The first major case involving a multi-million dollar fine from OSHA enforcement of the new Lead In Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62) at the Tarentum Bridge painting project has made numerous headlines in trade journals. Now the significance of the judge’s decision is starting to become understood as its ramifications are affecting Owners, Engineers and Contractors alike. This paper reviews details of the case, evidence provided by both sides, and its ongoing impact upon industrial painting projects across the country.
After 2,200 pages of testimony from 40 witnesses and 52 exhibits for the Department of Labor along with 12 witnesses and 15 exhibits for the defense of the 1992 Tarentum Bridge Painting Contractor, Administrative Law Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld adjourned one of the longer administrative hearings held in Pittsburgh on April 10, 1995. Almost a year later on March 5, 1996, Judge Schoenfeld’s ninety page decision on this case was released by the Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission. The decision upheld $2.3 million in frees recommended by OSHA out of the original listing of $5 million.1 (The complete tabulation of these $5 million in fines is detailed in the original “Citation And Notification Of Penalty” issued by the Pittsburgh OSHA Office to the painting contractor on June 3, 1994.) 2
The Tarentum Bridge is located on Pennsylvania Route 366 and spans the Allegheny River near Pittsburgh. A competitive award was made by the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to a local painting contractor in June of 1992 to abrasively blast the lead pigmented coatings off the bridge and repaint. In August of 1992, painting work began on the bridge and it continued through to its completion in June of 1994.
The original contract documents did not contain detailed drawings of containment systems and ventilation equipment necessary to protect the workers and the environment. The ever present contract inspection personnel were at the site primarily for construction management services. Thus, the Owner was deferring to environmental and worker protection enforcement agencies for resolution of any problems under their respective authorities.
During the course of the work, them were several instances where representatives of both worker and environmental protection offices did inspect the work at the bridge. These inspections resulted in both citations and fines for the painting contractor for actions involving lead dust release. However, work continued to progress across the half mile long five span structure in much the same fashion as it began.
The work was contained in large segments by a series of nylon mesh reinforced vinyl tarps draped down from the parapet on one side of the bridge and under the large steel truss supports. It then extended up to the parapet on the other side. Photo 1 illustrates the type of truss support for the bridge and Figure 1 shows a typical section of the enclosure used during much of the two year project.
