OSHA Inspection: CLASSIC JACK CONSTRUCTION, LLC

Issued

Jun 30, 2021

Abate by

Jul 27, 2021

Penalty

Initial $3,901 · Current $3,901

Hazardous substances 9015

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.20(b)(1): The employer did not initiate and maintain such programs as may be necessary to comply with the standards set forth in 29 CFR 1926 as evidenced by the violation(s) noted during the course of the inspection:   (a)  On or about March 10, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the employer had not sufficiently maintained an accident prevention program to address hazards to which the employees of subcontractors are exposed.  Hazards include but are not limited to, lack of use of personal protective equipment when using power tools without safety glasses and exposure to overhead hazards without use of protective helmets, unsafe  ladder usage and subcontracted employees dry cutting concrete with a Dolmar PC-7414 14" 73cc Power Cutter and exposing all employees on the job site to silica dust.

Issued

Jun 30, 2021

Abate by

Jul 27, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9015

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.20(b)(2): Frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment were not made by a competent person(s) designated by the employer:  (a)  On or about March 10, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not perform effective inspections of the job site as the controlling contractor.  Inspections to identify, correct and/or eliminate to which their employees and/or the employees of subcontractors were exposed.  Hazards include but are not limited to lack of use of personal protective equipment when using power tools without safety glasses and exposure to overhead hazards without use of protective helmets,  and sub-contracted employees dry cutting concrete with a Dolmar PC-7414 14" 73cc Power Cutter and exposing all employees to silica dust.

Issued

Jun 30, 2021

Abate by

Oct 21, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.102(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.  (a) On or about March 10, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the controlling contractor did not ensure its sub-contractor protected its employee while cutting concrete with a Dolmar PC-7414 14 inch 73cc Power Cutter without eye and/or face protection and exposed eye injuries.  (b) On or about March 10, 2021, and at times prior thereto, employees utilizing pneumatic nail guns while involved in framing activities did not wear eye and/or face protection.

Issued

Jun 30, 2021

Abate by

Jul 27, 2021

Penalty

Initial $3,901 · Current $3,901

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(c)(1): 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, unless the employer assesses and limits the exposure of the employee to respirable crystalline silica in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.  (a)  On or about March 10, 2021 and at times prior to, the controlling employer did not ensure its sub-contracted employer protected the employees exposed to dust (containing approximately 20% silica) while using a hand-held Dolmar PC-7414 14" 73cc Power cutter to dry cut concrete.  Feasible engineering controls include the use of an integrated water delivery system that continuously feeds water to the saw blade and the use of a respirator when a handheld power saw is used for more than four hours.

Issued

Jun 30, 2021

Abate by

Jul 27, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(g)(1):The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:  (a)  On or about March 10, 2021 and at times prior to, the controlling contractor did not ensure its sub-contracted employer had a written exposure control plan in place for the concrete (containing approximately 20% silica) project.