OSHA Inspection: SAO ASIAN BISTRO

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Mar 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,800 · Current $920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):     The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:      Goggles were not required to be worn while working with corrosive materials and protective gloves were damaged but still in use, exposing employees to hazards.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Mar 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):     The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through written certification that identified the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, identified the document as a certification of the hazard assessment        The employer had not certified that Personal Protective Equipment such as goggles, glove and heat resistant aprons are required to be used when using corrosive materials or when exposed to elevated heat sources around the ovens.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a):     The employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees hands were exposed to hazardous condition(s)      Employees were exposed to hazards associated with the lack of an adequate supply of protective gloves that were to be used during cleaning operations while using solvent based cleaner, bleach, dishwasher cleaner, and other chemicals.  Multiple employees use the same gloves; the company only had two pair available, of which one pair was damaged.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Mar 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,260 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):     One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation:      Employees were exposed to point of operations hazards due to lack of a guard on the Hobart Mixer located in the northeast section of the kitchen area.  The employer failed to provide the original equipment manufacturer guard or an equivalent guard over the 12 quart mixing bowl that would prevent hand exposure of being caught in the area where the mixing is occurring.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Feb 27, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,800 · Current $920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(1)(ii):     The required working space about electric equipment rated 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground, was used for storage:        Employees were exposed to electrical hazards due to the storage of cleaning materials and a table in front of the four 220 volt electrical panel located in the Receiving Room, north wall, east side.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Mar 29, 2012

Penalty

Initial $600 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.32(a)(2):       On or about December 1, 2011, the employer failed to create an annual summary and then certify the annual summary of work-related injuries and illnesses for the previous years:        The company had not kept an OSHA Form 300 Injury Illness Log or its equivalent for the current or previous years.  The company has had injuries requiring medical services in the current year.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Mar 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):     Employers shall develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also includes the following:    A written Hazard Communications program regarding hazardous chemicals had not been developed to protect employees against chemicals hazards.  Employees who worked with hazardous chemicals such as but not limited to SC 200 Heavy Duty Solvent Based Cleaner/Degreaser and bleaches were exposed to the hazards associated with those products.

Issued

Feb 17, 2012

Abate by

Mar 12, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1):     Employers did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area and chemical-specific information was not always available through labels and material safety data sheets      Employees had not been trained regarding the hazards related with using hazardous chemicals such as but not limited to SC 200 Heavy Duty Solvent Based Cleaner/Degreaser and bleaches were exposed to the hazards associated with those products.