OSHA Inspection: EVERGREEN PLASTICS, INC.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4900.00 · Current $2940.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

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)  at the facility, where a Superintendent was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of more than 90 decibels.  An effective hearing conservation program had not been implemented.  The employer had not conducted noise monitoring.  The employer had not provided audiometric testing to employees.  The employer did not provide and require the use of hearing protectors. The employer had not provided employees with training on the effects of noise on hearing; the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care; and the purpose of audiometric testing.    b)  at the facility, where a Helper was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of more than 85 decibels.  An effective hearing conservation program had not been implemented.  The employer had not conducted noise monitoring.  The employer had not provided audiometric testing to employees.  The employer did not provide and require the use of hearing protectors until the baseline audiogram had been conducted. The employer had not provided employees with training on the effects of noise on hearing; the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care, and the purpose of audiometric testing.    c)  at the facility, where a Helper was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of more than 85 decibels.  An effective hearing conservation program had not been implemented.  The employer had not conducted noise monitoring.  The employer had not provided audiometric testing to employees.  The employer did not provide and require the use of hearing protectors until the baseline audiogram had been conducted. The employer had not provided employees with training on the effects of noise on hearing; the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care, and the purpose of audiometric testing.    d)  at the facility, where a Bagger was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of more than 85 decibels.  An effective hearing conservation program had not been implemented.  The employer had not conducted noise monitoring.  The employer had not provided audiometric testing to employees.  The employer did not provide and require the use of hearing protectors until the baseline audiogram had been conducted. The employer had not provided employees with training on the effects of noise on hearing; the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care, and the purpose of audiometric testing.    e)  at the facility, where a Bagger was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of more than 85 decibels.  An effective hearing conservation program had not been implemented.  The employer had not conducted noise monitoring.  The employer had not provided audiometric testing to employees. The employer did not provide and require the use of hearing protectors until the baseline audiogram had been conducted. The employer had not provided employees with training on the effects of noise on hearing; the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care, and the purpose of audiometric testing.    f)  at the facility, where the Recycler was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of more than 85 decibels.  An effective hearing conservation program had not been implemented.  The employer had not conducted noise monitoring.  The employer had not provided audiometric testing to employees. The employer did not provide and require the use of hearing protectors until the baseline audiogram had been conducted. The employer had not provided employees with training on the effects of noise on hearing; the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care, and the purpose of audiometric testing.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-01-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3500.00 · Current $2100.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not provided and used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    a)  At the facility, protective equipment for the eyes, face, hands and skin were not provided to employees when handling corrosive substances such as, but not limited to, 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-19 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    a)  At the facility, the employer did not perform a hazard assessment.  Protective equipment for the eyes, face, hands and skin were not provided to employees when handling corrosive substances such as, but not limited to, 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-01-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3500.00 · Current $2100.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    a)  In the extrusion area, no eye washes were provided.  Employees use a corrosive, 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol, with a pH of 12.1.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-05 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3500.00 · Current $2100.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    a)  At the facility, the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program.  Employees use hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol, a corrosive, as well as Flint Group Inks and Polyethylene.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-01-07 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:   a)  In the extrusion area, four 5-gallon containers of 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol, a corrosive, were not labeled with their identity.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-01-07 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:   a)  In the extrusion area, four 5-gallon containers of 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol, a corrosive, were not labeled with the appropriate hazard warning.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use:  a)  At the facility, the employer did not maintain material safety data sheets in the work area for hazardous substances such as, but not limited to, 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol, a corrosive; Flint Group Inks; and polyethylene.

Issued

2014-01-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-05 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:   a)  At the facility, employees had not been given information on the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200; operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals were present; and the location and availability of the safety data sheets.  Employees had not received training on the methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical in the work area; the physical, health, simple asphyxiation, combustible dust and pyrophoric gas hazards, as well as hazards not otherwise classified, of the chemicals in the work area; the measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards; and an explanation of safety data sheets.  Employees use hazardous substances such as, but not limited to, 1-dimethylamino-2-propanol, a corrosive, as well as Flint Group Inks and Polyethylene.