OSHA Inspection: DART CASTING INC.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,236 · Current $3,118 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

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 1910.9(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:   a. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 175% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 94 dBA for the 464 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 16 minutes not sampled.    b. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 251% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 99.6 dBA for the 470 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 106 minutes not sampled.    c. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 155.3% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 93.2 dBA for the 471 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 9 minutes not sampled.    d. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 136.2% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 92.2 dBA for the 478 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 2 minutes not sampled.    e.  An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 160.3% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 93.4 dBA for the 457 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 23 minutes not sampled.    f. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 130.8% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 91.9 dBA for the 469 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 11 minutes not sampled.   g. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 133.3% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 92.1 dBA for the 453 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 27 minutes not sampled   h. An employee in the production area was exposed to continuous noise at 78.1% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 88.2 dBA for the 467 minute sampling time on November 3, 2016. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 13 minutes not sampled   The employer had not implemented a continuing, effective hearing conservation program

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,741 · Current $1,871 Reduced

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 November 1, 2016, in the work area, the employees hands were exposed to diethanolamine and were not provided appropriate chemical resistant gloves.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,236 · Current $3,118 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. On or about November 1, 2016, in the molding area, employees required to work with Cast Rite release product containing diethanolamine were not provided with suitable facilities for flushing of the eyes.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,236 · Current $3,118 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:   a. On or about November 1, 2016 in the facility, the maintenance employees and machine operators were required to perform maintenance activities including but not limited to cleaning out molding machines, changing dies and repairing molder machines.  The employer did not have a written lockout program which included energy control procedures, periodic inspections and employee training.  The employees were thereby exposed to the hazards associated with unexpected start up of machines and equipment

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(2): The machine or equipment was not turned off or shut down using the procedures established for the machine or equipment:   2. On or about November 3, 2016, in the molding area, an employee performing a clean out task on Molder Machine #15  did not lockout the unit before climbing into the point of operation of the machine.  The employees were thereby exposed to the hazards associated with unexpected start up of machines and equipment.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,988 · Current $2,494 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:   a. On or about November 1, 2016, in the work area, the employees were required to work with chemicals such as, but not limited to, Cast Rite release product containing diethanolamine and molten aluminum.  The employer did not develop and implement a hazard communication program.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:   a. On or about November 1, 2016, in the work area, the employees were not trained in the hazards associated with chemicals such as, but not limited to, molten metals and diaethanolamine.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(h)(1): Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(6) of this section, the protective equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), used to comply with this part, shall be provided by the employer at no cost to employees.   a. On or about November 1, 2016, in the production area, the employer did not provide long sleeve uniforms at no cost to the employees required to work with diethanlamine, a chemical with a skin designation.

Issued

Jan 11, 2017

Abate by

Mar 1, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:   a. On or about November 1, 2016, in the plant, employees were required to operate forklifts on a daily basis. The forklift drivers were not retrained after three years as required by the standard.