OSHA Inspection: CARSON INDUSTRIES, INC.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Aug 4, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,070 · Current $3,150 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, on or about April 12, 2017 - 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 a Laborer (Painting/Shipping Area) was exposed to noise at a level of 66.8% of the allowable limit during a 452 minute sampling period on April 12, 2017.  This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 87.1 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.34 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 April 12, 2017 -  An employee designated as a Grinder was exposed to noise at a level of 148.0% of the allowable limit during a 440 minute sampling period on April 12, 2017.  This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 92.8 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 2.96 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.    c)  In the Facility, on or about April 12, 2017 -  An employee designated as a Laborer (working on the vibrating machine) was exposed to noise at a level of 171.2% of the allowable limit during a 456 minute sampling period on April 12, 2017.  This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 93.9 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 3.42 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.    d)  In the Facility, on or about April 12, 2017 -  An employee designated as a Grinder/Molder was exposed to noise at a level of 198.0% of the allowable limit during a 437 minute sampling period on April 12, 2017.  This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 95.0 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 3.96 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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)  In the Facility, on or about April 12, 2017 - The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees whose noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  (See descriptions of employee exposures in Citation 1, Item 1, Instances a - d).

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Jul 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(3): Employees were not given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer:   a)  In the Facility, on or about April 12, 2017 - The employer did not provide a variety of hearing protectors for employees whose noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  (See descriptions of employee exposures in Citation 1, Item 1, Instances a - d).

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Aug 4, 2017

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 April 12, 2017 - The employer did not train each employee who was exposed to noise at or above the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  (See descriptions of employee exposures in Citation 1, Item 1, Instances a - d).

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Aug 4, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of 29 CFR 1910.95 and did not post a copy in the workplace:   a)  In the Facility, on or about April 12, 2017 - The employer did not post a copy of 29 CFR 1910.95, the Occupational Noise Standard, in the workplace.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Jul 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,173 · Current $1,350 Reduced

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)  In the Facility, on or about March 21, 2017 - The employer did not develop a written respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures when the employer required the use of respirators in the workplace.  Employees are required to use a half mask respirator during core dipping operations.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  In the Facility, on or about March 21, 2017 - The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator in the workplace.  Employees are required to use a half mask respirator during core dipping operations.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):   a)  In the Facility, on or about March 21, 2017 - The employer did not provide a fit test for employees who are required to use a respirator in the workplace.   Employees are required to use a half mask respirator during core dipping operations.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Jul 5, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:   a)  In the Facility, on or about March 21, 2017 - The employer did not provide respirator training to employees who are required to use a respirator in the workplace.   Employees are required to use a half mask respirator during core dipping operations.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Jul 18, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(1): An educational program was not provided for all employees to familiarize them with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting:  a)  In the Facility, on or about March 21, 2017 - The employer did not provide a training program for employees to familiarize them with the general principles of fire extinguisher use.  The employer provides various types of fire extinguishers at the facility including Type A extinguishers for solid materials and Type D extinguishers for metals.

Issued

May 31, 2017

Abate by

Jul 5, 2017

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 March 21, 2017 - 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.  Employees work with hazardous materials including but not limited to silica and aluminum.