OSHA Inspection: VOLFLEX, INC.

Issued

Apr 26, 2017

Abate by

May 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,802 · Current $1,901 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 1910.9(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.  In the facility, an employee working as a Line 3 helper was exposed to continuous noise levels at 79.76% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with an 80 dBA threshold, or an average equivalent sound level of the approximately 88.3 dBA for the 478 minute sampling time on January 25, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 2 minutes not sampled.    b.  In the facility, an employee working as a Line 5 operator was exposed to continuous noise levels at 55.2% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with an 80 dBA threshold, or an average equivalent sound level of the approximately 85.7 dBA for the 478 minute sampling time on January 25, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 2 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Apr 26, 2017

Abate by

Jun 13, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,169 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:  a.  On or about December 21, 2016, in the facility, the employer had not performed a personal protective equipment assessment which had identified and assessed all the hazards necessitating the use of personal protective equipment including but not limited to chemical resistant gloves and safety glasses.  Employee exposure included but was not limited to sodium hydroxide and ethanolamine.

Issued

Apr 26, 2017

Abate by

Jun 13, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protective equipment. Each such employee shall be trained to know at least the following:  a.  On or about December 21, 2015, in the facility, employees were not trained to know at least the following:    1.  What PPE is necessary. 2.  When PPE is necessary. 3.  How to properly don, doff, adjust and wear the PPE. 4.  The limitations of PPE. 5.  The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.  Employee exposure included but was not limited to sodium hydroxide and ethanolamine.

Issued

Apr 26, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,338 · Current $3,169 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 December 21, 2016, in the production area, employees were required to use corrosive materials including but not limited to sodium hydroxide.  Employees were exposed to hazards associated with corrosive materials when the employer failed to provide the means for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes or skin if exposed.

Issued

Apr 26, 2017

Abate by

Jun 13, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,873 · Current $4,437 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 December 21, 2016, in the facility, employees were exposed to hazardous materials including, but not limited to sodium hydroxide and ethanolamine.  Employees were exposed to these hazards when the employer failed to develop and implement the elements of a hazardous communication program.