JANESVILLE, WI —
OSHA Inspection: GOEX CORPORATION
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of GOEX CORPORATION in 802 EAST US HIGHWAY 14, JANESVILLE, WI 53545 (NAICS 326121). OSHA activity number 343176541.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- GOEX CORPORATION
- Site address
- 802 EAST US HIGHWAY 14
- City
- JANESVILLE
- State
- WI
- ZIP
- 53545
- Mailing
- 802 EAST US HIGHWAY 14, JANESVILLE, WI 53545
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 326121
- Employees
- 174
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
3 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Oct 17, 2018
- Abate by
- May 8, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $8,315 · Current $5,821 Reduced
General-duty citation text
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees due to employees being exposed to the fire hazards from combustible and ignitable plastic dust through the recirculation of air from a media-type dust collector that exhausted directly into an occupied building. a) On or about May 22, 2018, the outdoor United Air Specialists media type dust collector was being used for collecting polyester, polypropylene and polystyrene dust from upstream process systems including grinders/granulator, air-material separators (cyclones) and various in-line fans/blowers. The dust collector directly exhausted filtered air indoors without a means to detect and prevent the transfer of hazardous byproducts of a dust collection system fire, such as smoke or toxic gases, into the facility through the dust collector's exhaust air system. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable method of abatement would be to follow the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Standard 654 "Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, 2013 ed." - Sections 7.12.2.5 (fans/blowers located in the dirty air stream), 7.12.3 (fire protection downstream of fan), 7.13.1.6 (exhaust air), and 7.15 (size reduction equipment). Specifically, ensure that exhaust-air ducting terminates at an outdoor location and away from return air inlets. Alternatively, returning the dust collector's exhausted air into the building is possible provided that provisions are incorporated to prevent transmission of smoke and toxic gases back into the building through technologies such as a fire detection and abort/extinguishment system. In addition, ensure that recognized ignition source controls are provided for upstream equipment to include the installation of foreign material exclusion or removal systems (i.e. magnetic separators, grates, etc.) upstream of all size reduction equipment systems (i.e. grinders/granulators) and ensure that the construction of fans/blowers located in the dirty air ducting is out of spark-resistant materials and spark reduction technology concepts.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5820.5
- — Z (S) $8315
1910.95 C01
- Issued
- Oct 17, 2018
- Abate by
- Nov 7, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $8,315 · Current $5,821 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: On or about June 7, 2018, the employer did not administer a hearing conservation program for employees, including noise monitoring and audiometric testing, whenever employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent. a) A Blender was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 87.2 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of 86.3%, and was not provided audiometric testing. b) The Line 8 Operator was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 88.4 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of 102%, and was not provided audiometric testing. c) The Pelletizer was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 88.6 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of 105.9% and was not provided audiometric testing. d) The Line 7 Operator was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 87.8 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of 96.8% and was not provided audiometric testing. e) The Line 5 Operator was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90.2 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of 129.7% and was not provided audiometric testing.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5820.5
- — Z (S) $8315
1910.1200 H03 II
- Issued
- Oct 17, 2018
- Abate by
- Nov 7, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $8,315 · Current $5,821 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area: On or about May 22, 2018, the employer did not train employees on the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area. a) The employer did not train employees on the combustible dust hazards from the plastic dust. b) The employer did not train employees on the formaldehyde hazards from the heated plastic. c) The employer did not train employees on the acrolein hazards from the heated plastic.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5820.5
- — Z (S) $8315
More inspections at Goex Corporation
View Goex Corporation's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 326121)
More inspections in WI
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 343176541.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.