OSHA Inspection: BRITE DENTAL, P.C.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3500.00 · Current $2450.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(ii)(A):  The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include the exposure determination required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(2):    a) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures, the employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include an exposure determination with the following:      i) A list of job classifications in which all employees in those job classifications had occupational exposure without regard to the use of personal protective equipment;    ii) A list of job classifications in which some employees in those job classifications had occupational exposure without regard to the use of personal protective equipment;    iii) A list of all task and procedures or groups of closely related task and procedures in which occupational exposure occurred and that were performed by employees in job classifications listed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 29 CFR 1910(c)(2)(i)(B).

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(ii)(B):  The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include the method of implementation for paragraphs (d) Methods of Compliance, (f) Hepatitis B vaccination and Post-Exposure Evaluation and follow-up, (g) Communication of Hazards to Employees, and (h) Recordkeeping of this standard:    a) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include engineering and work practice controls to address bloodborne hazards in the dental office, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(2).    b) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include the accessibility, use, cleaning, repair and replacement of personal protective equipment in the dental office, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(3).    c) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include an appropriate written schedule for cleaning and decontamination, that address bloodborne hazards in the dental office, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(4).    d) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not address proper cleaning and the hazards associated with reusable sharps, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(4)(ii)(E).    e) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not address disposal of contaminated sharps or sharps containers, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(4)(iii).    f) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not address Post-exposure Evaluation and Follow-up for dentist or dental assistances, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(f).    g) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan addressed confidential exposure incident records for dentist or dental assistances, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(h).    h) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not properly address where the evaluating physician was to send all post-exposure evaluation results, as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(5).

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv):  The Exposure Control Plan was not reviewed and updated when necessary to reflect new or modified tasks and procedures which affect occupational exposure:    a) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees, were exposed to blood and saliva in dental procedures. The Exposure Control Program was not reviewed and updated wherever necessary to reflect new or modified tasks and procedures which affected occupational exposure. Tasks not addressed included working with contaminated sharps and saliva in dental procedures.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3500.00 · Current $2450.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(3)(ii):   The employer did not ensure that employees used appropriate personal protective equipment:    a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer did not ensure employees used personal protective equipment such as long sleeved leak resistant gowns and eye protection with side shields, to prevent blood or saliva in dental procedures to pass through or reach the employees work clothes, street clothes, undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth or other mucous membranes.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3500.00 · Current $2450.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(1)(ii):  The employer did not ensure that all medical evaluations and procedures including  the Hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series and post-exposure evaluation and follow-up, were provided as required by 1910.1030 (f)(1)(ii)(A) through 1910.1030 (f)(1)(ii)(D):      a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer had not provided a free Hepatitis B vaccination series according to recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service current at the time the evaluation and procedures took place. The employer allowed three or more employees to place a significant portion of cost of the hepatitis B vaccination on their insurance policies.    b) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The employer had not provided a free Hepatitis B vaccination series according to recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service current at the time the evaluation and procedures took place. The employer allowed five or more employees to be exposed to bloodborne diseases without completing the three shot hepatitis B vaccination series.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(E):  The employers training program did not contain an explanation of the appropriate methods for recognizing task and other activities that may involve exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials:    a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees such as, were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures.  The training provided by the employer did not address an explanation of the appropriate methods for recognizing task (such as working with saliva) and other activities (such as working with contaminated sharps) that may involve exposure to bloodborne pathogens during and after dental procedures.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(F):  The employers training program did not contain an explanation of the use and limitations of methods that would prevent or reduce exposure including appropriate engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment:    a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with blood and saliva in dental procedures. The training provided by the employer did not address an explanation of the methods to reduce exposure such as appropriate engineering controls, work practices and personal protective equipment to be used when exposed to bloodborne pathogens.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2100.00 · Current $1470.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i):  The written hazard communication program did not include a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present using an identity that was referenced on the appropriate material safety data sheet:    a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with hazardous chemicals.  The employer did not have a master list of all the hazardous chemicals known to be present in the workplace. Hazardous chemicals present at the workplace included but not limited to, Pro EZ 2 Dual Enzymatic Detergent.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 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 copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:    a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with hazardous chemicals such as Pro EZ 2, Dual Enzymatic Detergent. The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h):  Employees were not provided information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and (2) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced into their work area:    a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees in the dental treatment areas were required to work with hazardous chemicals such as Pro EZ 2 Dual Enzymatic Detergent. The employees had not been provided the required information and training.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer did not verify that the required work place hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification:    a) On or about March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with hazardous chemicals, blood and saliva in dental procedures.  These hazards necessitated the use of personal protective equipment to prevent injury. The employer had not verified, through written certification, that a hazard assessment had been performed.

Issued

2012-07-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-08-09 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:      a) Between approximately February 1, 2012 and March 15, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees worked in the dental area and regularly used Pro EZ 2 Dual Enzymatic Detergent. The chemical's label stated "in case of eye contact flush immediately with water and seek medical attention". The workplace did not have an eyewash for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes.