OSHA Inspection: FRONT LINE INC.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $5,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(i): The employer 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):      Employees were conducting manual demolition of a facility, which contained lead-based paint, and the employer did not determine if his employees were being exposed above the lead Action Level.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(d)(3)(i): The employer did not monitor employee exposures and did not base the initial determinations on the employee exposure monitoring results and any of the relevant considerations described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(3)(i)(A) through (C):    Employees were conducting manual demolition of a facility, which contained lead-based paint, and the employer did not determine if employees were being exposed above the lead Action Level.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Sep 13, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $0 Reduced

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)(ii).      While employees were demolishing a facility containing lead-based paint, the employer did not ensure that there was a change area with separate storage facilities for contaminated suits and clean street clothing.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Sep 13, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that change areas were equipped with separate storage facilities for protective work clothing and equipment and for street clothes, that would prevent cross-contamination:    While employees were demolishing a building interior whose walls and ceilings contained lead-based paint, the employer did not ensure that there was a change area with separate storage facilities for contaminated suits and clean street clothing.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $5,000 Reduced

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:    Employees were demolishing a building interior containing lead-based paint, and the employer did not offer provide biological monitoring in the form of blood lead and zinc protoporphyrin level testing.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

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.      Employees were demolishing a building interior containing lead-based paint, and the employer did not offer the employees biological monitoring in the form of blood lead and zinc protoporphyrin level testing.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $0 Reduced

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:      Employees were demolishing the interior of a  facility containing lead-based paint, and the employer did not ensure that  lead was included in its hazard communication program, and that the reproductive/developmental toxicity, central nervous system effects, kidney effects, blood effects, and any acute toxicity effects were covered.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i): 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:    Employees were demolishing the interior walls of a  facility containing lead-based paint, and the employer did not ensure that  lead was included in its hazard communication program, and that the reproductive/developmental toxicity, central nervous system effects, kidney effects, blood effects, and any acute toxicity effects were covered.

Issued

Sep 5, 2019

Abate by

Oct 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(h)(3): Shoveling, dry or wet sweeping, and brushing were used when vacuuming or other equally effective methods were effective:    Where employees were dry sweeping lead-contaminated dust and debris during demolition of a facility that contained lead-based paint, the employer did not ensure that HEPA-vacuuming or other equally effective methods were used.