OSHA Inspection: TB ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION LLC

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,696 · Current $3,696

Hazardous substances 81108111

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 1910.95(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) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were not enrolled in a Hearing Conservation Program when exposed to continuous noise levels at 135.6% (92.2 dBA) of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA) during the 411 minute sampling period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 69 minute period not sampled. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.  b) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were not enrolled in a Hearing Conservation Program when exposed to continuous noise levels at 132.7% (92.0 dBA) of the action level of noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 406 minute sampling period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 74 minute period not sampled. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.  c) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were not enrolled in a Hearing Conservation Program when exposed to continuous noise levels at 116.8% (91.1 dBA) of the action level of noise exposure (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 395 minute sampling period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 85 minute period not sampled. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $5,174

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  a) While removing stucco from a brick building, the employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program which covered employees required to wear 3M half-faced respirators with combination cartridges or 3M filtering face piece device while exposed to silica. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees required to wear 3M half-faced respirators with combination cartridges or 3M filtering face piece device were not provided with a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator.  a. While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were required to wear 3M half-faced respirators with combination cartridges or 3M filtering face piece device without having an appropriate fit test performed. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function.  a) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were allowed to have facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece on the 3M half-face dual cartridge respirator or 3M filtering face piece device and the face. This violation was observed on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:  a. While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were required to wear 3M half-faced respirators with combination cartridges or 3M filtering face piece device without having training provided. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $5,174

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees were not exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  a) While removing stucco from a brick building, an employee was exposed to respirable dust containing crystalline silica at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 446.45 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, which was 8.929 times the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50.0 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 229 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 251 minutes. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.  b) While removing stucco from a brick building, an employee was exposed to respirable dust containing crystalline silica at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 206.43 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, which was 4.129 times the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50.0 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 409 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 71 minutes. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.  c) While removing stucco from a brick building, an employee was exposed to respirable dust containing crystalline silica at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 86.54 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, which was 1.731 times the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50.0 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 161 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 319 minutes. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(A): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:  a) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were exposed to respirable dust containing crystalline silica above the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50.0 ug/m3, without the employer performing initial monitoring. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:  a) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were exposed to respirable dust containing crystalline silica above the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50.0 ug/m3, without the employer having a written exposure control plan. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.

Issued

Aug 9, 2018

Abate by

Sep 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $5,174

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

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: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  a) While removing stucco from a brick building, employees were exposed to respirable dust containing crystalline silica above the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50.0 ug/m3, without the employer having a written hazard communication program. This violation was discovered on or about February 20, 2018.