OSHA Inspection: UNITED PLATE GLASS CO., INC.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $3,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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)  In the Facility, on or about February 10, 2016 - The employer did not institute a continuing effective hearing conservation program when employee noise exposures exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA.  An employee designated as as a Seamer in Building #1 was exposed to noise at a level of 67.4% of the allowable limit during a 257 minute sampling period on February 10, 2016.  This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 87.2 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.3 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.    b)  In the Facility, on or about February 10, 2016 - An employee designated as a Glass Cutter in Building #1 was exposed to noise at a level of 66.3% of the allowable limit during a 257 minute sampling period on February 10, 2016.  This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 87.0 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.3 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:   a)  In the Facility, on or about February 10, 2016 - The employer did not develop and implement a noise monitoring program when employee's noise exposure equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  See description of employee's noise exposure in Citation 1, Item 1a, Instances a and b.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): New audiograms were not obtained annually for each employee exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA.   a)  In the Facility, on or about February 10, 2016 - The employer did not obtain an annual audiogram for each employee exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  See description of employee's noise exposure in Citation 1, Item 1a, Instances a and b.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 29 CFR 1910.95(k):   a)  In the Facility, on or about February 10, 2016 - The employer did not provide noise training to each employee exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  See description of employee's noise exposure in Citation 1, Item 1a, Instances a and b.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer shall make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of this standard and shall also post a copy in the workplace.   a)  In the Facility, on or about February 10, 2016 - The employer did not post a copy of the Occupational Noise Standard in the workplace.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $590 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    a)  Building #1, on or about February 10, 2016 - The employer did not provide suitable facilities for the quick flushing of the eyes in the area where a corrosive material, Liquid Hardener for Poliver, is used.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $3,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): The point of operation of machines whose operation exposed an employee to injury, was not guarded:    a)  Building #1, on or about January 29, 2016 - The Delta Shop Master Muntin Saw 10 inch blade was not guarded to prevent injury to employees.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6): The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:  a)  In the Facility, on or about January 29, 2016 - The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators as described in Appendix D of the respirator standard to employees who wear dust masks voluntarily at the facility.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier, signal word, hazard statement(s), pictogram(s) or precautionary statement(s):  a)  Building #1, on or about January 29, 2016 - Two settling tanks of water and coolant were not labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and signal word or precautionary statement.

Issued

Feb 24, 2016

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): The employer did not provide training on the details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, including an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  a)  In the Facility, on or about January 29, 2016 - The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on the new label elements and safety data sheet format as required by the revised hazard communication standard of 2012.