OSHA Inspection: VETERANS AFFAIRS SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE SEATAC

Issued

Nov 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): When the employer had assessed the workplace hazard(s) and determined that hazard(s) were present, the employer did not select and/or use the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:   (a)   On or about August- September 23, 2013; VA employees were cleaning up mouse urine and scat in their cubicles and they were not given gloves to wear by the employer, exposing employees to possible rodent pathogens.

Issued

Nov 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.141(a)(5): Enclosed workplaces were not so constructed, equipped, and maintained as to prevent the entrance or harborage of rodents, insects, or other vermin.  A continuing and effective extermination program was not instituted where rodents, insects, or other vermin were detected:  (a)  On or about August 2013 through October 14, 2013, mice and their urine and droppings were detected in the plaza and second floor workspace.

Issued

Nov 18, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(2)(i): At a multi-employer workplace, the employer's hazard communication program did not include methods the employer used to provide other employers with on-site access to a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical the other employer(s)' employees may be exposed to while working:  a)      On or about September 19, 2013;   The employer sent an e-mail to employees informing them portions of their workspace were going to be sprayed with insecticide spray after hours that evening by a contractor.  One employee inquired as to what type of chemical would be used, as she had numerous severe chemical allergies.  She was not provided with the safety data sheet for the insecticide.