OSHA Inspection: PHILLIPS ENTERPRISES INC.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Mar 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $840 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(8): Every floor hole into which persons can accidentally walk were not guarded:      (a) Mixer: On or about December 01, 2015, and times prior, the employees working in the mixing area were exposed to trips and falls from an unguarded floor hole measuring approximately 12 inches by 10 feet.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 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) Block Machine: On or about December 09, 2015, an employee was exposed to occupational noise at 127% of the permissible daily noise exposure (eight hour time weighted average of 90 dBA at the 80 dB criterion level) during the 400 minute sampling period on 12/09/2015.  For a full eight hour shift this would be equivalent to an average sound level of 91.7 dBA. The employer did not include this employee in an effective and continuing Hearing Conservation Program.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Block Machine: On or about December 09, 2015, an employee was exposed to occupational noise at 127% of the permissible daily noise exposure (eight hour time weighted average of 90 dBA at the 80 dB criterion level) during the 400 minute sampling period on 12/09/2015.  For a full eight hour shift this would be equivalent to an average sound level of 91.7 dBA. The employer provides hearing protection but did not develop and implement a monitoring program.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:      (a) Block Machine: On or about December 09, 2015, an employee was exposed to occupational noise at 127% of the permissible daily noise exposure (eight hour time weighted average of 90 dBA at the 80 dB criterion level) during the 400 minute sampling period on 12/09/2015.  For a full eight hour shift this would be equivalent to an average sound level of 91.7 dBA. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for the employee.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k). The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:      (a) Block Machine: On or about December 09, 2015, an employee was exposed to occupational noise at 127% of the permissible daily noise exposure (eight hour time weighted average of 90 dBA at the 80 dB criterion level) during the 400 minute sampling period on 12/09/2015.  For a full eight hour shift this would be equivalent to an average sound level of 91.7 dBA. The employer did not provide training to employees on noise hazards and how to properly fit earplugs, the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of 29 CFR 1910.95 and did not post a copy in the workplace:      (a) Block Machine: On or about December 09, 2015, an employee was exposed to occupational noise at 127% of the permissible daily noise exposure (eight hour time weighted average of 90 dBA at the 80 dB criterion level) during the 400 minute sampling period on 12/09/2015.  For a full eight hour shift this would be equivalent to an average sound level of 91.7 dBA. The employer has not made available to affected employees or their representatives copies of this standard nor did the employer post a copy in the workplace.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Mar 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,120 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(1): The employer did not evaluate the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit-required confined spaces:    (a) Mixer: On or about December 09, 2015, and times prior, employees are required to enter a permit required confined space to chip concrete, which contains silica, out of the mixer. The employer did not evaluate the workplace to determine if any spaces were permit-required confined spaces.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Mar 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit spaces:    (a) Mixer: On or about December 09, 2015, and times prior, employees are required to enter a permit required confined space to chip concrete, which contains silica, out of the mixer. The permit required confined entry points did not have a danger sign nor were the employees made aware of the existence and location by other effective means.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4): When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not develop and implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:      (a) Mixer: On or about December 09, 2015, and times prior, employees are required to enter a permit required confined space to chip concrete, which contains silica, out of the mixer. The employer did not implement a written permit space entry program which contains the applicable elements of 1910.146(d)(1-14).

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced

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:    (a) Block Machine: On or about December 01, 2015, and times prior, employees performed maintenance and service on the Mixer for the Columbia Block Machine, 220 Volt three phase, and requires the control of hazardous energy by locking out the equipment.  The employer has not established a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Mar 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:      (a) Hand Truck Recharge Area: On or about December 01, 2015, and times prior, employees charged electric hand truck batteries which contain Sulfuric Acid. There were no suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes in the immediate work area.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Apr 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $840 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):    (a) Phillips Enterprises, Inc.: On or about December 01, 2015, and times prior, employees used West Virginia Sand, containing silica, to manufacture blocks. The employer has not developed and implemented a written hazard communication program.

Issued

Mar 9, 2016

Abate by

Mar 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:    (a) Phillips Enterprises, Inc.: On or about December 01, 2015, and times prior, employees were not provided training on the new SDS (safety data sheets) and label formats on materials used.