OSHA Inspection: TWIN STATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE & DEVELOPMENT, LLC

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,071 · Current $5,071

Hazardous substances 1591

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): 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:  a. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was wearing a full face air purifying respirator while removing paint containing lead from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer did not ensure that an effective respiratory protection program was established.  There was no written program covering respirator selection, fit-testing, medical clearance, storage/cleaning, and training requirements.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was wearing a full face air purifying respirator while removing paint containing lead from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to wear a tight fitting respirator.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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): The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:  a. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was wearing a full face air purifying respirator while removing paint containing lead from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to provide comprehensive respiratory protection training.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 026004901591

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. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was wearing a full face air purifying respirator removing paint  containing lead from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer did not ensure that an effective respiratory protection program was established.  There was no written program covering respirator selection, fit-testing, medical clearance, storage/cleaning, and training requirements.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,173 · Current $2,173

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(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:   a. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, employees were required to use Patriot Blast Elite Abrasives, ERI2-11 Iron Silicate Granules which contained iron oxide and amorphous silica to remove paint from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to develop and implement a written hazard communication program.  There was no written program covering labeling and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and training requirements.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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): Employers did not have a safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical which they use:   a. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, employees were required to remove paint from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to keep a safety data sheet for Patriot Blast Elite Abrasives, ERI2-11 Iron Silicate Granules which contained iron oxide and amorphous silica.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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(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. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, employees were required to remove paint from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to provide effective information and training to employees using Patriot Blast Elite Abrasives, ERI2-11 Iron Silicate Granules which contained iron oxide and amorphous silica.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,621 · Current $3,621

Hazardous substances 1591

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 ug/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA):   4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was removing paint containing lead from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to initially determine employee exposure to airborne lead.   Bulk samples of used abrasive blasting media contained up to 1.6119% lead.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

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. 4th Floor- On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was removing paint from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, and the employer failed to collect personal samples representative of a full shift.  Bulk samples of used abrasive blasting media contained up to 1.6119% lead.

Issued

Jun 22, 2017

Abate by

Jul 27, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,621 · Current $3,621

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(iv): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required by 29 CFR 1926.62(d), and documented that the employee(s) performing any of the tasks listed in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(iv) were not exposed to lead in excess of 2,500 micrograms per cubic meter, 50 times the Permissible Exposure Limit, the employer did not treat the employee(s) as if the employee(s) were exposed to lead in excess of 2,500 micrograms per meter cubed, and did not implement employee protective measures as prescribed in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(A), (E), and (F):   a. 4th Floor - On or about February 24, 2017, an employee was removing paint from a brick wall with an abrasive blaster, was not treated as if his lead exposure exceeded 2,500 micrograms per cubic meter, in that the employer did not ensure that interim protection in the form of a respirator with an assigned protection factor of greater than 50 was worn by the worker. In addition the employer failed to provide biological monitoring (determination of blood lead levels) and training as required by paragraph (l)(1)(i).