OSHA Inspection: ARMINA STONE

Issued

May 17, 2022

Abate by

Jul 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $9,324 · Current $6,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1):   A continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (n) was not instituted when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 dBA:  a)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 - The employer did not institute a continuing effective hearing conservation program when employee noise exposures exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA.  An employee designated as a Polisher was exposed to noise at a level of 72.1% of the allowable limit during a 321 minute sampling period on March 31, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 87.6 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.44 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.  b)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 -  An employee designated as a Polisher was exposed to noise at a level of 82.4% of the allowable limit during a 336 minute sampling period on March 31, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 88.6 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.65 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.  c)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 -  An employee designated as a Polisher was exposed to noise at a level of 84.7% of the allowable limit during a 307 minute sampling period on March 31, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 88.8 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.69 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.  d)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 -  An employee designated as a Polisher was exposed to noise at a level of 89.8% of the allowable limit during a 321 minute sampling period on March 31, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 89.2 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 1.79 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(d)(1): A representative noise monitoring program was not developed and implemented when information indicated that an employee's exposure may equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA:    a)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 - The employer did not develop and implement a noise monitoring program when employee's noise exposures may equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  Employees designated as Polishers were exposed to noise at 8-hour time-weighted average exposures of 87.6, 88.6, 88.8 and 89.2 dBA.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 - The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program when employee's noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  Employees designated as Polishers were exposed to noise at 8-hour time-weighted average exposures of 87.6, 88.6, 88.8 and 89.2 dBA.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Abate by

Jul 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(k)(1): A training program was not instituted for all employee who were exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA:   a)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 - The employer did not institute a noise related training program when employee's noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure of 85 dBA.  Employees designated as Polishers were exposed to noise at 8-hour time-weighted average exposures of 87.6, 88.6, 88.8 and 89.2 dBA.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not post of copy of 29 CFR 1910.95 in the workplace:   a)  In the Facility, on or about March 31, 2022 - The employer did not post a copy of 29 CFR 1910.95, the Occupational Noise Standard in the workplace.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Penalty

Initial $9,324 · Current $4,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(d)(3)(i):The employer did not perform initial monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:  a)  In the Facility, on or about March 22, 2022 - The employer did not perform initial monitoring for silica to assess the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification and in each work area.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Abate by

Jul 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(f)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan for employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica:   a)  In the Facility, on or about March 22, 2022 - The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan for employees who have exposure to respirable crystalline silica.   ABATEMENT NOTE:  The written Exposure Control Plan shall contain the following elements:  1.  A description of the tasks in the workplace that involve exposure to respirable crystalline silica;  2.  A description of the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica for each task;  and  3.  A description of the housekeeping measures used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica.    The employer shall review and evaluate the effectiveness of the written exposure control plan at least annually and update it as necessary.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Abate by

Jul 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k)(6):The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:  a)  In the Facility, on or about March 22, 2022 - The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of the respirator standard to employees who use dust masks voluntarily at the facility.

Issued

May 17, 2022

Abate by

Jul 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(e)(1):Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):   a)  In the Facility, on or about March 22, 2022 - The employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program at the facility.  Employees work with hazardous materials including but not limited to silica.