OSHA Inspection: GONZALES MASONRY INC

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,080 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):  Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program which at included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii): (Construction Reference: 1926.59)     On or about 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA:  The employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program where employees were exposed to chemicals that included, but not limited to Calcium Silicate.

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1):  The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical which they used: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)    On or about 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA:  Where the employees were observed working with masonry cement, the employer failed to maintain MSDS for products containing hazardous chemicals.

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

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: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)    On or about 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA:  The employer did not provide training where employees were exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited Calcium Silicate.

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,440 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.100(a):  Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:    On or about 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA: Where tools and brick had been placed on the second level of the scaffold, employees working below did not have hard hats to protect against struck by hazards.

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,520 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(e)(1):  When scaffold platforms were more than 2 feet (0.6 m) above or below a point of access, portable ladders, hook-on ladders, attachable ladders, stair towers (scaffold stairways/towers), stairway-type ladders (such as ladder stands), ramps, walkways, integral prefabricated scaffold access, or direct access from other scaffold, sturtcure, personnel hoist, or similar surface were not used.  Crossbraces were used as a means of access.    On or about at 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA:  Employees were using the scaffold frame to access the first and second level of the scaffold.

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,520 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(4)(i):  Guardrail systems were not installed along all open sides and ends of platforms.    On or about 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA:  Guardrails were not installed on the second level of the scaffold exposing the employees to a fall hazard of up to 11.8.

Issued

Feb 8, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,440 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(h)(2)(ii):  A toeboard was not erected along the edge of platforms more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above lower levels for a distance sufficient to protect employees below:Note:      On or about 11/15/12 1705 Rolling Views Dr, Cumming, GA:  A toeboard had not been installed on the second level of the scaffold where tools and brick were present exposing employees working below to struck -by hazards.