OSHA Inspection: PINNACLE MARBLE & GRANITE, INC.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 28, 2023

Penalty

Initial $8,595 · Current $7,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

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 equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:  (a) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to noise levels at 76.83% of the permissible 8-hour TWA (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 76.83% is approximately 88.1 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 507 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.   (b) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to noise levels at 100.4% of the permissible 8-hour TWA (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 100.4% is approximately 90.0 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 505 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.   (c) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to noise levels at 80.76% of the permissible 8-hour TWA (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 80.76% is approximately 88.4 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 508 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023. .  (d) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to noise levels at 104.0% of the permissible 8-hour TWA (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 104.0% is approximately 90.2 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 506 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023. .  (e) In the fabrication shop, a polisher was exposed to noise levels at 93.94% of the permissible 8-hour TWA (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 93.94% is approximately 89.5 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 502 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023. .  (f) In the fabrication shop, a polisher was exposed to noise levels at 69.5% of the permissible 8-hour TWA (90 dBA).  The equivalent dBA level of 69.5% is approximately 87.3 dBA.  Sampling was performed for 502 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

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 required to wear respirators during stone product fabrication.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

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) In the fabrication shop, an employee who fabricated stone products was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 1400 ug/m3, approximately 28 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3, and the employer provided the employee with a filtering facepiece respirator that had a protection factor of 10 and a maximum use concentration of 500 ug/m3.  (b) In the fabrication shop, an employee who fabricated stone products was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 740 ug/m3, approximately 15 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3, and the employer provided the employee with a filtering facepiece respirator that had a protection factor of 10 and a maximum use concentration of 500 ug/m3.  (c) In the fabrication shop, an employee who fabricated stone products was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 660 ug/m3, approximately 13 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3, and the employer provided the employee with a filtering facepiece respirator that had a protection factor of 10 and a maximum use concentration of 500 ug/m3.  (d) In the fabrication shop, an employee who fabricated stone products was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 560 ug/m3, approximately 11 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3, and the employer provided the employee with a filtering facepiece respirator that had a protection factor of 10 and a maximum use concentration of 500 ug/m3.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

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) In the fabrication shop, employees who fabricated stone products were required by the employer to wear filtering facepiece respirators without first being medically evaluated to determine their fitness to wear the respirators.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, make or model) was used, and at least annually thereafter:  (a) In the fabrication shop, employees who fabricated stone products wore filtering facepiece respirators without first being fit tested.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 1400 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 28 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 467 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.  (b) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 740 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 15 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 462 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.  (c) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 560 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 11 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 461 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.  (d) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 660 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 13 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift on February 28, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 28, 2023

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:  Engineering and work practice controls were not used to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the permissible exposure limit.  (a) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 1400 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 28 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 467 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.  (b) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 740 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 15 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 462 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.  (c) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 560 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 11 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 461 minutes during one shift on February 23, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.  (d) In the fabrication shop, a fabricator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 660 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, approximately 13 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift on February 28, 2023.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) In the fabrication shop, employees who fabricated stone products were exposed to respirable crystalline silica above the permissible exposure limit and the employer did not provide an appropriate respirator and institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 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:  (a) In the fabrication shop, employees used angle grinders equipped with cutting blades without guards during fabrication of stone products.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.243(c)(3): Abrasive wheels used on vertical portable grinder(s) (right angle head grinders) were not provided with safety guard(s) having a maximum exposure angle of 180 degrees and located between the operator and wheel:  (a) In the fabrication shop, employees used angle grinders equipped with abrasive wheels without guards during fabrication of stone products.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $6,875 · Current $7,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:  (a) In the fabrication shop, compressed air used for cleaning had a dead end pressure of greater than 30 psi.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 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) In the fabrication shop, the employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or could have been reasonably expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level during stone product fabrication.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 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) In the fabrication shop, the employer did not establish a regulated area by demarcation and posting signs where employees were exposed to respirable crystalline silica above the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $8,595 · Current $7,500 Reduced

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) In the fabrication shop, employees were exposed to respirable crystalline silica during stone product fabrication and the employer did not establish a written exposure control plan that included the following: a description of the tasks in the workplace that involve exposure to respirable crystalline silica; a description of the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica for each task; and a description of the housekeeping measures used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(h)(2)(i): The employer allowed compressed air to be used to clean clothing or surfaces where such activity could contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica without being used in conjunction with a ventilation system to capture blown dust:  (a) In the fabrication shop, employees used compressed air for cleaning clothing and surfaces, creating a dust cloud and contributing to silica exposures.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 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) In the fabrication shop, employees fabricating stone products were exposed to respirable crystalline silica at concentrations greater than the action level of 25 ug/m3, as an 8-hour time-weighted average, and the employer did not make medical surveillance available.

Issued

Jul 12, 2023

Abate by

Aug 7, 2023

Penalty

Initial $12,031 · Current $7,500 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).  The employer did not ensure that each employee had access to safety data sheets, and was trained in accordance with the provisions of HCS and paragraph (j)(3) of this section. The employer did not ensure that at least the following hazards were addressed: Cancer, lung effects, immune system effects, and kidney effects:  (a) In the fabrication shop, employees were exposed to respirable crystalline silica during stone product fabrication and the employer did not include respirable crystalline silica in a hazard communication program.  Employees did not have access to safety data sheets and were not trained on the health effects of silica and the contents of the silica standard, 29 CFR 1910.1053.