OSHA Inspection: PRINCETON PROPERTIES

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $5,040 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    Princeton Properties - The employer did not do an assessment of the workplace to determine what hazards may be present and what type of personal protective equipment would be needed for the maintenance employees performing work involving hazardous chemicals or electricity.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(e): The employer did not ensure that employees were not using defective or damaged personal protective equipment in the workplace:    Princeton Properties - Back Cove     The employer did not ensure that the personal protective equipment provided to employees was not damaged or defective.  Boots marked "good" were observed with holes in the bottom sole section of the boot.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1): The employer did not provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use personal protective equipment:    Princeton Properties - Back Cove, Princeton Pines, Princeton Village, Princeton Ridge, and Foreside Estates-    The employer did not provide training on the proper personal protective equipment to use or how and when to use it to employees  using hazardous chemicals in cleaning bathroom spraying, human waste clean-up in bathroom and basements, kitchen spraying, and bathroom cleaning.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1): Portable fire extinguishers were not mounted, located and identified so that they were readily accessible without subjecting the employees to injuries:    Princeton Properties - In the following instances, portable fire extinguishers were not mounted, located and identified so that they were readily accessible without subjecting the employees to injuries      (a)  Fire extinguishers located in maintenance areas were not mounted or identified (Back Cove and Foreside Estates).     (b)  A fire extinguisher located in the maintenance area (Back Cove supply and wash room area) was blocked and not readily accessible.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(2): Portable fire extinguishers were not visually inspected at least monthly.    Princeton Properties - Back Cove  (also known as Forest Park) maintenance area-  A portable fire extinguisher was not inspected at least monthly.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3): Portable fire extinguishers were not subjected to an annual maintenance check:    Princeton Properties - Back Cove  (also known as Forest Park) maintenance area-  A portable fire extinguisher was not subject to an annual maintenance check.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $5,040 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Grinding machinery was not used with work rest(s) to support offhand grinding work:    Princeton Properties - In the following instances, grinding machinery was not used with work rest(s) to support offhand grinding work:     (a)  Back Cove - The abrasive wheel equipment grinder in each maintenance shop did not have the appropriate work rests to support grinding work and creating a caught under and between hazard that could cause bodily injury or death.    (b)  Foreside Estates - The abrasive wheel equipment grinder in each maintenance shop did not have the appropriate work rests to support grinding work and creating a caught under and between hazard that could cause bodily injury or death.    (c) Princeton Pines - The abrasive wheel equipment grinder in each maintenance shop did not have the appropriate work rests to support grinding work and creating a caught under and between hazard that could cause bodily injury or death.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $4,320 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): 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:    Princeton Properties - The employer did not establish an effective written hazard communication program for employees exposed to chemicals such as but not limited to: chlorine bleach, X-14, ACE Appliance Epoxy, Phenoseal, and Moldstat Peroxy Kling.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:    Princeton Properties -  The employer did not maintain copies of the required safety data sheets for the each hazardous chemical found in the workplace for maintenance employees (such as but not limited to: Moldstat Peroxy Kling and Moldstat Clear Coat).

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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:    Princeton Properties -   Training and information was not provided to employees who work with chemicals such as but not limited to X-14, Moldstat Peroxy Kling, Moldstat Coating Clear, Phenoseal, and ACE Appliance Epoxy.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(3): The employer did not enter each recordable injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log and 301 Incident Report within seven (7) calendar days of receiving information that a recordable injury or illness had occurred:    Princeton Properties - the OSHA 300 Log for 2015 was not filled out within the seven days of management receiving the information regarding the recordable injury.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $900 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.30(a): The OSHA 300 log was not maintained separately for each establishment that was expected to be in operation for one year or longer:    Princeton Properties - The employer did not maintain separate OSHA 300 logs for the operations located in Maine and Massachusetts for 2015.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:    Princeton Properties -   The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory program for those employees using a half mask respirator on a voluntary basis when spraying and painting kitchen and bath areas.  In addition, no employees using half masked respirators were medically approved nor were their respirators properly cleaned, stored, or maintained so as not to present a health hazard.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6): The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:    Princeton Properties -   The employer did not provide employees who use respirators on a voluntary basis with the information provided in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1001(j)(7)(iv): The employer shall also provide, at no cost to employees who perform housekeeping operations in an area which contains ACM or PACM, an asbestos awareness training course, which shall at a minimum contain the following elements: health effects of asbestos, locations of ACM and PACM in the building/facility, recognition of ACM and PACM damage and deterioration, requirements in this standard relating to housekeeping, and proper response to fiber release episodes, to all employees who perform housekeeping work in areas where ACM and/or PACM is present. Each such employee shall be so trained at least once a year:    Princeton Properties - throughout Princeton Pines, Princeton Village, and Back Cove (otherwise known as Forest Park)-  The employer did not provide an asbestos awareness training course to employees who perform work where ACM and PACM are present.

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

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:    Princeton Properties - including but not limited to Back Cove (also known as Forest Park) and Princeton Village-  Maintenance employees working in areas where there is a potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

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:    Princeton Properties - including but not limited to Back Cove (also known as Forest Park) and Princeton Village-  No lead training was implemented for maintenance employees for whom the possibility of skin and eye irritation could exist when working around windows covered with lead paint as noted in the Blackstone Report for Back cove and Princeton Villages and bulk sample from Back Cove locations (basements and apartment windows).

Issued

Nov 13, 2015

Abate by

Jan 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(iv): A training program was not repeated at least annually for each employee subject to lead exposure at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed:    Princeton Properties - including but not limited to Back Cove (otherwise known as Forest Park) and Princeton Village-   A lead training program for employees was not repeated on an annual basis for employees for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation would exist if exposed to lead or lead dust while working on windows of apartments or basements.