine when necessary. Specific, procedural steps for the control of hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance operations had not been developed.

Issued

Apr 9, 2015

Abate by

May 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A): Authorized employee(s) did not receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolated:       At this establishment, in the IBS Building, maintenance employees were exposed to electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, thermal and kinetic energies, when performing maintenance on production equipment. Maintenance crew employees had not implemented and used the company's specific procedures for lock-out/tag-out for equipment or machinery such as, but not limited to the following:     a) Kiefel Extruder;  b) Kiefel Winder;  c) Kiefel Nip;  d) K-tron unit;  e) Treather unit;  f) Giusset Nip & Post unit;  g) Gloucester Extruder & Bag unit;  h) Bellony Press and CMD Winder all K-tron units.  i) Pelletizer machine (Edge Trim Reclaim System).

Issued

Apr 9, 2015

Abate by

Apr 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(iii)(B): Additional retraining was not provided whenever a periodic inspection under 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6) revealed that there were deviations from or inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedures:   At this establishment, in the IBS Building, the operators were performing unjamming of the pelletizer machine (Edge Trim Reclaim System) with a deviation from the company specific procedure. The employer did not retrain the operators in the correct procedure.

Issued

Apr 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:   At this establishment, in the IBS Building, employer did not verify through a written certification that the hazard assessment had been performed.