OSHA Inspection: RIVER GRANITE COMPANY

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Mar 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,660 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 1910.95(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:    The employer did not administer a hearing conservation program for employees, who worked in the wooden pallet manufacturing area, and were exposed to noise that had exceeded an 8-hour TWA of 85 dBA, based on an 80 dB threshold:     (a) An employee operating a portable hand grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 105.9% of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) . The equivalent level of 105.9% is approximately 90.4 dBA. Sampling was performed for 435 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 45 minutes not sampled;     (b) An employee operating a portable hand grinder was exposed to continuous noise levels at 158.5% of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) . The equivalent level of 158.5% is approximately 93.3 dBA. Sampling was performed for 430 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 50 minutes not sampled;     (c) An employee operating a chopsaw was exposed to continuous noise levels at 128.6% of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) . The equivalent level of 128.6% is approximately 91.8 dBA. Sampling was performed for 435 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 45 minutes not sampled;     (d) An employee operating a pneumatic hand polisher was exposed to continuous noise levels at 241.1% of the permissible 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). The equivalent level of 241.1% is approximately 96.8dBA. Sampling was performed for 437 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 43 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,660 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:    (a) The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program for employees utilizing a half mask negative pressure respirators. Employees used these respirators for protection against respirable crystalline silica dust when performing grinding and cutting activities.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

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) The employer did not provide a medical evaluation for employee(s) who were required to wear a half mask negative pressure respirator. Employee(s) used this respirator for protection against respirable crystalline silica dust.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

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) The employer did not provide a fit test for employee(s) who were required to wear a half mask negative pressure respirator. Employee(s) used this respirator for protection against respirable crystalline silica dust.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

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) In the Production Area , an employee was using a respirator, such as but not limited to, a half mask negative pressure respirator.  An employee used this respirator for protection against respirable crystalline silica dust.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,660 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1): Abrasive wheel(s) were used on portable grinder(s) which were not provided with safety guard(s) meeting the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1) through (c)(4):    (a) In the Production Area, employees were exposed to amputation hazards while working with portable hand grinders.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,660 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(g)(5): The path to ground from circuits, equipment, and enclosures was not permanent, continuous, and effective:    (a) In the Production Area employees utilized an extension cord with a missing grounding prong. Employees were exposed to electrical hazards.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Mar 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,320 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(c): The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:     (a)  A grinder employee was performing hand grinding operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 12.839 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer.Sampling was performed for 441 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 39 minutes;     (b) A grinder employee was performing hand grinding operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 13.784 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 445 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 35 minutes;     (c) A grinder employee was performing hand grinding operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 11.64 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 440 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 40 minutes;     (d) A chop saw employee was performing chop saw operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 170 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 3.425 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 437 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 43 minutes.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

May 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(1): The employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL, unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible:  (a)  A grinder employee was performing hand grinding operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 12.839 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 441 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 39 minutes;   (b) A grinder employee was performing hand grinding operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 13.784 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 445 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 35 minutes;  (c) A grinder employee was performing hand grinding operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 11.64 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 440 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 40 minutes;  (d) A chop saw employee was performing chop saw operations and was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 170 micrograms per cubic meter of air, approximately 3.425 times 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Sampling was performed for 437 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time of 43 minutes.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Mar 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:     (a) The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control program outlining the specific engineering and work practice controls to be implemented to reduce employee respirable crystalline silica exposures  to below the permissible exposure (PEL). A written plan shall include the at the least the requirements set forth in sections 29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(i)(A)-(C).

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Mar 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(1): The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(3) of this section:    (a) The employer not determine if any portable hand grinder employees may be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level. Portable hand grinder employees were assigned to perform grinding operations on marble and quartz countertops. Personal air monitoring indicated that employee(s) were exposed to airborne crystalline silica concentrations of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air, 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air, and 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the action level of 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air  by approximately 25.6, 27.6, and 23.2 times respectively.     (b) The employer not determine if any chop saw operator employees may be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level. Chop saw employees were assigned to perform grinding operations on marble and quartz countertops. Personal air monitoring indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne crystalline silica concentrations of 170 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the action level of 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air  by approximately 6.8 times respectively.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,320 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(g)(1): Where respiratory protection was required by this section, the employer did not provide each employee an appropriate respirator that complied with the requirements of this paragraph and 29 CFR 1910.134:    (a) The employer did not select a respirator for an employee using  a portable hand grinder that maintained the employee exposure at or below the maximum usage concentration (MUC). The employer required the employee to wear a half mask negative pressure respirators. Personal air monitoring indicated that the employee was exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by approximately 12.839 times. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Half mask negative pressure respirators are assigned a protection factor of 10. The airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica exceeded the Maximum Use Concentration for the respirator 1.28 times.    (b) The employer did not select a respirator for an employee using  a portable hand grinder that maintained the employee exposure at or below the maximum usage concentration (MUC). The employer required the employee to wear a half mask negative pressure respirators. Personal air monitoring indicated that the employee was exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations of 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by approximately 13.784 times. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Half mask negative pressure respirators are assigned a protection factor of 10. The airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica exceeded the Maximum Use Concentration for the respirator 1.38 times.    (c) The employer did not select the a respirator for an employee using a portable hand grinder that maintained the employee exposure at or below the maximum usage concentration (MUC). The employer required the employee to wear a half mask negative pressure respirators. Personal air monitoring indicated that the employee was exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations of 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by approximately 13.784 times. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Half mask negative pressure respirators are assigned a protection factor of 10. The airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica exceeded the Maximum Use Concentration for the respirator 1.16 times.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(B)(1): The employer did not select a respirator for employee use that maintained the employee's exposure to the hazardous substance, when measured outside the respirator, at or below the maximum use concentration:  (a) The employer did not select a respirator for an employee using  a portable hand grinder that maintained the employee exposure at or below the maximum usage concentration (MUC). The employer required the employee to wear a half mask negative pressure respirators. Personal air monitoring indicated that the employee was exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by approximately 12.839 times. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Half mask negative pressure respirators are assigned a protection factor of 10. The airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica exceeded the Maximum Use Concentration for the respirator 1.28 times.  (b) The employer did not select the a respirator for an employee using  a portable hand grinder that maintained the employee exposure at or below the maximum usage concentration (MUC). The employer required the employee to wear a half mask negative pressure respirators. Personal air monitoring indicated that the employee was exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations of 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by approximately 13.784 times. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Half mask negative pressure respirators are assigned a protection factor of 10. The airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica exceeded the Maximum Use Concentration for the respirator 1.38 times.  (c) The employer did not select the a respirator for an employee using a portable hand grinder that maintained the employee exposure at or below the maximum usage concentration (MUC). The employer required the employee to wear a half mask negative pressure respirators. Personal air monitoring indicated that the employee was exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations of 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by approximately 13.784 times. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Half mask negative pressure respirators are assigned a protection factor of 10. The airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica exceeded the Maximum Use Concentration for the respirator 1.16 times.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of respirable crystalline silica was, or could have been reasonably expected to be, in excess of the PEL:     (a) The employer did not establish a regulated area for employee(s) exposed to airborne concentrations of respirable crystalline silica above the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). Personal air monitoring conducted at the workplace showed that employee(s) were exposed to airborne concentrations of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air, 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air, 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air, and 170 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the PEL of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 12.839, 13.784, 11.64, 3.425 times respectively. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Employee(s) were assigned duties such as but not limited to grinding, sawing, and cutting granite countertops.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(j)(2): The employer did not post signs at all entrances to regulated areas that bear the following legend: DANGER, RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA, MAY CAUSE CANCER, CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS, WEAR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION IN THIS AREA, AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY:     (a) The employer not post the following warning signs DANGER- RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA-MAY CAUSE CANCER-CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS- WEAR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION IN THIS AREA- AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY, at the entrance of the Production Area where the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) were exceeded. Personal air monitoring conducted at the workplace showed that employee(s) were exposed to airborne concentrations of 640 micrograms per cubic meter of air, 690 micrograms per cubic meter of air, 580 micrograms per cubic meter of air, and 170 micrograms per cubic meter of air which exceeded the PEL of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air by 12.839, 13.784, 11.64, 3.425 times respectively. This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available at no cost to each employee, and at a reasonable time and place, for each employee who has been occupationally exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level for 30 or more days per year:     (a) The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employee(s) who were exposed respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level for 30 days per year. Personal air monitoring indicated that four employees were exposed to airborne respirable crystalline silica concentrations which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL).This limit is established to prevent silicosis and lung cancer. Employees were assigned duties such as but not limited to operating chop saws and portable hand grinders.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,320 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(j)(1): The employer did not include respirable crystalline silica in the program established to comply with the hazard communication standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200):      (a) The employer did not assure that employee(s) with airborne exposures to respirable crystalline silica in excess of the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) received trained in accordance to the requirements listed in sections 1910.1053(j)(3)(i)(A) -(E). Employees were assigned duties such as but not limited to operating chop saws and portable hand grinders.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  (a) Throughout the establishment, the employer had not developed, implemented, and maintained a written hazard communication program for employees performing granite countertop manufacturing operations who were exposed to hazardous chemicals including, but not limited to, respirable crystalline silica dust, acetone, polyester stone adhesive, which can result in silicosis, lung cancer, COPD, skin burns, serious eye damage, eye and skin irritation.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The written hazard communication program did not include a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present, using an identity that was referenced on the appropriate material safety data sheet:  (a) Throughout the establishment employees utilized the following chemicals: respirable crystalline silica dust, acetone, and polyester stone adhesive.

Issued

Jan 9, 2019

Abate by

Feb 5, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  (a) In the production area, employees were not trained on the specific health hazards of respirable crystalline silica dust, acetone, and polyester stone adhesive.