OSHA Inspection: GREAT LAKES TANK & VESSEL LLC

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $3,457 · Current $3,457

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.30(a)(1): The employer did not provide training for each employee who uses personal fall protection systems or who is required to be trained as specified elsewhere in this subpart before any employee is exposed to a fall hazard:  On or about May 15, 2024, the employer did not provided training for each employee who uses personal fall protection systems when entering asphalt tankers measured to be approximately 10.25 feet above the ground.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

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:  The employer failed to administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program (including the elements of noise monitoring, audiometric testing, hearing protection, and training) for employees performing required duties with noise exposures that exceeded 85 dBA for an 8-hour time weighted average.  Employees not included in a hearing conservation program include the following instances for noise exposure during tank cleaning:  a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 545.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 106.2 dBA, as measured over 274 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 102.2 dBA  accounting for the period of 206 minutes unmonitored.   b.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 449.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 104.9 dBA, as measured over 273 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 100.85 dBA accounting for the period of 207 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:  The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees performing required duties with noise exposures that exceeded 85 dBA for an 8-hour time weighted average. Employees not included in a monitoring program included the following exposures during tank cleaning:  a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 545.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 106.2 dBA, as measured over 274 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 102.2 dBA  accounting for the period of 206 minutes unmonitored.   b.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 449.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 104.9 dBA, as measured over 273 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 100.85 dBA accounting for the period of 207 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  An audiometric testing program was not established and maintained by making audiometric testing available for employees performing required duties with noise exposures that exceeded 85 dBA for an 8-hour time weighted average. Employees not included in an audiometric testing program included the following employees with exposures during tanker entry:   a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 545.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 106.2 dBA, as measured over 274 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 102.2 dBA  accounting for the period of 206 minutes unmonitored.   b.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 449.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 104.9 dBA, as measured over 273 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 100.85 dBA accounting for the period of 207 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:  The employer did not train employees performing required duties with noise exposures that exceeded 85 dBA for an 8-hour time weighted average.  The employer did not institute a training program and ensure that the following employees were trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3)(i)-(iii):  a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 545.4% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 106.2 dBA, as measured over 274 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 102.2 dBA  accounting for the period of 206 minutes unmonitored.   b.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 449.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 104.9 dBA, as measured over 273 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 100.85 dBA accounting for the period of 207 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(j)(2): Hearing protectors did not attenuate employee exposure at least to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 90 decibels as required by 29 CFR 1910.95(b):  The employer failed to ensure that provided hearing protection attenuated employee exposure to noise below 90 decibels. Employees not provided hearing protection with appropriate attenuation include the following instances for noise exposure during tank cleaning:   a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 540.7% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 106.2 dB, as measured over 274 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 102.2 dB  accounting for the period of 206 minutes unmonitored. The Western Safety Industrial Ear Muffs provided to employees list an NRR of 17. These hearing protectors attenuated employee exposure to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 92.2 dB, as calculated using the mandatory Appendix B calculations.   b.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer, was exposed to noise at 445.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 104.8 dB, as measured over 273 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 100.8 dB  accounting for the period of 207 minutes unmonitored. The Western Safety Industrial Ear Muffs provided to employees list an NRR of 17. These hearing protectors attenuated employee exposure to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 90.8 dB, as calculated using the mandatory Appendix B calculations.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(d)(1)(i): Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:  a.) On or about February 14, 2024, the employer failed to ensure the selection of appropriate respirators was based on the respiratory hazards to which the worker was exposed when an employee working to clean asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 31.16 mg/m3 for particulates not otherwise regulated total dust, approximately 2.0 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3. The employee was not provided with cartridges approved for protection against particulates and used a full-face tight fitting respirator with organic vapor cartridges. Additionally, these organic vapor cartridges were not approved for use in protecting employees from hydrogen sulfide during asphalt cleaning operations.  b.)  On or about February 14, 2024, the employer failed to ensure the selection of appropriate respirators was based on the respiratory hazards to which the worker was exposed when employees working to clean asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 38.60 mg/m3 for particulates not otherwise regulated total dust, approximately 2.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3. The employee was provided a full-face tight-fitting respirator with organic vapor cartridges. Additionally, these organic vapor cartridges were not approved for use in protecting employees from hydrogen sulfide during asphalt cleaning operations.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $2,765 · Current $2,765

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. On or about December 21, 2024, the employer failed to provide medical evaluations to determine the employees' ability to use respirators, before the employees were required to use tight-fitting respirators in the workplace while cleaning asphalt out of transportation tanks utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer.  b. On or about May 15, 2024, the employer failed to provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use respirators, before the employee was required to use a tight-fitting, supplied air respirator in the workplace while cleaning asphalt out of transportation tanks utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

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.) On or about December 21, 2024, the employer failed to provide fit testing prior to initial use to an employee required to wear a tight-fitting respirator while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer. Employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.16 mg/m3 of total dust, approximately 2.0 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/m3.   b.) On or about December 21, 2024, the employer failed to provide fit testing prior to initial use to an employee required to wear a tight-fitting respirator while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer. Employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 38.60 mg/m3 of total dust, approximately 2.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/m3.  c.) On or about May 15, 2024, the employer failed to provide fit testing prior to initial use to an employee required to wear a tight-fitting supplied air respirator while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

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:   On or about February 14, 2024, the employer failed to ensure that an employee required to wear a tight-fitting respirator while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank did not have facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face. Employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.16 mg/m3 of total dust, approximately 2.0 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/m3.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(g)(1)(i)(B): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees with a condition that interfered with the face-to-facepiece seal or valve function:   a.) On or about February 14, 2024, the employer permitted an employee required to wear a tight-fitting respirator while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank to wear a head sock underneath the respirator that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face. Employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 31.16 mg/m3 of total dust, approximately 2.0 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/m3.   b.) On or about February 14, 2024,  the employer permitted an employee required to wear a tight-fitting respirator while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank to wear a head sock underneath the respirator that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece. Employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average of 38.60 mg/m3 of total dust, approximately 2.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/m3.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(h)(1): Respirators were not cleaned and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of 29 CFR 1910.134 or equivalent procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer:  On or about February 14, 2024, the employer failed to ensure that respirators were cleaned and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of 29 CFR 1910.134. The employer did not provide a disinfectant or a disinfectant cleaner for use to clean and disinfect tight-fitting respirators and no running water was available in the building. The employer requires the use of tight-fitting respirators when performing transportation tank entry for cleaning and removal of hazardous contents, such as asphalt.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(h)(2)(i): Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  On or about February 14, 2024 the employer failed to ensure that 3M half-face and full-face tight-fitting respirators were stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals. The employer requires the use of the 3M tight-fitting respirators used by employees while cleaning asphalt out of transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer. Seven respirators were stored in the open, hanging from a cabinet in the shop and laying on a pile of trash and other materials.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $3,457 · Current $3,457

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.140(d)(1)(ii): The employer did not ensure that personal fall arrest systems bring the employee to a complete stop and limit the maximum deceleration distance the employee travels to 3.5 feet (1.1 m):   On or about May 15, 2024, the employer did not ensure that a personal fall arrest system brought the employee to a complete stop and limited the maximum deceleration distance the employee travels to 3.5 feet. An anchorage point built into the top of the tank was utilized with a lanyard by an employee exposed to a fall of approximately 10.25 feet, while acting as the attendant during a confined space entry into the transportation tanker to clean asphalt. The anchorage point is located at employees' feet when standing on the tanker.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit spaces:  On or about February 14, 2024, the employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by permit spaces, when  employees enter baffled transportation tanks with the potential of having a hazardous atmosphere to clean asphalt out utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer. The tanks were not recognized or labeled as permit required confined spaces.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(d)(2): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not identify and evaluate the hazards of permit spaces before employees entered:  On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not identify and evaluate the hazards of permit spaces when employees enter cleaning transportation tanks containing asphalt. Employees clean asphalt out of the transportation tanks utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer. Safety data sheets for the asphalt products cleaned from the tanks, Marathon Petroleum Asphalt and Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants (product code OCRA00028 also known as MLA), list hazardous chemicals as ingredients that pose health hazards to exposed employees. The health hazards for the asphalt products include, but are not limited to, the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas, an asphyxiant.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(d)(3)(iv): Under the permit space program, the employer did not develop and implement the means, procedures, and practices necessary for safe permit entry operations, including, but not limited to, purging, inerting, flushing or ventilation the permit spaces as necessary to eliminate or control atmospheric hazards:  On or about February 14, 2024, the employer did not ensure that the atmosphere of the transportation tank containing asphalt, a permit-required confined space, was ventilated to eliminate or control atmospheric hazard. Safety data sheets for the asphalt products cleaned from the tanks, Marathon Petroleum Asphalt and Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants (product code OCRA00028 also known as MLA), list hazardous chemicals as ingredients that pose health hazards to exposed employees. The health hazards for the asphalt products include, but are not limited to, the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas, an asphyxiant.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(h)(1): The employer did not ensure that all authorized entrants knew the hazards that could be faced during entry, including information on the mode, sign or symptoms, and consequences of the exposure:  On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not ensure that all authorized entrants knew the hazards that could be faced during entry when cleaning transportation tanks containing asphalt. Employees who clean asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer were trained that the asphalt products were non-hazardous materials. Safety data sheets for the asphalt products cleaned from the tanks, Marathon Petroleum Asphalt and Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants (product code OCRA00028 also known as MLA), list hazardous chemicals as ingredients that pose health hazards to exposed employees. The health hazards for the asphalt products include, but are not limited to, the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas, an asphyxiant.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area:   On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not provide training to the employees on the health hazards for the hazardous chemicals present in their work area when cleaning transportation tanks containing asphalt. Employees who clean asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer were trained that the asphalt products were non-hazardous materials. Safety data sheets for the asphalt products cleaned from the tanks, Marathon Petroleum Asphalt and Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants (product code OCRA00028 also known as MLA), list hazardous chemicals as ingredients that pose health hazards to exposed employees. The health hazards for the asphalt products include, but are not limited to, the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas, an asphyxiant and carcinogenic effects from polycyclic aromatic compounds including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(h)(3)(iii): Employee training did not include the measures employees can take to protect themselves from chemical hazards, including specific procedures the employer had implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures and personal protective equipment to be used:   On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not provide training to the employees on the measures employees can take to protect themselves from chemical hazards for the hazardous chemicals present in their work area when cleaning transportation tanks containing asphalt. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of respiratory protection equipment approved for hydrogen sulfide, particulate, and organic vapor. Employees who clean asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer were trained that the asphalt products were non-hazardous materials. Safety data sheets for the asphalt products cleaned from the tanks, Marathon Petroleum Asphalt and Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants (product code OCRA00028 also known as MLA), list hazardous chemicals as ingredients that pose health hazards to exposed employees. The health hazards for the asphalt products include, but are not limited to, the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas, an asphyxiant and carcinogenic effects from polycyclic aromatic compounds including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Oct 24, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1000(a)(2):Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of total dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 15 mg/m3:  Employee exposures to particulates not otherwise regulated (PNOR) total dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.00 mg/m3 listed in Table Z-1 for instances such as, but not limited to:  a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee was exposed to PNOR (total dust) that exceeded the PEL while performing transportation tank cleaning duties. The employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 31.16 mg/m3 for particulates not otherwise regulated total dust, approximately 2.0 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 269 minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 211 minutes.   b.)  On or about February 14, 2024, an employee was exposed to PNOR (total dust) that exceeded the PEL while performing transportation tank cleaning duties. The employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 38.60 mg/m3 for particulates not otherwise regulated total dust, approximately 2.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 279 minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 201 minutes.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Oct 24, 2024

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):  Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to comply with 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) and assure that employee exposure to particulate not otherwise regulated (PNOR) total dust was below the permissible exposure limit. Employees with exposure in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) included the following instances:  a.) On or about February 14, 2024, an employee was exposed to PNOR (total dust) that exceeded the PEL while performing transportation tank cleaning duties. The employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 31.16 mg/m3 for particulates not otherwise regulated total dust, approximately 2.0 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 269 minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 211 minutes.   b.)  On or about February 14, 2024, an employee was exposed to PNOR (total dust) that exceeded the PEL while performing transportation tank cleaning duties. The employee was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 38.60 mg/m3 for particulates not otherwise regulated total dust, approximately 2.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.0 mg/m3. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 279 minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 201 minutes.  Controls usually applicable in these circumstances include but are not limited to:  1. Local ventilation effectively installed during tank cleaning operations.  Step 1: Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measure to control employee exposure to air contaminants 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  Step 2: All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Proposed control measures selected should be appropriate to the type of material present. Thirty day progress reports are required during the abatement period. Abatement must be completed by 60 days.  Step 3: Abatement should be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

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 were readily accessible during each work  shift to employees when they were in their work area(s):  On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required safety data sheets for Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants and Marathon Petroleum Asphalt, and did not ensure that they were readily accessible during each work shift to employees.  Employees are exposed to these chemicals while cleaning asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(h)(2)(ii): The employer did not provide information to the employees on operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals were present:   On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not provide information to the employees on operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals were present when cleaning transportation tanks containing asphalt. Employees who clean asphalt out of a transportation tank utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer were trained that the asphalt products were non-hazardous materials. Safety data sheets for the asphalt products cleaned from the tanks, Marathon Petroleum Asphalt and Owens Corning Adhesives/Sealants (product code OCRA00028 also known as MLA), list hazardous chemicals as ingredients that pose health hazards to exposed employees. The health hazards for the asphalt products include, but are not limited to, the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas, an asphyxiant and carcinogenic effects from polycyclic aromatic compounds including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $32,265 · Current $32,265

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(d)(4)(i): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not ensure that testing and monitoring equipment needed to comply with 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5) was maintained properly or used properly:   On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not ensure that the testing and monitoring equipment needed to comply with 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5) was maintained properly when no calibrations had been conducted in approximately one year. The employer did not ensure that the testing equipment was used properly when it was held up through a manhole on the bottom of the tank for less than a minute to evaluate the confined space prior to entry.  Employees enter transportation tankers to clean asphalt utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $32,265 · Current $32,265

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(d)(9): The employer did not develop and implement procedures for summoning rescue and emergency services, for rescuing entrants from permit spaces, for providing necessary emergency services to rescued employees, and/or for preventing unauthorized entry:   On or about January 4, 2024, the employer did not develop and implement procedures for summoning rescue and emergency services, for rescuing entrants from permit spaces, for providing necessary emergency services to rescued employees, or for preventing unauthorized personnel from attempting a rescue when employees enter transportation tankers to clean asphalt utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer. An entry rescue team had not been designated by the employer (either an internally trained rescue team or an outside rescue team) in the event that non-entry rescue procedures were to fail. Employees access areas of a baffled tanker which cannot rely on non-entry rescue methods.

Issued

Jun 11, 2024

Abate by

Jul 9, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.146(k)(3): The employer did not use a retrieval system or methods to facilitate non-entry rescue when an authorized entrant entered a permit space:  On or about February 14, 2024, the employer did not use a retrieval system to facilitate non-entry rescue when employees that enter transportation tankers to clean out asphalt utilizing pneumatic tools such as a chipper gun and jack hammer wore full body harnesses, but no retrieval line was attached to the entrants, and entrants were not attached to a mechanical device or fixed point outside of the permit space.