OSHA Inspection: DESANCTIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Issued

Mar 5, 2025

Abate by

Jun 9, 2025

Penalty

Initial $4,729 · Current $2,837 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:  a)  a fabrication helper was exposed to noise dose levels at 169.6% of the allowable 8-hour TWA-Action Limit (85 dBA). The equivalent dBA level of 169.6% is 93.8 dBA. The sampling was performed for 423-minutes during one shift on January 15, 2025.  b) a fabrication employee was exposed to noise dose levels at 68.42% of the allowable 8-hour TWA-Action Limit (85 dBA). The equivalent dBA level of 68.42% is 87.3 dBA. The sampling was performed for 419-minutes during one shift on January 15, 2025.

Issued

Mar 5, 2025

Abate by

Jun 9, 2025

Penalty

Initial $4,729 · Current $2,837 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 mcg/m^3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  a:  a fabrication employee was exposed to Crystalline Silica at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 57.24 micrograms per cubic meter (mcg/m^3), 1.145 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 mcg/m^3. The sampling was performed during one shift on January 15, 2025.  The exposure level was derived from two samples collected over for a 414-minutes sampling period while the fabrication of engineered and natural stone countertops. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 66-minutes.

Issued

Mar 5, 2025

Abate by

Jun 9, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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: On or about January 15, 2025, the employer failed to assess exposures to respirable Crystalline Silica during the fabrication of engineered and natural stone countertops operations, exposing employees to levels above the permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Issued

Mar 5, 2025

Abate by

Jun 9, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(g)(1)(iii): Respiratory protection was not provided during tasks for which an employer had implemented all feasible engineering and work practice controls and such controls were not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the PEL:   a:  a fabrication employee was exposed to Crystalline Silica at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 57.24 micrograms per cubic meter (mcg/m^3), 1.145 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 mcg/m^3. The sampling was performed during one shift on January 15, 2025.  The exposure level was derived from two samples collected over for a 414-minutes sampling period while the fabrication of engineered and natural stone countertops. Zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 66-minutes.

Issued

Mar 5, 2025

Abate by

Jun 9, 2025

Penalty

Initial $531 · Current $319 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:  a:  On or about January 15, 2025, for fabricators who were provided and permitted to voluntary use tight-fitting face piece such as 3M - 7500 Series Half Face Respirator with 6001 vapor cartridge and N95 filter pads. The employer failed to determine the workers  medical ability to use the respirator and failed to implement the elements of a program to ensure respirators were cleaned, stored and maintained.