OSHA Inspection: MILLENNIUM PALLETS

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,716 · Current $1,086 Reduced

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) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a hearing conservation program.  The employee had an exposure level of 133% or 92.01 decibels during the 272 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 208 minutes not sampled.   b) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a hearing conservation program.  The employee had an exposure level of 135.9% or 92.2 decibels during the 282 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 198 minutes not sampled.   c) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a hearing conservation program.  The employee had an exposure level of 187.9% or 94.5 decibels during the 279 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 201 minutes not sampled.   d) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing a hearing conservation program.  The employee had an exposure level of 84.37% or 88.7 decibels during the 265 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 215 minutes not sampled.   e) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing a hearing conservation program.  The employee had an exposure level of 88.01% or 89.0 decibels during the 268 minute sampling period.  The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 212 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:  a) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a baseline audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure level of 133% or 92.01 decibels during the 272 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 208 minutes not sampled.   b) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a baseline audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure level of 135.9% or 92.2 decibels during the 282 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 198 minutes not sampled.   c) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a baseline audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure level of 187.9% or 94.5 decibels during the 279 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 201 minutes not sampled.   d) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing a baseline audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure level of 84.37% or 88.7 decibels during the 265 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 215 minutes not sampled.   e) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing a baseline audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure level of 88.01% or 89.0 decibels during the 268 minute sampling period.  The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 212 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a variety of hearing protection.  The employee had an exposure level of 133% or 92.01 decibels during the 272 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 208 minutes not sampled.   b) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a variety of hearing protection.  The employee had an exposure level of 135.9% or 92.2 decibels during the 282 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 198 minutes not sampled.   c) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing a variety of hearing protection.  The employee had an exposure level of 187.9% or 94.5 decibels during the 279 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 201 minutes not sampled.   d) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing a variety of hearing protection.  The employee had an exposure level of 84.37% or 88.7 decibels during the 265 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 215 minutes not sampled.   e) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing a variety of hearing protection.  The employee had an exposure level of 88.01% or 89.0 decibels during the 268 minute sampling period.  The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 212 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing training.  The employee had an exposure level of 133% or 92.01 decibels during the 272 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 208 minutes not sampled.   b) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing training.  The employee had an exposure level of 135.9% or 92.2 decibels during the 282 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 198 minutes not sampled.   c) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 132% or 92 decibels without providing training.  The employee had an exposure level of 187.9% or 94.5 decibels during the 279 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 201 minutes not sampled.   d) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing training.  The employee had an exposure level of 84.37% or 88.7 decibels during the 265 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 215 minutes not sampled.   e) Production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to noise levels above the action level of 66% or 87 decibels without providing training.  The employee had an exposure level of 88.01% or 89.0 decibels during the 268 minute sampling period.  The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 212 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  a) In production area: On or about April 18, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to respiratory hazards, in that Appendix D of the respiratory standard was not provided for employees voluntarily wearing a N-95 dust mask.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  Throughout the establishment:   On or about April 11, 2017, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to chemical hazards, in that a written hazard communication program was not implemented for employees using chemicals, such as but not limited to, propane, HUB Pallet Mask, and EZFit Air Tool Oil.