OSHA Inspection: VENTURE METALS, L.L.C.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer does not furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized struck-by hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees:  (a) Employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while operating CAT forklifts without safety belts.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,310 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.26(c)(2)(vii): Ladders having defects were not marked and taken out of service until repaired:  On Eldon Line #1: At least two (2) metal stepladders that had defects were not marked and taken out of service until repaired, and exposed employees to fall hazards:  a) A metal stepladder had a broken rung and siderail brace.  b) A metal stepladder had a broken siderail brace.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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:  The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees exposed to occupational noise equaling or exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.  (a)An Eldon machine operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 96.91% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 96.91% is approximately 89.7 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 469 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 11 minutes;  (b) An employee working on the bottom level of the granulator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 124.6% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 124.6% is approximately 91.6 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 463 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 17 minutes;  (c) An employee sorting and cutting material on the alligator sheers was exposed to continuous noise levels at 72.60% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 72.60% is approximately 87.6 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 480 minutes during one shift;  (d) An employee sorting and cutting material on the alligator sheers was exposed to continuous noise levels at 73.99% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 73.99% is approximately 87.8 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 479 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 1 minute  (e) An Eldon machine operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 79.13% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 79.13% is approximately 88.3 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 468 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 12 minutes;   (f) An employee sorting and cutting material on the alligator sheers was exposed to continuous noise levels at 137.9% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 137.9% is approximately 92.3 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 476 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 4 minutes;    (g) A granulator operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 107.3% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 107.3% is approximately 90.5 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 465 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 15 minutes.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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) The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the warehouse who were exposed to occupational noise equaling or exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  (a) Employees working in the warehouse, who were exposed to occupation noise at or above the action level of 85 decibels, were not provided with baseline audiograms within 6 months of their first exposure.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(ii): When a baseline audiogram was not established, the employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by any employee who is exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater:  Employees working in the Panoramic Room of the warehouse, who had not received baseline audiograms, were observed not wearing hearing protection.  (a) An employee sorting and cutting material on the alligator sheers was exposed to continuous noise levels at 72.60% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 72.60% is approximately 87.6 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 480 minutes during one shift;  (b) An employee sorting and cutting material on the alligator sheers was exposed to continuous noise levels at 73.99% of the permissible 8-hour TWA.  The equivalent dBA level of 73.99% is approximately 87.8 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 479 minutes during one shift.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 1 minute.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(5): The employer did not ensure proper initial fitting and supervise the correct use of all hearing protectors:  (a) One employee working on the granulator was observed using duct tape to hold ear plugs in his ears, exposing the employee to hazards associated with occupational noise.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of this section. The employer shall institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program.  (a) The employer did not institute a training program and did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95, exposing employees to hazards associated with occupational noise.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:  (a) The employer did not provide medical evaluations for employees in the warehouse who are required to wear respirators, exposing employees to respiratory hazards.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jun 23, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter:  (a) The employer did not ensure that employees working in the warehouse, who are required to use half face respirators, are fit tested prior to the initial use of the respirator.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i): Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  (a) Employees use respirators contaminated with lead.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):  (a) Employees in the Panoramic Room were exposed to amputation hazards while operating an unguarded alligator sheer;  (b) Employees in the warehouse were exposed to amputation hazards while operating unguarded stripping machines.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period:  Employees working in the scale house cutting cable containing lead were exposed to at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) over the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3.  (a) On September 2, 2015 one scale house worker was exposed to lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.072 mg/m3 of air, approximately 1.45 times the PEL of 0.050 mg/m3.  Sampling was performed for 472 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 8 minute period not sampled;  (b) On October 8, 2015 one scale house worker was exposed to lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.068 mg/m3 of air, approximately 1.37 times the PEL of 0.050 mg/m3.  Sampling was performed for 472 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 8 minute period not sampled;  (c) On October 8, 2015 one scale house worker was exposed to lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.164 mg/m3 of air, approximately 3.27 times the PEL of 0.050 mg/m3.  Sampling was performed for 473 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 7 minute period not sampled.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(i): For any employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year the employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls (including administrative controls) were not implemented to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead:  (a) The employer did not implement engineering or work practice controls to reduce airborne lead exposure below the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for employees working in the scale house.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(f)(1)(ii): Respirators for protection against lead were not used or were not provided when engineering and/or work-practice controls were not sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or below the permissible exposure limit:  Employees working in the scale house were not provided with respirators while cutting cable containing lead.  (a) One scale house worker was exposed to lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.068 mg/m3 of air, approximately 1.37 times the PEL of 0.050 mg/m3.  Sampling was performed for 472 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 8 minute period not sampled;  (b) One scale house worker was exposed to lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.164 mg/m3 of air, approximately 3.27 times the PEL of 0.050 mg/m3.  Sampling was performed for 473 minutes.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 7 minute period not sampled.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(ii)(A): The written compliance program did not include a description of each operation in which lead is emitted:  (a) The written lead compliance program did not include a description for cutting cable in the scale house, in which lead is emitted, exposing employees to levels of airborne lead above the OSHA PEL.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(ii)(B): The written compliance program did not include a description of the specific means that will be employed to achieve compliance:  (a) The written lead compliance program did not include a description of the specific means that will be employed to achieve compliance with the lead standard, exposing employees working in the scale house to airborne lead above the OSHA PEL.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv): Written compliance programs for lead were not revised and updated annually to reflect the current status of the program:  (a) The employer did not annually revise or update the lead compliance program to reflect the current status of the program.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1)(i): The employer did not provide, at no cost to the employee, and ensure that the employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments, such as, but not limited to coveralls or similar full-body work clothing:  (a) The employer did not ensure that employees working in the scale house used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment to prevent lead contamination of skin and clothing.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(2)(v): Contaminated protective clothing to be cleaned, laundered, or disposed of, was not placed in a closed container to prevent dispersion of lead outside the container:  (a) Employees were not provided with a closed container in the change-room to dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE) contaminated with lead, exposing employees to hazards associated with lead.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead:  Surfaces throughout the facility were contained with lead:  (a) A chair in the change-room was contaminated with 97.2930 micrograms of lead;    (b) The top shelf of a shoe rack in change-room was contaminated with 1881.9000 micrograms of lead;  (c) A work table in the Cable Shop Managers office was contaminated with 88.9550 micrograms of lead;    (d) The desk in front lobby of production area was contaminated with 743.6100 micrograms of lead;    (e) The microwave table in the lobby of the production area was contaminated with 84.2570 micrograms of lead;    (f) The break room table near Mens restroom was contaminated with 21.2940 micrograms of lead;    (g) The break room center table was contaminated with 65.9110 micrograms of lead;    (h) The break room table near the office was contaminated with 290.8200 micrograms of lead.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(2)(ii): Shoveling, sweeping or brushing methods were used to remove lead accumulations where vacuuming or other equally effective methods were available and feasible:  (a) Employees in the warehouse sweep dust created while cutting cable, exposing employees to airborne lead.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(i): Employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, were not required to shower at the end of the work shift:  (a) Employees working in the scale house, who are exposes to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), are not required to take showers at the end of the work shift.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(iii): The employer did not ensure that employees who were required to shower per 29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(i) did not leave the workplace wearing any clothing or equipment worn during the work shift:  (a) Employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) did not remove clothing contaminated with lead at the end of the work shift.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(iv): Employees entering lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment were not required to remove surface lead dust by vacuuming, downdraft booth, or other cleaning method(s):  Employees were allowed to enter lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing, contaminating surfaces with lead.  (a) The desk in front lobby of production area, where employees eat, was contaminated with 743.6100 micrograms of lead;    (b) The microwave table in the lobby of the production area was contaminated with 84.2570 micrograms of lead;    (c) The break room table near Men's restroom was contaminated with 21.2940 micrograms of lead;    (d) The break room center table was contaminated with 65.9110 micrograms of lead;    (e) The break room table near the office was contaminated with 290.8200 micrograms of lead.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not train each employee who is subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025:  (a) Employees exposed to airborne lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) were not trained in accordance with the requirements of the lead standard.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(iv): A training program was not repeated at least annually for each employee subject to lead exposure at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed:  (a) The employer did not repeat training for each employee exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL) at least annually.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(1)(ii): In classifying the hazards of lead at least the following hazards were not addressed: Reproductive/developmental toxicity; central nervous system effects; kidney effects; blood effects; and acute toxicity effects:  (a) The employer did not inform employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of the reproductive/developmental toxicity, the central nervous system effects, kidney effects, blood effects, or acute toxicity effects.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(1)(iii): The employer did not include lead in the hazard communication program established to comply with the HCS (� 1910.1200), and the employer did not ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of lead and to safety data sheets, and that employees were trained on lead in accordance with the requirements of HCS and paragraph (l) of this section:  (a) In the written Hazard Communication Program, the employer did not include lead, exposing employees to hazards associated with lead exposure.

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,695 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(2)(i): 29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(2)(i): Warning signs bearing the legend: WARNING, LEAD WORK AREA, POISON, NO SMOKING OR EATING, were not posted in each work area where the permissible exposure limit (PEL) was exceeded:                                                   (a) The employer did not posted lead warning signs in the scale house where employees are exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Issued

Jan 6, 2016

Abate by

Jan 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of 29 CFR 1910.95 and did not post a copy in the workplace:  (a) The employer did not make copies of 29 CFR 1910.95 available to employees working in the warehouse area.