OSHA Inspection: FLEET WASH INC

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i):  The employer did not select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that would protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment         On or about May 10, 2012, the employer did not ensure that each employee that was transferring Zep-A-Lume Aluminum Cleaner containing 10-20% Sulfuric acid, 5-10% Hydrofluoric acid, and <5% Phosphoric acid use either an acid resistant apron or an acid-resistant rain suit while diluting the aluminum cleaner and spraying diluted solution at the customer's work site.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:         On or about May 10, 2012, employees were exposed to ZEP-A-LUME Aluminum cleaner containing 10-20% Sulfuric Acid, 5-10% Hydrofluoric Acid, and <5% Phosphoric acid without being provided face shields while spraying the cleaner at the customer's locations which can be located in the greater San Antonio area or at remote locations in the state of TX.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(b)(1):  Protective eye and face devices purchased after July 5, 1994 did not comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989, "American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection":         On or about May 10, 2012 employees were provided safety googles which did not comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989 exposing employees to a ZEP-A-Lume Aluminum cleaner consisting of an undiluted corrosive concentration of 10-20% sulfuric acid, 5-10% Hydrofluoric acid, under 5% phorphoric acid, and under 5% EGBE.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(b):  The employer did not base selection of appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the tasks to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified:            On or about May 10, 2012, employees were not provided with appropriate hand protection while diluting ZEP-A-LUME Aluminum Cleaner containing 10-20% Sulfuric acid, 5-10% Hydrofluoric acid, and <5% phosphoric acid.  The vehicle(s) had general all-purpose nitrile gloves which have a breakthrough time of less than an hour and are not recommended.  The warehouse had Ansel Pro Petroflex which are a PVC lined glove and are not recommended for splash protection while pumping aluminum cleaner containing mixed acids.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(b):  First aid supplies approved by a consulting physician were not readily available:         a)  Main Warehouse:  On or about 05/10/2012, employees were pumping aluminum cleaner containing 5-10% hydrofluoric acid without any 2.5% calcuim gluconate gel or 0.13% Zephiran choride solution available as recommended for skin contact first aid measures by the manufacture.         b)  Hino Truck, on or about 05/10/2012, employees were spraying a diluted aluminum cleaner containing hydrofluoric acid without any 2.5% calcuim gluconate gel or 0.13% Zephiran choride solution available as recommended for skin contact first aid measures by the manufacturer.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c):  Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:        Hino Truck, on or about May 10, 2012, employees were spraying a diluted Zep-A-Lume Aluminum Cleaner containing 10-20% Sulfuric Acid, 5-10% Hydrofluoric acid, and <5% phosphoric acid, the employer did not ensure that employees had portable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body while working at mobile work sites. Work trucks did not have portable equipment for flushing or drenching of the eyes while in a mobile status.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1):  Portable fire extinguishers were not mounted, located and identified so that they were readily accessible without subjecting the employees to injuries:         a)  Warehouse area next to emergency shower:  On or about May 10, 2012, the portable fire extinguisher was not mounted or identified in a manner where employees would not be able to access in the event of an emergency.         b)  Warehouse area next to employee work bench:  On or about May 10, 2012, the portable fire extinguisher was not mounted or identified in a manner where employees would not be able to access in the event of an emergency.         c)  Warehouse area next to rear exit door:  On or about May 10, 2012, the portable fire extinguisher was not mounted or identified in a manner where employees would not be able to access in the event of an emergency.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3):  The date of the annual maintenance check of portable fire extinguishers was not recorded:         a)  Main Warehouse next to emergency shower:  On or about May 10, 2012, the fire extinguisher maintenance check was not recorded, there was no tag on the fire extinguishers on site and the employer did not provide a record of the annual maintenance check.         b)  Main Warehouse next to employee work bench:  On or about May 10, 2012, the fire extinguisher maintenance check was not recorded, there was no tag on the fire extinguishers on site and the employer did not provide a record of the annual maintenance check.         c)  Main Warehouse next to rear exit door:  On or about May 10, 2012, the fire extinguisher maintenance check was not recorded, there was no tag on the fire extinguishers on site and the employer did not provide a record of the annual maintenance check.

Issued

Oct 30, 2012

Abate by

Nov 4, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5):  The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged, or marked with the identity and appropriate hazard warnings regarding the chemicals contained therein:         Main Warehouse:  On or about May 10, 2012, containers of diluted Zep-A-Lume Aluminum Cleaner were not labeled when employees were transferring the material to smaller containers for transport.  The containers were then labeled incorrectly on the second day of the inspection.