OSHA Inspection: CLARKE PRODUCTS INC.

Issued

Aug 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1):  A continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (n) was not instituted when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 dBA:      a) This violation occurred in the trimming department, employees were exposed to continuous noise level at 131.8% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA). The equivalent dBA level of 131.8% is approximately 91.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 417 minutes during one shift on March 4th, 2015.       b) This violation occurred in the trimming department, employees were exposed to continuous noise level at 102.6% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA). The equivalent dBA level of 102.6% is approximately 90.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 424 minutes during one shift on March 4th, 2015.       c) This violation occurred in the trimming department, employees were exposed to continuous noise level at 90.5% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA). The equivalent dBA level of 90.5% is approximately 89.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 417 minutes during one shift on March 4th, 2015.       d) This violation occurred in the trimming department, employees were exposed to continuous noise level at 71.4% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (85 dBA). The equivalent dBA level of 71.4% is approximately 87.5 dBA. The sampling was performed for 420 minutes during one shift on March 4th, 2015.

Issued

Aug 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not provide effective training to employees who are required to use respirators:      In the production facility, employees were not provided training when required or prior to using half and full facepiece tight fitting respirators while spray painting and performing trimming activities.        a)  Solid Surface Department

Issued

Aug 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $3,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The written hazard communication program did not include a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present, using an identity that was referenced on the appropriate material safety data sheet:    In the production facility, employees were exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to ketone peroxide, resin solutions, and poly butyl acrylate and the employer did not ensure that a complete listing of the hazardous chemicals was available.

Issued

Aug 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    In the production facility, employees were exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to ketone peroxide, resin solutions, and poly butyl acrylate and did not receive hazard communication training.

Issued

Aug 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,200 · Current $5,040 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:      In the production facility, employees required to use half and full facepiece respirators while spray painting and performing trimming activities were not provided a medical evaluation and exposed to physiological hazards.        a) Trimming Department      b) Solid Surface Department       Clarke Products, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.134(e)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 945996, Citation Number 1, Item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on December 12, 2013, with a final abatement date of December 27, 2013   with respect to a workplace located at 2100 B Orchard Lane, Waco, Texas 76705.