OSHA Inspection: GENERAL ALUMINUM MFG LLC

Issued

Apr 20, 2026

Abate by

Aug 3, 2026

Penalty

Initial $13,902 · Current $13,902

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:  a. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 335.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 98.9dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling.   b. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 279.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.6dB, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.4dB.   c. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 507.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 101.9dB, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling.   d. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 284.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.7dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling.

Issued

Apr 20, 2026

Abate by

May 14, 2026

Penalty

Initial $13,902 · Current $0 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 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:   a. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 335.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 98.9dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 98.7dB. The employer did not maintain an effective hearing conservation program in that the employer did not provide annual audiograms and a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure.  b. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 279.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.6dB, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.4dB. The employer did not maintain an effective hearing conservation program in that the employer did not provide a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure.  c. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 507.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 101.9dB, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 101.7dB. The employer did not maintain an effective hearing conservation program in that the employer did not provide a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure.  d. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 284.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.7dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.5dB. The employer did not maintain an effective hearing conservation program in that the employer did not provide a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure.

Issued

Apr 20, 2026

Abate by

May 14, 2026

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(d)(3): Repeat employee exposure monitoring was not performed whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure:   a. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 335.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 98.9dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 98.7dB. The employer did not maintain a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure. The employer expanded production by creating a grinding department which included new employees and laid off employees being assigned to this department in August 2025. The new and returning employees were exposed to unknown noise levels due to the change in the work environment and expansion.  b. On and before Feburary 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 279.5% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.6dB, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.4dB. The employer did not maintain a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure. The employer expanded production by creating a grinding department which included new employees and laid off employees being assigned to this department in August 2025. The new and returning employees were exposed to unknown noise levels due to the change in the work environment and expansion.  c. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 507.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 101.9dB, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 101.7dB. The employer did not maintain a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure. The employer expanded production by creating a grinding department which included new employees and laid off employees being assigned to this department in August 2025. The new and returning employees were exposed to unknown noise levels due to the change in the work environment and expansion.  d. On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 284.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.7dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.5dB. The employer did not maintain a continuous monitoring program whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure. The employer expanded production by creating a grinding department which included new employees and laid off employees being assigned to this department in August 2025. The new and returning employees were exposed to unknown noise levels due to the change in the work environment and expansion.

Issued

Apr 20, 2026

Abate by

May 14, 2026

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:  On and before February 13, 2026, an employee grinding aluminum parts was exposed to noise at 335.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 98.9dB, as measured over 469 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 98.7dB. The last annual audiogram the employee received was on June 3, 2024.

Issued

Apr 20, 2026

Abate by

May 14, 2026

Penalty

Initial $11,917 · Current $5,954 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:  On and before December 2, 2025, the employer failed to ensure that employees working in G4 molding were provided with aluminized chaps or an aluminized coat to protect them from thermal burns resulting from handling hot molded parts.

Issued

Apr 20, 2026

Abate by

May 14, 2026

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.132(d)(1)(i): When the employer had assessed the workplace hazard(s) and determined that hazard(s) were present, the employer did not select and/or use the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee from:    On or before December 2, 2025, the employer did not conduct an accurate PPE Hazard assessment to determine what hazards are present, or likely to be present to necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as aluminized chaps or an aluminized coat.