OSHA Inspection: RUBENS SPRAY INSULATION, INC.

Issued

Jul 20, 2017

Abate by

Aug 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $406 · Current $406

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1):  The employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:     Rubens Spray Insulation, Inc., failed to certify to OSHA within 10 calendar days after the abatement date that each of the following cited violations had been corrected:     Citation Number                              Item Number                                    Abatement Date  01                                                        01                                                       06/30/2017  01                                                        02a                                                     06/30/2017  01                                                        04                                                       06/02/2017  01                                                        05a                                                     06/02/2017 01                                                        05c                                                     06/02/2017 02                                                        01                                                       06/30/2017 02                                                        02                                                       06/30/2017    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(c), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET).

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 30, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,897 · Current $1,730 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.103: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.134 of this chapter.    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:    a) On January 20, 2017, the employer required an employee to wear a full face respirator while performing spray foam insulation installation, and did not provide a medical evaluation.    b) On January 20, 2017, the employer required employees to wear a 3M N95 Model 8210 two strap filtering face piece respirator while installing Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts and insulation, and did not provide a medical evaluation.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 30, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,897 · Current $1,730 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.103: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.134 of this chapter.    29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees using tight-fitting facepiece respirators passed an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    a) On January 20, 2017, the employer required an employee to wear a full face respirator while performing spray foam insulation installation, and did not fit test the employee.    b) On January 20, 2017, the employer required employees to wear a 3M N95 Model 8210 two strap filtering face piece respirator while installing Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts and insulation, and did not fit test the employees.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Apr 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.103: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.134 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not prohibit the use of respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face:  a) On January 20, 2017, the employer required an employee to wear a full face respirator while performing spray foam insulation installation, and did not prohibit the employee that was not clean shaven from using the respirator.  b) On January 20, 2017, the employer required employees to wear a 3M N95 Model 8210 two strap filtering face piece respirator while installing Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts and insulation, and did not prohibit the employees that were not clean shaven from using the respirator.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Apr 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,897 · Current $1,730 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.59: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.1200 of this chapter.    29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical which they used:    a) On January 20, 2017, Rubens Spray Insulation, Inc. did not have Safety Data Sheets for Elastospray 8000A Isocyanate, Enertite NM B-Resin, Cell Pak Advantage Cellulose Insulation, and Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts and insulation.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Apr 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.59: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.1200 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not ensure that safety data sheets were readily accessible to the employees in their work area during each work shift:  a) On January 20, 2017, employees were applying foam spray insulation and acoustical fire batts, and a safety data sheet was not available on the jobsite for each hazardous chemical, including Elastospray 8000A Isocyanate, Enertite NM B-Resin, Cell Pak Advantage Cellulose Insulation, and Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 2, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,897 · Current $1,730 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.59: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.1200 of this chapter.    29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced into their work area:    a) On January 20, 2017, employees were exposed to Elastospray 8000A Isocyanate (isocyanates) and Enertite NM B-Resin (glycols) while applying foam spray insulation and Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts and insulation, and were not provided with information and training at the time of initial assignment.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 2, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $2,130 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer safety and health program did not provide for frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by a competent person(s) designated by the employer:    a) On January 20, 2017, the employer did not initiate a program which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the jobsite, materials and equipment by a competent person.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Apr 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:    a) On January 20, 2017, employees were performing spray insulation installation from the third and fourth floor balconies of a building under construction and were exposed to fall hazards greater than 25 feet.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 2, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards, to enable each employee to recognize fall hazards and the procedures to be following in order to minimize these hazards:    a) On January 20, 2017, employees were performing spray insulation installation work from the third and fourth floor balconies of a building under construction and were exposed to fall hazards. The employer did not provide a training program to recognize fall hazards and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 30, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,794 · Current $3,475 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.103: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.134 of this chapter.    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 did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program.    a) On January 20, 2017, the employer did not implement a respirator program and required an employee to wear a full face respirator while performing spray insulation installation work.    b) On January 20, 2017, the employer did not implement a respirator program and required employees to wear 3M N95 Model 8210 two strap filtering face piece respirators to protect the employees from stone fiber, while installing Roxul AFB acoustical fire batts and insulation.    Rubens Spray Insulation, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1097399, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on January 8, 2016, with respect to a workplace located at 2253 W. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60612.

Issued

Mar 31, 2017

Abate by

Jun 30, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,794 · Current $3,475 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.59: NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.1200 of this chapter.    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) On January 20, 2017, the employer did not develop a written hazard communication program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1) that would describe or include at least the following:    1) Requirement for labeling of containers of hazardous chemicals;  2) Safety data sheet availability;  3) Training of employees;  4) A complete list of hazardous chemicals known to be present in the workplace;  5) Methods to inform employees of the hazards on non-routine tasks; and  6) Methods to inform other employer(s) of safety data sheet availability; the labeling system and any precautionary measures to protect employees.    Employees were exposed to hazardous chemicals, including but not limited to Enertite NM B-Resin (diethylene glycol and tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)phosphate), Elastospray 8000A Isocyanate (Diphenylmethane-4, 4'-diisocyanate (MDI)).    Rubens Spray Insulation, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1097399, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on January 8, 2016, with respect to a workplace located at 2253 W. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60612.