OSHA Inspection: LEE DECORATING

Issued

Oct 22, 2013

Abate by

Dec 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $400 · Current $400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): The employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:   a) Inspection Site: 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not provide abatement certification and/or documentation for inspection number 901763 as indicated below:       1) Citation 1, Item 1a, 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1), which was issued 6/7/2013.            Abatement for this item was due 7/3/2013.       2) Citation 1, Item 1b, 29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1), which was issued 6/7/2013.          Abatement for this item was due 7/3/2013.      3) Citation 1, Item 1c, 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1), which was issued 6/7/2013.          Abatement for this item was due 7/3/2013.          4) Citation  1, Item 2a, 29 CFR 1910.134(c),  which was issued 6/7/2013.         Abatement for this item was due  7/3/2013.      5) Citation 1, Item 2b,  29 CFR  1910.134(e)(1), which was issued 6/7/2013.         Abatement for this item was due  7/3/2013.      6) Citation 1, Item 2c, 29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1), which was issued 6/7/2013.         Abatement for this item was due  7/3/2013.      7) Citation  1, Item 2d, 29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3), which was issued 6/7/2013.         Abatement for this item was due  7/3/2013.  Employer received citations on 6/24/2013.  Violation occurred on or about 7/3/2013.

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1) as referenced by 29 CFR 1926.59:  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:   a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program for employees performing painting with products including, but not limited to, Coronado Super Kote 5000 Interior Latex Flat Wall Paint that contains limestone and titanium dioxide.                    Violation observed on or about April 18, 2013

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1)  as referenced by 29 CFR 1926.59: The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use:   a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for products including, but not limited to, Coronado Super Kote 5000 Interior Latex Flat Wall Paint that contains limestone and titanium dioxide.                    Violation occured  on or about April 1, 2013

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) as referenced by 29 CFR 1926.59:  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:   a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not train painters on the hazards of the chemicals they work with, including, but not limited to, Coronado Super Kote 5000 Interior Latex Flat Wall Paint that contains  limestone and titanium dioxide.                    Violation observed on or about April 18, 2013

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c) as referenced by 1926.103:  develop or implement a written hazard communication program for employees performing painting with products: The employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use:  a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not develop or implement a written respiratory protection program for employees required to wear filtering facepiece respirators while performing spray painting operations.                      Violation observed on or about April 18, 2013

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1) as referenced by 29 CFR 1926.103 : 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:   a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not provide employees required to wear N-95 respirators during painting operations with medical evaluations prior to the employee's required use of such respirators.                    Violation observed on or about April 18, 2013

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1) as referenced by 29 CFR 1926.103: 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):   a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer did not provide employees required to wear N-95 respirators during painting operations with a fit test to ensure the respirator had a good seal.                    Violation observed on or about April 18, 2013

Issued

Jun 7, 2013

Abate by

Jul 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3) as referenced by 29 CFR 1926.103: Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:    a) 125 Dunnell Road, Maplewood, NJ  The employer required employees to use N-95 respirators during painting operations, but did not train employees in the proper use, care and limitations of such respirators.                    Violation observed on or about April 18, 2013