OSHA Inspection: CORLE BUILDING SYSTEMS

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,472 · Current $5,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1):   A continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (n) was not instituted when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 dBA:    a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not institute a continuing effective hearing conservation program when employee noise exposures exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA.  An employee designated as as a shot blower was exposed to noise at a level of 446% of the allowable limit during a 408 minute sampling period on April 4, 2019.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 100.8 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 8.9 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.    b)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - An employee designated as a plasma operator was exposed to noise at a level of 151% of the allowable limit during a 395 minute sampling period on April 4, 2019.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 92.9 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 3.02 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.    c)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - An employee designated as a plasma cutter was exposed to noise at a level of 98.9% of the allowable limit during a 396 minute sampling period on April 4, 2019.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 89.9 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.98 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.    d)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - An employee designated as a welder was exposed to noise at a level of 67.1% of the allowable limit during a 400 minute sampling period on April 4, 2019.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 87.1 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.34 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(ii): Where mobile test vans were used to meet the audiometric testing obligation, the employer did not obtain a valid baseline audiogram within 1 year of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level:  a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not establish a valid baseline audiogram within 1 year for employees whose noise exposures exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA.  Employees at the facility including a plasma cutter and a welder had not received a baseline audiogram within 6 months of noise exposures above 85 decibels.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:   a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not obtain an annual audiogram for employees whose noise exposures exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA.  The employer last provided an audiogram to employees in May of 2016.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not post of copy of 29 CFR 1910.95 in the workplace:  a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not post a copy of the Occupational Noise Standard, 29 CFR 1910.95 in the workplace.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Abate by

May 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,683 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator in the workplace before the employee is required to use a respirator in the workplace.  Employees of the facility are required to use full face tight fitting supplied air respirators during painting operations.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Abate by

May 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:   a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not provide a fit test prior to the initial use of a tight fitting respirator.  Employees of the facility are required to use full face tight fitting supplied air respirators during painting operations.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Abate by

May 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:   a)  In the Facility, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not provide respirator training to employees prior to requiring the use of a respirator in the workplace.  Employees of the facility are required to use full face tight fitting supplied air respirators during painting operations.

Issued

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,683 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    a)  Paint Area, on or about April 4, 2019 - The employer did not ensure that machine guarding was provided to protect employees from the hazard of rotating parts on the paint mixer.