OSHA Inspection: G & M ROSSI COMPANY, INC.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $1,300 Reduced

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 1910.9(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:    Location - shop      On or about August 27, 2018, an employee in the shop was exposed to noise levels exceeding the 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85dBA during operating sand blast machine. The employee was exposed to continuous noise level of 99.0dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average (TWA), which was equivalent to 351.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure during 437 minutes sampling period and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time period. The employer did not develop and implement a hearing conservation program.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $1,300 Reduced

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:    Location - shop      On or about August 27, 2018, an employee  in the shop was exposed to noise levels exceeding the 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85dBA during operating sand blast machine. The employee was exposed to continuous noise level of 99.0dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average (TWA), which was equivalent to 351.9% of the permissible daily noise exposure during 437 minutes sampling period and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled time period. The employee has not received an audiometric test.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,000 Reduced

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:    Location - Shop    On or about July 18, 2018, employer has not developed and implemented a written respiratory protection program for employees working with respirable dust and silica.

Issued

Oct 22, 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:  Location - shop  On or about July 18, 2018, employer did not ensure that employees required to wear respirator are medically evaluated in order to prevent injury. Employees wore half face respirator (MSA 200LS) without being medically evaluated for working with respirable dust and silica.

Issued

Oct 22, 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:  Location - Shop  On or about July 18, 2018, employer did not ensure that employees required to wear tight fitting respirator are fit tested. Employees wore half-face respirator (MSA 200LS) without fit testing for working with respirable dust and silica.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide effective training to ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of 1910.134(k)(1)(i) - (vii):  Location - Shop  On or about July 18, 2018, employer did not provide information and training on proper use and care of respirator where production employees were wearing half-face respirator (MSA 200LS) for working with respirable dust and silica.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):    Location -  Shop & yard    On or about July 18, 2018, the employer did not train and evaluate employees in the safe operation of a powered industrial truck (Komatsu, FG25T-12, and serial number: 560082A) that was operated on a daily basis.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,000 Reduced

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:    Location - shop    On or about January 26, 2018, a written hazard communication program was not developed and implemented where products, such as paint and stone cleaner (contain methyl isobutyl ketone, stoddard solvent, and xylene) were used.

Issued

Oct 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    Location -shop    On or about January 26, 2018, employer did not provide effective information and training for employees required to use hazardous chemical products, such as paint and stone cleaner (contain acetone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and toluene) were used.