OSHA Inspection: ANN GATES

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminants chemical state and physical form:  The employer had not evaluated and given a reasonable estimate of employee exposure prior to requiring the usage of repiratory protection.  The employer had never conducted any sampling to provide an estimate of employee exposure while performing tuck pointing operations.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

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:  Employees were required to wear a tight-fitting, half-face respirator when performing tuck pointing operations and the the employees had not been provided medical evaluations.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph:  Employees were required to wear tight-fitting, half-face respirators when performing tuck pointing operations and the employer did not assure that fit testing was performed prior to the use of the respirator.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of items in (i) - (vii):  Employees were required to wear tight-fitting, half-face respirators when performing tuck pointing operations and the employer did not ensure that employees were trained in the use and limitations of the respirator.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(d)(3)(x): Tiebacks were not installed perpendicular to the face of the building or structure, nor were opposing angle tiebacks installed:  Employees performing tuck-pointing from a suspended scaffold were exposed to fall hazards and the employer had installed a single tieback at an angle to the face of the building.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(3)(i): Verical lifelines were not fastened to a fixed safe point of anchorage, independent of the scaffoldk, and protected from sharp edges and abrasion.  Employees were exposed to fall hazards while performing tuck pointing operations from a suspended scaffold and the employer did not ensure that the vertical lifelines were fixed to a safe point of anchorage.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.  Employees moving a suspended scaffold on the roof of a 13 story building were exposed to fall hazards and the employer did not ensure that appropriate fall protection was utilized.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:  Employees were exposed to fall hazards while relocating suspended scaffolding from a rooftop without appropriate fall protection in place and were not trained to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize the hazards.

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Jul 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employers did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area and chemical-specific information was not always available through labels and material safety data sheets  Employees performing tuck pointing operations were and exposed to dust containing silica and were not provided with effective training on hazardous chemicals in their work areas at the time of their initial assignment.