OSHA Inspection: N.E.J ABATEMENT GROUP, INC.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that no employees were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air (50 ug/m3) averaged over an 8-hour period:   a)  418-422 Wood Street, on or about April 29, 2013 - An employee designated as a laborer performing sandblasting operations was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average of 2,291 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on April 29, 2013 for 250 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(1): The employer did not implement all feasible engineering and work practice controls, including administrative controls, to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead to or below the permissible exposure limit:   a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls, including administrative controls to reduce employee exposures to lead to or below the permissible exposure limit.  An employee was exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit during sandblasting operations.  An employee designated as a laborer performing sandblasting operations was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average of 2,291 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on April 29, 2013 for 250 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.   Feasible and useful controls would include, but not be limited to the following:  1.  The use of paint strippers to remove the lead based paint.    2.  The implementation of employee rotations.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to achieve compliance with 29 CFR 1926.62(c) prior to commencement of the job:   a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program prior to the commencement of sandblasting to remove lead-based paint.  An employee designated as a laborer performing sandblasting operations was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average of 2,291 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on April 29, 2013 for 250 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(i): Each employer who had a workplace or operation covered by 29 CFR 1926.62 did not initially determine if any employee was exposed to lead at or above the action level of 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air (30 ug/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA):     a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not initially determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level.  Employees were sandblasting lead-based paint and an initial determination of employees exposures was not made.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(4)(i): The employer did not conduct monitoring which was representative of the exposure for each employee in the workplace who was exposed to lead:    a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not conduct monitoring which was representative of the exposure for each employee in the workplace who was exposed to lead.  Employees were sandblasting on lead-based paint and an initial determination of employee exposures was not made.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(A): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with appropriate respiratory protection in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(f):   a)  418-422 Wood Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - Employees performing abrasive blasting operations on lead-based paint were not provided with the appropriate respiratory protection.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(f)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b), (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m) for each employee required by 29 CFR 1926.62 to use a respirator:  a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - A respiratory protection program was not implemented in accordance with 1910.134(b), (d), and (f) through (m).  Employees were required to wear a North half-mask respirator when sandblasting lead-based paint.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(f)(3)(i)(A): The employer did not select, and provide to employees, the appropriate respirators as specified in 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A):  a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - Employees were not provided with the appropriate respirator based on their exposure to lead.  Employees were provided with a half-mask respirator when they should have been provided with a full-face respirator.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(C): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with change areas in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(i)(2):  a)  418-422 Wood Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - Employees who were abrasive blasting lead-based paint were not provided with change areas.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(2)(i): The employer did not provide clean change areas for employees whose airborne exposure to lead was above the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of respirators:  a)  418-422 Wood Street, on or about April 29, 2013 - Change areas were not made available to employees that were sandblasting on lead based paint.  An employee designated as a laborer performing sandblasting operations was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average of 2,291 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on April 29, 2013 for 250 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(3)(ii): Where shower facilities were available, the employer did not ensure that employees showered at the end of the work shift:  a) 418-422 Wood Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not ensure that employees, who sandblasted lead-based paint, showered at the end of their workshift.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(E): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with biological monitoring in accordance with 1926.62(j)(1)(i), to consist of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin levels:   a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not perform an acceptable exposure assessment and the employer did not provide biological monitoring for employees who were sandblasting lead-based paint.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(j)(1)(i): The employer did not make available initial medical surveillance, consisting of biological monitoring in the form of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin levels, to employees occupationally exposed on any day to lead at or above the action level:   a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not provide initial medical surveillance consisting of biological monitoring for employees who were sandblasting lead-based paint.  An employee designated as a laborer performing sandblasting operations was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average of 2,291 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on April 29, 2013 for 250 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Aug 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(m)(2): The employer did not post warning signs in each work area where an employee's exposure to lead is above the PEL (permissible exposure limit):   a)  418-422 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222, on or about April 29, 2013 - The employer did not post warning signs in the work area where employee exposures to lead were above the permissible exposure limit.  An employee designated as a laborer performing sandblasting operations was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average of 2,291 ug/m3.  Sampling was performed by an OSHA compliance officer on April 29, 2013 for 250 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.