OSHA Inspection: SCR CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3960.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:      At the facility, in the mechanic shop: On January 26, 2013, mechanics using Universal Lubricants 142 Solvent 66/3 (petroleum hydrocarbon distillates) to hand wash parts were not required to use protective gloves as recommended on the product material safety data sheet, exposing employees to a skin absorption hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4950.00 · Current $7000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:      At the facility, in the shop and yard areas: On January 26, 2013, employees performed maintenance on a back hoe using the hydraulic system to elevate the equipment, and energy control procedures, training and periodic inspection requirements of an energy control program were not implemented, exposing employees to a crush hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4950.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):      At the facility in the yard and shop areas: On January 26, 2013, a yard laborer operated a forklift to move chemical drums in the yard and had not completed employer training and evaluation, exposing employees to struck by hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3960.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:     At the facility, in the mechanic shop: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, mechanics used a pedestal grinder, Dayton 20 cm, 15 amp, with work rests more than 1/8 inch from the abrasive wheel, exposing employees to an amputation hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:     At the facility, in the mechanic shop: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, mechanics used a pedestal grinder, Dayton 20 cm, 15 amp, with the adjustable tongue guard more than 1/4 inch from the abrasive wheel, exposing employees to caught by and struck by hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6930.00 · Current $7000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(a)(2)(xiii)(B): The employer did not recognize its responsibility for the safe usage of cutting or welding equipment, and did not designate an individual responsible for authorizing cutting and welding operations in areas not specifically designed for such processes:     At the facility, in the mechanic shop and yard area: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, employees were directed to cut used chemical drums and other metal components with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch and to weld components to make repairs, and the employer did not designate an individual responsible to authorize the cutting or welding, exposing employees to fire and explosion hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6930.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(a)(2)(xiii)(C): The employer did not recognize its responsibility for the safe usage of cutting or welding equipment, and did not insist that cutters or welders and their supervisors were suitably trained in the safe operation of their equipment and the safe use of the processes:     At the facility, in the mechanic shop and yard area: On January 26, 2013 and times theretofore, employees used an oxy- acetylene cutting torch to cut used chemical drums and other metal components, and arc welder to weld components being repaired without suitable training to ensure safe use of the equipment and a safe process for cutting used drums last containing a flammable liquid, exposing employees to fire and explosion hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4950.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(i)(B): Goggles or other suitable eye protection were not used during all gas welding or oxygen cutting operations:     At the facility, in the yard area: On January 26, 2013, a laborer used an oxy-acetylene cutting torch to cut used chemical drums and was not required to use goggles or spectacles with suitable filter lenses, exposing the employee to eye injury.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2970.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(2)(iv): Valve protection caps, where cylinders were designed to accept caps, were not always in place, hand-tight, except when cylinders were in use or connected for use:        At the facility, in the yard gas cylinder storage area: On January 26, 2013, a compressed gas oxygen cylinder left standing unsecured in the yard did not have a valve protection cap in place, exposing employees to a projectile struck by hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2970.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(4)(iii): Oxygen cylinders in storage were not separated from fuel-gas cylinders or combustible materials (especially oil or grease), a minimum distance of 20 feet (6.1 m) or by a noncombustible barrier at least 5 feet (1.5 m) high having a fire-resistance rating of at least one half hour:     At the facility, in the yard gas cylinder storage area: On January 26, 2013, oxygen and acetylene cylinders were stored together, exposing employees to a fire and explosion hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4950.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(5)(ii)(D): Cylinders were not secured on a special truck, regulators were not removed and valve protection caps, when provided for, were not put in place before cylinders were moved:      At the facility, in the mechanic shop and yard areas: On January 26, 2013, cylinders on an oxy-acetylene special truck with regulators attached were not secured in place before being moved from the mechanical shop to the yard where a laborer used the cutting torch to cut used chemical drums, exposing employees to a projectile struck by hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3960.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(e)(5)(v): Hose showing leaks, burns, worn places, or other defects rendering it unfit for service were not repaired or replaced:     At the facility, in the mechanic shop and yard areas: On January 26, 2013, hoses connecting the oxygen and acetylene compressed gases to the cutting torch used by a laborer to cut used chemical drums were found to be cracked and worn at the end fittings, exposing the employee to fire and explosion hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6930.00 · Current $7000.00

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: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, an employee used a cutting torch to cut used chemical drums resulting in a fatal explosion when the employer had not implemented a written hazard communication program describing how chemical information and training criteria would be met, exposing employees to a chemical flammability and explosion hazard.     b) At the facility: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, employees were exposed to formaldehyde, a carcinogen and N-methylacetamide (manufacturer recommended exposure limit 1 ppm TWA) while cutting and using drums of Dow 890-SL sealant, when the employer had not implemented a written hazard communication program describing how chemical information and training criteria would be met, exposing employees to dermal and inhalation hazards.      c) At the facility: On January 26, 2013 and times theretofore, employees used petroleum distillates (PEL 500 ppm) in 142 Solvent 66/3 in the parts washer when the employer had not implemented a written hazard communication program describing how chemical information and training criteria would be met, exposing employees to dermal and inhalation hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area:     a) At the facility: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, the employer did not provide employees using a cutting torch to cut used chemical drums training in the physical hazards of the chemical contents, exposing employees to an explosion hazard.      b) At the facility: On January 26, 2013, and times theretofore, the employer did not provide employees cutting and using drums of Dow 890-SL sealant training in the health hazards of the chemical including formaldehyde, a carcinogen, and N-methylacetamide (manufacturer recommended exposure limit 1 ppm TWA), exposing employees to dermal and inhalation hazards.     c) At the facility: On January 26, 2013, and time theretofore, the employer did not provide employees using 142 Solvent 66/3 in the parts washer (petroleum distillates PEL 500 ppm) training in the health hazards of the chemical contents, exposing employees to dermal and inhalation hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $69300.00 · Current $45000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(a)(3)(i): Welding, cutting, or other hot work was performed on used drums, barrels, tanks, or other containers that had not been cleaned so thoroughly as to make absolutely certain there were no flammable materials present or any substances such as greases, tars, acids, or other materials which were subjected to heat, might produce flammable or toxic vapors:      At the facility, in the yard area: On or about January 26, 2013 and at times prior thereto, used drums were cut with an oxy-acetylene torch exposing employees to an explosion hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $990.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

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):    At the facility: On January 26, 2013, the employer had not conducted a workplace hazard assessment of activities including but not limited to welding, grinding, using solvents, cutting used chemical drums with a torch, sand blasting, applying sealants and chemical coatings, and handling heavy materials, exposing employees to eye, hand, head and foot injury hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $990.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:     At the facility, in the mechanic shop: On January 29, 2013, the employer required employees who use pneumatic tools to chip out concrete from inside mixers to wear filtering face piece (dust mask) respirators and did not establish a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(3): The employer did not designate a program administrator who was qualified by appropriate training or experience to administer or oversee the respiratory protection program and to conduct the required evaluations of program effectiveness:   At the facility: On January 29, 2013, the employer required employees to use respiratory protection including N95 filtering face piece (dust mask) respirators, and did not designate a program administrator.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:   a) At the facility: On January 29, 2013, the employer did not make reasonable estimate of exposure to silica, concrete dust and polymers when employees chiseled out hardened material from mixing machines, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   b) At the facility: On January 29, 2013, the employer did not make reasonable estimate of exposure to N-methylacetamide (DOW recommended exposure limit 1 ppm TWA, 5 ppm excursion limit) in applying Dow 890-SL sealant, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   c) At the facility: On January 26, 2013, the employer did not make reasonable estimate of exposure to formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm), a by-product of combustion when employees cut used chemical drums last containing Dow 890-SL, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.   d) At the facility: On January 26, 2013, the employer did not make reasonable estimate of exposure to petroleum distillates (PEL 500 ppm) in 142 Solvent 66/3 used in the parts washer, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:   At the facility: On January 29, 2013, respiratory protection in the form of N95 dust masks were required when employees chiseled out hardened material from mixing machines without being medically evaluated to wear a respirator, exposing employees to a cardio-pulmonary stress hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f): The employee was required to use a respirator without being fit tested with the same make, model, style and size of respirator that was to be used:  At the facility: On January 29, 2013 and times theretofore, respiratory protection in the form of N95 dust masks were required when employees chiseled out hardened material from mixing machines and employees were not fit tested, exposing employees to an inhalation hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $990.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(1): Alloy steel sling(s) did not have permanently affixed durable identification stating size, grade, rated capacity, and reach:     At the facility in the shop and yard areas: On January 26, 2013, an alloy steel sling in use for lifting loads of equipment for transport to construction sites and to conduct repairs on large machinery did not have a permanently affixed identification indicating rated capacity, exposing employees to a crush or struck by hazard.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(i)(1): Synthetic web sling(s) were not marked or coded to show rated capacities for each type of hitch and type of synthetic web material:   At the facility in the shop and yard areas: On January 26, 2013, synthetic web slings in use for loading heavy equipment and palletized materials onto trucks for transport to construction sites were not marked to show rated capacity, exposing employees to struck by or crush hazards.

Issued

2013-07-26 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $990.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(3)(i): A thorough periodic inspection of alloy steel chain slings was not made on a regular basis and/or were done at intervals greater than once every 12 months:     At the facility, in the shop and yard areas: On January 26, 2013, alloy steel slings used for lifting loads for packaging and transport to field construction sites including industrial mixers were not inspected on a regular interval not to exceed 12 months, exposing employees to a struck by or crush hazard.