OSHA Inspection: R M CONCRETE SPECIALIST LLC

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Feb 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,900 Reduced

Hazardous substances 90109015

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 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:    (a): 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: The employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that an employee was assisting with sand blasting roadway material from the street and was exposed to respirable silica (quartz) at an 8 hour TWA of 64.13 mg/m3. This level exceeded the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mg/m3 by 1.3 times. The exposure was derived from a sample collected for 60 minutes on June 5, 2018. Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the minutes not sampled.       (b): 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: The employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that an employee was sand blasting roadway material from the street and was exposed to respirable silica (quartz) at an 8 hour TWA of 165 mg/m3. This level exceeded the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mg/m3 by 3.3 times. The exposure was derived from a sample collected for 60 minutes on June 5, 2018. Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the minutes not sampled.

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Feb 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(i): The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section:      a.) On or near the roadway near 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: On or about 6/4/18, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to silica hazards in that a silica exposure assessment was not conducted for employees sand blasting with products that contain silica.

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Feb 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 90109015

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(3)(ii): In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, the employer did not comply with other OSHA standards, when applicable, such as 29 CFR 1926.57 (Ventilation), where abrasive blasting was conducted using crystalline silica-containing blasting agents, or where abrasive blasting is conducted on substrates that contain crystalline silica:    On or near the roadway near 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: On or about 6/4/18, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to silica hazards  in that engineering controls were not used for employees sand blasting with products that contain silica.

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Dec 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(e)(1): Where respiratory protection was required by this section, the employer did not provide each employee an appropriate respirator that complied with the requirements of this paragraph and 29 CFR 1910.134:    (a) On or near the roadway near 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: On or about 6/4/18,, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to upper respiratory irritation, in that medical evaluations were not provided to employees prior to wearing supplied air respirators.

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Dec 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A): The employer did not select a respirator that meets or exceeds the required level of employee protection: reference 1926.1153(e)(4)  (a) On or near the roadway near 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: The employer exposed an employee to respiratory hazards, in that an employee was assisting with sand blasting roadway material from the street and was exposed to respirable silica (quartz) at an 8 hour TWA of 64.13 mg/m3. This level exceeded the permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mg/m3 by 1.3 times. The exposure was derived from a sample collected for 60 minutes sampling period on June 5, 2018. Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the minutes not sampled. The employer provided the employee with an N95 but should have supplied the employee with a supplied air respirator.

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Dec 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:    On or near the roadway near 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: On or about 6/4/18, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to silica hazards  in that an exposure control plan was not developed for employees sand blasting with  products that contain silica.

Issued

Nov 30, 2018

Abate by

Jan 21, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 90109015

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):      On or near the roadway near 2025 Cobb Pkwy Atlanta, GA.: On or about 6/4/18, and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to silica hazards in that the hazard communication program did not include silica for employees using products with silica for sand blasting.