OSHA Inspection: TULIA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $2,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):     Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, was not provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it was necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.    On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not ensure that employees wore adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as impervious gloves and chemical splash goggles while handling and applying corrosive chemicals.

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Feb 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c):     Where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body was not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.    On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not ensure that an eye wash station was in place to flush the eyes.         a) In the dietary area.       b) In the laundry room.

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $2,100

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(i):     Each employer having an employee(s) with occupational exposure as defined by paragraph (b) of this section did not establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure.    On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to bloodborne pathogens hazards in that the employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens.

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(2)(vii):     Contaminated needles and other contaminated sharps were bent, recapped, or removed except as noted in paragraphs (d)(2)(vii)(A) and (d)(2)(vii)(B) below. Shearing or breaking of contaminated needles is prohibited.    On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to bloodborne pathogens hazards in that the employer did not ensure that employees did not recap sharps such as disposable razors.

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(4)(iii)(A)(2)(i):     Containers for contaminated sharps were not easily accessible to personnel and located as close as is feasible to the immediate area where sharps were used or could be reasonably anticipated to be found (e.g., laundries);    On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to bloodborne pathogens in that the employer did not ensure that a sharps container was accessible to employees in the laundry room.

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(ii)(B):     Training was not provided at least annually thereafter.    On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to bloodborne pathogens hazards in that the employer did not ensure that employees were trained annually.

Issued

Feb 1, 2013

Abate by

Apr 29, 2013

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 were not previously trained about was introduced into their work area.     On or about August 24, 2012, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not ensure that employees were provided information and training on the disinfectant used to clean the showers.