OSHA Inspection: BLUE BELL MATTRESS COMPANY, INC.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $8,525 · Current $6,309 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(k)(1)(i): The employer did not comply with all requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (1910.1200) for MC:    COMPANY-WIDE:    On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, the employer did not include methylene chloride in their written Hazard Communication Program.  Employees in the Tape Edge Department regularly used aerosolized methylene chloride-based adhesive to attach pillowtops to mattresses.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1): The employer did not provide information and training for each affected employee prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride:  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, the employer did not provide employees with training regarding the hazards of methylene chloride and appropriate measures to take to minimize exposure to the solvent.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $8,525 · Current $6,309 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:    PRODUCTION AREA:    On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, the employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program.  Employees in the Tape Edge, Upholstery, and Framing Departments were exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 dBA over an 8-hour period.  Employee #1, working in the Framing Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 109.5% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 255 minute sampling period on September 3, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #2, working in the Framing Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 48.7% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 295 minute sampling period on September 3, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #3, working in the Upholstery Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 48.7% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 255 minute sampling period on September 3, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #4, working in the Upholstery Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 87.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 256 minute sampling period on September 3, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #5, working in the Tape Edge Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 53.2% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) during the 371 minute sampling period on September 30, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #6, working in the Tape Edge Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 77.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) during the 377 minute sampling period on September 30, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #7, working in the Tape Edge Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 48.2% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) during the 381 minute sampling period on September 30, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.    Employee #8, working in the Tape Edge Department, was exposed to continuous noise levels at 57.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) during the 373 minute sampling period on September 30, 2019.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $8,525 · Current $6,309 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:    TAPE EDGE DEPARTMENT:    On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, employees regularly used methylene chloride-based adhesive to adhere  pillow tops to mattresses.  The employer had not conducted an initial exposure assessment to determine the employees' exposure to methylene chloride.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $8,525 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:    TAPE EDGE DEPARTMENT:    On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, employees who used an aerosolized methylene chloride-based adhesive to attach pillowtops to mattresses wore no personal protective equipment to minimize their exposure to the solvent.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(1): It was reasonably foreseeable that employee's skin may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater methylene chloride and the employer did not provide conveniently located washing facilities capable of removing the methylene chloride and did not ensure that affected employees use these facilities as needed:    TAPE EDGE DEPT:    On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, employees in the Tape Edge Department regularly used aerosolized methylene chloride-based adhesive to attach pillowtops to mattresses.  The employees were not required to wear personal protective equipment and there were no emergency showers or sinks available convenient to the Tape Edge Department where employees could wash the solvent from their skin.

Issued

Dec 23, 2019

Abate by

Feb 11, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(2): It was reasonably foreseeable that an employee's eyes may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater methylene chloride and the employer did not provide appropriate eyewash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use and did not ensure that affected employees use those facilities when necessary:    TAPE EDGE DEPARTMENT:    On or about and at times prior to August 22, 2019, employees in the Tape Edge Department regularly used aerosolized methylene chloride-based adhesive to attach pillowtops to mattresses.  The employees were not required to wear personal protective equipment to prevent them from getting the aerosol in their eyes.  There were no emergency eyewashes available convenient to the Tape Edge Department where employees could wash the solvent from their eyes.