OSHA Inspection: D&P GENERAL CONTRACTORS

Issued

Apr 11, 2016

Abate by

May 26, 2016

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:  On or about 4/11/16, employer had not certified completed abatement for the following citations issued: 1-1a and b, 1-2a, b and c, 1-3a and b, 1-4a and b, 1-5a and b, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10 and 1-11.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 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 μg/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA):   Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer failed to make an initial determination of exposure for employees exposed to paint containing 5-6% lead, during manual demolition of painted walls in a house.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:   Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer failed to collect personal samples representative of a full shift for the job being performed by workers, manual demolition of painted walls containing 5-6% of lead.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

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):   Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, employees were manually demolishing walls in a house containing lead paint, without an exposure assessment, and without appropriate interim respiratory protection with HEPA filters.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

219269 CFR .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:    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer had workers demolishing walls containing lead paint without having implemented respiratory protection program that included all the requirements of the respiratory protection standard necessary for employees to safely use a respirator.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(f)(3)(i)(C): The employer did not provide HEPA filters for powered and non-powered air-purifying respirators:    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer had workers demolishing walls containing lead paint without providing the appropriate respiratory protection with HEPA filters.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

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):    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, a bottle of water was used by employees to wash their hands in lieu of a suitable washing facility.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(5)(i): The employer did not provide adequate hand washing facilities in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.51(f), for use by employees exposed to lead:    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not provide adequate hand washing facilities for workers demolishing the walls of a house that were coated in lead paint in that employees were required to use a bottle of water to clean their hands.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 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:    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not provide biological monitoring to employees demolishing walls coated with lead based paint, where an exposure assessment had not been performed to determine the employees' actual exposure.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

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:   Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer had not provided initial medical surveillance to employees occupationally exposed to lead at or above the action level.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(F): Until the employer performs an employee exposure assessment as required under paragraph (d) of this section and determines actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) of this section with interim training as required under paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section regarding 29 CFR 1926.59 Hazard Communication; training as required under paragraph (l)(2)(ii)(C) of this section regarding use of respirators; and training in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.21 Safety training and education:    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not provide training on the hazards of working with lead-based paint and the use of respiratory protection to potentially exposed employees prior to the start of work, as required until actual exposure is determined through sampling.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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.    Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not communicate the hazards/health effects of working with lead-based paint to employees demolishing a house that contained paint with 5-6% lead levels.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

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:   Second floor of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program for lead prior to the start of the job.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(1)(i): Where exposure monitoring was required under 29 CFR 1926.1101, the employer did not perform monitoring to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of asbestos to which employees were or potentially were exposed:  Roof of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT   On or about 9/25/15, when demolishing a roof containing 27% chrysotile asbestos,the employer did not perform any monitoring to determine employees' airborne exposure to asbestos.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(7)(i): All Class II work was not supervised by a competent person as defined in 29 CFR 1926.1101(b):  Roof of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, Class II asbestos operations, demolishing a roof that contained 27% chrysotile asbestos was not supervised by a competent person.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(8)(ii)(B): Feasible wet methods were not used to remove roofing materials that were not intact or that were rendered not intact during removal:   Roof of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not use feasible wet methods to remove roofing materials that were not intact and contained 27% chrysotile asbestos.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(h)(3)(iii)(A): The employer did not provide a half-mask air-purifying respirator, other than a disposable respirator, equipped with high-efficiency filters, whenever the employee(s) performed Class II and III asbestos jobs where no negative exposure assessment was available:  Roof of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not supply employees demolishing a roof containing 27% asbestos, with the appropriate respiratory protection, which includes a HEPA filter when using air purifying respirators.  They were provided disposable N95 filtering facepiece masks.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Feb 9, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9)(i): The employer did not institute, at no cost to employees, a training program for each employee who was likely to be exposed in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and for each employee who performed Class I through IV asbestos operations:   Roof of the house at 286 Maple St. in New Britain, CT  On or about 9/25/15, the employer did not train employees who were performing Class II asbestos operations, demolishing a roof that contained 27% chrysotile asbestos.