OSHA Inspection: BURROUGHS MASONRY

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,712 Reduced

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:   a)  Rear of building; On or about March 29, 2018 and at times prior thereto the employer exposed employees to potential respiratory hazards in that employees were required to wear N95 negative pressure respirator without first being medically evaluated to ensure the employees are medically able to wear a negative pressure respirator.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):   a)  Rear of building; On or about March 29, 2018 and at times prior thereto the employer exposed employees to potential respiratory hazards in that employees were required to wear a N95 negative pressure respirator without first being fit tested.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide respirator training that would ensure each employee could demonstrate knowledge of items in section (i)-(vii):  a)  Rear of building; On or about March 29, 2018 and at times prior thereto the employer exposed employees to potential respiratory hazards in that employees were required to wear N95 negative pressure respirator without first being provided training as required by the standard.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,664 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees were not exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  a)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 102.43 micrograms/m3 which is 2 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing, the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.  b)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 139.68 micrograms/m3 which is 2.79 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing, the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1): Specified exposure control methods. For each employee engaged in a task identified on Table 1, the employer did not fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1:   a)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 102.43 micrograms/m3 which is 2 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing a task listed in table 1, without fully and properly implementing the engineering controls (Grinders with dust capture), work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1., the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.  b)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 139.68 micrograms/m3 which is 2.79 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing a task listed in table 1, without fully and properly implementing the engineering controls (Grinders with dust capture), work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1., the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:   a)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 102.43 micrograms/m3 which is 2 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing without establishing a written exposure control plan., the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.  b)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 139.68 micrograms/m3 which is 2.79 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing without establishing a written exposure control plan., the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,664 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(i)(1): The employer did not include respirable crystalline silica in the program established to comply with the hazard communication standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200):    a)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 102.43 micrograms/m3 which is 2 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing without maintaining a hazard communication program that included information on Silica., the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.  b)      400 Saint Louis St. Mobile AL 36606: on or about 3/29/2018: The employer exposed an employee to respirable crystalline silica levels of 139.68 micrograms/m3 which is 2.79 times the PEL of 50 micrograms/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA while grinding mortar in preparation for tuck pointing without maintaining a hazard communication program that included information on Silica., the TWA includes a 0 exposure for the 33 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  Rear of building; On or about March 28, 2018 and at times prior thereto; the employer exposed employees to hazards related to chemicals used on site including but not limited to silica from mortar without putting in place a written hazard communication program including those element required under the global harmonization revisions to the standard.

Issued

Aug 21, 2018

Abate by

Sep 10, 2018

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.     a)  Rear of building; On or about March 28, 2018 ; the employer exposed employees to hazards related to chemicals used on site including but not limited to mortar and diesel fuel without training employees in the required element of the hazard communication standard including those element required under the global harmonization revisions to the standard.