OSHA Inspection: RME AUTO WORKS

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The employer did not furnish employment or a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards which were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards from the bursting of PVC piping that was used to deliver compressed air to areas of the body shop such as the paint booth.  The ASTM D1785 specification for this type of PVC piping is for the distribution of pressurized liquids only and it is not for use with compressed air which contains large amounts of stored energy.  In the event of a pipe system failure, pipe shards could be launched into the shop.      Abatement:    Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct the hazard is to install pipe which is rated for use with compressed air and/or other pressurized gases.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 22, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1):  On every building or other structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official were not marked on plates of approved design and securely affixed to the building:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to struck-by or crushed-by hazards while they worked in the office area where shop materials were stored on the ceiling/roof structure.  The employer had not posted the load rating for the roof structure.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 1, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1):  Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 8 feet when they accessed the roof of the office to store and retrieve equipment and other work related materials.  The open side of the floor above the office roof was not guarded with standard railings or any other type of fall protection.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Nov 9, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(d)(1):  Every flight of stairs having our or more risers was not equipped with standard stair railings or standard handrails as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) of this section:     a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards while they used the staircase leading to the roof above the office because it was not equipped with standard railings.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(e)(2)(i)[b][2]:  The quantity of (flammable or combustible) liquid that may be located outside of an inside storage room or storage cabinet in a building shall not exceed 120 gallons of Class IB, IC, II or III liquids in containers:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards because more than 120 gallons of flammable liquids (coatings, activators, thinners, strippers) were stored in the paint area outside of an approved storage room or cabinet.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not verify, through written certification, that a hazard assessment of the workplace had been performed to determine the type of personal protective equipment necessary to protect employees from such hazards as chemicals, flying chips and particles, power tools, welding equipment and noise.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $900 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):  A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented 	for required respirator use:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not establish a written respiratory protection program and provide adequate training to employees who used respirators to protect themselves from isocyanates, and other hazardous chemicals and respirable dusts.  Employees used elastomeric half-face respirators with organic vapor cartridges and particulate filters without being provided medical evaluations and effective training in respirator selection, use, cleaning, storage and maintenance which ensured that the use of the respirators themselves did not present a health hazard to the employees.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Feb 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 contaminants chemical state and physical form:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, the employer did not protect employees against exposure to a variety of hazardous chemicals including but not limited to isocyanates by identifying and evaluating the respiratory hazards in the workplace and basing the respiratory selection process on that evaluation.  Employees performed spray finishing operations with half-face air purifying respirators which are not recommended for use with isocyanates unless the spraying is conducted in a downdraft booth.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Nov 9, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i):  In completed installations, each outlet box did not have a cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy:      a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock because there was no cover on two outlet/junction boxes on the wall where the air compressor had been located previously.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $900 Reduced

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:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to unknown concentrations of methylene chloride because the employer failed to conduct an initial exposure assessment for employees that used Klean Strip Aircraft Remover (60-100% methylene chloride) to remove paint from auto parts.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(i)(2):  When it was reasonably foreseeable that an employees eyes may contact solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater MC (for example, through splashes, spills or improper work practices), the employer did not provide appropriate eyewash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use, and did not ensure that affected employees used those facilities when necessary:    a)  On or about June1, 2011, and at times prior, employees were exposed to eye injuries from methylene chloride while they applied Kleen Strip Aircraft Remover (60-100% methylene chloride) to auto body parts in order to remove paint.

Issued

Nov 8, 2011

Abate by

Dec 8, 2011

Penalty

Initial $1,530 · Current $900 Reduced

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:    a)  On or about June 1, 2011, and at times prior, the employer failed to fully develop and implement a hazard communication program in order to inform employees of the health hazards associated with the chemicals used in the paint and body shop.