OSHA Inspection: PEERLESS-PREMIER APPLIANCE CO.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

Mar 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,050 · Current $5,670

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 (o) 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:    Whenever employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured in the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent, the employer did not administer an effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o).    a. An employee was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 118.9% of the action level or an equivalent sound level of approximately 91.2 dBA during the 440 minute sample period.    b. An employee was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 102.3% of the action level or an equivalent sound level of approximately 90.2 dBA during the 432 minute sample period.    c. An employee was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 78.2% of the action level or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.2 dBA during the 431 minute sample period.    d. An employee was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 131.8% of the action level or an equivalent sound level of approximately 92.0 dBA during the 444 minute sample period.    e. An employee was exposed to continuous and intermittent noise at 92.2% of the action level or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.4 dBA during the 438 minute sample period.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,050 · Current $0 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:    The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for the Press Area when information indicated that employee exposure equaled or exceeded the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,050 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(j)(1): The employer did not evaluate hearing protector attenuation for the specific noise environments in which the protector will be used and use one of the evaluation methods described in Appendix B: Methods for Estimating the Adequacy of Hearing Protection Attenuation:    In the Press Area on or about November 24, 2015, employees were exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average for noise ranging from approximately 88.2 to 91.8 decibels.  The employer did not evaluate hearing protector attenuation for hearing protectors used in the Press Area.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,670 · Current $5,670

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B): Unless a physician determines that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer did not ensure, when a standard threshold shift occurs, that for employees already using hearing protectors, employees be refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors and provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary:    When employees in the Press Area, who are required to wear hearing protectors, experienced a standard threshold shift, the employer did not refit or retrain those employees in the use of hearing protectors.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(4): The employer did not provide training in the use and care of all hearing protectors provided to employees:    The employer did not provide training in the use and care of hearing protectors provided to and required to wear by employees in the Press Area.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 29 CFR 1910.95(k):    The employer did not train each employee in the Press Area who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k).

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3): The employer did not ensure that each employee exposed  to noise at or above  an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels was trained and informed of the information included in sections k(3)(i) through k(3)(iii).    The employer did not ensure that each employee in the Press Area exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels was trained and informed of the following:  a.) The effects of noise on hearing;  b.) The purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use, and care; and  c.) The purpose of audiometric testing, and an explanation of the test procedures.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

Mar 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,240 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    In the Enamel Department, the employer did not ensure that each affected employee used appropriate protective equipment when entering the Parts Cleaner to clear "wrecks" and where the skin was exposed to Low Foam HD Cleaner.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

Mar 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,240 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):      In the Enamel Department, the employer did not ensure that the workplace was assessed to determine if hazards were present or likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment when employees were required to enter the Parts Cleaner to clear "wrecks" and where the skin was exposed to the Low Foam HD Cleaner.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

Mar 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,430 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    When respirators were required for the milling operation, a written respiratory protection program was not implemented that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) that included the following worksite specific procedures:      i. Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;  ii. Medical Evaluations for those employees required to wear respirators;  iii. Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonable foreseeable emergency situations;  iv. Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, repairing, discarding and otherwise maintaining respirators;  v. Procedures and schedules for changing cartridges and the method/means used to determine this schedule;  vi. Training employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations;  vii. Training employees in the proper use of respirators;  viii. Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the respiratory protection program.

Issued

Feb 12, 2016

Abate by

May 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,240 · 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:    The employer did not provide effective information and training on hazardous chemicals such as but not limited to the Low Foam HD Cleaner (i.e., parts cleaner) and Ball Clay to employees throughout the facility at the time of their initial assignment.