OSHA Inspection: RELIANT ENTERPRISES, LLC

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(ii):     The employer did not select and use a NIOSH-certified respirator in compliance with the conditions of its certification: (Construction Reference 1926.103)    a) Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer allowed the use of abrasive blasting helmets that had been modified by bolting an electric lamp to it, voiding the NIOSH approval.  Employees were using the helmets during bridge blasting operations.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(c)(1):     Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period:    a) Reliant Enterprises, LLC., Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that an employee conducting bridge blasting and painting operations was not exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit.   A laborer was exposed to lead at an 8 hour time-weighted average of 9.479 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA PEL of 0.05mg/m3,  by 18,958%.    b) Reliant Enterprises, LLC., Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that an employee conducting bridge blasting and painting operations was not exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit.   A laborer was exposed to lead at an 8 hour time-weighted average of 13.815 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA PEL of 0.05mg/m3, by 27,630%.      c) Reliant Enterprises, LLC., Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer failed to ensure that an employee conducting bridge blasting and painting operations was not exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit.   A laborer was exposed to lead at an 8 hour time-weighted average of 0.510 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA PEL of 0.05mg/m3, by 1,020%.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(i):     Prior to commencement of the job the employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to achieve compliance with paragraph (c) of this section:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not establish and implement an effective written exposure control program for employees conducting bridge blasting and painting operations.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(ii)(A):     The written compliance program established by the employer did not include a description of each activity in which lead was emitted, for example, equipment used, material involved, controls in place, crew size, employee job responsibilities, operating procedures, and maintenance practices:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the written compliance program established by the employer did not include a description of each activity in which lead was emitted, for example, the equipment used, material involved, controls in place, crew size, employee job responsibilities, operating procedures, and maintenance practices.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(ii)(B):     The written compliance program established by the employer did not include a description of the specific means that would be employed to achieve compliance and, where engineering controls were required, engineering plans and studies used to determine methods selected for controlling exposure to lead:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the written compliance program established by the employer did not include a description of the specific means that would be employed to achieve compliance and, where engineering controls were required, engineering plans and studies used to determine methods selected for controlling exposure to lead.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(ii)(C):     The written compliance program established by the employer did not include a report of the technology considered in meeting the permissible exposure limit:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the written compliance program established by the employer did not include a report of the technology considered in meeting the permissible exposure limit.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(ii)(D):     The written compliance program established by the employer did not include air monitoring data which documented the source of lead emissions:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011,  the written compliance program established by the employer did not include air monitoring data which documented the source of lead emissions.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(3):     When ventilation was used to control lead exposure, the employer did not evaluate the mechanical performance of the system in controlling exposure as necessary to maintain its effectiveness:    a) Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the enclosure and ventilation system used by the employer failed to establish a negative pressure, allowing visible dust to escape the enclosure and failed to reduce lead levels inside the enclosure.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(j)(2)(ii):     The employer did not provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer received the results of the first blood sampling test when the first blood lead level test results indicated that the employee's blood lead level exceeded the numerical criterion for medical removal under 29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i):    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, The employer did not provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer received the results of the first blood sampling test when the first blood lead level test results indicated that the employee's blood lead level exceeded the numerical criterion for medical removal under 29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i).  Employee #1 was reported to have a blood lead level of 53 ug/dl on July 8, 2011 and was not retested within two weeks.      b)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, The employer did not provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer received the results of the first blood sampling test when the first blood lead level test results indicated that the employee's blood lead level exceeded the numerical criterion for medical removal under 29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i).  Employee #2 was reported to have a blood lead level of 65 ug/dl on August 23, 2011 and was not retested within two weeks.      c)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, The employer did not provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer received the results of the first blood sampling test when the first blood lead level test results indicated that the employee's blood lead level exceeded the numerical criterion for medical removal under 29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i).    Employee #2 was reported to have a blood lead level of 59 ug/dl on September 24, 2011 and was not retested within two weeks.      d)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, The employer did not provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer received the results of the first blood sampling test when the first blood lead level test results indicated that the employee's blood lead level exceeded the numerical criterion for medical removal under 29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i).  Employee #3 was reported to have a blood lead level of 56 ug/dl on July 8, 2011, and was not retested within two weeks.        e)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, The employer did not provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer received the results of the first blood sampling test when the first blood lead level test results indicated that the employee's blood lead level exceeded the numerical criterion for medical removal under 29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i).  Employee #3 was reported to have a blood lead level of 62 ug/dl on September 24, 2011, and was not retested within two weeks.        In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(j)(3)(i)(A):     The employer did not make available medical examinations and consultations to each employee covered under 29 CFR 1926.62(j)(1)(ii) at least annually for each employee for whom a blood sampling test conducted at any time during the preceding 12 months indicated a blood lead level at or above 40 micrograms per deciliter:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not make a medical evaluation available to employees when their blood leads results were at or above 40 ug/dl.  Employee #1 was reported to have a blood lead level of 53 ug/dl on July 8, 2011.      b)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not make a medical evaluation available to employees when their blood leads results were at or above 40 ug/dl.  Employee #2 was reported to have a blood lead level of 65 ug/dl on August 23, 2011.      c)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not make a medical evaluation available to employees when their blood leads results were at or above 40 ug/dl.  Employee #2 was reported to have a blood lead level of 59 ug/dl on September 24, 2011.      d)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not make a medical evaluation available to employees when their blood leads results were at or above 40 ug/dl.  Employee #3 was reported to have a blood lead level of 56 ug/dl on July 8, 2011.      e)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not make a medical evaluation available to employees when their blood leads results were at or above 40 ug/dl.  Employee #3 was reported to have a blood lead level of 62 ug/dl on September 24, 2011.      f)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not make a medical evaluation available to employees when their blood leads results were at or above 40 ug/dl.  Employee #10 was reported to have a blood lead level of 41 ug/dl on August 23, 2011.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 13, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(k)(1)(i):     The employer did not remove an employee from work having an exposure to lead at or above the action level on each occasion that a periodic and a follow-up blood sampling test conducted pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.62(j) indicated that the employee's blood lead level was at or above 50 micrograms per deciliter:    a)  Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer did not remove an employee from tasks where he was exposed to lead at or above the action level when periodic blood sampling indicated his blood lead level was above 50 ug/dl.   An employee whose blood lead test results indicated that his most recent blood lead level was in excess of 50 ug/dl was conducting abrasive blasting operations where he was exposed to lead in excess of  the action level.  Employee #3 had his blood tested on July 8, 2012 and the results indicated his blood lead level was 56 ug/dl.  The next test date documented by the employer was on September 24, 2011 and indicated an increase in his blood lead level to 62 ug/dl.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 30, 2012

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i):     The written program did not contain procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace: (Construction Reference 1926.103)    a)   Reliant Enterprises, LLC. Lucas Co SR 65, Mile 5.86 worksite, Toledo, Ohio:  On or about August 23, 2011, the employer had not included procedures for the selection and use of respirators in the written respirator program for employees required to wear respiratory protection while conducting bridge blasting and painting operations where employees were exposed to lead in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.