OSHA Inspection: BOMMARITO NISSAN

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,666 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):     Protective eye equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment:    a. Safety glasses were not worn by employees using high pressure nozzles (greater than 90 psi) to blow off vehicles.    Abatement documentation is required for this violation.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b):     Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    a. High pressure nozzle (greater than 90 psi) was used to blow off vehicles.    Abatement documentation is required for this violation.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,666 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1)(iv):     Electric equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause serious physical harm to employees, such as damaged electrical insualtion:    a.  A Makita buffer was used with a damaged power cord.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(g)(5):     The path to ground from circuits, equipment, and enclosures was not permanent, continuous, and effective:    a.  A Makita buffer was used with a missing ground pin.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $2,083 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h):     Employees were not provided effective information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and (2) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced:    a. Not all employees received chemical hazard communication training where hazardous chemical products were used that could cause severe eye injuries and skin burns; in addition not all material safety data sheets were available and multiple instances of inadequate, missing, and inaccurate container labeling existed.    Abatement documentation is required for this violation.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    a. In the detail area, a container labeled as Big Red (Tec 461), contained another cleaner.    b. In the detail area, the label on a container that was said to contain Tec 480, a combustible liquid, was not legible.    Abatement documentation is required for this violation.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:    a. In the detail area, a container labeled as Tough Stuff (Tec 461, a corrosive), did not contain the health hazard warning.    b. In the detail area, a container that was said to contain a solvent (a combustible) was inaccurately labeled as a corrosive.    Abatement documentation is required for this violation.

Issued

Jul 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):     The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:    a. In the detail area where chemical products TEC 461, an all purpose cleaner that "causes burns," and TEC 480, a glass cleaner and combustible liquid, were used, material safety data sheets were not available.    Abatement documentation is required for this violation.