OSHA Inspection: JOSE GONZALEZ

Issued

Apr 1, 2021

Abate by

Apr 9, 2021

Penalty

Initial $1,755 · Current $1,229 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(a)(2):  A respirator was not provided by the employer to each employee when such equipment was necessary to protect the health of the employee: (Construction Reference 1926.103)    At the jobsite, employees who were cutting masonry stone with a Dewalt Masonry cutting saw were not protected with personal protective equipment and exposed to respiratory hazards from the dust, silica dust and particles.

Issued

Apr 1, 2021

Abate by

Apr 29, 2021

Penalty

Initial $1,755 · Current $1,229 Reduced

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: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)(a)   The employer had not developed a written hazard communication program for employees using a masonry saw to cut bricks. Employees were potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica.

Issued

Apr 1, 2021

Abate by

Apr 9, 2021

Penalty

Initial $1,755 · Current $1,229 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used 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.    At the job site, employees were not provided eye protection when operating a masonry saw cutting bricks and were exposed to eye injuries from flying objects.

Issued

Apr 1, 2021

Abate by

Apr 9, 2021

Penalty

Initial $3,511 · Current $2,458 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1): For each employee engaged in a task identified on Table 1, the employer shall 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.   At the construction site, the employer did not ensure that employees using a masonry saw to cut bricks and stones were protected from being exposed to silica with the use of engineering controls, work practices and respiratory protection.  Jose Gonzalez, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.1153(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1328508, Citation Number 1, Item number 1, and was affirmed as a final order on July 30, 2018, with respect to a workplace located at  8721 Grassy Hill Lane,  Fort Worth, Texas 76123.

Issued

Apr 1, 2021

Abate by

Apr 9, 2021

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:   At the residential construction site, the employer did not assess the exposure for employees using a stationary masonry saw and a portable masonry saw to cut bricks. Employees were potentially exposed to silica.  Jose Gonzalez, was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.1153(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1328508, Citation Number 1, Item number 2, and was affirmed as a final order on July 30, 2018, with respect to a workplace located at  8721 Grassy Hill Lane,  Fort Worth, Texas 76123.