OSHA Inspection: MOORECO, INC.

Issued

Nov 12, 2015

Abate by

Mar 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,400 Reduced

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 1910.95(c) through (n) 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:    The employer did not administer a continuous, effective hearing conservation program in that employees exposed to hazardous levels of noise were not afforded timely baseline and annual audiograms to detect hearing loss.      a) At the inspection site, the employer did not institute an effective hearing conservation program for a CTD Saw Operator who was exposed to noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dBA.  This violation was observed on or about September 3, 2015 where noise sampling performed for 475 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to an 111.2% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 90.7 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 5 minutes not sampled.      b) At the inspection site, the employer did not institute an effective hearing conservation program for a Trim Saw Operator who was exposed to noise levels in excess of the allowable 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85 dBA.  This violation was observed on or about September 3, 2015 where noise sampling performed for 477 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to an 80.66% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 88.4 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for the 3 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Nov 12, 2015

Abate by

Nov 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $3,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1)(i): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use PPE on knowing when PPE is necessary:    a) In the Trim Department, where employees were wearing prescription glasses in lieu of protective equipment for the eyes or face while using power saws to cut aluminum trim, pneumatic drills, and compressed air for cleaning, employees were not trained to know when eye protection was necessary, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by flying particles.      b) In the Cabinet Department, where employees were wearing prescription glasses in lieu of protective equipment for the eyes or face while using power saws to cut wood and aluminum trim, pneumatic tools for cabinet assembly, and compressed air for cleaning, employees were not trained to know when eye protection was necessary, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by flying particles.      c) In the Glue Department, where employees were wearing prescription glasses in lieu of protective equipment for the eyes or face while operating saws and using compressed air to blow dust off boards prior to coating, employees were not trained to know when eye protection was necessary, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by flying particles.      d) On or about August 3, 2015, and in times prior thereto and thereafter, in the Glue Department, where employees were using chemicals including, but not limited to, Dynasolve CU-5 to clean glue from rollers, and were wearing prescription eyewear instead of eye and/or face protection, exposing employees to the hazards of corrosive chemical splashes.

Issued

Nov 12, 2015

Abate by

Dec 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances M139

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  a) In the Trim Department, employees were wearing prescription glasses in lieu of appropriate eye and/or face protection while using power saws to cut aluminum trim, pneumatic drills, and compressed air for cleaning, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by flying particles.    b) In the Cabinet Department, employees were wearing prescription glasses in lieu of appropriate eye and/or face protection while using power saws to cut wood and aluminum trim, pneumatic tools for cabinet assembly, and compressed air for cleaning, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by flying particles.    c) In the Glue Department, employees were wearing prescription glasses in lieu of appropriate eye and/or face protection while using compressed air for cleaning equipment such as saws and boards prior to coating with adhesive, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by flying particles.    d) On or about August 3, 2015, and in times prior thereto and thereafter, in the Glue Department, employees were using chemicals including, but not limited to, Dynasolve CU-5 to clean glue from rollers and were wearing prescription eyewear in lieu of appropriate eye and/or face protection, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical splashes that cause serious damage to eyes.

Issued

Nov 12, 2015

Abate by

Mar 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $3,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.136(a):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used protective footwear when working in areas where there was a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, and/or where such employee's feet were exposed to electrical hazards:    At the establishment, on or about August 3, 2015, and in times prior thereto and thereafter, where employees were sharing passageways with forklifts and lifting and carrying heavy items including, but not limited to, boards weighing as much as 100 pounds and sliders (cabinets) weighing as much as 250 pounds, use of protective footwear was not required, exposing employees to the hazards of being struck by forklifts and/or items.

Issued

Nov 12, 2015

Abate by

Nov 18, 2015

Penalty

Initial $16,500 · Current $13,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 2460M139

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:    a) On or about August 3, 2015, and in times prior thereto and thereafter, in the Glue Department, where employees were using Lacquer Thinner 5 (toluene) to clean partially-cured glue from knives, scrapers, and end plates from glue applicators, use of chemical-resistant gloves was not enforced, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical contact, including defatting of skin.     b) On or about August 3, 2015, and in times prior thereto and thereafter, in the Glue Department, where employees were using chemicals including, but not limited to, Dynasolve CU-5 to clean glue from rollers, use of chemical-resistant gloves was not required, exposing employees to the hazards of chemical contact, including skin irritation.    MooreCo, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.138(a), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 965451 citation number 1, item number 1d and was affirmed as a final order on August 11, 2014 with respect to a workplace located at Temple, Texas 76501.