OSHA Inspection: SPERRY & RICE, LLC.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $11,641

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer shall administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program, as described in paragraphs (c) through (o) of this section, whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent. For purposes of the hearing conservation program, employee noise exposures shall be computed in accordance with appendix A and Table G-16a, and without regard to any attenuation provided by the use of personal protective equipment.      a. At the workplace, the employer had not established and implemented an effective hearing conservation program for all employees, including the Wet Saw Operator in the Geese Finishing Room, with noise exposures equal to or exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent [i.e. ACTION LEVEL]. A Wet Saw Operator working in the Geese Finishing Room was exposed to noise levels exceeding the Action Level of an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 dBA and a noise dose exceeding fifty percent.  Noise dosimetry was performed for 394 minutes during one shift on March 08, 2018. The employee's measured noise dose was 102.5%. The equivalent 8-hour TWA of 102.5% noise dose was approximately 90.1 dBA.    b. At the workplace, the employer had not established and implemented an effective hearing conservation program for all employees, including a Team Leader in the Mill Room, with noise exposures equal to or exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent [i.e. ACTION LEVEL]. A Team Leader working in the Mill Room was exposed to noise levels exceeding the Action Level of an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 dBA and a noise dose exceeding fifty percent.  Noise dosimetry was performed for 399 minutes during one shift on March 08, 2018. The employee's measured noise dose was 74.9%. The equivalent 8-hour TWA of 74.9% noise dose was approximately 87.9 dBA

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): In addition, the employer must establish and implement those elements of a written respiratory protection program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily is medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator is cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user. Exception: Employers are not required to include in a written respiratory protection program those employees whose only use of respirators involves the voluntary use of filtering facepieces (dust masks).    a. On or about March 08, 2018, in the Mixing area of the Mill Room, the employer did not develop a written respiratory protection program that addressed medical evaluations, respirator cleaning and respirator storage.  An employee voluntarily used a MSA half-face respirator with P100 particulate filters provided by the employer.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1): Cleaning and disinfecting. The employer shall provide each respirator user with a respirator that is clean, sanitary, and in good working order. The employer shall ensure that respirators are cleaned and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of this section, or procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer, provided that such procedures are of equivalent effectiveness.     a. On or about March 08, 2018, in the Mixing area of the Mill Room, the employer did not ensure respirators were cleaned and disinfected.  An employee voluntarily used a MSA half-face respirator while performing chemical mixing and pouring operations. The respirator was visibly contaminated and was being stored on a large box filled with C-90, a category 1A carcinogen (Known Human Carcinogen).

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i): All respirators shall be stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals, and they shall be packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve.    a. On or about March 08, 2018, in the Mixing area of the Mill Room, the employer did not ensure a respirator was stored to protect it from contamination and hazardous chemicals when an employee voluntarily used a MSA half-face respirator with P100 particulate filters.  The respirator was being stored on a large box filled with C-90, a category 1A carcinogen (Known Human Carcinogen), and was visibly contaminated.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,977 · Current $9,977

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Application. Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.      a. On or about April 19, 2018, throughout the Curing Room and Geese Curing area, employees were exposed to thermal burn hazards while loading and unloading parts racks from autoclaves.  The employer did not ensure PPE was provided and used to protect employees' arms, legs, and face from the burn hazards.      b. On or about April 19, 2018, in the Geese Curing area, employees were exposed to thermal burn hazards while performing mandrel finishing operations.  The employer did not ensure PPE was provided and used to protect employees' arms and legs from the burn hazards.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.    a. On or about March 08, 2018, at the workplace, the employer had assessed the workplace for some hazards but had not addressed all nor verified the assessment had been performed through a written certification. The employer also did not require any PPE to be worn throughout the facility when employees were exposed to hazards, including but not limited to, corrosive chemicals, lacerations from knives, eye hazards from flying debris, thermal burns, and carcinogens.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.    a. On or about March 08, 2018, in the Geese Finishing Room, employees were exposed to eye and face hazards from flying particles and debris of wood, metal, and rubber created while operating the water saws. The employer did not ensure appropriate eye and face protection was worn by employees who used water saws to cut hose pieces to length.     b. On or about March 21, 2018, in the Vulcanization area, employees were exposed to eye and face hazards from trichloroethylene and aerosolized McLube 1725L Mold Release. The employer did not ensure appropriate eye and face protection was worn by employees who used the chemicals during the vulcanization and manipulation of rubber hoses.    c. On or about April 10, 2018, in the Geese Finishing Room, an employee was exposed to eye hazards while using a Paslode pneumatic staple gun.  The employer did not ensure eye protection was worn by the employee while assembling shipping boxes with the stapler.    d. On or about April 19, 2018, in the Mill Room, employees were exposed to eye and face hazards from flying particles of metal and abrasives while sharpening tools with the Baldor Pedestal Grinder (CAT NO 612R, SER. W1196). The employer did not ensure appropriate eye and face protection was worn by employees performing grinding operations.    e. On or about April 19, 2018, throughout the Curing Room and Geese Curing area, employees were exposed to eye and face hazards from hot TM-4451 Mandrel Lubricant (Polyol Ether) inside of rubber hoses. The employer did not ensure appropriate eye and face protection was worn by employees pulling the hoses off of the parts racks.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,977 · Current $9,977

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.136(a): General requirements. The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, or when the use of protective footwear will protect the affected employee from an electrical hazard, such as a static-discharge or electric-shock hazard, that remains after the employer takes other necessary protective measures.    a. On or about April 19, 2018, throughout the Curing Room and Geese Curing area, employees were exposed to foot injuries from hazards including, but not limited to, rolling parts racks, passing forklifts, and electric pallet jacks. The employer did not ensure protective footwear was used to protect employees' feet from crushing injuries.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,977 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): General requirements. Employers shall select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.    a. On or about February 28, 2018, in the Extrusion Room, employees' hands were exposed to cuts and lacerations. The employer did not require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees used handheld knives to cut rubber tubes, coils, and slabs, throughout the day.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $11,641

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employers shall develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also includes the following:      a. On or about March 08, 2018, at the workplace, the employer did not develop and maintain a written hazard communication program when employees throughout the facility worked with hazardous chemicals that included, but were not limited to, Methyl Zimate, Trichloroethylene, and Sulfur. Chemical hazards included, but were not limited to corrosives, carcinogens, and mutagens.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6): Workplace labeling. Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of this section, the employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with either:     (i) The information specified under paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) of this section for labels on shipped containers; or,     (ii) Product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals, and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, will provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical.     a. On or about March 08, 2018, in the Mixing area of the Mill Room, employees were exposed to an approximately 30 gallon barrel of Methyl Zimate that was not appropriately labeled to warn employees of the hazardous nature of the drum's contents.  THE HMIS label was not legible and did not convey the level 4 (extreme) health hazards of Methyl Zimate.    b. On or about March 21, 2018, in the Vulcanization area, employees were exposed to an approximately 2 gallon can of trichloroethylene (spelled "Trichlorath-alen" on can) that was not appropriately labeled to warn employees of the hazardous nature of the can's contents. There was no labeling or marking present on the container that that would convey the hazardous nature of the trichloroethylene.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3):  Training.  Employee training on hazardous chemicals shall include at least the items outlined in 1910.1200(h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(iv):      a.  On or about March 08, 2018 employees working with hazardous chemicals in areas such as, but not limited to, the Mill Room, Vulcanization area, Curing Room, and Geese Curing area, had not received site specific training on the following elements outlined in 1910.1200(h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(iv). The training conducted did not include training specific to the chemical hazards present at the work site.      i. Employees had not received training on site specific methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of hazardous chemicals in the work area;      ii. Employees had not received training on site specific chemical hazards (i.e. physical, health, combustible dust, hazards not otherwise classified, etc.) of the hazardous chemicals in the work area;      iii. Employees had not received training on site specific measures employees can take to protect themselves from the chemical hazards, including specific procedures to protect employees from exposure, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used; and      iv. Employees had not received training on the details of the employers hazard communication program.

Issued

Aug 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $23,281 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employers shall provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees have not previously been trained about is introduced into their work area. Information and training may be designed to cover categories of hazards (e.g., flammability, carcinogenicity) or specific chemicals. Chemical-specific information must always be available through labels and material safety data sheets.         a. On or about April 19, 2018, at the workplace, the employer had no mechanism in place for training employees who worked with hazardous chemicals before their initial assignment.  An employee in the Mixing area of the Mill Room worked with hazardous chemicals including, but not limited to, Hess Sulfur, while engaged in rubber batch blending operations.  The employee had not received any information or training to include the health and safety hazards of the chemicals being used in the Mixing area.     Sperry & Rice, LLC. was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard 1910.1200(h)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 960962, citation number 1, item number 2, and was affirmed as a final order on May 06, 2014 with respect to a workplace located at 1088 North Main Street, Killbuck, Ohio 44637.