OSHA Inspection: ADVANCED IMPROVEMENTS, LLC

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,200 Reduced

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):    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer did not ensure that an initial determination of potential lead exposure was conducted before employees of a subcontracted company began to remove lead-based paint from the exterior of a house constructed in 1890.  The paint was removed using powered sanders.    The employer was the General Contractor and had general supervisory authority over the worksite.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

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:  33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:  On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that an initial determination of potential lead exposure was conducted before employees of a subcontracted company began to remove lead-based paint from the exterior of a house constructed in 1890.  The paint was removed from the house using power sanders.  As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:     On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that employees of a subcontracted company had been trained regarding the activities at the site that could result in exposure to lead above the action level; the purpose, selection, use, and limitations of respirators; the purpose and description of a medical surveillance program; and the appropriate engineering and work practice controls associated with the project.    As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, as an EPA Certified Lead Renovator Firm, the employer was required to ensure that all employees participating in abatement activities have been trained.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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.  33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:   On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that employees of a subcontracted company had received training pertaining to the health hazards associated with lead exposure.  As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under the EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) regulations, was responsible for providing non-EPA certified workers who participated in abatement activities with training in Lead-Safe Work Practices.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.21(b)(3): Employees required to handle or use poisons, caustics, and other harmful substances were not instructed regarding the safe handling and use, and were not made aware of the potential hazards, personal hygiene, and personal protective measures required.  33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:  On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that employees of a subcontracted company were aware of the hazards of lead and how to minimize their exposure.  As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, as an EPA Certified Lead Renovator Firm, the employer was required to ensure that all employees participating in abatement activities have been trained.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not establish and implement, nor did they ensure that the subcontractor had established and implemented, a written Lead Compliance Program that addressed how employees may be exposed to lead and how they would be protected.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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):    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project did not ensure that employees using powered equipment to sand lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1890 used respiratory protection.  No employee exposure assessment had been conducted.    As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(f)(1)(iv): Respirators were not used during periods when respirators were required to provide interim protection for employees while they performed the operations specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2):    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 16, 2017, the employer who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project did not ensure that respirators were used by employees using powered equipment to sand lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1890.      As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(B): 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 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 personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(g):    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that employees of a subcontracted company wore appropriate personal protective equipment while removing lead-based paint from the exterior of a house constructed in 1890.  The paint was removed from the house using power sanders that did not have integrated dust collection equipment.    As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(g)(1): Where employees were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of respirators; where employees were exposed to lead compounds which may cause skin or eye irritation (e.g. lead arsenate, lead azide); and as interim protection for employees performing tasks as specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2), the employer did not ensure that each employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, subcontracted employees were observed using power equipment to sand lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1890.  No employee exposure assessment had been conducted and the employees were not wearing personal protective equipment.     As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(C): 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 change areas in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(i)(2):    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that there were change areas where employees of a subcontracted company who were performing tasks involved in removal of lead-based paint from the exterior of a house could remove contaminated clothing.    As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(2)(i): The employer did not provide clean change areas as an interim protection for employees performing tasks as specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2), without regard to the use of respirators:    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that there were change areas where employees of a subcontracted company who were performing tasks involved in removal of lead-based paint from the exterior of a house could remove contaminated clothing.    As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(1): The employer did not implement all feasible engineering and work practice controls, including administrative controls, to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead to or below the permissible exposure limit:    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer, who was the General Contractor for a lead renovation project, did not ensure that employees of a subcontracted company used equipment and containment that would minimize the employees' exposure to lead while removing lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1890.  The employees used power sanding equipment that did not have HEPA exhaust controls.      As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(h)(2): Where  possible, clean-up of floors and other surfaces where lead accumulated was not accomplished by vacuuming or other methods that minimized the likelihood of lead becoming airborne:    33 YORK AVENUE, NIANTIC, CT:    On or about and at times prior to August 8, 2017, the employer did not ensure that subcontracted employees used appropriate means for cleaning up lead-contaminated paint chips and dust after sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1890.    As the General Contractor, the employer had general supervisory authority over the worksite and, under EPA Lead regulations, was responsible for ensuring that Lead-Safe Work Practices were followed.