OSHA Inspection: ACME FOUNDRY, INC.

Issued

Feb 16, 2022

Abate by

Jul 26, 2024

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $10,152 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(c):The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of  50 �g/m�, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  The employer is failing to protect employees from respiratory hazards related to exposure to respirable crystalline silica in the following instances:      a) BIG SHAKER: On or about October 20, 2021, an employee was exposed to respiratory hazards.  The employee at the shakeout area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 350 �g/m� in an 8-hour TWA.  The employee was using a sledge hammer to break off caps, gates and  risers from castings.  b) SMALL SHAKER: On or about October 20, 2021, an employee was exposed to respiratory hazards.  the employee at the shakeout area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 260 �g/m� in an 8-hour TWA.  The employee were using a sledge hammers to break  off scrap gates and  risers and sorting the castings.  c) WHEELABRATOR: On or about October 20, 2021, an employee was exposed to respiratory hazards.  The employee at the wheelabrator area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 85 �g/m� in an 8-hour TWA.  The employee operates the wheelabrator control panel.  d) SNAG GRINDER: On or about October 20, 2021, an employee was exposed to respiratory hazards. The employee was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 110 �g/m�in an 8-hour TWA.  The employee was using the snag grinder  to clean the castings.  e) BOOTH GRINDER: On or about October 20, 2021, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.  Employees at booth grinder #2  and booth grinder #1 were exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 320 �g/m�  and 300 �g/m� respectively, in an 8-hour TWA.  Employees were using  grinders to clean the castings.  f) CLEANING ROOM: On or about October 20, 2021, an employee was exposed to respiratory hazards.  the employee operating floor grinder #6 was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 560 �g/m�in an 8-hour TWA.  The employee was operating a floor grinder cleaning the castings.

Issued

Feb 16, 2022

Abate by

Jul 26, 2024

Penalty

Initial $8,287 · Current $5,801 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(d)(6)(ii):Whenever an exposure assessment indicated that employee exposure was above the PEL, the employer did not describe in the written notification the corrective action being taken to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL:  Employees are exposed to respiratory health hazards. Employees engaged iron castings production  at the production and cleaning area  were exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 560 �g/m�,  320 �g/m�, 350 �g/m�,  260 �g/m�,85 �g/m�,  and 110 �g/m� in a 8-hour Time Weighted Average.  Employer did not describe in the written notification the corrective action being taken to reduce  respirable crystalline silica at the facility located at 1502 Spruce Street Coffeyville, Kansas 67337.

Issued

Feb 16, 2022

Abate by

Jul 26, 2024

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $10,151 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(h)(1): The employer allowed dry sweeping or dry brushing where such activity could contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica and wet sweeping, HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure were feasible:   The employer is failing to prevent employee exposure to silica hazards in the workplace.  The condition was most recently documented on October 20, 2021, at 1502 Spruce St Coffeyville, Kansas.  Employees engaged in maintenance activities were exposed to silica hazards in that the employer allowed dry sweeping silica materials.

Issued

Feb 16, 2022

Abate by

Jul 26, 2024

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $10,151 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(b)(1):When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:  The employer is failing to protect employees from noise-induced hearing loss at the following instances:  a) WALL GRINDER :  On November 17, 2021,  employees were exposed to noise hazards.  Employee cleaning the castings at the wall grinder area was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100 % dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 337 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to continuous noise level at 1140 % noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 107.7 dBA, 8-hour time-weighted average.  Zero exposure was assumed for 143 minutes not sampled.  This is 11.4 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.      b) SMALL SHAKER: On November 17, 2021,  employees were exposed to noise hazards.  Employee breaking off scrap gates and sorting the castings at the shakeout area  was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100 % dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 475 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to continuous noise level at 454.5 % noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 100.9 dBA, 8-hour time-weighted average.  Zero exposure was assumed for 5 minutes not sampled.  This is 4.54 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.  c) SMALL SHAKER: On October 20, 2021,  employees were exposed to noise hazards.  Employee breaking off scrap gates and sorting the castings at the shakeout area  was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100 % dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 312 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to continuous noise level at 631.8 % noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 103.3 dBA, 8-hour time-weighted average.  Zero exposure was assumed for 168 minutes not sampled.  This is 6.32 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose..      d) SMALL SHAKER: On October 20, 2021,  employees were exposed to noise hazards.  Employee breaking off scrap gates and sorting the castings at the shakeout area  was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100 % dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 340 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to continuous noise level at 1140 % noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 107.7 dBA, 8-hour time-weighted average.  Zero exposure was assumed for 140 minutes not sampled.  This is 11.4 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.

Issued

Feb 16, 2022

Abate by

Jul 26, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(j)(3)(ii):The employer did not make a copy of this section readily available without cost to each employee covered by this section:  Employees are exposed to respiratory health hazards. Employees engaged iron castings production  at the production and cleaning area  were exposed to respirable crystalline silica at 560 �g/m�,  320 �g/m�, 350 �g/m�,  260 �g/m�,85 �g/m�,  and 110 �g/m� in a 8-hour Time Weighted Average.  Employer did not make a copy of this section readily available to employees.