OSHA Inspection: CBSL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $7,683 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:    a)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792175, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit BGBU504637-9, containing formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm), a suspect human carcinogen and skin sensitization agent, when PVC was determined to not be effective.    b)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792174, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit BGBU503264-7, containing formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm), a suspect human carcinogen and skin sensitization agent, when PVC was determined to not be effective.    c)   At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792117, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit TCLU259417-3, containing benzene (PEL 1 ppm, STEL 5 ppm), a confirmed human carcinogen, exposure by inhalation and skin absorption, when PVC was determined to not be effective.    d)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21791719, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit 3270, containing 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, heavy aromatic naphtha, petroleum distillate, and naphthalene, when PVC was determined to not be effective.    e)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 1876936, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit TCLU259417-3, containing formic acid, acetic acid, and benzene, when PVC was determined to not be effective.    f)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792113, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit FIBU125276-4, containing xylene mixed isomers and ethyl benzene, when PVC was not determined to not be effective.    g)  At the facility, on October 30, 2017, for ticket 21791917, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees cleaning unit 3422, containing 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol butyl ether), when PVC was determined to not be effective.    h)  At the facility: On October 30, 2017, the employer selected PVC gloves and boots for use by employees using cleaning agents containing hazardous chemicals for which PVC was determined to not be effective.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(b): The employer did not base selection of appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the tasks to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified:  a)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792175, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit BGBU504637-9, containing formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm), a suspect human carcinogen and skin sensitization agent, when PVC was determined to not be effective.  b)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792174, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit BGBU503264-7, containing formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm), a suspect human carcinogen and skin sensitization agent, when PVC was determined to not be effective.  c)   At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792117, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit TCLU259417-3, containing benzene (PEL 1 ppm, STEL 5 ppm), a confirmed human carcinogen, exposure by inhalation and skin absorption, when PVC was determined to not be effective.  d)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21791719, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit 3270, containing 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, heavy aromatic naphtha, petroleum distillate, and naphthalene, when PVC was determined to not be effective.  e)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 1876936, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit TCLU259417-3, containing formic acid, acetic acid, and benzene, when PVC was determined to not be effective.  f)  At the facility, on October 31, 2017, for ticket 21792113, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit FIBU125276-4, containing xylene mixed isomers and ethyl benzene, when PVC was determined to not be effective.  g)  At the facility, on October 30, 2017, for ticket 21791917, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees cleaning unit 3422, containing 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol butyl ether), when PVC was determined to not be effective.  h)  At the facility: On October 30, 2017, the employer selected PVC gloves for use by employees using cleaning agents containing hazardous chemicals for which PVC was determined to not be effective.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:  a)  At the facility, wash bays: tank cleaners used Ruthless 6030 containing 60-100 percent methylene chloride to remove stickers and labels from chemical containers and the employer did not provide gloves rated as resistant to methylene chloride.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $5,489 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): When the employer was unable to identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH:    a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 1876936, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit TCLU259417-3, the employer did not identify and estimate employee exposure to formic acid (PEL 5 ppm, IDLH 30 ppm), and acetic acid (PEL 10 ppm, IDLH 50 ppm), and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.    b) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792115, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit VTGU196321-8, the employer did not identify and estimate employee exposure to sodium hydroxide (PEL 2 mg/m3, IDLH 10 mg/m3), and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.    c) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792113, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit FIBU125276-4, the employer did not identify and estimate employee exposure to xylene mixed isomers (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 900 ppm), and Ethyl Benzene (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 800 ppm) and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.    d) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3422, the employer did not identify and estimate employee exposure to 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) (PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm), and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.    e) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791719, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3270, the employer did not identify and estimate employee exposure to 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene (REL 25 ppm, IDLH Not Determined), heavy aromatic naphtha (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 1000 ppm), petroleum distillate (PEL 500 ppm, IDLH 1100 ppm), and naphthalene (PEL 10 ppm, IDLH 250 suspect human carcinogen) and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.    f) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, the employer did not identify and estimate employee exposure when using cleaning agents containing hazardous ingredients with established exposure limits including but not limited to: Dyna-Solv 101 [2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether - PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm], Dyna-Strip 2000 Concentrate (Dipropylene glycol methyl ether - PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 600 ppm), hydrofluoric acid (PEL 3ppm, IDLH 30 ppm), Dyna-Brite Concentrate (hydrofluoric acid - PEL 3 ppm, IDLH 30 ppm; 2-butoxyethanol - PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm), and nitric acid (PEL 2ppm, IDLH 25 ppm), and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2): The employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator that would ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life:  a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792175, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit BGBU504637-9, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm, IDLH 20 ppm).    b) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792174, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit BGBU503264-7, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm, IDLH 20 ppm).    c) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3422, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to benzene (PEL 1 ppm, STEL 5 ppm, IDLH 500 ppm).    d) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 1876936, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit TCLU259417-3, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to formic acid (PEL 5 ppm, IDLH 30 ppm), acetic acid (PEL 10 ppm, IDLH 50 ppm), and benzene (PEL 1ppm, STEL 5 ppm, IDLH 500 ppm, suspect human carcinogen).  e) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792115, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit VTGU196321-8, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to sodium hydroxide (PEL 2 mg/m3, IDLH 10 mg/m3), and did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.  f) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792113, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit FIBU125276-4, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to xylene mixed isomers (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 900 ppm), and Ethyl Benzene (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 800 ppm).  g) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3422, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) (PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm).  h) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791719, during entry and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3270, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene (REL 25 ppm, IDLH Not Determined), heavy aromatic naphtha (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 1000 ppm), petroleum distillate (PEL 500 ppm, IDLH 1100 ppm), and naphthalene (PEL 10 ppm, IDLH 250 suspect human carcinogen).    i) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, the employer did not implement a change schedule for respirators not equipped with an End of Service Life Indicator to ensure cartridges were changed before the end of their service life when employees were exposed to  cleaning agents containing hazardous ingredients with established exposure limits including but not limited to: Dyna-Solv 101 (2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether - PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm), Dyna-Strip 2000 Concentrate (Dipropylene glycol methyl ether - PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 600 ppm), hydrofluoric acid (PEL 3ppm, IDLH 30 ppm), Dyna-Brite Concentrate (hydrofluoric acid - PEL 3 ppm, IDLH 30 ppm; 2-butoxyethanol - PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm), nitric acid (PEL 2ppm, IDLH 25 ppm), and Ruthless 6030 (methylene chloride PEL 25 ppm, STEL 125 ppm, IDLH 2300 ppm).

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0320

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1028(e)(2)(i): The employer did not monitor each workplace and work operation to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of benzene to which employees may be exposed:  a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3422, the employer did not determine accurately the airborne concentrations of benzene to which employees  may be exposed.  (PEL 1 ppm, STEL 5 ppm, IDLH 500 ppm, human carcinogen).   b) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 1876936, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit TCLU259417-3, the employer did not monitor each workplace and work operation to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of benzene to which employees may be exposed (PEL 1ppm, STEL 5 ppm, IDLH 500 ppm, human carcinogen).

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(d)(1)(i): Employees of a workplace covered by this standard were not monitored to determine their exposure to formaldehyde:  a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792175, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit BGBU504637-9, employees were not monitored to determine their exposure to formaldehyde.  a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792174, during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit BGBU503264-7, employees were not monitored to determine their exposure to formaldehyde.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(i): Where methylene chloride was present in the workplace, the employer did not determine each employee's exposure:  a) At the facility, wash bays: tank cleaners used Ruthless 6030 containing 60-100 percent methylene chloride to remove stickers and labels from chemical containers and the employer did not determine each employee's exposure.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $5,488 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(4)(i): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not provide, at no cost to the employees, testing and monitoring equipment needed to comply with 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5):    a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792175, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit BGBU504637-9 containing formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm, IDLH 20 ppm), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.    b) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792174, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit BGBU503264-7 containing formaldehyde (PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm, IDLH 20 ppm), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.    c) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit 3422 containing  benzene (PEL 1 ppm, STEL 5 ppm, IDLH 500 ppm), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.    d) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 1876936, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit TCLU259417-3 containing formic acid (PEL 5 ppm, IDLH 30 ppm), acetic acid (PEL 10 ppm, IDLH 50 ppm), and benzene (PEL 1ppm, STEL 5 ppm, IDLH 500 ppm, human carcinogen), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.    e) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792115, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit VTGU196321-8 containing sodium hydroxide (PEL 2 mg/m3, IDLH 10 mg/m3),  the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.    f) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21792113, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit FIBU125276-4 containing xylene mixed isomers (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 900 ppm), and Ethyl Benzene (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 800 ppm), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.    g) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit 3422 containing 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) (PEL 50 ppm, IDLH 700 ppm), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxic s capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.     h) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 30, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791719, during entry to clean hazardous chemical residue from unit 3270 containing heavy aromatic naphtha (PEL 100 ppm, IDLH 1000 ppm), petroleum distillate (PEL 500 ppm, IDLH 1100 ppm), and naphthalene (PEL 10 ppm, IDLH 250 ppm, suspect human carcinogen), the employer did not provide testing and monitoring equipment needed to test for levels of toxics capable of creating a hazardous atmosphere.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $5,489 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(9): The employer did not develop and implement procedures for summoning rescue and emergency services, for rescuing entrants from permit spaces, for providing necessary emergency services to rescued employees, and/or for preventing unauthorized entry:    a) At the facility, tank wash areas: On October 30, 2017, the employer did not develop and implement procedures for summoning rescue and emergency services, or for rescuing entrants from permit spaces when tank wash employees were required to cross under internal baffles inside of permit required confined spaces to perform cleaning of chemical residues, exposing employees to an asphyxiation hazard.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $5,488 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(k)(2)(iv): The employer did not ensure that affected employees practice making permit space rescues at least once every 12 months, by means of simulated rescue operations in which they remove dummies, manikins, or actual persons from the actual permit spaces or from representative permit spaces:    a) At the facility, tank wash areas: On October 30, 2017, the employer did not ensure that tank cleaners assigned to perform non-entry rescue had practiced at least once every 12 months by means of simulated rescue operations in which they remove dummies, manikins, or actual persons from the actual permit spaces or from representative permit spaces.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $7,683 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were being placed in service after the examination showed conditions adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle:    a)  At the facility, November 13, 2017: Lift 208 inspection listed conditions adversely affecting safety including hydraulic oil level, coolant level, and parking brake operation deficiencies, and was placed in service.    b)  At the facility, October 30, 2017: Lift 208 inspection listed conditions adversely affecting safety including hydraulic oil level and parking brake operation deficiencies, and was placed in service.    c)  At the facility, October 24, 2017:  Lift 208 inspection listed conditions adversely affecting safety including hydraulic oil level, coolant level, air leaks, and parking brake operation deficiencies, and was placed in service.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $5,489 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0320

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1028(j)(3)(iii)(A): The employer did not provide employees with an explanation of the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1028 including Appendices A and B:       a) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 21791917, employees were exposed to benzene during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit 3422, and the employer did not provide employees with an explanation of the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1028 including Appendices A and B.       b) At the facility, tank wash area: On October 31, 2017, tank cleaning ticket 1876936, when employees were exposed to benzene during opening, assessment and cleaning of hazardous chemicals from unit TCLU259417-3, the employer did not provide employees with an explanation of the contents of 29 CFR 1910.1028 including Appendices A and B.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(i): The employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1052 and the information available in its appendices and/or how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace:  a) At the facility, wash bays: tank cleaners used Ruthless 6030 containing 60-100 percent methylene chloride to remove stickers and labels from chemical containers and the employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1052 and the information available in its appendices.

Issued

Feb 6, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $1,027 · Current $616 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) At the facility, in the wash bay, the employer did not conduct noise exposure monitoring when employees used a pressure washer to clean the interior of steel chemical containers, exposing employees to a hearing loss hazard.