OSHA Inspection: STAINLESS FOUNDRY & ENGINEERING, INC.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

Jun 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $7,925 · Current $3,170 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:  On or about April 21, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without effective administrative or engineering controls. The employer failed to successfully require the use of hearing protection to all employees where these controls were not adequate to reduce exposures below the PEL.   (a) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the green sand shakeout was exposed to noise at 249.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.0dBA, as measured over 450 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.6dBA accounting for the period of 30 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the investment knockout was exposed to noise at 289.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.7dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.7dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On April 21, 2022, an employee performing grinding operations in the sand clean area was exposed to noise at 260.7% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.6dBA, as measured over 438 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.9dBA accounting for the period of 42 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

Jun 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  On or about April 21, 2022 and May 17, 2022, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without a continuing and effective hearing conservation program in place. The employer failed to implement the hearing conservation program to include monitoring to identify employees for inclusion into the  program, audiometric testing to provide surveillance for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), and hearing conservation training.  (a) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the green sand shakeout was exposed to noise at 249.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.0dBA, as measured over 450 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.6dBA accounting for the period of 30 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the investment knockout was exposed to noise at 289.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.7dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.7dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On April 21, 2022, an employee performing grinding operations in the sand clean area was exposed to noise at 260.7% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.6dBA, as measured over 438 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.9dBA accounting for the period of 42 minutes unmonitored.  (d) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the airset mold mixer head was exposed to noise at 74.1% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 88.2dBA, as measured over 454 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.8dBA accounting for the period of 26 minutes unmonitored.  (e) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the investment melt furnaces was exposed to noise at 75.2% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 88.1dBA, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.9dBA accounting for the period of 11 minutes unmonitored.  (f) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the sand melt furnaces was exposed to noise at 89.0% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 89.3dBA, as measured over 471 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89.2dBA accounting for the period of 9 minutes unmonitored.  (g) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the investment melt furnaces was exposed to noise at 79.5% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 88.5dBA, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 88.3dBA accounting for the period of 11 minutes unmonitored.  (h) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the airset melt deck furnaces was exposed to noise at 101.3% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 90.3dBA, as measured over 466 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 14 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

Feb 1, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:  On or about April  21, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without a continuing and effective hearing conservation program in place with the element of employee monitoring for inclusion.  (a) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the green sand shakeout was exposed to noise at 249.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.0dBA, as measured over 450 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.6dBA accounting for the period of 30 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the investment knockout was exposed to noise at 289.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.7dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.7dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On April 21, 2022, an employee performing grinding operations in the sand clean area was exposed to noise at 260.7% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.6dBA, as measured over 438 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.9dBA accounting for the period of 42 minutes unmonitored.  (d) On April 21, 2022, an employee operating the airset mold mixer head was exposed to noise at 74.1% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 88.2dBA, as measured over 454 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.8dBA accounting for the period of 26 minutes unmonitored.  (e) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the investment melt furnaces was exposed to noise at 75.2% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 88.1dBA, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.9dBA accounting for the period of 11 minutes unmonitored.  (f) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the sand melt furnaces was exposed to noise at 89.0% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 89.3dBA, as measured over 471 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89.2dBA accounting for the period of 9 minutes unmonitored.  (g) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the investment melt furnaces was exposed to noise at 79.5% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 88.5dBA, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 88.3dBA accounting for the period of 11 minutes unmonitored.  (h) On May 17, 2022, an employee operating the airset melt deck furnaces was exposed to noise at 101.3% of the permissible daily dose of 90dBA, or an average sound level of 90.3dBA, as measured over 466 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 14 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

May 8, 2023

Penalty

Initial $6,340 · Current $5,072 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0731

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of copper fumes listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 0.1 mg/m^3:  (a) On April 1, 2022, an employee performing Arc Air gouging/welding was exposed to an airborne concentration of copper metal fumes at an 8-hour time weighted average of 0.17 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3, approximately 1.7 times the limit of 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 1, 2022, for the first shift, during a 476 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 4 minutes not sampled.  (b) On April 1, 2022, an employee performing plasma cutting operations was exposed to an airborne concentration of copper metal fumes at an 8-hour time weighted average of 0.19 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3, approximately 1.9 times the limit of 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 1, 2022, for the first shift, during a 453 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 27 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

May 8, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0731

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):  (a) On April 1, 2022, an employee performing Arc Air gouging/welding was exposed to an airborne concentration of copper metal fumes at an 8-hour time weighted average of 0.17 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3, approximately 1.7 times the limit of 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 1, 2022, for the first shift, during a 476 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 4 minutes not sampled.  (b) On April 1, 2022, an employee performing plasma cutting operations was exposed to an airborne concentration of copper metal fumes at an 8-hour time weighted average of 0.19 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3, approximately 1.9 times the limit of 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 1, 2022, for the first shift, during a 453 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 27 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

May 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $13,052 · Current $7,000 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 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  (a) On April 7, 2022, an employee performing grinding in the sand clean area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 89 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 1.64 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 441 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 39 minutes not sampled.  (b) On April 7, 2022, a molder in the airset molding area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 120 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 2.4 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 438 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 42 minutes not sampled.  (c) On April 7, 2022, a molder in the airset molding area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 115 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 2.3 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 297 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 183 minutes not sampled.  (d) On April 7, 2022, a molder in the airset molding area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 117 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 2.34 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 421 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 59 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

May 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(f)(1): The employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL, unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible:  On or about April 7, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica above the 8-hour time weighted average of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3)., without effective work practice controls and/or engineering controls.   (a) On April 7, 2022, an employee performing grinding in the sand clean area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 89 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 1.64 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 441 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 39 minutes not sampled.  (b) On April 7, 2022, a molder in the airset molding area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 120 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 2.4 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 438 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 42 minutes not sampled.  (c) On April 7, 2022, a molder in the airset molding area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 115 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 2.3 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 297 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 183 minutes not sampled.  (d) On April 7, 2022, a molder in the airset molding area was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline quartz silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 117 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3, approximately 2.34 times the limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3).  The sample was collected on April 7, 2022, for the first shift, during a 421 minute sampling period and exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 59 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Abate by

May 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  (a) On or about April 1, 2022, an employee operating the airset mixer-head in the airset molding area was dry brushing the roller tracks for the sand carts to remove sand debris created by operation of the mixerhead.   (b) On or about April 7, 2022, a molder was utilizing an air hose to remove sand debris on or around molds being prepped in the airset molding area without first wetting the surface to ensure that respirable crystalline silica particles were not disturbed such that it would create additional exposure hazards.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(h)(2)(i): The employer allowed compressed air to be used to clean clothing or surfaces where such activity could contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica without being used in conjunction with a ventillation system to capture blown dust:  (a) On April 1, 2022, and days prior, the employer allowed compressed air to be used to clean clothing by use of a JetBlack blow-off cleaning station unit in the investment clean/locker area.

Issued

Aug 5, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.22(c): The employer did not provide, and ensure each employee uses a safe means of access and egress to and from walking-working surfaces.  (a) On or about April 7, 2022, the employer did not provide a safe means of access and egress to and from a roller/conveyor system elevated 24 inches above ground level that was used as a walking-working surface.