OSHA Inspection: GANCEDO LUMBER CO., INC.

Issued

May 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(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. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not implement an effective hearing conservation program for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 77.35 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 478 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 122 minutes.    b. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not implement an effective hearing conservation program for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 86.33 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 460 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 140 minutes.    c. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not implement an effective hearing conservation program for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 107 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 90.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 482 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 118 minutes.

Issued

May 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform monitoring when employees were found to be at 77.35 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 478 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 122 minutes.    b.  On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform monitoring when employees were found to be at 86.33 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 460 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 140 minutes.    c.  On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform monitoring when employees were found to be at 107 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 90.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 482 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 118 minutes.

Issued

May 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(3): Repeat employee exposure monitoring was not performed whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure:  On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform monitoring when there were included a new large rebar bender approximately in January 2014.

Issued

May 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels :    a. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform annual audiograms when employees were found to be at 77.35 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 478 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 122 minutes.    b. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform annual audiograms when employees were found to be at 86.33 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 460 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 140 minutes.    c. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not perform annual audiograms when employees were found to be at 107 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 90.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 482 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 118 minutes.

Issued

May 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared.  a. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not provide a baseline audiogram for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 77.35 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 478 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 122 minutes.  b. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not provide a baseline audiogram for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 86.33 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 460 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 140 minutes.  c. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not provide a baseline audiogram for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 107 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 90.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 482 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 118 minutes.

Issued

May 9, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by any employee who is exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater:  a. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not implement an effective enforcement plan to ensure the use of the hearing protection for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 77.35 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 478 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 122 minutes.  b. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not implement an effective enforcement plan to ensure the use of the hearing protection for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 86.33 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 88.9 dBA. The sampling was performed for 460 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 140 minutes.  c. On or about 02/24/14, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not implement an effective enforcement plan to ensure the use of the hearing protection for employees who were exposed to noise levels of 107 % dose or an equivalent sound level of 90.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 482 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time of 118 minutes.