OSHA Inspection: BLACKJACK LUMBER CO., LLC

Issued

2017-09-22 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-10-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2716.00 · Current $1630.00 Reduced

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) The employer is failing to protect it employees from occupational noise exposure by effective administration of their hearing conservation program. This was most recently demonstrated on 6/27/2017 when personal noise monitoring was performed on three employees at the worksite located at 12071 Hwy J, Stockton MO whose dose was in excess of fifty (50) percent on the A Scale.    1) An employee working at the edger saw was exposed to continuous noise levels at 345.1% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 98.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 471 minutes during one shift on June 27, 2017. The zero time was sampled for 9 minutes.    2) An employee working at the edger saw was exposed to continuous noise levels at 222.7% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 471 minutes during one shift on June 27, 2017. The zero time was sampled for 9 minutes.    3) An employee working at the tie grader was exposed to continuous noise levels at 208.8% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.3 dBA. The sampling was performed for 475 minutes during one shift on June 27, 2017. The zero time was sampled for 5 minutes.

Issued

2017-09-22 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-10-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3803.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

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) The employer is failing to protect it employees from occupational noise exposure by effective administration of their hearing conservation program. This was most recently demonstrated on 6/27/2017 when personal noise monitoring was performed on three employees at the worksite located at 12071 Hwy J, Stockton MO whose dose was in excess of fifty (50) percent on the A Scale and no audiometric testing had been performed.    1) An employee working at the edger saw was exposed to continuous noise levels at 345.1% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 98.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 471 minutes during one shift on June 27, 2017. The zero time was sampled for 9 minutes.    2) An employee working at the edger saw was exposed to continuous noise levels at 222.7% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 471 minutes during one shift on June 27, 2017. The zero time was sampled for 9 minutes.    3) An employee working at the tie grader was exposed to continuous noise levels at 208.8% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.3 dBA. The sampling was performed for 475 minutes during one shift on June 27, 2017. The zero time was sampled for 5 minutes.

Issued

2017-09-22 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-10-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3803.00 · Current $2282.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1): Pulley(s) with part(s) seven (7) feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o):    a)The employer was failing to provided effective machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees from caught-by hazards due rotating parts. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 in the mill in which the rubber conveyor was missing the guard; the belt and pulley was being shielded from one side, but not the back with a substantial, attached guard.    b)The employer was failing to provided effective machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees from caught-by hazards due to rotating parts. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 in the mill in which the edger saw was missing the guard; the belt and pulley was being shielded from three sides, but not from the bottom with a substantial, attached guard.    c)The employer was failing to provided effective machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees from caught-by hazards due rotating parts. rotating parts. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 in the mill in which the green was missing the guard; the belt and pulley was not being shielded on any side with a substantial, attached guard.

Issued

2017-09-22 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-10-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(1)(i): Horizontal belts which had both runs seven (7) feet or less from the floor level were not guarded with a guard that extended to at least fifteen inches above the belt:  a) The employer was failing to provided effective machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees from caught-by hazards due rotating parts. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 in the mill in which the rubber conveyor was missing the guard; the belt and pulley was being shielded from one side, but not the back with a substantial, attached guard.  b) The employer was failing to provided effective machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees from caught-by hazards due to rotating parts. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 in the mill in which the edger saw was missing the guard; the belt and pulley was being shielded from three sides, but not from the bottom with a substantial, attached guard.  c) The employer was failing to provided effective machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees from caught-by hazards due rotating parts. rotating parts. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 in the mill in which the green was missing the guard; the belt and pulley was not being shielded on any side with a substantial, attached guard.

Issued

2017-09-22 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-10-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2173.00 · Current $1304.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8870

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2): Listed or labeled electrical equipment was not used or installed in accordance with instructions included in the listing or labeling:    a) The employer was failing to protect employees from hazards of electrical shock or fire. This was demonstrated on 6/27/2017 when an indoor extension cord was being used in a semi outdoor environment and was plugged into another extension cord, covered in saw dust.

Issued

2017-09-22 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-10-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2716.00 · Current $1630.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8870

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(7)(i): Unused openings in boxes, raceways, auxiliary gutters, cabinets, equipment cases, or housings shall be effectively closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment.    a) The employer is failing to protect employee from the hazards of electrical shock or burn due to unused openings were not effectively closed as required. This was demonstrated on 6/1/2017 when knockouts were missing on the panel box of the GE switch panel.