OSHA Inspection: HISTORY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 1, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(2)(i):  The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 1910.134(b) through (m) (except (d)(1)(iii)), which covers each employee required by the section to use a respirator:    Employees working to strip paint and glazing from windows were required to wear a supplied air respirator and the employer had not implemented a respiratory protection program.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 22, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1):  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    Employees working to strip paint and glazing from windows were required to wear a supplied air respirator and the employer had not provided a medical evaluation to determine their ability to do so.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 22, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1):  The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    Employees working to strip paint and glazing from windows were required to wear a supplied air respirator and the employer had not provided fit testing.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1):  The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five parts per million parts of air (25 ppm) as an 8-hour TWA:    The employer did not protect each employee stripping windows from exposures to methylene chloride in excess of the permissible exposure limit:  	  In the stripping garage on October 4, 2011 an employee was exposed to a time-weighted average level of 197.20 parts per million, approximately 7.9 times the permissible exposure limit of 25 parts per million.  This limit was established to prevent chemical anoxia, cumulative liver damage, central nervous system effects/narcosis, and reproductive hazards.  The exposure level was derived from a sample collected over a 396 minute sample period with a zero increment of 84 minutes factored in.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1):  The employer did not institute and maintain the effectiveness of engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limits:     Employees stripping windows were exposed to methylene chloride above the permissible exposure level and engineering and work practice controls were not effective.    General methods of control that may be applicable in these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:    a)	Increase ventilation and add side draft ventilation to wash table,    b)	Substitute a different, less toxic chemical to strip windows,    c)	Automate the process and isolate the employee from the methylene chloride vapors.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 22, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(1)(i):  The employer did not make medical surveillance available for employees who were or potentially were  exposed to methylene chloride at or above the 8-hour TWA PEL:    Employees stripping paint from windows were exposed to methylene chloride in excess of the permissible exposure limit and the employer did not provide medical surveillance as outlined in the standard.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 22, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(i):  The employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of this section and information available in its appendices, as well as how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace:    Employees stripping paint from windows were exposed to methylene chloride in excess of the permissible exposure limit and the employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of the standard, information available in its appendices, or how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 1, 2011

Penalty

Initial $8,400 · Current $4,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1):  Where needed to prevent MC-induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to MC, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:  Employees in the stripping garage were exposed to methylene chloride while removing paint from window sashes and the employer did not provide personal protective equipment that was resistant to methylene chloride.    HISTORY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LLC  WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS EQUIVALENT STANDARD 1910.1052(H)(1) WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA INSPECTION NUMBER 312888324, CITATION NUMBER 01, ITEM NUMBER 001(d), AND WAS AFFIRMED AS A FINAL ORDER ON FEBRUARY 24, 2010, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED AT 300 W. HENRY ST, ODELL, ILLINOIS 60460.