OSHA Inspection: COLE MASONRY, INC.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Mar 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met: (Construction Reference: 1926.59):  On or about December 12,2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Daculat, Georgia;  Employees performing concrete block masonry work were exposed to eye, skin, and upper respiratory irriation when the employer did not develop and implement a Hazard Communication Progam.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Apr 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): Employers did not have a safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical which they use:  On or about December 12, 2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Dacula, Georgia:  Employees performing concrete block masonry were exposed to eye, skin, and upper respiratory irritation while using masonry cement which contains chemicals which include but is not limited to portland cement and crystaline silica when the employer did not keep copies of the material safety data sheets on the jobsite.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Apr 9, 2014

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 December 12, 2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Dacula, Georgia:  Employees performing concrete block masonry were exposed to eye, skin, and upper respiratory irritation while using Coosa Portland Cement which contains chemicals which includes but is not limited to portland cement and crystalline silica when the employer did not instruct the employees how to recognize and minimize the chemical hazards.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Apr 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,000 Reduced

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:    On or about December 12, 2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Dacula, Georgia:    a) Employees performing concrete block masonry work were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 15.8-feet when walking near and working at an unprotected edge near the stairwell located at the left rear of the building.     c) Employees performing concrete block masonry work were exposed to a fall hazard of approximatley 15.4-feet while working on an approximatley 10-foot wide by greater than 50-foot long metal roof with an approximatley greater than 25-foot long unprotected edge next to the stairwell opening located at the front left side of the building looking from the rear of the building.     d) Employees performing concrete block masonry work were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 15.8-feet from an approximatley 8-foot long unprotected edge while working around the left side of the scaffolding erected at the front right side of the building looking from the rear of the building.     e) Employees performing concrete block masonry work were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 15.8-feet from an approximately 8-foot long unprotected edge while working around the right side of the scaffolding erected at the right side of the building looking from the rear of the building.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Apr 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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: (Construction Reference 1926.103):  On or about December 12, 2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Dacula, Georgia:  A concrete block masonry employee dry required to wear a respirator while dry cutting concrete block was exposed to upper respiratory irritation when the employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Apr 18, 2014

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: (Construction Reference 1926.103):  On or about December 12, 2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Dacula, Georgia:  A concrete block masonry employee required to wear a respirator while dry cutting concrete block was exposed to upper respiratory hazards when the employer did not evaluate the employee to ensure the employee could safely use a respirator.

Issued

Mar 14, 2014

Abate by

Apr 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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: (Construction Reference 1926.103):  On or about December 12, 2013, at 770 Ewing Chapel Road, Dacula, Georgia:  A concrete block masonry employee required to wear a respirator while dry cutting concrete block was exposed to upper respiratory hazards when the employer did not conduct a fit test prior to the employee using a respirator.