OSHA Inspection: CHALLENGE MANUFACTURING INC.

Issued

2016-06-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-07-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): Floor(s) of workroom(s) were not maintained in a clean and, so far as possible, a dry condition:  The employer is failing to protect employees from slip, trip, and fall hazards due to hydraulic fluid on the floor from the dies leaking fluid. This was most recently documented in the Press Room at Challenge Manufacturing Kansas City, Missouri location. Employees were observed getting into a forklift parked next to a spill of hydraulic fluid.

Issued

2016-06-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-07-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

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:    The employer is failing to protect employees from noise hazards exceeding 85 decibels over an 8-hour time weighted average. This was most recently documented in the Press Room at Challenge Manufacturing Kansas City, Missouri location. Where employees were exposed to noise hazards exceeding 85 decibels in the Press Room.    (a)   An employee working on Press 700 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 82.2% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.5 dBA. The sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the six minutes not sampled.   (b)   An employee working on Press 701 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 89.7% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the six minutes not sampled.   (c)   An employee working on Press 702 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 188.2% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 94.5 dBA. The sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the six minutes not sampled.   (d)   An employee working on Press 703 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 120.6% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 91.3 dBA. The sampling was performed for 479 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the one minute not sampled.   (e)   An employee working in the Tooling Area was exposed to continuous noise levels at 82.4% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 471 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the nine minutes not sampled.  (f)   An employee working in the Tooling Area was exposed to continuous noise levels at 64% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 86.7 dBA. The sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the six minutes not sampled.  (g)   An employee working on driving the forklift was exposed to continuous noise levels at 157.8% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 93.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 469 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 11 minutes not sampled.  (h)   An employee working on Press 700 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 81.9% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.5 dBA. The sampling was performed for 385 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 95 minutes not sampled.   (i)   An employee working on Press 700 was exposed to continuous noise levels at 90.5% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 457 minutes during one shift on March 9, 2016; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 23 minutes not sampled.

Issued

2016-06-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-07-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by any employee who is exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater:    The employer is failing to protect employees from high noise hazards by not ensuring all employees exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels or greater were wearing their hearing protection. This was most recently documented in the Press Room at Challenge Manufacturing Kansas City, Missouri location. Employees were observed not wearing their hearing protection

Issued

2016-06-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-07-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(1): The employer did not evaluate the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit-required confined spaces:  The employer is failing to evaluate and identify the safety and health hazards inside the confined spaces before an employee was allowed to enter and perform work. This was last documented in Plant 7 Press Room at Challenge Manufacturing Kansas City, Missouri location. An employee entered into a confined space during the second week of February prior to the employer conducting an evaluation of permit required confined spaces.

Issued

2016-06-23 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical    The employer is failing to protect employees from exposures to hazardous chemicals. This was most recently documented at Challenges Kansas City, Missouri location.      (a)In the Crib, employees were observed using spray bottles without a chemical label. The Crib is the storage and distribution point of all chemicals and personal protective equipment. Five spray bottles hanging on the front shelf, two spray bottles were labeled while the other three bottles were not labeled. These bottles are provided to any employee who checks out cleaning supplies. There are 5 employees who work in the crib over three shifts.     (b) In the Tooling Shop, the employer is failing to protect employees from hazards associated with unlabeled hazardous chemicals. When an unmarked gallon jug containing coolant was located in the tooling shop on the ground opened. There are approximately 5 employees in the tool and die area.

Issued

2016-06-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-07-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4000.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

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:     The employer is failing to provide effective training on the hazardous chemicals and materials needed for employees to perform their job duties. This was most recently documented in the Plant at Challenge Manufacturing Kansas City, Missouri location. Employees have not been trained on the hazardous chemicals they are using in their workplace, along with any necessary safety precautions required when working in and around hazardous chemicals.