OSHA Inspection: SOUTH HOLLAND METAL FINISHING CO. INC.

Issued

Sep 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $3,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(3): Repeat employee exposure monitoring was not performed whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure:    a. On or about July 12, 2018, in the plant, the employer did not repeat the noise monitoring when the Dip Spin machine was added to the work area approximately 18 months ago.  The Dip Spin machine produces noise between 90 - 98 decibels.

Issued

Sep 5, 2018

Abate by

Oct 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

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:     An audiometric testing program of employees was not instituted by South Holland Metal Finishing Co. Inc.  a. An employee in the quality control area was exposed to continuous noise levels at 149.1% of the allowable permissible exposure limit 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 149.1% is approximately 92.9 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 270 minutes during one shift on July 18, 2018.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 210 minutes.   b. An operator for the Dip Spin machine was exposed to continuous noise levels at 163.1% of the allowable permissible exposure limit 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 163.1% is approximately 93.5 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 440 minutes during one shift on July 18, 2018.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 40 minutes.  c. An operator working at the Phos line was exposed to continuous noise levels at 124.9% of the allowable permissible exposure limit 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 124.9% is approximately 91.6 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 448 minutes during one shift on July 18, 2018.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 32 minutes.  d. An operator on the Zinc 2 line was exposed to continuous noise levels at 98.6% of the allowable permissible exposure limit 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 98.6% is approximately 89.9 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 444 minutes during one shift on July 18, 2018.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 36 minutes.  e. A supervisor in the heat treat area was exposed to continuous noise levels at 106.6% of the allowable permissible exposure limit 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 106.6% is approximately 90.5 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 439 minutes during one shift on July 18, 2018.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 41 minutes.  f. An operator on the Nickel 2 line was exposed to continuous noise levels at 92.3% of the allowable permissible exposure limit 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 92.3% is approximately 89.4 dBA.  The sampling was performed for 443 minutes during one shift on July 18, 2018.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time, 37 minutes.

Issued

Sep 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,497 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(g)(2): Employees who worked with liquids that could burn, irritate, or otherwise harm their skin were not provided with an emergency shower and eye-wash station close to the dipping and coating operation:    a) On or about July 18, 2018, in the plating area, employees required to work with acid solutions were not provided with suitable facilities for flushing of the eyes.

Issued

Sep 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:   a. On or about July 12, 2018, in the workplace, employees were provided half-mask respirators for voluntary use but were not medically evaluated.