OSHA Inspection: BONIN MASONRY, INC.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.451(e)(6)(i): Integral prefabricated scaffold access frames were not specifically designed or constructed for use as ladder rungs.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - The erected scaffolding on the south side of the building contained only walkthrough frames and did not have auxiliary ladder access.  Employees were observed climbing the walkthrough frames which were not intended/designed for use as a ladder.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.451(f)(7):  Scaffolds were not erected, moved, dismantled, and/or altered under the supervision and direction of a competent person as required and/or such activities were not performed by experienced and trained employees selected for such work by the competent person.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - The employer failed to provide adequate training for employees selected for scaffolding erection under the direction of a qualified competent person.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.451(g)(1): Employees on scaffolds more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level by fall protection established in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) of this section.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - The employer failed to provide any fall protection for employees on scaffolding work platforms approximately 12 feet above the ground level.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

Apr 18, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.451(h)(1): In addition to wearing hardhats each employee on a scaffold shall be provided with additional protection from falling hand tools, debris, and other small objects through the installation of toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems, or through the erection of debris nets, catch platforms, or canopy structures that contain or deflect the falling objects. When the falling objects are too large, heavy or massive to be contained or deflected by any of the above-listed measures, the employer shall place such potential falling objects away from the edge of the surface from which they could fall and shall secure those materials as necessary to prevent their falling.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - The employer did not ensure the scaffolding erected to install siding masonry to the building was equipped with toeboards for additional protection against falling objects that could injure workers.  In addition, tools and materials were placed close to the edge and unsecured.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

Apr 18, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.100(a): Employees were not protected by protective helmets while working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns.  10 Subaru Dr. Auburn, Maine - Employer was allowing masons, apprentices, and tenders to episodically work on the ground below other employees installing  decorative stone siding.  The employer did not provide the employees with protective helmets despite the risk for falling masonry and tools.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

Apr 18, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.453(b)(2)(v): A body belt was not worn and/or a lanyard was not attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - The employer failed to provide restraint systems for two employees working in an articulating boom lift.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - The employer failed to provide fall protection to three masonry employees working on a roof at heights from to approximately 14 feet to 26 feet.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.503(a)(1):The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards.   10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine -The employer did not ensure that employees received training on fall hazards prior to working on a roof with a maximum height of approximately to 26 feet.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(c)(1):Specified exposure control methods. 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.  10 Subaru Dr., Auburn, Maine - An angle grinder, used to cut concrete backing board, was not equipped with a water delivery system, or a shroud/dust control system as specified in OSHA Table 1 - Specified Exposure Control Methods When Working With Materials Containing Crystal Silica for operating a handheld grinder for uses other than mortar removal.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

May 9, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,465 · Current $1,340 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan.   10 Subaru Drive, Auburn - The employer did not establish and implement an effective written exposure control plan for employees exposed to silica while cutting Durarock concrete board with an angle grinder.  The plan did not cover the following but not limited:  a)  Describe the competent person and their duties including their continued review of the jobsite.  b)  Identify work activities such as using an angle grinder with appropriate control features to mitigate silica exposure (such as those noted in Table 1) or sampling that noted no exposure to silica.  c)  Identify the workers that are exposed to silica and when they would need to use engineering, administrative, or personal protective equipment control measures.

Issued

Mar 23, 2023

Abate by

Jun 22, 2023

Penalty

Initial $6,250 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(i)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that each employee covered by this section could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the health hazards associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica:  10 Subaru Drive, Auburn - The employer did not establish or implement a training program for employees exposed to silica while cutting masonry pieces with an angle grinder.  The activity is listed in Table 1-Specified Exposure Control Methods When Working With Materials Containing Crystalline Silica and requires the employer to ensure that the employee is familiar with the hazards of respirable crystalline silica, tasks that result in exposure, and safety controls to prevent exposure above the action level.