OSHA Inspection: BROAD PEAK MANUFACTURING

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5398.00 · Current $1870.00 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 paragraphs (c) through (o) of this section, whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent:     Finishing Department:  The employer did not administer a continuing and effective hearing conservation program where employees were exposed to sound levels of 85 decibels or above measured on the A scale as follow:    1.  An employee operating a buffer was exposed to continuous noise at 69.4% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA ) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 87.3 dBA during the 386 minutes sampling period on March 9, 2020; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 94 minutes not sampled.    2.  A machine operator was exposed to continuous noise at 89.74% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA ) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.2 dBA during the 436 minutes sampling period on March 9, 2020; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 44 minutes not sampled.    3.  A polisher was exposed to continuous noise at 100.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA ) or an equivalent sound level of approximately 90.0 dBA during the 401 minutes sampling period on March 9, 2020; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the  79 minutes not sampled.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3084.00 · Current $1030.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    Facility:  The employer did not conduct a workplace hazard assessment to determine necessary and appropriate types of personal protective equipment  (PPE) for the employees.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards, such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:    Facility:  The employer did not select and require to use appropriate hand protection for the employees required to perform polishing/buffing operations and to handle and work with hazardous and/or corrosive chemicals, such as (but not limited to) Micro 90 and Buffing Compound Remover.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-11-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4626.00 · Current $1590.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators were necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators were required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures consisting of (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(v), (c)(1)(vi), (c)(1)(vii), (c)(1)(viii), and (c)(1)(ix) of this standard as applicable:       Facility: The employer did not establish and implement a worksite-specific written respiratory protection program and procedures consisting of employee training, proper selection, fit testing and medical evaluation where employees were required to wear N95 respirators.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and provide an appropriate respirator based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and workplace and user factors that affected respirator performance and reliability:     Facility:  The employer did not select and provide appropriate respirators based on the respiratory hazards to which the employees were exposed while performing tasks, such as (but not limited to) pocket polishing and belting.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-11-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4626.00 · Current $1590.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:    Finishing:  The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in the workplace where employees were potentially exposed to the airborne containments, such as (but not limited to) metal dust from polishing/buffing operations and chemical vapors from Magnaflux and Micro 90.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-11-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4626.00 · Current $1590.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0720073116201790

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(a)(3)(i): All places of employment were not kept clean to the extent that the nature of the work allowed:    Break Room and Hand Finishing Area:  The surfaces, such as (but not limited to) work and lunch table tops and refrigerator handle were not kept clean from accumulation of metals, such as (but not limited to) Cobalt, Manganese, and Chomium.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2313.00 · Current $900.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l).     Facility: The employer did not ensure through providing training and performing evaluation that the operators of the powered industrial trucks (PIT) were competent to operate the PITs safely at all times.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $1030.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new chemical hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area:    Facility: The employees required to handle and work with chemicals, such as (but not limited to) Magnaflux, Chrom-Cobalt alloy parts, Micro 90, and Buffing Compound were not provided with training and information on the chemical hazard communications to minimize and/or eliminate those hazards.

Issued

2020-06-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2020-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2)(ii): Employee(s) were not informed of any operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals were present:    Facility: Employees were not informed of any operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals, such as (but not limited to) Chromium were present.