OSHA Inspection: ROBERTO BENITEZ

Issued

2018-12-17 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-01-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2772.00 · Current $2772.00

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)  Roberto Benitez, Sugar Hill, GA - On or about 09/24/2018, employees were exposed to chemical hazards such as but not limited to dust resulting from cutting wood and concrete planking boards. A written hazard communication program was not developed, implemented and or maintained as required by the hazard communication standard.

Issued

2018-12-17 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-01-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):   The employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical, and did not ensure that they were readily accessible during each work  shift to employees when they were in their work area(s) (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  Roberto Benitez, Sugar Hill, GA - On or about 09/24/2018, employees were exposed to chemical hazards such as but not limited to dust resulting from cutting wood and concrete planking boards. Safety data sheets were not maintained and readily accessible, as required by the hazard communication standard.

Issued

2018-12-17 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-01-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  Roberto Benitez, Sugar Hill, GA - On or about 09/24/2018, employees were exposed to chemical hazards such as but not limited to dust resulting from cutting wood and concrete planking boards. Information and training required by the hazard communication standard was not provided.

Issued

2018-12-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2772.00 · Current $2772.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(2): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used eye protection that provided side protection when there is a hazard from flying objects.  Roberto Benitez, Sugar Hill, GA - On or about 09/24/2018, employees were exposed to eye injuries from flying objects. Employees were not required the use eye of eye protection when:  a. using a Makita 5007F S/N 1855869 saw to cut concrete planking boards;  b. using a nail gun to install concrete planking boards on the wall of the house.

Issued

2018-12-17 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-01-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2772.00 · Current $2772.00

Hazardous substances 9010

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.  Roberto Benitez, Sugar Hill, GA - On or about 09/24/2018, employees were exposed to silica dust while using a handheld power saw Makita 5007F S/N 1855869 for dry cutting concrete siding boards.  The employer did not implement engineering and work practice control methods (the use of a saw equipped with commercially available dust collection system with a filter with 99% or greater efficiency), and proper respiratory protection as required by the Table I of the standard.

Issued

2018-12-17 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-01-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 9010

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:  Roberto Benitez, Sugar Hill, GA - On or about 09/24/2018, employees were exposed to silica dust while using a handheld power saw Makita 5007F S/N 1855869 for dry cutting concrete siding boards. The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica to determine if the exposure is at or above the action level of 25 ug/m3.