OSHA Inspection: REALMBUILD, INC.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $1,449 · Current $869 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: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, employees who were required to wear tight-fighting half-face respirators in the workplace had not been provided medical evaluations to determine their ability to use a respirator, exposing employees to the hazard of pulmonary distress.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

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 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, employees who were required to wear tight-fighting half-face respirators in the workplace had not been fit-tested, exposing employees to the hazards of inhaling silica and dust.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Abate by

Aug 16, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $1,705 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, an employee on the jobsite was required to wear a tight-fitting half-face respirator but had a full beard, preventing an effective seal from occurring between the face and respirator and exposing the employee to the hazards of inhaling silica and dust.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Abate by

Aug 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:  (Construction Reference 1926.103)  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, employees who were required to wear tight-fighting half-face respirators in the workplace had not received any training on respirators, to include but not limited to proper fit, usage, maintenance, limitations, and capabilities of the respirator, exposing employees to the hazards of dermatitis, dust inhalation, and silica inhalation.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $2,387 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1)(i): Each platform unit (e.g., scaffold plank, fabricated plank, fabricated deck, or fabricated platform) was not installed so that the space between adjacent units and the space between the platform and the uprights were no more than 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide, except where the employer can demonstrate that a wider space is necessary.  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, employees grinding stucco off of the exterior of a residential building were working on scaffolding levels above 10-feet high that were not fully planked, exposing employees to the hazard of falling from height.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Abate by

Aug 16, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1): Each employee on a scaffold more than 10 feet above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level.  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, employees grinding stucco off of the exterior of a residential building were working on scaffolding levels above 10-feet high that did not have guardrails, exposing employees to the hazard of falling from height.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Abate by

Aug 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $1,705 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(A): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, the employer had not performed initial silica exposure monitoring for employees engaged in grinding stucco off of the exterior walls of a residential jobsite while not utilizing approved control methods from Table 1 prior to beginning work, exposing employees to the hazard of inhaling silica dust. An approved method of silica dust control, utilizing grinders with integrated water delivery systems that continuously fed water to the grinding surface, was implemented on or about 25 April 2019 through 30 April 2019 in accordance with Table 1. Prior to utilizing wet methods, unapproved dry methods were utilized from 8 April 2019 through 11 April 2019.  a) On 26 April 2019, sampling was performed for the work task of grinding silica-containing stucco from the exterior of a home using wet methods. The air sampling performed for 250 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a TWA of 130.00 mcg/m3, or approximately 2.5 times the PEL of silica (crystalline, mixed, respirable). Zero exposure was assumed for the 230 minutes not sampled.  b) On 26 April 2019, sampling was performed for the work task of grinding silica-containing stucco from the exterior of a home using wet methods. The air sampling performed for 245 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a TWA of 110.00 mcg/m3, or approximately 2 times the PEL of silica (crystalline, mixed, respirable). Zero exposure was assumed for the 235 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Aug 6, 2019

Abate by

Sep 23, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 mcg/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  On or about 12 April 2019 and at times prior thereto, the employer had not ensured that employees engaged in grinding stucco off of the exterior walls of a residential jobsite were not exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 mcg/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA, exposing employees to the hazard of inhaling silica dust. An approved method of silica dust control, utilizing grinders with integrated water delivery systems that continuously fed water to the grinding surface, was implemented on or about 25 April 2019 through 30 April 2019 in accordance with Table 1. Prior to utilizing wet methods, unapproved dry methods were utilized from 8 April 2019 through 11 April 2019.  a) On 26 April 2019, sampling was performed for the work task of grinding silica-containing stucco from the exterior of a home using wet methods. The air sampling performed for 250 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a TWA of 130.00 mcg/m3, or approximately 2.5 times the PEL of silica (crystalline, mixed, respirable). Zero exposure was assumed for the 230 minutes not sampled.  b) On 26 April 2019, sampling was performed for the work task of grinding silica-containing stucco from the exterior of a home using wet methods. The air sampling performed for 245 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a TWA of 110.00 mcg/m3, or approximately 2 times the PEL of silica (crystalline, mixed, respirable). Zero exposure was assumed for the 235 minutes not sampled.