OSHA Inspection: MIKE KRUEGER

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $3,000

Hazardous substances 9020

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(a)(2): A respirator was not provided to each employee when such equipment is necessary to protect the health of such employee. The employer did not provide the respirators which were applicable and suitable for the purpose intended. The employer did not establish and maintain a respiratory protection program.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to provide employees who were removing asbestos containing cement shingles from a sloped roof with appropriate respiratory protection. The employees wore filtering facepieces rather than tight-fitting air purifying respirators. The employer did not implement the elements of a written respiratory protection program exposing employees to long term health effects after performing Class II asbestos work. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9020

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(h)(1)(iv): The employer did not provide an appropriate respirator for Class II and III asbestos work for which a negative-exposure assessment was not conducted.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to provide employees who were removing asbestos containing cement shingles with appropriate respiratory protection. The employees wore filtering facepieces rather than tight-fitting air purifying respirators. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(i)(1): The employer did not provide and require the use of protective clothing, such as coveralls or similar whole-body clothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings for which a required negative exposure assessment was not produced.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to provide employees who were removing asbestos containing cement shingles with appropriate personal protective equipment, such as, but not limited to coveralls, gloves, and foot coverings. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $3,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(e)(1): All Class I, II and III asbestos work was not conducted within regulated areas.     a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that Class II asbestos work was conducted in a regulated area, which includes demarcation, limited access to authorized personnel, respirators, prohibited activities such as chewing gum, eating, and smoking, and a competent person to supervise the job. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. Laboratory analysis indicated that the material contained 5% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(2)(i): A "competent person" did not conduct an exposure assessment immediately before or at the initiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during that operation or workplace.     a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to have an initial exposure assessment for Class II asbestos work completed by a competent person before beginning the roofing operation. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. Laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(3)(i): The employer did not conduct daily monitoring that was representative of the exposure of each employee who was assigned to work within a regulated area who was performing Class I or II work, unless the employer pursuant to (f)(2)(iii) of this section, made a negative exposure assessment for the entire operation.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to conduct daily exposure monitoring for the employees engaging in Class II asbestos work. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(7)(i): All Class II work was not supervised by a competent person as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to have Class II asbestos work supervised by a competent person. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis indicated the material contained 5% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(8)(ii)(A): Roofing material was not removed in an intact state to the extent feasible.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that asbestos material was removed from the roof intact. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis indicated the material contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(8)(ii)(B): Wet methods were not used to remove roofing materials that are not intact, or that will be rendered not intact during removal.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that wet methods were used when asbestos material was removed and was not intact. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis indicated the material contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(8)(ii)(F): Upon being lowered, unwrapped material was not transferred to a closed receptacle in such manner so as to preclude the dispersion of dust.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that asbestos containing material was transferred to a covered receptacle. The material was placed in a regular dumpster with no cover over it. Employees performing Class II work tore shingles off of a sloped roof exposing them to long term health effects from working with the asbestos material. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(j)(2)(i): The employer did not establish an equipment room or area that was adjacent to the regulated area for the decontamination of employees and their equipment which was contaminated with asbestos.    a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to provide employees who were removing asbestos containing cement shingles with a regulated area to decontaminate equipment. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. The employer did not have a negative exposure assessment completed, and laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $3,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(7)(i): Warning signs that demarcate the regulated area were not provided and displayed at each location where a regulated area was required to be established by paragraph (e) of this section.     a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, employees performing Class II asbestos work on a sloped roof were working in an area that was not regulated and marked with appropriate warning signs. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of the roof. Laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(8)(i): Labels were not affixed to all products containing asbestos and to all containers containing such products, including waste containers.     a) Mike Krueger - Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to properly label the dumpster that asbestos shingles were thrown into with notification of asbestos and the hazards associated with it. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. Laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Jan 9, 2012

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9)(iv)(A): For work with asbestos containing roofing materials, flooring materials, siding materials, ceiling tiles, or transite panels, training shall include at a minimum all the elements included in paragraph (k)(9)(viii) of this section and in addition, the specific work practices and engineering controls set forth in paragraph (g) of this section which specifically relate to that category. Such course shall include "hands-on" training and shall take at least 8 hours.    a) Mike Krueger- Toledo, Ohio: On or about August 10, 2011, the employer failed to train employees performing Class II asbestos work. Employees were exposed to long term health effects after tearing asbestos shingles off of a sloped roof. Laboratory analysis of the material indicated that it contained 5% chrysotile asbestos with rotten areas on the back of the sample yielding 40% chrysotile asbestos.