WOODBRIDGE, CT ·
OSHA Inspection: TEDDY'S AUTO BODY LLC
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of TEDDY'S AUTO BODY LLC in 75 BRADLEY RD, WOODBRIDGE, CT 06525 (NAICS 811121). OSHA activity number 332823558.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- TEDDY'S AUTO BODY LLC
- Site address
- 75 BRADLEY RD
- City
- WOODBRIDGE
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06525
- Mailing
- 75 BRADLEY RD, WOODBRIDGE, CT 06525
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 811121
- Employees
- 5
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
10 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use: Facility: The employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory program when they required its employees to wear half-face negative pressure respirators.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.134 F01
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT): Facility: When the employees were required to wear a half-face negative pressure respirator the employer did not conduct fit testing.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.134 G01 I A
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): The employer permitted respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surfaces of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function. Facility: The employees were wearing a half-face negative pressure with facial hair.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.134 K03
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace: Facility: When the employees were required to wear a half-face negative pressure respiraotr the employer did not provide training.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: Facility: The employer did not provide the employees, who used half-face negative pressure respirators with a medical evaluation.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.106 D04 IV
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.106(d)(4)(iv): The mechanical ventilation system in the paint mixing room where flammable and combustible are used did not operate at the switch. Paint Mixing Room: The ventilation systen did not work.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.107 B05 I
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(i): The spraying operations was not designed, installed or maintained that the average air velocity over the open face of the booth (or booth cross section during spraying operations) shall be not less than 100 linear feet per minute Facility: The Spray Zone Net Spectum spray booth did not maintain a average of 100 feet per minute air velocity.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.1200 E01
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 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: Facility: The employer did not have a written hazard communication program where employees were expected to handle and work with chemicals, including but not limited to, DT-5 thinner, and spray piants containing isocyanates.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.1200 G01
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use: Facility: The employer did not have a MSDS for each chemicals the employees are expected to handle and work, including but not limited to, thinners, paints and oils.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1800
- · Z (S) $3000
1910.1200 H01
- Issued
- Aug 21, 2012
- Abate by
- Oct 3, 2012
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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: Facility: The employer did not provide employees with information and training.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 811121)
More inspections in CT
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 332823558.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.