OSHA Inspection: CORNEJO & SONS, LLC

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2):   The employer did not instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe condition(s) and the regulation(s) applicable to his work environment to control or eliminate any hazard(s) or other exposure to illness or injury:  Employees were exposed to hazards of crystalline silica while dry cutting concrete near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226.  The exposed employees were not trained on the hazards of silica and the means and methods to control their exposure or eliminate the hazard.

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(a): Employees were exposed to respirable crystalline silica at concentrations above those specified in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-3 in an eight (8) hour work shift of a forty (40) hour work week:  Employees were exposed to inhalation hazards of crystalline silica above the permissible exposure limit (PEL) while dry cutting concrete and using compressed air to clean out the cut seams at a jobsite near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226.  No administrative or engineering controls were implemented:    a)      Sampling performed on May 7th, 2013, for a 464 minute sampling period, revealed Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure levels of respirable dust containing silica to be 1.68 mg/m3.  The respirable dust contained 7.19% silica yielding a calculated Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for this exposure level to be 1.09 mg/m3.  This worker's exposure was, therefore, 1.38 times the PEL. b)      Sampling performed on May 7th, 2013, for a 456 minute sampling period, revealed Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure levels of respirable dust containing silica to be 1.28 mg/m3.  The respirable dust contained 7. 19% silica yielding a calculated Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for this exposure level to be 1.01 mg/m3.  This worker's exposure was, therefore, 1.26 times the PEL. c)      Sampling performed on May 7th, 2013, for a 372 minute sampling period, revealed Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure levels of respirable dust containing silica to be 8.04 mg/m3.  The respirable dust contained 8.56% silica yielding a calculated Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for this exposure level to be 0.95 mg/m3.  This worker's exposure was, therefore, 8.33 times the PEL.

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure(s):    Employees were exposed to inhalation hazards of crystalline silica above the permissible exposure limit (PEL) while dry cutting concrete and using compressed air to clean out the cut seams at a jobsite near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226.  No administrative or engineering controls were implemented:    a)      Sampling performed on May 7th, 2013, for a 464 minute sampling period, revealed Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure levels of respirable dust containing silica to be 1.68 mg/m3.  The respirable dust contained 7.19% silica yielding a calculated Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for this exposure level to be 1.09 mg/m3.  This worker's exposure was, therefore, 1.38 times the PEL. b)      Sampling performed on May 7th, 2013, for a 456 minute sampling period, revealed Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure levels of respirable dust containing silica to be 1.28 mg/m3.  The respirable dust contained 7. 19% silica yielding a calculated Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for this exposure level to be 1.01 mg/m3.  This worker's exposure was, therefore, 1.26 times the PEL. c)      Sampling performed on May 7th, 2013, for a 372 minute sampling period, revealed Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure levels of respirable dust containing silica to be 8.04 mg/m3.  The respirable dust contained 8.56% silica yielding a calculated Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for this exposure level to be 0.95 mg/m3.  This worker's exposure was, therefore, 8.33 times the PEL.

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c): The employer did not develop and implement a comprehensive written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use:  The employees used half mask respirators with particulate filters while dry cutting concrete near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226.  The crew of four employees was exposed to crystalline silica inhalation hazards.  A comprehensive written respiratory protection program was not developed.

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

1910.134(d)(3)(ii) The respirator selected shall be appropriate for the chemical state and physical form of the contaminant:  An employee dry cutting concrete near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226 was exposed to inhalation hazards from crystalline silica.  The employee used a 3M, half mask respirator with an organic vapor cartridge without utilizing a filter rated for particulates.

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1):  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:  Employees were using half mask respirators with particulate filters while dry cutting concrete near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226.  The crew was exposed to crystalline silica inhalation hazards.  None of the employees had medical evaluations prior to using the respiratory protection.

Issued

Oct 9, 2013

Abate by

Nov 27, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting face piece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:   An employee using a half mask respirator with a particulate filter did not have a fit test prior to using the respirator.  The same employee used compressed air to clean out respirable dust containing silica from the saw cut seams at a jobsite near 9750 East 50th Street North, Wichita, Kansas 67226.