OSHA Inspection: WEST SALISBURY FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Mar 20, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $2,000 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 October 27, 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 Shipper (in the Grinding Area) was exposed to noise at a level of  102.9% of the allowable limit during a 439 minute sampling period on October 27, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 90.2 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 2.06 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 October 27, 2022 -  An employee designated as a Grinder was exposed to noise at a level of  317% of the allowable limit during a 445 minute sampling period on October 27, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 98.3 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 6.34 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 October 27, 2022 -  An employee designated as a Grinder was exposed to noise at a level of  345% of the allowable limit during a 445 minute sampling period on October 27, 2022.   This exposure is equivalent to a sound level of 98.9 dBA for the dose and time of employee exposure and is 6.9 times in excess of the 85 dBA action level (50%) at which the hearing conservation program is required.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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:   a)  In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not develop and implement a noise monitoring program when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.  See descriptions of employee noise exposures in Citation 1, Item 1a Instances a - c.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Mar 20, 2023

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 October 27, 2022 - The employer did not maintain an annual audiometric testing program for employees whose noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.  See descriptions of employee noise exposures in Citation 1, Item 1a Instances a - c.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Mar 20, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k):   a)  In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not provide noise related training to employee whose noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.  See descriptions of employee noise exposures in Citation 1, Item 1a Instances a - c.    ABATEMENT NOTE:  The employer shall ensure that each employee is informed of the following:  a)  The effects of noise on hearing;  b)  The purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use, and care; and  c)  The purpose of audiometric testing, and an explanation of the test procedures.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of 29 CFR 1910.95 and did not post a copy in the workplace:   a)  In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not post a copy of 29 CFR 1910.95, the Occupational Noise Standard in the workplace.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 15, 2023

Penalty

Initial $6,250 · Current $4,000 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 mcg/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:   a)    In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - An employee designated as a molder in the Core Room was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at a time weighted average exposure of 71 micrograms per cubic meter of air (mcg/m3).  This level is 1.42 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 mcg/m3 as a time weighted average concentration.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on October 27, 2022 for 453 minutes and zero exposures was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Aug 15, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

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 permissible exposure limit (PEL), unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible:    a)    In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica to or below the permissible exposure limit (PEL).  An employee designated as a molder in the Core Room was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at a time weighted average exposure of 71 micrograms per cubic meter of air (mcg/m3).    ABATEMENT NOTE:   Feasible engineering controls would include, but not be limited to, the installation of a source ventilation system at the opening of the deposit point of the silica sand in the Core Room.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Apr 17, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(g)(2): Where respirator use was required by this section, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134:      a)    In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 in that an employee who wears a tight fitting respirator in the Core Room was not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2).    b)  In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 in that an employee who wears a tight fitting respirator in the Core Room had not received annual respirator training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(k).

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Apr 17, 2023

Penalty

Initial $6,250 · Current $4,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of respirable crystalline silica was, or could have been reasonably expected to be, in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL):    a)    In the Core Room, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne respirable crystalline silica was in excess of the PEL.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Apr 17, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(e)(2)(ii): The employer failed to post signs at all entrances to regulated areas:    a)  In the Core Room, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer failed to post signs at all entrances to regulated areas where employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica were above the PEL.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Abate by

Apr 17, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(j)(2): The employer did not post signs at all entrances to regulated areas that bear the following legend:  DANGER RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA  MAY CAUSE CANCER CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS WEAR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION IN THIS AREA AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY:    a) In the Core Room, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer failed to post signs at all entrances to regulated areas where employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica were above the PEL.

Issued

Feb 13, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(d)(3)(iv): Where the most recent exposure monitoring indicated that employee exposures were above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), the employer did not repeat such monitoring within three months of the most recent monitoring:      a)    In the Facility, on or about October 27, 2022 - The employer did not repeat exposure monitoring within three months when employee exposures were above the permissible exposure limit.  The employer conducted full shift employee exposure on June 6, 2018 where employee exposures were above the permissible exposure limit and the employer did not repeat the monitoring within three months.