OSHA Inspection: R-TEX SERVICES, LLC

Issued

Oct 5, 2018

Abate by

Nov 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $9,054

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.352(b):   When object to be welded, cut, or heated could not be moved and all the fire hazards could not be removed, positive means was not taken to confine the heat, sparks, and slag, and to protect the immovable fire hazards from them:      In the asphalt manufacturing facility, the contractor using cutting torch to remove a damaged tank did not ensure that flammable materials were removed or protected before using the cutting torch, exposing employees to second degree burns from flash fire.    The employer relied upon steps and tests undertaken by U.S. Polyco, where the work was being performed, rather than undertaking its own steps and tests.

Issued

Oct 5, 2018

Abate by

Nov 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.352(c):  Welding, cutting, or heating should not be done where the application of flammable paints, or the presence of other flammable compounds, or heavy dust concentrations creates a hazard:       In the asphalt manufacturing facility, the contractor did not ensure that flammable compounds were removed from the area their employees were using cutting torch to remove a damaged tank, exposing employees to fire hazards.    The employer relied upon steps and tests undertaken by U.S. Polyco, where the work was being performed, rather than undertaking its own steps and tests.

Issued

Oct 5, 2018

Abate by

Nov 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $9,054

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.850(e):  It was not determined if any type of hazardous chemicals, gases, explosives, flammable materials, or similarly dangerous substances have been used in any pipes, tanks, or other equipment on the property. When the presence of any such substances is apparent or suspected, testing and purging was not performed and the hazards eliminated before demolition is started:       In the asphalt manufacturing facility, the contractor did not ensure that the tank being removed or the tank next to it had any type of hazardous gases or flammable materials before using the torch for the cutting process in the area exposing an employee to second degree burns.    The employer relied upon steps and tests undertaken by U.S. Polyco, where the work was being performed, rather than undertaking its own steps and tests.