OSHA Inspection: PRO PAINTING, LLC

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2218.00 · Current $1116.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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)    248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:    On or about November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be sanding and scraping paint from the exterior of a home built in 1870.  The employer had not developed a written Hazard Communication Program to address the hazards associated with lead and other chemicals to which the employees may be exposed.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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.  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence which was built in 1870.  The employees had not been provided training pertaining the health hazards of lead.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(F): 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 training as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i) regarding 29 CFR 1926.59, Hazard Communication:  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  No exposure assessment or lead testing had been done by the employer prior to commencing the project.  The employer did not provide employees with training pertaining to the hazards associated with exposure to lead and how to protect themselves from exposure.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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.  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  They had not been provided with training pertaining to the health hazards of lead.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i):  The employer did not include lead in the program established to comply with the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200),  ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of lead and safety data sheets,  was trained in accordance with the provisions of the Hazard Communication standard and 29 CFR 1926.62(l), and ensure that all the following hazards were addressed: Reproductive/developmental toxicity; central nervous system effects; kidney effects; blood effects; and acute toxicity effects:  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 14, 2018, the employer had not developed a written Hazard Communication Program that addressed the hazards associated with lead.  He also did not provide training to his employees who were dry scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of a home that was built in 1870.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(iii): The employer did not provide the training program required under 29 CFR 1926.62(l)(2) as initial training prior to the time of job assignment:  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were directed to manually sand and scrape lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced house which was built in 1870.  The employees were not provided with training pertaining to lead and the associated health hazards prior to commencing this work.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2218.00 · Current $1116.00 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 ug/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA):    248-50 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:    On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not performed initial monitoring to determine whether the employees were exposed to lead at or above the OSHA action level.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not conducted full shift sampling to determine the employees' exposure to lead while performing this work.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2218.00 · Current $1116.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment, as required in 29 CFR 1926.62(d), and documented that the employee(s) performing any of the listed tasks was not exposed above the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the employer did not treat affected employee(s) as if they were exposed above the PEL, and not in excess of ten times the PEL, and did not implement employee protective measures prescribed in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v):    248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:    On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, the employer did not provide employees with respiratory protection, personal protective equipment, biological monitoring, or training pertaining to the hazards of lead and how to protect themselves.  The employer had not performed monitoring to determine his employees' exposure to lead while manually dry scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced house which was built in 1870.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(ii): When the employer had any reason to believe that employee(s) had been exposed to lead in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) while performing a task not listed in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required by 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and documented that the employee's lead exposure was not above the PEL, the employer did not treat the employee as if the employee was exposed above the PEL and did not implement employee protective measures as prescribed in 29 CFR 19126.62(d)(2)(v):  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, employees were performing dry sanding and scraping of lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced house which was built in 1870.  The employer had not conducted an exposure assessment to determine the employees' exposure to lead.  He did not provide the employees with personal protective equipment nor were they instructed to implement engineering controls to minimize their exposure to lead.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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):  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not conducted monitoring to determine the employees' exposure to lead nor had he provided them with respiratory protection to use as interim protection.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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):  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not conducted exposure assessment monitoring and did not provide the employees with respiratory protection.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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):  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not conducted exposure assessment monitoring nor had he provided the employees with personal protective equipment (PPE).

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not conducted exposure assessment monitoring and also did not provide his employees with protective work clothing to minimize the employees' exposure to lead and to prevent them from carrying lead home with them on their clothing and shoes.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2218.00 · Current $1116.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:    On or about and at times prior to, November 1, 2018, two employees were directed to manually scrape and sand lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1870.  The employer had not conducted monitoring to determine the employees' exposure to lead nor had he provided the employees with biological monitoring to determine their baseline blood lead concentration.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 1591

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:  248-250 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of a house built in 1870.  The employer did not send the employees for initial biological monitoring to determine their baseline blood lead concentrations prior to working at the site.

Issued

2019-01-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2019-02-27 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2218.00 · Current $1116.00 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:    248 CHURCH STREET, PUTNAM, CT:    On or about and at times prior to November 1, 2018, two employees were observed to be manually scraping and sanding lead-based paint from the exterior of the above-referenced residence.  The employer had not implemented the use of engineering and work practice controls.