OSHA Inspection: HFJ MASONRY & LANDSCAPING LLC

Issued

Jul 29, 2024

Abate by

Aug 12, 2024

Penalty

Initial $388 · Current $388

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): Employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:   Location:  8 Studio Lane, Norwalk, Connecticut  Abatement certification and verification for Citation 01, Item 001a; Citation 01, Item 001b; Citation 01, Item 002; Citation 01, Item 003a; Citation 01, Item 003b and Citation 01, Item 004 with a final order date of 3/19/2024  was not received within 10 calendar days (by 3/4/2024) following the abatement due date (2/21/2024).

Issued

Jan 25, 2024

Abate by

Feb 21, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

Hazardous substances 9000

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:   8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about July 25, 2023, the employer had not developed a written hazard communication program including silica for the workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica during tasks such as (but not limited to) dry cutting stone with a saw.

Issued

Jan 25, 2024

Abate by

Feb 21, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(i)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that employees covered by this section could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of at least the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1926(i)(2)(i)(A) through (F) where there was exposure to respirable crystalline silica:   8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about July 25, 2023, the employer did not provide training in silica health hazards, tasks involving exposure to silica, measures to control exposure, the contents of the OSHA standard, and other information to protect the workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica during tasks such as (but not limited to) dry cutting stone with a saw.

Issued

Jan 25, 2024

Abate by

Feb 21, 2024

Penalty

Initial $2,765 · Current $2,765

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.   a) 8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about July 25, 2023, the employer did not ensure that employees wore eye protection when exposed to flying particles during tasks such as (but not limited to) saw cutting stone.  b) 8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about August 2, 2023, the employer did not ensure that the employee wore eye protection when exposed to flying particles during tasks such as (but not limited to) saw cutting stone.

Issued

Jan 25, 2024

Abate by

Feb 21, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

Hazardous substances 9000

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.   8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about July 25, 2023, the employer did not ensure that employees fully implemented the engineering controls specified for the task on Table 1.  No assessment of silica exposure was conducted before the employees were exposed to respirable crystalline silica during tasks such as (but not limited to) dry cutting stone with a saw.

Issued

Jan 25, 2024

Abate by

Feb 21, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

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:  8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about July 25, 2023, the employer did not ensure that employees were assessed for silica exposure before being exposed to respirable crystalline silica during tasks such as (but not limited to) dry cutting stone with a saw.

Issued

Jan 25, 2024

Abate by

Feb 21, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $4,839

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:  8 Studio Lane, Norwalk CT: On or about July 25, 2023, the employer did not establish a written exposure control plan including a description of tasks involving silica exposure, a description of measures used to limit exposure, housekeeping, and other procedures, for workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica during tasks such as (but not limited to) dry cutting stone with a saw.