OSHA Inspection: SOLESBEE'S EQUIPMENT AND ATTACHMENTS, LLC

Issued

Nov 21, 2019

Abate by

Dec 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $3,978 Reduced

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)  Production area: On or about June 18, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed the grinder to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 90 decibels (100% dose) without providing an audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure of 93.2 decibels (157.3% dose) during the 316 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 164 minutes not sampled.  b) Production area: On or about June 18, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed the welder to noise levels above the action level of 85 decibels (50% dose) without providing an audiometric test.  The employee had an exposure of 87.2decibels (67.96% dose) during the 431 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 49 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Nov 21, 2019

Abate by

Dec 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k). The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:  a)  Production area: On or about June 18, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed the grinder to noise levels above the permissible exposure limit of 90 decibels (100% dose) without providing hearing conservation training.  The employee had an exposure of 93.2 decibels (157.3% dose) during the 316 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 164 minutes not sampled.  b) Production area: On or about June 18, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed the welder to noise levels above the action level of 85 decibels (50% dose) without providing hearing conservation training.  The employee had an exposure of 87.2decibels (67.96% dose) during the 431 minute sampling period. The exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 49 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Nov 21, 2019

Abate by

Dec 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $3,978 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(iii): Workers and other persons adjacent to the welding area were not protected from the rays by noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields:  a) Production area: On or about June 12, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to burn hazards, in that curtains did not completely surround the welding area to protect employees from looking at the welding arc.

Issued

Nov 21, 2019

Abate by

Dec 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $2,387 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  a) Production area:  On or about June 12, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to chemical hazards, in that a hazard communication program, to include all required aspects, was not established or implemented for employees using chemicals, such as, but not limited to acetylene, oxygen, Lacquer Thinner 3400, and Low VOC Dark Gray Acrylic Enamel paint.

Issued

Nov 21, 2019

Abate by

Dec 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  a) Paint area: On or about June 12, 2019, and at times prior, the employer exposed the employee to respiratory hazards, in that a respiratory protection program was not established or implemented for employees using a half mask respirator while painting.