OSHA Inspection: COMEAUX ENTERPRISE, INC.

Issued

Dec 19, 2016

Abate by

Feb 7, 2017

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 December 13, 2016, the employer had not provided documentation that employees who wear respirators were fit-tested or that hazard communication training had been completed.

Issued

Sep 23, 2016

Abate by

Nov 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,850 · Current $1,995 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use: (Construction Reference 1926.103):  WALMART, 1400 FARMINGTON AVENUE, BRISTOL, CT:  On or about, and at times prior to July 25, 2016, the employer had not developed a written Respiratory Protection Program.  His employees were required to wear tight-fitting respirators while performing activities such as mixing epoxy and patch as well as grinding and sanding adhesive and sweeping dust generated during these processes.

Issued

Sep 23, 2016

Abate by

Nov 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  WALMART, 1400 FARMINGTON AVENUE, BRISTOL, CT:  On or about, and at times prior to, July 25, 2016, the employer required employees to wear tight-fitting respirators but had not provided them with medical evaluations.

Issued

Sep 23, 2016

Abate by

Nov 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator: (Construction Reference 1926.103):  WALMART, 1400 FARMINGTON AVENUE, BRISTOL, CT:  On or about, and at times prior to, July 25, 2016, employees who were required to wear tight-fitting respirators were not fit-tested to ensure they were using appropriate respirators.

Issued

Sep 23, 2016

Abate by

Nov 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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: (Construction Reference 1926.103):  WALMART, 1400 FARMINGTON AVENUE, BRISTOL, CT:  On or about, and at times prior to, July 25, 2016, an employee who was required to wear a tight-fitting respirator was observed to have a full beard.  The employee stated that he had worn his N-95 particulate respirator earlier in the day for approximately 40 minutes.

Issued

Sep 23, 2016

Abate by

Nov 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:  (Construction Reference 1926.103):  WALMART, 1400 FARMINGTON AVENUE, BRISTOL, CT:  On or about, and at times prior to July 25, 2016, prior to being required to wear tight-fitting respirators, employees had not been trained in the proper use of respirators.  Employees were exposed to dusts and particulates generated while mixing chemicals and/or while sanding and grinding floors in preparation for installation of new flooring.

Issued

Sep 23, 2016

Abate by

Nov 10, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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: (Construction Reference: 1926.59):  WALMART, 1400 FARMINGTON AVENUE, BRISTOL, CT  06010:  On or about and at times prior to July 25, 2016, the employer had not updated his written Hazard Communication Program to reflect the 2012 changes in the regulations.  The Program did not address new labeling requirements including, but not limited to: pictograms, precautionary statements, and signal words.  Employees who were removing old flooring tiles and installing a new flooring system were exposed to hazardous chemicals such as: Portland cement and limestone, both of which are corrosive to the respiratory system, skin, and eyes.