OSHA Inspection: HISTORY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LLC

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i):     Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.    b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A):     The employer did not select a respirator that meets or exceeds the required level of employee protection:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.    b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.    .

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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 were required to wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators and the employer had not ensured employees received medical evaluations prior to the required usage.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    Employees were required to wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators while sanding and the employer did not ensure that employees were fit tested prior to initial use.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3):     Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:    Employees were required to wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators while sanding and the employer did not ensure that employees had received training prior to their initial use of the respirator.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A):     Flexible cords and cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure    Employees were exposed to fire hazards because a flexible cord had been used in lieu of fixed wiring to supply power to the table near the main entrance.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 23, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(ii):     Flexible cords were not used in continuous lengths without splice or tap:    Employees were exposed to fire hazards because a flexible cord had been altered and tapped into a receptacle box to supply power to the table near the main entrance.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1):     The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air (50 ug/m(3)) averaged over an 8-hour period.      a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.  	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.    .

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 16, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(2):     An initial determination was not made to determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employer had not determined rather any employee performing such tasks were exposed to lead at or above the action level.   	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employer had not determined rather any employee performing such tasks were exposed to lead at or above the action level.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(i):     For any employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year the employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls (including administrative controls) were not implemented to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead :    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Work was conducted in an open shop without mechanical ventilation.The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.    	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Work was conducted in an open shop without mechanical ventilation. The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(2):     Respiratory protection was not provided to supplement engineering and work practice controls, that did not control employees exposure to or below 50 micrograms per meter cubed:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.    	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95) which was not adequate to protect the employee from the hazards associated with airborne lead.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(i):     The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to reduce exposures to or below the permissible exposure limit, solely by means of engineering and work practice controls:    a.  The employer did not document nor implement a lead compliance program for employee exposures that were above   the permissble exposure limit.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(f)(1):     For employees who used respirators required by 29 CFR 1910.1025, the employer did not provide each employee an appropriate respirator that complied with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025(f):    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employee was sampled for approximately 384 minutes, zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 96 minutes.  The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95).  	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employee was sampled for approximately 382 minutes, zero exposure was assumed for the remaining 98 minutes.  The sampled employee was wearing a 3M 8210, filtering facepiece respirator (N95).

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Apr 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1):     Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment was not provided when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Employees were wearing their personal clothes and were not protected against eye and skin irritation.  	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Employees were wearing their personal clothes and were not protected against eye and skin irritation.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1):     All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was working at his table.  The surface contamination of lead on the surface of the table was at 1120.0 ug/100 cm(2).   	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was working at his table.  The surface contamination of lead on the surface of the table was at 485.3 ug/100 cm(2).

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(2)(ii):     Shoveling, sweeping or brushing methods were used to remove lead accumulations where vacuuming or other equally effective methods were available and feasible:    Employees who had conducted sanding operations earlier in their shift performed dry sweeping operations of their work tables where there was a high level of lead surface contamination.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(i):     Clean change rooms were not provided for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employer did not provide change rooms.    	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employer did not provide change rooms.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(i):     Employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, were not required to shower at the end of the work shift:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Employees comtaminated by lead were not provided showers.  	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Employees comtaminated by lead were not provided showers.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(i):     Lunchroom facilities were not provided for employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3).  No clean lunchroom was provided to employees.    	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3).  No clean lunchroom was provided to employees.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(3)(i)(B):     Medical examinations and consultations for lead were not performed prior to assignment for each employee being assigned for the first time to an area in which airborne concentrations of lead are at or above the action level:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Employees were not provided a medical examination and consultation prior to working in an area where lead exposure was at or above the action level.      	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Employees were not provided a medical examination and consultation prior to working in an area where lead exposure was at or above the action level.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i):     Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    Employees working within the shop area were exposed to airborne lead from sanding operations and the employer did not inform employees of the content found within Appendices A and B.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(ii):     The employer did not train each employee who is subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employer did not institute a program to train employees on lead.  	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). The employer did not institute a program to train employees on lead.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(iii):     Initial training was not provided to employee(s) prior to initial job assignment to an area where employees were subject to lead exposure at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3).Training was not conducted prior to initial job assignment.  	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Training was not conducted prior to initial job assignment.

Issued

Oct 16, 2012

Abate by

Oct 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(2)(i):     Warning signs bearing the legend: WARNING, LEAD WORK AREA, POISON, NO SMOKING OR EATING, were not posted in each work area where the permissible exposure limit (PEL) was exceeded:    a.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 2,074 ug/M(3), which was approximately 41.5 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Lead hazard warning signs were not posted in the work area.   	  b.  In the shop, an employee who was sanding wood that contained residual lead based paint with a hand-held sander was exposed to airborne lead at an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) of 265 ug/M(3), which was approximately 5.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 ug/M(3). Lead hazard warning signs were not posted in the work area.