OSHA Inspection: C.J. CUSTOM CONCRETE, LLC

Issued

2016-10-20 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-11-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $400.00 · Current $400.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer must submit to the Agency, along with the information on abatement certification required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required:   a. In regards to citation 1, item 1, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:          29 CFR 1926.52(d)(1): In all cases where the sound levels exceed the values shown herein, a continuing, effective hearing conservation program shall be administered.         TABLE D-2 - PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES  __________________________________________________                                                                             Sound level        Duration per day,hours          dBA slow                                        response  ___________________________________ ______________                                        8..................................           90  6..................................           92  4..................................           95  3..................................           97  2..................................          100  1 1/2..............................          102  1..................................          105  1/2................................          110  1/4 or less........................          115  ___________________________________ ______________        a) A laborer performing various job tasks during the renovation of a parking garage located at 60 Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, was exposed to continuous noise at 411% which exceeded the PEL (permissible exposure limit of 100%, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA. The employee's 8-hour sound level was approximately 100.2 dBA during the 480 minute sampling period on June 7, 2016. The employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program.      b) A laborer performing various job tasks during the renovation of a parking garage located at 60 Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, was exposed to continuous noise at 245% which exceeded the PEL (permissible exposure limit of 100%, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA. The employee's 8-hour sound level was approximately 96.5 dBA during the 480 minute sampling period on June 7, 2016. The employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program.      Elements of an effective hearing conservation program include:     1) Monitoring of employees noise exposures,      2) The institution of engineering , work practice, and administrative controls for excessive noise,      3) The provisions of each over-exposed employee with an individually fitted hearing protector with an adequate noise reduction rating,     4) Employee training and education regarding noise hazards and protection measures,      5) Baseline and annual audiometry,      6) Procedures for preventing further occupational hearing loss by an employee whenever such an event has been identified,      7) Recordkeeping.     b. In regards to citation 1, item 2a, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1926.55(a): Exposure of employees to inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or contact with any material or substance at a concentration above those specified in the "Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970" of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, shall be avoided. See Appendix A to this section:     a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was exposed to airborne silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.7 mppcf (millions of particles per cubic foot) of air. This exposure was approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 27.47 mppcf. The sampling took place over a 480 minute time period.           c. In regards to citation 1, item 2b, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1926.55(b): To achieve compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must first be implemented whenever feasible. When such controls are not feasible to achieve full compliance, protective equipment or other protective measures shall be used to keep the exposure of employees to air contaminants within the limits prescribed in this section. Any equipment and technical measures used for this purpose must first be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Whenever respirators are used, their use shall comply with 1926.103:      a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was exposed to airborne silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.7 mppcf (millions of particles per cubic foot) of air. This exposure was approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 27.47 mppcf. The sampling took place over a 480 minute time period. The employer did not implement feasible engineering controls or work practice controls for reducing respirable crystalline silica exposures to levels less than OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limit. Engineering Controls/Work Practice Controls include, but are not limited to:      1) Location of employee(s) with respect to dust generation sources.   2) Isolation of the abrasive blaster(s) from other employees. (e. g., control room, enclosures, or barriers)   3) Local exhaust ventilation systems.  4) Wet methods for cutting, chipping, drilling, sawing, grinding, etc.  5) Use of HEPA-equipped vacuums or wet sweeping for cleaning.   6) Use of tools with dust collection systems.           d. In regards to citation 1, item 3a, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer shall establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures. The program shall be updated as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator use. The employer shall include in the program the following provisions of this section, as applicable:     a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not developed and implemented a respiratory protection program to protect the health of employees required to wear respirators while performing work.        e. In regards to citation 1, item 3b, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): General. The employer shall provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.     a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not provided for the employee a medical evaluation to determine if the employee could safely wear the respirator while performing work.        f. In regards to citation 1, item 3c, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer shall ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph.     a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not ensured that the employee had passed a qualitative or quantitative fit-test to ensure a good respirator face-piece-to-face seal.     g. In regards to citation 1, item 3d, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer shall ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the following:     a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not ensured that employees were trained on respirator selection, use, and limitations, respirator maintenance, and the medical signs and symptoms that may limit the effective use of the respirator.     h. In regards to citation 1, item 4, issued on August 1, 2016 the employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, September 3, 2016.  The violation read as follows:       29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employers shall develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also includes the following:     a) At the establishment a written hazard communication program had not been developed, implemented, and maintained.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $1600.00

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.52(d)(1): In all cases where the sound levels exceed the values shown herein, a continuing, effective hearing conservation program shall be administered.      TABLE D-2 - PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES __________________________________________________                                                                           Sound level       Duration per day,hours          dBA slow                                       response ___________________________________ ______________                                      8..................................           90 6..................................           92 4..................................           95 3..................................           97 2..................................          100 1 1/2..............................          102 1..................................          105 1/2................................          110 1/4 or less........................          115 ___________________________________ ______________   a) A laborer performing various job tasks during the renovation of a parking garage located at 60 Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, was exposed to continuous noise at 411% which exceeded the PEL (permissible exposure limit of 100%, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA. The employee's 8-hour sound level was approximately 100.2 dBA during the 480 minute sampling period on June 7, 2016. The employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program.   b) A laborer performing various job tasks during the renovation of a parking garage located at 60 Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, was exposed to continuous noise at 245% which exceeded the PEL (permissible exposure limit of 100%, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA. The employee's 8-hour sound level was approximately 96.5 dBA during the 480 minute sampling period on June 7, 2016. The employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program.   Elements of an effective hearing conservation program include:  1) Monitoring of employees noise exposures,   2) The institution of engineering , work practice, and administrative controls for excessive noise,   3) The provisions of each over-exposed employee with an individually fitted hearing protector with an adequate noise reduction rating,  4) Employee training and education regarding noise hazards and protection measures,   5) Baseline and annual audiometry,   6) Procedures for preventing further occupational hearing loss by an employee whenever such an event has been identified,   7) Recordkeeping.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $1600.00

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(a): Exposure of employees to inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or contact with any material or substance at a concentration above those specified in the "Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970" of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, shall be avoided. See Appendix A to this section.  a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was exposed to airborne silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.7 mppcf (millions of particles per cubic foot) of air. This exposure was approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 27.47 mppcf. The sampling took place over a 480 minute time period.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b): To achieve compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must first be implemented whenever feasible. When such controls are not feasible to achieve full compliance, protective equipment or other protective measures shall be used to keep the exposure of employees to air contaminants within the limits prescribed in this section. Any equipment and technical measures used for this purpose must first be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Whenever respirators are used, their use shall comply with 1926.103.   a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was exposed to airborne silica at an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.7 mppcf (millions of particles per cubic foot) of air. This exposure was approximately 1.15 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 27.47 mppcf. The sampling took place over a 480 minute time period. The employer did not implement feasible engineering controls or work practice controls for reducing respirable crystalline silica exposures to levels less than OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limit. Engineering Controls/Work Practice Controls include, but are not limited to:   1) Location of employee(s) with respect to dust generation sources.  2) Isolation of the abrasive blaster(s) from other employees. (e. g., control room, enclosures, or barriers)  3) Local exhaust ventilation systems. 4) Wet methods for cutting, chipping, drilling, sawing, grinding, etc. 5) Use of HEPA-equipped vacuums or wet sweeping for cleaning.  6) Use of tools with dust collection systems.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $1600.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer shall establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures. The program shall be updated as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator use. The employer shall include in the program the following provisions of this section, as applicable:  a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not developed and implemented a respiratory protection program to protect the health of employees required to wear respirators while performing work.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): General. The employer shall provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.  a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not provided for the employee a medical evaluation to determine if the employee could safely wear the respirator while performing work.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer shall ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph.  a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not ensured that the employee had passed a qualitative or quantitative fit-test to ensure a good respirator face-piece-to-face seal.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer shall ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the following:  a) On or about June 7, 2016, at the job site located at 60 East Long Street, Columbus, Ohio, a laborer performing various job tasks to include broom sweeping, tightening plastic barriers, and cutting rebar during nearby abrasive blasting and chiseling operations, was over-exposed to airborne silica. The employer had issued the employee a 3M 6291 respirator with a 2091 P100 HEPA filter. The employer had not ensured that employees were trained on respirator selection, use, and limitations, respirator maintenance, and the medical signs and symptoms that may limit the effective use of the respirator.

Issued

2016-08-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-09-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $1600.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employers shall develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also includes the following:  a) At the establishment a written hazard communication program had not been developed, implemented, and maintained.