29 C.F.R. § 1915.33

Chemical paint and preservative removers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Employees shall be protected against skin contact during the handling and application of chemical paint and preservative removers and shall be protected against eye injury by goggles or face shields in accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this part.

(b) When using flammable paint and preservative removers, precautions shall be taken in accordance with the requirements of § 1915.36.

(c) When using chemical paint and preservative removers which contain volatile and toxic solvents, such as benzol, acetone and amyl acetate, the provisions of § 1915.32 shall be applicable.

(d) When using paint and rust removers containing strong acids or alkalies, employees shall be protected by suitable face shields to prevent chemical burns on the face and neck.

(e) When steam guns are used, all employees working within range of the blast shall be protected by suitable face shields. Metal parts of the steam gun itself shall be insulated to protect the operator against heat burns.

[47 FR 16986, Apr. 20, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 26351, May 24, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1984–1984 · leading case: Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Raymond E. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 727 F.2d 1358 (4th Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Raymond E. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 727 F.2d 1358 (4th Cir. 1984). · cites it 11× “The ALJ found that Rust-Ban 191 was a preservative coating within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1915.33 (c), but vacated the citation on the ground that the Secretary had failed to show that Bethlehem’s employees were exposed to toxic concentrations of zinc oxide under the standard…”

— 29 C.F.R. § 1915.33(c)(1) — 1 case

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Raymond E. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 727 F.2d 1358 (4th Cir. 1984). “The ALJ found that Rust-Ban 191 was a preservative coating within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1915.33 (c), but vacated the citation on the ground that the Secretary had failed to show that Bethlehem’s employees were exposed to toxic concentrations of zinc oxide under the standard…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.