OSHA Inspection: MADY MAKADJI

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $1,847 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.25(b)(3): The employer did not ensure that the stairs had uniform riser heights and tread depths between the landings:    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to ensure uniform tread depths of the stairs leading to the back entrance.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(11)(i): Each employee exposed to an unprotected side or edge of a stairway landing that was 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level was not protected by a guardrail or stair rail system:  Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the stairs leading to the back entrance of the building did not have a stair rail.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

May 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,410 · Current $2,217 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not ensure that each employee on a walking-working surface with an unprotected side or edge that is 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level was protected from falling by a standard guardrail system.    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer did not ensure the loading docks were guarded from fall hazards.  Employees are exposed to falls of approximately 4.75 feet.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,273 · Current $1,477 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(g)(2): Exit access(es) were not at least 28 inches (71.1 cm) wide at all points.    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the exit route in the building measured 20 inches at its widest point with some parts measuring 14 inches.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,410 · Current $2,217 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to assess the workplace to determine what personal protective equipment is needed when employees are working with Portland cement.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protective equipment:  Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to provide training to employees who utilize personal protective equipment such as gloves and eye protection.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,410 · Current $2,217 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to ensure employees exposed to Portland cement wore eye protection including, but not limited: tight fitting goggles.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 19, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to select and require employees to wear abrasion-and alkali-resistant gloves when working with Portland cement.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 8, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $5,171

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:    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to establish and implement a written respiratory protection program.  Employees are required to wear N-95 respirators.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of why the respirator was necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance could compromise the protective effect of the respirator:    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer did not provide respirator training to employees required to wear N-95 respirators.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 8, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $1,847 Reduced

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:    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to provide a medical evaluation to employees required to wear an N-95 respirator.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $2,586 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to ensure that employees wearing N-95 respirators passed a fit test.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 8, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $2,586 Reduced

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:    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that employees wearing tight fitting respirators did not have facial hair.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

May 10, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,410 · Current $2,217 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to provide an eyewash when employees were exposed to Portland cement which is corrosive.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $1,847 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):    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to provide training to operators prior to operation of forklifts.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 29, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,410 · Current $2,217 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to guard the auger in the cement hopper exposing employees to rotating parts.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Aug 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $2,586 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 5 milligrams per meter cubed:     (a) Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, an employee was exposed to 20.28 milligrams per meter cubed of respirable dust which is 4.1 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 milligrams per meter cubed.    (b) Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, an employee was exposed to 9.85 milligrams per meter cubed of respirable dust which is 1.97 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 milligrams per meter cubed.    ABATEMENT STEPS ARE AS FOLLOW:       STEP 1 - A written detailed plan of abatement shall be submitted to the Area Director outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposures to hazardous substances as referenced in this citation. This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the dates required by this citation:      1.  Evaluation of engineering control options;      2.  Selection of optimum control method and completion of design;      3.  Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures;      4.  Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of controls.      Note: All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Ninety- (90) day progress reports are required during the abatement period.        STEP 2 - Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Aug 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):  (a) Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, where an employee was exposed to 20.28 milligrams per meter cubed of respirable dust which is 4.1 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 milligrams per meter cubed engineering controls were not implemented.  (b) Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, where an employee was exposed to 9.85 milligrams per meter cubed of respirable dust which is 1.97 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 milligrams per meter cubed engineering controls were not implemented.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,410 · Current $2,217 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:    Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to develop and implement a written hazard communication program where employees are exposed to hazardous chemicals such as Portland cement.

Issued

Mar 26, 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:  Facility - On or about September 27, 2018, the employer failed to provide training to employees who are exposed to Portland cement, the hazards of which include skin, eye, and respiratory irritation.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $319 · Current $207 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): The employer failed to provide a clean and sanitary condition for all places of employment, passageways, storerooms, service rooms, and walking-working surfaces.    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that the work area was not covered with Portland cement.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1): Portable fire extinguishers were not mounted, located and identified so that they were readily accessible without subjecting the employees to injuries:    Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the fire extinguisher in the break room was not mounted or readily accessible.

Issued

Mar 26, 2019

Abate by

Apr 26, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(10): Powered industrial trucks were not kept in a clean condition:   Facility - On or about January 16, 2019, the employer failed to keep the Hyundai 40 Ds-76 in a clean condition.