OSHA Inspection: TUSCANY ENTERPRISES INC

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Mar 31, 2022

Penalty

Initial $1,865 · Current $1,119 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.106(e)(6)(ii): The employer did not ensure that Category 1 or 2 flammable liquids, or Category 3 flammable liquids with a flashpoint below 100 �F (37.8 �C), were dispensed into containers with the nozzle and container being electrically interconnected.   a) On or about September 7, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not ensure that bonding and grounding occurred during the transfer from metal container to metal container of acetone, which has a flashpoint of -4 �F.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

May 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $2,610 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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):(a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION/CONDITION) (DESCRIBE HAZARD) 29 CFR  1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures:   a) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, employees using tight fitting respirators were not fit tested.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Mar 31, 2022

Penalty

Initial $3,729 · Current $2,237 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): Energy control program. The employer did not establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performs any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.   a) On or about September 7, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not protect employees from exposure to the hazards of uncontrolled energy. The facility does not have a lockout/tag out program nor do they have individual lockout/tag out procedures for equipment such as, but not limited to, the GranQuartz Lynx table saw.   Employees regularly change the saw blades exposing them to amputation hazards.  Abatement Note:  As part of an energy-control program, employers must:  1) Establish energy-control procedures for removing the energy supply from machines and for putting appropriate lockout or tagout devices on the energy-isolating devices to prevent unexpected re-energization. When appropriate, the procedure also must address stored or potentially re-accumulated energy.  2) Train employees on the energy-control program, including the safe application, use, and removal of energy controls; and  3) Inspect these procedures periodically (at least annually) to ensure that they are being followed and that they remain effective in preventing employee exposure to hazardous energy. The energy-control procedures must outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques that employees will use to control hazardous energy sources, as well as the means that will be used to enforce compliance.   These procedures must provide employees at least the following information:  1) A statement on how to use the procedures;  2) Specific procedural steps to shut down, isolate, block, and secure machines;  3) Specific steps designating the safe placement, removal, and transfer of lockout/tagout devices and identifying who has responsibility for the lockout/tagout devices; and  4)Specific requirements for testing machines to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout devices, tagout devices, and other energy-control measures.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Apr 25, 2022

Penalty

Initial $2,486 · Current $1,491 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5): The employer did not ensure that the powered industrial truck was marked to identify the attachments and did not show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered, when the truck was equipped with front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments:  a) On or about September 7, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not receive information from the forklift manufacturer, Hyster, that gave approval for using a non-Hyster slab clamp, information on the tipping moment, and on the change of weight capacity altering performance of the forklift while using the attachment for lifting stone slabs.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Penalty

Initial $1,865 · Current $1,119 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.334(a)(2)(ii): There was a defect or evidence of damage that could have exposed an employee to injury and the defective or damaged item was not removed from service:  a) On or about September 7, 2021, and at times prior, an employee was exposed to electrical hazards using an extension cord powering a Makita grinder with exposed wiring on the extension cord which was used in wet locations.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Apr 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $2,486 · Current $1,491 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical, and did not ensure that they are readily accessible during each work shift to employees when they are in their work area(s):  a) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not maintain copies of safety data sheets, which also included a hazardous chemicals list and methods used to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks, had not been developed for employee exposures, such as but not limited to, the following chemicals: a) Mako Quality Diamonds  Poly Stone Adhesive, b) Stone-weld Super Gel, c) Gran Quartz surface pro marble honing powder,  d) Stone pro Ultimate Pro,  e) Superior V-Ma SV-1 and f) Respirable Silica.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Apr 15, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0040108022809000

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) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not provide employees training on hazardous chemicals used for prep and finish operations in the work area.  Employees work with or near Superior V-Max SV-1 product which contains styrene and ethyl benzene.  Styrene may involve the central nervous system and include headache, fatigue, dizziness, confusion, drowsiness, malaise, difficulty in concentrating, and a feeling of intoxication.  Ethyl Benzene inhalation may cause irritation of nose, dizziness, and depression.  Employees worked with silica and silica-containing dust.  Silica health effects  include, but not limited to, cough, dyspnea (breathing difficulty), wheezing, decreased pulmonary function, progressive respiratory symptoms (silicosis), irritation of the eyes,  and is a potential occupational carcinogen.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

May 13, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $1,933 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(c): 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) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, 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.  Employee sampling data showed exposure of 71 ug/m3 and 110 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA, which are 1.42 to 2.1 times greater than the PEL of 50 ug/m3.  Employee exposure to respirable silica may result in an increased risk of developing serious silica-related diseases, including: Silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and kidney disease.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

May 13, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, 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.  Employee sampling data showed exposure of 71 ug/m3 and 110 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA, which are both above the PEL of 50 ug/m3.  Employee exposure to respirable silica may result in an increased risk of developing serious silica-related diseases, including: Silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and kidney disease.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

May 13, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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. Wherever such feasible engineering and work practice controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL, the employer shall nonetheless use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest feasible level and shall supplement them with the use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section:  a) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce employee exposures 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.  Employee sampling data showed exposure of 71 ug/m3 and 110 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA, which are both above the PEL of 50 ug/m3.  Employee exposure to respirable silica may result in an increased risk of developing serious silica-related diseases, including: Silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and kidney disease.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

May 13, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(i)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a reasonable time and place, for each employee who will be occupationally exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level for 30 or more days per year:  a) On or about September 21, 2021, and at times prior, the employer did not did not ensure medical examinations were being performed on employees exposed to respirable silica at or above the action level of 25 ug/m3.  Employee exposure to respirable silica may result in an increased risk of developing serious silica-related diseases, including: Silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and kidney disease.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Mar 25, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.37(b)(2): The employer did not ensure that each exit must be clearly visible and marked by a sign reading "Exit":   a) On or about September 7, 2021, and at times prior, employees were exposed to potential smoke inhalation and fire hazards in that a sign reading "Exit"  had not been installed over the middle bay exit door and end bay exit door.

Issued

Mar 1, 2022

Abate by

Mar 25, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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):   a)  On or about September 7, 2021, and at times prior, the employer, did not ensure employees were trained on forklift operations.  The employer could not provide forklift certifications or training documentation.