|
345939409
|
0418600
|
2022-05-05
|
170 RICE AVE, DADEVILLE, AL, 36853
|
|
| Inspection Type |
Complaint
|
| Scope |
Partial
|
| Safety/Health |
Safety
|
| Close Conference |
2022-05-05
|
| Emphasis |
L: FORKLIFT
|
| Case Closed |
2023-09-07
|
Related Activity
| Type |
Complaint |
| Activity Nr |
1890064 |
| Safety |
Yes |
|
Violation Items
| Citation ID |
01001 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19100212 A01 |
| Issuance Date |
2022-08-22 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2022-09-16 |
| Current Penalty |
6500.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
8702.0 |
| Final Order |
2022-09-21 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
5 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks: a) At Integrated Turf Solutions, Green Baler Machine, Dadeville, Alabama: On or about May 5, 2022 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees operating the baler to crush-by hazards in that the employer permitted employees to operate the baler with inadequate guarding. The baler was able to operate when the doors of the machine were open and there was no guard present to prevent and employee from reaching into the machine while it is running. |
|
|
|
342102639
|
0418600
|
2017-01-31
|
170 RICE AVE, DADEVILLE, AL, 36853
|
|
| Inspection Type |
FollowUp
|
| Scope |
Partial
|
| Safety/Health |
Health
|
| Close Conference |
2017-01-31
|
| Emphasis |
L: HINOISE
|
| Case Closed |
2017-08-16
|
Related Activity
| Type |
Inspection |
| Activity Nr |
1151648 |
| Health |
Yes |
|
Violation Items
| Citation ID |
01001 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 K03 I |
| Issuance Date |
2017-06-02 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2017-06-14 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2017-06-27 |
| Nr Instances |
3 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3)(i): The employer did not ensure that each employee was informed of the effects of noise on hearing: a) Facility: On or about January 31, 2017: an employee working in the texturizing area was exposed to continuous noise over the permissible exposure level and the employer did not train the employee on the effects of noise on their hearing. b) Facility: On or about January 31, 2017: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise over the action level and the employer did not train the employee on the effects of noise on their hearing. c) Facility: On or about January 31, 2017: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise over the action level and the employer did not train the employee on the effects of noise on their hearing. |
|
| Citation ID |
01002 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 K03 II |
| Issuance Date |
2017-06-02 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2017-06-14 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2017-06-27 |
| Nr Instances |
3 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each employee was informed of the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care: a) Facility: On or about January 31, 2017: an employee working in the texturizing area was exposed to continuous noise over the permissible exposure level and the employer did not train the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types . b) Facility: On or about January 31, 2017: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise over the action level and the employer did not train the employee on the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types . c) Facility: On or about January 31, 2017: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise over the action level and the employer did not train the employee on the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types . |
|
|
|
341516482
|
0418600
|
2016-05-26
|
170 RICE AVE., DADEVILLE, AL, 36853
|
|
| Inspection Type |
Complaint
|
| Scope |
Partial
|
| Safety/Health |
Health
|
| Close Conference |
2016-06-14
|
| Emphasis |
L: FORKLIFT
|
| Case Closed |
2017-07-14
|
Related Activity
| Type |
Complaint |
| Activity Nr |
1093717 |
| Health |
Yes |
|
Violation Items
| Citation ID |
01001A |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 C01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-10-03 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-10-28 |
| Current Penalty |
11224.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
11224.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-11-01 |
| Nr Instances |
3 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(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) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee working in the texturizing area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 248.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 96.6 dBa) which is approximately 2.493 times the permissible exposure level of 100% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBa) and the employer did not have a written hearing conservation program in place. b) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 74.7% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 87.9 dBa) which is approximately 1.494 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer did not have a written hearing conservation program in place. c) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 93.5% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 89.5 dBa) which is approximately 1.87 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer did not have a written hearing conservation program in place. |
|
| Citation ID |
01001B |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 D01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-10-03 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-10-28 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-11-01 |
| Nr Instances |
3 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
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) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee working in the texturizing area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 248.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 96.6 dBa) which is approximately 2.493 times the permissible exposure level of 100% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBa) and the employer had not developed a monitoring program to ensure employees were adequately protected from noise. b) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 74.7% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 87.9 dBa) which is approximately 1.494 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer had not developed a monitoring program to ensure employees were adequately protected from noise. c) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 93.5% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 89.5 dBa) which is approximately 1.87 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer had not developed a monitoring program to ensure employees were adequately protected from noise. |
|
| Citation ID |
01001C |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 G01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-10-03 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-10-28 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-11-01 |
| Nr Instances |
3 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
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) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee working in the texturizing area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 248.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 96.6 dBa) which is approximately 2.493 times the permissible exposure level of 100% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBa) and the employer did not establish an audiometric testing program to evaluate the employees hearing. b) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 74.7% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 87.9 dBa) which is approximately 1.494 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer did not establish an audiometric testing program to evaluate the employees hearing. c) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 93.5% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 89.5 dBa) which is approximately 1.87 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer did not establish an audiometric testing program to evaluate the employees hearing. |
|
| Citation ID |
01001D |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 K01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-10-03 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-10-28 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-11-01 |
| Nr Instances |
3 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
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) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee working in the texturizing area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 248.8% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 96.6 dBa) which is approximately 2.493 times the permissible exposure level of 100% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 90 dBa) and the employer did not train employees upon initial assignment and annually thereafter. b) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 74.7% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 87.9 dBa) which is approximately 1.494 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer did not train employees upon initial assignment and annually thereafter. c) Facility: On or about June 14, 2016: an employee in the extruder area was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 93.5% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 89.5 dBa) which is approximately 1.87 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBa) and the employer did not train employees upon initial assignment and annually thereafter. |
|
| Citation ID |
02001 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 H01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-10-03 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-10-28 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-11-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
60 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
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) Facility: On or about May 26, 2016 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to hazards related to chemicals used on site including but not limited to the base materials used in the turf making process without training employees in the required element of the hazard communication standard including those element required under the global harmonization revisions to the standard. |
|
|
