OSHA Inspection: HISTORY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC

Issued

Oct 20, 2016

Abate by

Nov 28, 2016

Penalty

Initial $400 · Current $0 Reduced

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 December 2, 2015, History Construction Management, LLC, was issued citations and the employer did not verify, through written certification that each citation was abated.  Abatement certification was not received for the following violations:         a.       Citation 1 Item 1b, and    b.      Citation 3 Item 1.

Issued

Oct 20, 2016

Abate by

Nov 28, 2016

Penalty

Initial $400 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer did not submit to the Agency documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required.    On December 2, 2015, History Construction Management, LLC, was issued citations and the employer did not verify, through documents that each citation was abated.  Abatement documentation was not received for the following violations:                a.    Citation 1 Item 2a & b and,          b.    Citation 1 Item 3a & b and,          c.    Citation 1 Item 4 and,          d.    Citation 2 Item 1a & b.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:        An employee stripping windows with methylene chloride wore a full-face supplied air respirator and the employer did not ensure that the employee was annually fit-tested.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Aug 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

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:        An employee stripping windows with methylene chloride wore a full-face supplied air respirator and the employer did not ensure that the employee did not have facial hair that came between the face and respirator sealing surface.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Jan 2, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(2): The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of 125 parts per million as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes:    An employee performing window stripping operations on 11/04/2015 was exposed to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride in excess of the short term exposure limit (STEL):        1. An employee performing window stripping operations was exposed to methylene chloride at an short term exposure of 386.5 ppm, approximately 3x times the short term exposures (STEL) limit of 125 ppm; this limit established to prevent central nervous system damage and other illnesses. The employee used Chemisphere Corp. product 1827/KK #2007, with a methylene chloride concentration of 50-100%, to strip the coatings from window frames. The exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 13 minute period.        2. An employee performing window stripping operations was exposed to methylene chloride at an short term exposure of 420.5 ppm, approximately 3.4x times the short term exposures (STEL) limit of 125 ppm; this limit established to prevent central nervous system damage and other illnesses. The employee used Chemisphere Corp. product 1827/KK #2007, with a methylene chloride concentration of 50-100%, to strip the coatings from window frames. The exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 15 minute period.         3. An employee performing window stripping operations was exposed to methylene chloride at an short term exposure of 232.6 ppm, approximately 1.9x times the short term exposures (STEL) limit of 125 ppm; this limit established to prevent central nervous system damage and other illnesses. The employee used Chemisphere Corp. product 1827/KK #2007, with a methylene chloride concentration of 50-100%, to strip the coatings from window frames. The exposure level is derived from one sample collected over a 15 minute period.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Jan 2, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1): The employer did not institute and maintain the effectiveness of engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limits and wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices which can be instituted were not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the short term exposure limit, the employer did not use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels achievable:    An employee engaged in window stripping operations (see Item 2a) was exposed to methylene chloride in excess of the short term exposure limit (STEL) in several parts of the process and all feasible administrative and/or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure below the short term exposure limit or to the lowest levels achievable.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Aug 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(3): Where the initial determination showed employee exposures at or above the action limit or above the short term exposure limit, the employer did not establish a periodic exposure monitoring program for methylene chloride in accordance with Table 1:    The employer had conducted an initial determination with employee exposure results in excess of the action limit and permissible exposure limit and the employer was not conducting periodic monitoring in accordance with Table 1 every three months.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Aug 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(4)(i): The employer did not perform exposure monitoring when a change in workplace conditions indicated that employee exposure may have increased:    An employee used a methylene-chloride stripping chemical to remove coatings from window frames and the employer did not perform additional exposure monitoring when the new stripping chemical with a higher methylene chloride concentration was introduced on August 5, 2015.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Aug 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,820 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(j)(4)(ii)(B): The employer did not provide for employees younger than 45, periodic physical examinations, including appropriate laboratory surveillance within 36 months of the initial surveillance or any subsequent medical surveillance:    An employee was exposed to methylene chloride in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and short term exposure limit (STEL) in a window stripping operation and the employer had not provided periodic medical surveillance within 36 months of the initial surveillance.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Jan 2, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,600 · Current $3,640 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five parts per million as an 8-hour TWA:    An employees performing window stripping operations on 11/04/15 was exposed to methylene chloride at an 8-hr time-weighted average level of 42.82 ppm, approximately 1.7x times the limit of 25 ppm; this limit established to prevent central nervous system damage and other illnesses. The employee used Chemisphere Corp. product 1827/KK #2007, with a methylene chloride concentration of 50-100%, to strip the coatings from window frames. The exposure level is derived from nine samples collected over a 311 minute period.    History Construction Management, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 98784, citation number 1, item number 6A and was affirmed as a final order on 12/09/2011, with respect to a workplace located at 300 W Henry Street, Odell, Illinois.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Jan 2, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1): The employer did not institute and maintain the effectiveness of engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limits and wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices which can be instituted were not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit, the employer did not use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levels achievable:    An employee engaged in window stripping operations (see Cit 2 Item 1a) was exposed to methylene chloride in excess of the permissible exposure limit and all feasible administrative and/or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure below the permissible exposure limit or to the lowest levels achievable.     History Construction Management, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 98784, citation number 1, item number 6B and was affirmed as a final order on 12/09/2011, with respect to a workplace located at 300 W Henry Street, Odell, Illinois.

Issued

Dec 2, 2015

Abate by

Aug 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(6): The employer did not ensure that carbon monoxide levels in the breathing air did not exceed a carbon monoxide level of 10 parts per million:    An employee stripping windows with methylene chloride wore a full-face respirator with supplied air from a portable electric compressor and the employer did not ensure that the carbon monoxide levels were measured and did not exceed 10 ppm.