OSHA Inspection: CATALYST CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Jul 26, 2024

Abate by

Aug 14, 2024

Penalty

Initial $8,067 · Current $8,067

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.   On the roof: Employees were signaling a telehandler and transporting materials on the roof not protected by a guard rail, safety net, or personal fall arrest system. Employees were exposed to fall hazards.

Issued

Jul 26, 2024

Abate by

Aug 14, 2024

Penalty

Initial $9,678 · Current $9,678

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:  Employees that were required to wear an N95 respirator while chipping cement were not medically cleared for use. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.  Catalyst Construction was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1703516, citation number 1, item number 1-a and was affirmed as a final order on 1-22-24, with respect to a workplace located at One Tanaka Plaza Ste 204 973 South Marine Corps Drive Tamuning, GU 96913.

Issued

Jul 26, 2024

Abate by

Aug 14, 2024

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 and were not annually fit tested (Construction Reference 1926.103):  a. Employees that were required to wear an N95 respirator while chipping concrete were not fit tested prior to respirator use. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.  b. Employees that were required to wear an N95 respirator while cutting concrete blocks were not fit tested annually. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.  Catalyst Construction was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1703516, citation number 1, item number 1-b and was affirmed as a final order on 1-22-24, with respect to a workplace located at One Tanaka Plaza Ste 204 973 South Marine Corps Drive Tamuning, GU 96913.

Issued

Jul 26, 2024

Abate by

Aug 14, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,134 · Current $16,134

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. West side windowsill: Employees used a Milwaukee Wavs chipping hammer to chip concrete without any control measures implemented from Table 1-Specified Exposure Control Methods When Working with Materials Containing Crystalline Silica. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.  b. On the roof: Employees used a Makita grinder to cut concrete blocks without any control measures implemented from Table 1-Specified Exposure Control Methods When Working with Materials Containing Crystalline Silica. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.  Catalyst Construction was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1703516, citation number 1, item number 3 and was affirmed as a final order on 1-22-24, with respect to a workplace located at One Tanaka Plaza Ste 204 973 South Marine Corps Drive Tamuning, GU 96913.

Issued

Jul 26, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(B): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees with a condition that interfered with the face-to-facepiece seal or valve function:  An employee required to wear a half-face respirator while conducting concrete chipping had a neck gaiter under the respirator that did not allow it to seal. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards.