OSHA Inspection: BEST TOUCH TUB & TILE LLC

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2800.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):   On or about July 29, 2015, the employer had not conducted and documented a personal protective equipment hazard assessment for the bathtub refinishing process.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and equipment resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and/or did not ensure that each affected employee used it:   On or about July 29, 2015, employees were exposed to skin and eye irritation while using a methylene chloride containing chemical during bathtub de-glazing. Chemical resistant gloves were not worn.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2800.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:  On or about July 29, 2015, where employees utilized chemicals including, but not limited to toluene during the bathtub refinishing process, the employer had not identified and evaluated respiratory hazards in the workplace.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine each employee's exposure to methylene chloride:  On or about July 29, 2015, an employee was exposed to methylene chloride during the bathtub de-glazing process. The employer had not performed exposure monitoring for methylene chloride to determine each affected employees exposure.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that no employee(s) was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five parts per million as an 8-hour TWA:  On or about July 29, 2015, an employee de-glazing bathtubs while using Savogran Superstrip was exposed to methylene chloride at levels significantly higher than 200 to 350 parts per million.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(2): The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of 125 parts per million as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes:  On or about July 29, 2015, an employee de-glazing bathtubs while using Savogran Superstrip was exposed to methylene chloride at levels significantly higher than 200 to 350 parts per million.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1): The employer did not institute and maintain the effectiveness of engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limits:  On or about July 29, 2015, effective engineering controls had not been implemented to reduce employee exposures to methylene chloride while performing bathtub de-glazing and re-glazing operations.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $7000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeded or could reasonably be expected to exceed either the 8-hour Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit or the Short Term Exposure Limit:  On or about July 29, 2015, the employer had not established a regulated area where employees' exposure to methylene chloride exceeded the permissible exposure limit and short term exposure limit.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(e)(3): The employer did not supply a respirator, selected in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(3) to each person who entered a regulated area and did not require each affected employee to use that respirator whenever methylene chloride exposures were likely to exceed the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or short term exposure limit:  On or about July 29, 2015, the employer had provided employees exposed to methylene chloride above the permissible exposure limit with insufficient respiratory protection in the form of half mask air purifying respirators.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (m) (except (d)(1)(iii)), which covers each employee required by 29 CFR 1910.1052 to use a respirator:  On or about July 29, 2015, half mask air purifying respirators were to be utilized by bathtub refinishers while working with a chemical containing methylene chloride. The employer had not developed and implemented a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(g)(3)(i): The employer did not select and provide to employees, the appropriate atmosphere-supplying respirator specified in 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A) and selected or used half masks:  On or about July 29, 2015, the employer had provided employees exposed to methylene chloride above the permissible exposure limit with insufficient respiratory protection in the form of half mask air purifying respirators.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2800.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(1)(i): A medical surveillance program was not instituted for all employee(s) who were, or could be exposed to lead above the action level for more than thirty days per year:  On or about July 29, 2015, the employer had not provided medical surveillance to bathtub refinishers exposed to methylene chloride above the permissible exposure limit for 30 or more days per year or the short term exposure limit for 10 or more days per year.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2800.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(k): CFR 29 1901.1052(k): The employer did not communicate the following hazards associated with MC on labels and in material safety data sheets in accordance with the requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 as a appropriate: cancer, cardiac affects, central nervous system  effects, liver effects, and skin and eye irritation.  On or about July 29, 2015, where employees work with and around chemicals containing methylene chloride, the employer failed to maintain safety data sheets for Savogran Superstrip which contained methylene chloride.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(i): The employer did not inform each affected employee of the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1052 and the information available in its appendices and/or how to access or obtain a copy of it in the workplace:   On or about July 29, 2015, employees exposed to methylene chloride while refinishing bathtubs had not been informed of the requirements of the OSHA standard and the contents of its appendices.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(3)(ii): Where an employee(s) exposed to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeded or can reasonably be expected to exceed the action level the employer did not inform each affected employee of the quantity, location, manner of use, release, storage, and/or specific operations that could result in exposure to methylene chloride particularly noting where exposures may be above the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit or the short term exposure limit:  On or about July 29, 2015, employees utilizing a chemical containing methylene chloride while refinishing bathtubs had not been informed of the quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of methylene chloride and the specific operations in the workplace that could result in exposure to methylene chloride.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(4): The employer did not train each affected employee as required under the Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200, 29 CFR 1915.1200, or 29 CFR 1926.59, as appropriate: (Construction Reference 1926.1152):  On or about July 29, 2015, bathtub refinishers that utilized chemicals containing methylene chloride had not received hazard communication training.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):   On or about July 29, 2015, employees utilized chemicals including, but not limited to Savogran Superstrip and Startex Lacquer Thinner. The company had not developed and implemented a written hazard communication program.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):   The employer did not maintain in the workplace copies of the required safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical, and did not ensure that they were readily accessible during each work  shift to employees when they were in their work area(s):   On or about July 29, 2015, safety data sheets for chemicals utilized by bathtub refinishers including, but not limited to Savogran Superstrip and Startex Lacquer Thinner were not maintained.

Issued

2016-01-19 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-02-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

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:  On or about July 29, 2015, bathtub refinishers that utilized chemicals including, but not limited to Savogran Superstrip and Startex Lacquer Thinner had not received hazard communication training.