OSHA Inspection: ARTURO'S PAINTING & RESTAURATION INC.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employees or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures:  a) The employer did not ensure that a written respiratory protection program was established and implemented for those employees required to wear respiratory protection,that would describe or include at least the following: 1)            Procedures for selecting respirators; 2)            Worksite specific procedures; 3)            Medical evaluations; 4)            Fit testing procedures; 5)            Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonably foreseeable emergency; 6)            Procedures and schedules for cleaning, storing, inspecting, repairing and discarding respirators; 7)            Employee training regarding respiratory hazards they are exposed to, proper use and limitations of respirators;  8)            Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the respirator program     The employer provided to and required of the employee(s) to wear respiratory protection when manually scraping and power sanding old paint (containing up to 23.08% lead; 0.0059% cadmium and 0.0015% arsenic).  Employees used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

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) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m) for each employee required by 29 CFR 1926.62 to use a respirator:  a) The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program and provided and required employees to wear respiratory protection when manually scraping and power sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% lead. Employees used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(g)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b) through (d), (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m)), which covers each employee required by 29 CFR 1926.1127 to use a respirator:  a) The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program and provided and required employees to wear respiratory protection when manually scraping and power sanding old paint containing up to 0.0059% cadmium.  Employees used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  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:  The employer did not select and provide an appropriate respirator based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the workers were exposed while manually scraping and power sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% lead, 0.0015 % arsenic and 0.0059% cadmium.   a) Employees were provided and used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators that the manufacturer did not approve for protection against lead, arsenic and cadmium.  b) Employees were provided and used 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.  Due to filter cartridge selection (i.e. not HEPA) the respirator did not adequately protect workers against airborne particulate matter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not provide a respirator that was appropriate for the chemical state and physical form of the contaminant:  The employer did not select and provide an appropriate respirator based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the workers were exposed while manually scraping and power sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% lead, 0.0015 % arsenic and 0.0059% cadmium.    a) Employees were provided and used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators that the manufacturer did not approve for protection against lead, arsenic and cadmium.  b) Employees were provided and used 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.  In the absence of a HEPA filter cartridge selection, the respirator did not adequately protect workers against airborne particulate matter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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):  The employer did not provide appropriate respiratory protection to workers manually scraping and power sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% lead, in the interim, until an exposure assessment determined the actual employee exposure to lead.    a) Employees were provided and used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators that the manufacturer did not approve for protection against lead.  b) Employees were provided and used 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.  In the absence of a HEPA filter cartridge selection, the respirator did not adequately protect workers against airborne particulate matter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(f)(1)(iv): Respirators were not used during periods when respirators were required to provide interim protection for employees while they performed the operations specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2):  The employer did not provide and did not ensure use of appropriate respiratory protection by workers, in the interim, while employees performed operations listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section (i.e. manual scraping where lead containing coatings or paint is present).    a) Employees were provided and used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators that the manufacturer did not approve for protection against lead.  b) Employees were provided and used 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.  In the absence of a HEPA filter cartridge selection, the respirator did not adequately protect workers against airborne particulate matter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  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:  a) 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. The employer provided to and required of the employee(s) manually scraping and power sanding old paint (containing up to 23.08% lead; 0.0059% cadmium and 0.0015% arsenic) to wear respiratory protection.  Employees were provided and used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:  a) The employer did not ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were fit-tested either qualitatively (QLFT) or quantitatively (QNFT) prior to the initial use of the respirator.  The employer provided to and required of the employee(s) manually scraping and power sanding old paint (containing up to 23.08% lead; 0.0059% cadmium and 0.0015% arsenic) to wear respiratory protection.  Employees were provided and used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:  a) The employer provided to and required of the employee(s) to wear respiratory protection when manually scraping and power sanding old paint (containing up to 23.08% lead; 0.0059% cadmium and 0.0015% arsenic).  Employee(s) who used tight-fitting respiratory protection (3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators) had facial hair (goatees) that interfered with the seal between the facepiece and the face.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 02601591C141

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.103 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.134 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide respirator training that would ensure each employee could demonstrate knowledge of items in section (i)-(vii):  a) The employer provided to and required of the employee(s) to wear respiratory protection when manually scraping and power sanding old paint (containing up to 23.08% lead; 0.0059% cadmium and 0.0015% arsenic). Employees used 3M Model 8511 negative pressure filtering facepiece N-95 respirators and/or 3M Series 6000 half mask respirators equipped with 3M model 6001 Organic Vapor cartridges with a P-95 pre-selector filter.  The employer did not ensure that employees demonstrated knowledge why the respirator was necessary (e.g. scraping without respiratory protection) and how improper fit (e.g. facial hair), usage (e.g. wearing respirator on the chin), selection of respiratory protection and filtration media (e.g. non-HEPA filters) , or maintenance (e.g. open-air respirator storage in vicinity of dust generating activities) can compromise the protective effect of the respirator.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $420 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.59 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1200 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use:  a) The employer did not have a safety data sheet (SDS) in the workplace for each hazardous chemical in use.   Employee(s) engaged in the renovation of a residential housing unit removed old paint using Reliable Finishing Heavy Duty Paint and Varnish Remover (contains hazardous chemicals including but not limited to methylene chloride, methanol, hydrocarbons) and repainted it using Sherwin Williams Duration Exterior Acrylic Latex (contains hazardous chemicals including but not limited to cristobalite, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide).  A Safety Data Sheet was not available for these hazardous chemicals.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Apr 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,020 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period:    a) On 22 May 2014, employee(s) were assigned to manually scrape and power-sand old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.   Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Apr 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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) On 22 May 2014, the employer did not implement and maintain effective engineering and administrative controls to reduce the employee(s)' exposures to lead below the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) when manually scraping and power-sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.   Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.    Methods of control applicable to these circumstances include but are not limited to:   - Use of paint removal methods that do not generate dust; including but not limited to use of chemical paint stripping agents (e.g. Peel-Away) or heat guns that operate below the vaporization temperature of Lead (e.g. Master Appliance Heat Gun) - Install, maintain and use effective local exhaust ventilation system (i.e. HEPA vacuums) with power-sanding tools; - Establish a regular maintenance and replacement schedule for HEPA air filters for the vacuum units;   - Clean the work site and adjacent areas using proper cleaning procedures including but not limited to HEPA vacuuming and wet sweeping;   - Eliminate dry-sweeping;    - Implement adequate and regular decontamination procedures of workers, supplies, tools and personal protective equipment;  - Provide workers with washing facilities to wash; enclosures to keep separate street and work clothing (which must be cleaned and/or replaced regularly);  - Designate clean areas on the work site to avoid hand-to-mouth contamination when consuming food and beverage and to avoid tracking of lead to personal vehicles or home via objects (e.g. cell phones);  - Limit the length of time workers spend on scraping, sanding and cleaning by rotating assignments and/or changing schedules.     ABATEMENT NOTE:      STEP 1: An effective respiratory protection program shall be implemented and used by the affected employee(s) as an interim measure of protection.   Abatement Date: 30 working days from the issuance date     STEP 2: A written detailed plan of abatement shall be submitted to the Area Director outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposures to lead as referenced in this citation.  This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions, which must be consistent with the dates required by this citation:    (1) Evaluation of engineering / administrative controls    (2) Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design;    (3) Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures;    (4) Testing and acceptance or modification / redesign of controls     All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person(s).  30-day progress reports to OSHA are required during the abatement period.  Abatement Date: 60 working days from the issuance date     STEP 3: Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.   Abatement Date: 90 working days from the issuance date

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Apr 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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) On or about 22 May 2014, the employer did not implement a written compliance program to achieve compliance with paragraph (c) of this section in order to reduce the employee(s)' exposures to Lead below the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) when manually scraping and power-sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.   Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 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 mcg/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA):  a) The employer did not perform an initial determination to assess whether employees may be exposed to Lead at or above the action level.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Action Level of 0.030 mg/m3 by approximately 2.03 times.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not collect personal samples representative of a full shift, including at least one sample for each job classification in each work area, either for each shift or for the shift with the highest exposure level:  a) The employer did not collect full shift personal samples for each job classification in each work area to determine whether employees may be exposed to Lead.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Action Level of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment, as required in 29 CFR 1926.62(d), and documented that the employee(s) performing any of the listed tasks was not exposed above the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the employer did not treat affected employee(s) as if they were exposed above the PEL, and not in excess of ten times the PEL, and did not implement employee protective measures prescribed in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v):  a) The employer did not perform personal air monitoring to assess whether employees may be exposed to Lead at or above the action level.  The employer did not treat employee exposures as if they were exposed up to ten times (10 X) the Permissible Exposure Level whenever performing manual scraping and heat gun applications.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.1118 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(e)(2): Initial monitoring was not performed for each workplace, or work operation covered by 29 CFR 1910.1018 to accurately determine the airborne concentration of inorganic arsenic to which employees may be exposed:  a) The employer did not determine the airborne concentration of inorganic Arsenic (via personal air monitoring) to which his employee(s) were exposed.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples collected from employees hands indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on workers palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(d)(1)(i): The employer did not establish the applicability of this standard by determining whether cadmium was present in the work place and whether there was the possibility that employee exposure will be at or above the action level prior to performance of any construction work:  a) The employer did not perform an initial determination to assess the presence of Cadmium in the workplace and to evaluate the possibility of employee exposures at or above the action level.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples collected from employees hands indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on workers palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(B): 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 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 personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(g):  a) The employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing (such as but not limited to coveralls and shoe covers), in the interim, to each affected employee until an exposure assessment determined the actual employee exposure to Lead, as mandated by regulations referenced in this section.  The employer did not treat employee exposures as if they were exposed up to ten times (10 X) the Permissible Exposure Level whenever manually scraping and power-sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(g)(1)(i): The employer did not provide, at no cost to the employee, and ensure that the employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments, such as, but not limited to coveralls or similar full-body work clothing:  a) The employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing (such as but not limited to coveralls) to employees with possible skin and eye irritation due to exposure to Lead compounds.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on workers palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.1118 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(j)(1)(i): The employer did not provide at no cost to employees and did not ensure use of coveralls or similar full-body work clothing by all employee(s) working in regulated areas or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic Arsenic existed.   a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of appropriate and clean protective clothing (such as but not limited to coveralls) by the employees with possible skin and eye irritation due to Arsenic exposure.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on workers palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(i)(1)(i): The protective work clothing and equipment provided by the employer to prevent contamination of the employee and the employee's garments from airborne cadmium did not include coveralls or similar full-body work clothing:    a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of appropriate protective clothing (such as but not limited to coveralls) by the employees with skin and eye irritation due to exposure to Cadmium.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on workers palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 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) The employer did not provide change areas, in the interim, to each affected employee until an exposure assessment determined the actual employee exposure to Lead, as mandated by regulations referenced in this section.  The employer did not treat employee exposures as if they were exposed up to ten times (10 X) the Permissible Exposure Level whenever manually scraping and sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

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) The employer did not provide change areas, in the interim, to each employee who manually scraped and power-sanded old paint (containing up to 23.08% Lead), until an exposure assessment determined the actual exposure to Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(D): 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 hand washing facilities in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(i)(5):  a) The employer did not provide hand washing facilities, in the interim, to each affected employee until an exposure assessment determined the actual employee exposure to Lead, as mandated by regulations referenced in this section.  The employer did not treat employee exposures as if they were exposed up to ten times (10 X) the Permissible Exposure Level whenever manually scraping and power-sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  There were no dedicated hand-washing facilities in the work area and no cleaning agent available to remove the lead paint debris from their hands.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(5)(i): The employer did not provide adequate handwashing facilities in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.51(f), for use by employees exposed to lead:  a) The employer did not provide adequate hand washing facilities to employees with dermal Lead exposure who manually scraped and power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  There were no dedicated hand-washing facilities in the work area and no cleaning agent available to remove the lead paint debris from their hands.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.1118 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(m)(2)(i): Employees working in regulated areas, or subject to the possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic were not required to shower at the end of the work shift:  a) The employer did not ensure that employees with possible skin and eye irritation due to Arsenic exposure, showered at the end of the work shift.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

Construction Reference: 1926.1118 NOTE: The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(m)(6): The employer did not ensure that employees were not exposed to skin or eye contact with liquid or particulate inorganic arsenic which was likely to cause skin or eye irritation:  a) The employer did not ensure that employees did not have skin and eye exposures to inorganic Arsenic which may cause irritation.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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) The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program, in the interim, for all employees until an exposure assessment determined the actual employee exposure to Lead, as mandated by regulations referenced in this section.  The employer did not treat employee exposures as if they were exposed up to ten times (10 X) the Permissible Exposure Level whenever manually scraping and power-sanding old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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) The employer did not make available initial medical surveillance to employee(s) exposed on any day to Lead at or above of the OSHA Action Level.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers who manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Action Level of 0.030 mg/m3 by approximately 2.03 times.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(l)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who performed the following tasks, operations or jobs; electrical grounding with cadmium welding; cutting, brazing, burning; grinding or welding on surfaces that were painted with cadmium-containing paints electrical work using cadmium-coated conduit; use of cadmium containing paints; cutting and welding cadmium-plated steel; brazing or welding with cadmium alloys; fusing of reinforced steel by cadmium welding; maintaining or retrofitting cadmium-coated equipment; and, wrecking and demolition where cadmium is present:  a) The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees performing manual removal and heat gun applications on surfaces that were painted with cadmium-containing paints.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(F): 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 training as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i) regarding 29 CFR 1926.59, Hazard Communication:  a) The employer did not train and inform each affected employee regarding Lead, in the interim, until an exposure assessment determined the actual employee exposure to Lead, as mandated by regulations in this section.  The employer did not treat employee exposures as if they were exposed up to ten times (10 X) the Permissible Exposure Level whenever manually scraping or power-sanding.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times. Employees were not informed of Lead health hazards including but not limited to reproductive and developmental toxicity; nervous system, renal and hematopoietic effects; acute toxicity; and proper use of respiratory protection (purpose, selection, fitting, use and limitations).

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that at least the following Lead hazards were communicated to employee(s): reproductive/developmental toxicity; central nervous system effects; kidney effects; blood effects; and acute toxicity effects.  a) The employer did not provide information and training to employees regarding the health hazards of Lead, addressing at least: reproductive and developmental toxicity; nervous system, renal and hematopoietic effects and acute toxicity outcomes.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the PEL of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(2): The employer did not ensure that each employee was trained in the elements listed in paragraphs (i) through (viii) of this section:  a) The employer did not train and inform employees regarding Lead, covering the elements listed in paragraphs (i) through (viii) of this section, which include but are not limited to: specific operations resulting in exposures; aspects of respiratory protection; the medical surveillance program and use of chelating agents; and applicable engineering controls and work practices.  Employee(s) manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(o)(1)(ii): Training was not provided for employee(s) at the time of initial assignment to an area where employees are subject to inorganic arsenic exposure above the action level, or for whom there is a possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic:  a) The employer did not provide information to each affected employee exposed to inorganic Arsenic at the time of initial assignment covering the elements listed in paragraphs (A) through (F) of this section, which include but are not limited to: the quantity, location, manner of use and nature of operations that could result in arsenic exposure; the use and limitations of respirators; and the applicable engineering controls and work practices.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(p)(1)(ii): The employer did not communicate to employee(s) the hazards of inorganic arsenic, addressing at least the following: cancer; liver effects; skin effects; respiratory irritation; nervous system effects; and acute toxicity effects.  a) The employer did not provide employees with training and information which addressed the health hazards of inorganic Arsenic, including but not limited to cancer and adverse health effects to liver, dermal, respiratory and nervous systems as well as acute toxicity effects.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.59 Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1200 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): 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) The employer did not provide employees effective training and information for hazardous chemicals used in the workplace.   Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home removed old paint containing heavy metals (up to 23.08% Lead, 0.0015% Arsenic and 0.0059% Cadmium) using Reliable Finishing Heavy Duty Paint and Varnish Remover (contains hazardous chemicals including but not limited to methylene chloride, methanol, hydrocarbons) and repainted using Sherwin Williams Duration Exterior Acrylic Latex (contains hazardous chemicals including but not limited to cristobalite, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide).

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(1): The employer did not provide information to employee(s) on at least the following Cadmium hazards: cancer; lung effects; kidney effects; and acute toxicity effects.  a) The employer did not provide employees information and training which addressed the health hazards of Cadmium, including but not limited to cancer and adverse effects to renal and respiratory systems as well as acute toxicity effects.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4)(iii): The employer did not ensure that each employee was informed of elements listed in paragraphs (A) through (H) of this section:  a) The employer did not train and inform employees regarding Cadmium, covering the elements listed in paragraphs (A) through (H) of this section, which include but are not limited to: health hazards, quantity, location, manner of use and nature of operations that could result in cadmium exposure; applicable engineering controls and work practices; specific measures to protect against exposures; aspects of respiratory protection; the medical surveillance program and access to related records.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples collected indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(g)(1)(ii): The employer did not provide, at no cost to the employee, and ensure the employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments, such as, but not limited to gloves, hat, and shoes or disposable shoe coverlets:  a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of gloves and disposable shoe covers to prevent contamination of the employee and the employee's garments due to exposure to Lead compounds.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(j)(1)(ii): The employer did not provide at no cost to employees and did not ensure use of gloves, and shoes or coverlets by all employee(s) working in regulated areas or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic Arsenic existed.   a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of appropriate protective gloves and shoe coverlets by employees with possible skin and eye irritation due to Arsenic exposure.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(i)(1)(ii): The protective work clothing and equipment provided by the employer to prevent contamination of the employee and the employee's garments from airborne cadmium did not include gloves, head coverings, and boots or foot coverings:  a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of gloves and disposable shoe covers to prevent contamination of the employee and the employee's garments due to exposure to Cadmium.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(g)(1)(iii): The employer did not provide, at no cost to the employee, and ensure that the employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments, such as, but not limited to face shields, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective equipment which complies with 29 CFR 1910.133:  a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of appropriate eye protection equipment (including but not limited to face shields or safety glasses) by employees with exposure to Lead compounds that may cause skin and eye irritation.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead and dry-swept debris without using eye protection.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(j)(1)(iii): The employer did not provide at no cost to employees, and did not ensure use when necessary to prevent eye irritation of face shields or vented goggles (compliant with the requirements of � 1910.133(a) (2)�(6)), by all employee(s) working in regulated areas or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic Arsenic existed.   a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of appropriate eye protection equipment (including but not limited to face shields or safety glasses) by employees with possible skin and eye irritation due to Arsenic exposure.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(i)(1)(iii): The protective work clothing and equipment provided by the employer to prevent contamination of the employee and the employee's garments from airborne cadmium did not include face shields, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective equipment that complies with 29 CFR 1910.133:  a) The employer did not provide and ensure use of appropriate eye protection equipment (including but not limited to face shields or safety glasses) by employees with exposure to Cadmium that may contaminate the employee and the employee's garments.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(h)(3): Shoveling, dry or wet sweeping, and brushing were used when vacuuming or other equally effective methods were effective:   a) The employer did not ensure that Lead contaminated surfaces were not cleaned by dry sweeping, brushing and/or shoveling methods.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  At the end of the day, employees used brooms to clean work surfaces including but not limited to the roof and the porch.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(k)(2): Floors and other accessible surfaces contaminated with inorganic arsenic were cleaned by shoveling and/or brushing where vacuuming or other relevant methods were effective  a) The employer did not ensure that Arsenic contaminated surfaces were not cleaned by brushing and/or shoveling methods. Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic.  At the end of the day, employees used brooms to clean work surfaces including but not limited to the roof and the porch.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(k)(5): Shoveling, dry or wet sweeping, or brushing was used before vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of cadmium becoming airborne had been tried and were found not to be effective:  a) The employer did not ensure that Cadmium contaminated surfaces were not cleaned by brushing and/or shoveling methods.  Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium.  At the end of the day, employees used brooms to clean work surfaces including but not limited to the roof and the porch.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(1): The employer did not ensure that food or beverage was not present or consumed, tobacco products were not present or used, and/or cosmetics were not applied in areas where employees were exposed to lead above the Permissible Exposure Level without regard to the use of respirators:  a) Employees stored and consumed beverages (e.g. Gatorade, Arizona Watermelon) in areas where they manually scraped and/or power-sanded old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.  Sampling was conducted during one shift for 280 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the un-sampled period of time of 200 minutes.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(4)(iii): The employer did not ensure that employees whose airborne exposure to lead was above the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of a respirator, washed their hands and face prior to eating, drinking, smoking or applying cosmetics:  a) Employees did not wash their hands and face prior to beverage (e.g. Gatorade, Arizona Watermelon) and food consumption. Employees manually scraped and/or power-sanded paint containing up to 23.08% Lead.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $980 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not train each employee who were subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level on any day, or who were subject to exposure to lead compounds which may cause skin or eye irritation (e.g., lead arsenate, lead azide) in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.62 and the employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:  a) The employer did not institute a training program with employee participation for employees who were exposed to Lead compounds which may cause skin or eye irritation.  Employees were engaged in the renovation of a single family home, removing old paint containing up to 23.08% Lead by manual scraping and power sanding methods.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers.  Employees did not wear eye protection (including but not limited to safety glasses) or skin protection (including but not limited to protective clothing and/or gloves).  Personal air monitoring conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times. This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(o)(1)(i): A training program was not instituted for each employee who is subject to inorganic arsenic exposure above the action level, without regard to respirator use, or for whom there is a possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic:  a) The employer did not institute a training program with employee participation for employees who were exposed to inorganic Arsenic and for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed.  Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home, removing old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic by manual scraping and power sanding methods.  Employees did not wear eye protection (including but not limited to safety glasses) or skin protection (including but not limited to protective clothing and/or gloves).  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.59 Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1200 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which described how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) would be met:  a) The employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1) that would describe or include at least the following: 1) Requirement for labeling and other forms of warning; 2) Safety data sheet availability; 3) Employee information and training; 4) A list of hazardous chemicals known to be present in the workplace;  5) Methods to inform employees of the hazards on non-routine tasks; and  6) Methods to provide other employer(s) access to safety data sheet; information on any precautionary measures and the labeling system used in the workplace.  Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home removed old paint using Reliable Finishing Heavy Duty Paint and Varnish Remover (contains hazardous chemicals including but not limited to methylene chloride, methanol, hydrocarbons) and repainted it using Sherwin Williams Duration Exterior Acrylic Latex (contains hazardous chemicals including but not limited to titanium dioxide and zinc oxide).

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Jan 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4)(i): The employer did not institute a training program for each employee who is potentially exposed to cadmium, ensure employee participation in the program, and maintain a record of the contents of such program:  a) The employer did not institute a training program with employee participation for employees who were exposed to Cadmium.  Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home, removed old paint (containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium) by manual scraping and power sanding methods.  Employees did not wear eye protection (including but not limited to safety glasses) or skin protection (including but not limited to protective clothing and/or gloves).  Wipe samples collected from employees hands indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0260

General-duty citation text

NOTE: Construction Reference: 1926.1118   Requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at � 1910.1018 of this chapter.  29 CFR 1910.1018(o)(2)(i): A copy of the inorganic arsenic standard (29 CFR 1910.1018) and its appendices was not made readily available to all affected employees:  a) The employer did not make readily available to all affected employees a copy of the OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1018 Arsenic Standard and its appendices.  Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home, removed old paint containing up to 0.0015% Arsenic by manual scraping and power sanding methods.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 2.061 µg Arsenic on employees palms and fingers.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(3)(i): The employer did not make a copy of 29 CFR 1926.62 and its appendices readily available to all affected employees:   a) The employer did not make readily available to all affected employees a copy of the OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62  Lead Standard and its appendices.  Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home, removed old paint (containing up to 23.08% Lead) by manual scraping and power sanding methods.  Wipe samples indicated presence of up to 15,698 µg Lead on employees palms and fingers. Personal air monitoring was conducted on 22 May 2014 indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne Lead concentrations of 0.061 mg/m3 which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.050 mg/m3 by approximately 1.2 times.  This limit was established to prevent Lead poisoning.

Issued

Nov 17, 2014

Abate by

Nov 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C141

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4)(i): The employer did not institute a training program for each employee who is potentially exposed to cadmium, ensure employee participation in the program, and maintain a record of the contents of such program:  a) The employer did not make readily available to all affected employees a copy of the OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1127 Cadmium Standard and its appendices.  Employees engaged in the renovation of a single family home, removed old paint containing up to 0.0059% Cadmium by manual scraping and power sanding methods.  Wipe samples collected from employees hands indicated presence of up to 8.321 µg Cadmium on employees palms and fingers.