OSHA Inspection: ARTISAN DISPLAY, INC.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $1,902 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.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee, who was fabricating wood trim and cabinetry was exposed to continuous noise at 83.9% of the permissible exposure limit of 90 dBA or an eight hour time weighted average (TWA) noise exposure of 89.6 dBA. This exposure was observed occurring over a 425 minute sampling period on February 17, 2017. A zero exposure was assumed for the 55 minutes not sampled.  The employer did not develop and implement a hearing conservation program.    b.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee who was applying laminate and wood trim to boards was exposed to noise at 66.8% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit during measurements performed for 510 minutes on February 17, 2017.  For the 8.5 hour work shift, employees would be exposed to the equivalent of an average sound level of 86.7 dBA, which is 1.025 times the reduced action level of 84.56 dBA. The employer did not develop and implement a hearing conservation program.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

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.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee, who was fabricating wood trim and cabinetry was exposed to continuous noise at 83.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit of 90 dBA or an eight hour time weighted average (TWA) noise exposure of 89.6 dBA. This exposure was observed occurring over a 425 minute sampling period on February 17, 2017. A zero exposure was assumed for the 55 minutes not sampled.  The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program.    b.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee who was applying laminate and wood trim to boards was exposed to noise at 66.8% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit during measurements performed for 510 minutes on February 17, 2017.  For the 8.06 hour extended work shift, employees would be exposed to the equivalent of an average sound level of 86.7 dBA, which is 1.025 times the reduced action level of 84.56 dBA. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    a.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee, who was fabricating wood trim and cabinetry was exposed to continuous noise at 83.9% of the exposure level of 90 dBA or an eight hour time weighted average (TWA) noise exposure of 89.6 dBA. This exposure was observed occurring over a 425 minute sampling period on February 17, 2017. A zero exposure was assumed for the 55 minutes not sampled.  The employer did not develop and implement an audiometric testing program for employees exposed above the action level.    b.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee who was applying laminate and wood trim to boards was exposed to noise at 66.8% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit during measurements performed for 510 minutes on February 17, 2017.  For the 8.06 hour extended work shift, employees would be exposed to the equivalent of an average sound level of 86.7 dBA, which is 1.025 times the reduced action level of 84.56 dBA. The employer did not develop and implement an audiometric testing program for employees exposed above the action level.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

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 institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:    a.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee, who was fabricating wood trim and cabinetry was exposed to continuous noise at 83.9% of the exposure level of 90 dBA or an eight hour time weighted average (TWA) noise exposure of 89.6 dBA. This exposure was observed occurring over a 425 minute sampling period on February 17, 2017. A zero exposure was assumed for the 55 minutes not sampled.  The employer did not train each employee  who is exposed to noise at or above the action level in the requirements of this section.    b.) Wood Working Area - On or about February 17, 2017, An employee who was applying laminate and wood trim to boards was exposed to noise at 66.8% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit during measurements performed for 510 minutes on February 17, 2017.  For the 8.06 hour extended work shift, employees would be exposed to the equivalent of an average sound level of 86.7 dBA, which is 1.025 times the reduced action level of 84.56 dBA. The employer did not train each employee  who is exposed to noise at or above the action level in the requirements of this section.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i): 29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(I): There were no visible gauges(s), audible alarm(s) or pressure activated device(s) installed on paint spray booth(s) to indicate or ensure that the required air velocity was maintained:     a.) Laminating Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Where employees were exposed to hazards while spraying flammable adhesive, the employer did not install a visible gauge or audible alarm to inform the employee that there is sufficient air flow in the booth.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv): Space within the spray booth on the downstream and upstream sides of filters were not protected with approved automatic sprinklers:  a.) Laminating Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to hazards during the  spray application of flammable adhesives, as the employer did not have an automatic fire suppression system in the booth located both downstream and upstream of the filters.   b.) JBI Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to hazards during spraying flammable paints, as the employer did not have an automatic fire suppression system in the spray booth downstream of the filters.  No abatement certification or documentation required.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances 13801650

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(6): Electrical wiring and equipment not subject to deposits of combustible residues but located in a spraying area as herein defined were not explosion-proof type approved for Class I, group D locations and did not otherwise conform to the provisions of subpart S of this part, for Class I, Division 1, Hazardous Locations:    a. ) Laminating Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to fire hazards from flammable vapors during spray application of Hybond Adhesive. The lighting, lighting wiring and receptacle boxes located inside of the booth were not of the electrical Class 1 group D type creating a fire hazard.    b.) Laminating Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to fire hazards from flammable vapors during spray application of Hybond Adhesive.  An electrical outlet, which was located approximately 11 inches from the open face of the booth was not of the electrical Class 1 group D type creating a fire hazard.    c.) Laminating Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to fire hazards from flammable vapors during spray application of Hybond Adhesive.  An electrical switch used to operate the fan was located approximately 26 inches from the open face of the booth was not of the electrical Class 1 group D type creating a fire hazard.    d.) JBI Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to fire hazards from flammable vapors during spray application of paint or finish.  Electrical panels, which were located approximately 36 inches outside the open face of the booth were not of the electrical Class 1 group D type creating a fire hazard.    e.)  Laminating and JBI Spray Booths - On or about January 10, 2017, Employees were exposed to fire hazards from flammable vapors during spray application of adhesives, paint or finish.  Fluorescent lighting located with 3 feet vertically or 10 feet horizontally of the open face of the spray booths were not of the electrical Class 1 group D type creating a fire hazard.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(g)(1): Spraying was conducted outside of predetermined spraying areas:    a.) Spray booth (Laminating) - On or about January 10, 2017 - Employees were exposed to safety and health hazards while spraying a flammable adhesive (Hybond) outside of the spray booth during the gluing of laminates to office furnishings.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $1,902 Reduced

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

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:    a.) Spray Room and Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017. Employees were wearing elastomeric respirators during the application of glues and finishes containing chemicals such as hexane and the employer did not have a written respiratory program with specific worksite procedures.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2): The employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator that would ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life:    (a)  Spray Room and Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017. Employees were wearing elastomeric respirators during the application of glues and finishes containing chemicals such as hexane and the employer did not provide a change out schedule for respirator cartridges.    Note:  The employer may provide an air-purifying respirator provided the respirator is equipped with end-of-service-life indicators or a change schedule has been developed. Otherwise, the employer must provide an atmosphere-supplying respirator.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a) Spray Room and Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017. Employees were wearing elastomeric respirators during the application of glues and finishes containing chemicals such as hexane and the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to wear a respirator as required.    Note:  The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting face piece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    a.) Spray Room and Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017. Employees were wearing elastomeric respirators during the application of glues and finishes containing chemical such as Hexane and the employer did not provide a respirator fit test to ensure the proper size respirator was used.

Issued

Apr 10, 2017

Abate by

Jun 15, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 04301060108013801534

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide respirator training that ensured that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of at least the following elements: Why the respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the respirator; What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are; How to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions; How to inspect, put on and remove, use, and check the seals of the respirator; What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the respirator, and How to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators:    a.) Spray Room and Spray Booth - On or about January 10, 2017. Employees were wearing elastomeric respirators during the application of glues and finishes containing chemicals such as hexane and the employer did not provide training on how to properly wear a respirator and to its limitations.