OSHA Inspection: ST. AUGUSTINE KITCHEN & BATH, INC.

Issued

2014-12-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-02-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 9015

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:  a.       On or about October 09, 2014, at the fabrication shop, one employee was required to wear a 3M N95 respirator or a 3M negative pressure respirator while polishing granite countertops and the employer had not established a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures:  1. The employer did not have a written program; 2. The employer did not have procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;  3. The employer did not provide medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator; 4. The employer did not provide fit testing; 5. The employer did not provide procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing and maintaining respirators.

Issued

2014-12-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-02-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 00409010

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:  a.      On or about November 09, 2014, at the fabrication shop, employees were potentially exposed to hazardous materials such as but not limited to silica dust, acetone, adhesives, and wax. The employer had not developed nor implemented a written hazard communication program.

Issued

2014-12-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-02-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 00409010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  a.      On or about November 09, 2014, the employer did not provide the information and training on the new label elements and the new Safety Data Sheet format to employees who had exposure to hazardous materials such as but not limited to silica, acetone, adhesives, and wax.