Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,194,531Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-11 Last loaded 2026-08-14

OSHA Inspection: BASEMENT 186

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of BASEMENT 186 in 186 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUDSON, OH 44236 (NAICS 812112). OSHA activity number 339496275.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Basement 186 for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Basement 186 is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
BASEMENT 186
Site address
186 NORTH MAIN STREET
City
HUDSON
State
OH
ZIP
44236
Mailing
186 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUDSON, OH 44236
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
812112
Employees
6
Ownership type
Private (A)

7 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.1048 D01 I

Other-than-serious 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Jun 2, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1290

29 CFR 1910.1048(d)(1)(i): Each employer who has a workplace covered by this standard shall monitor employees to determine their exposure to formaldehyde:    On or about December 6, 2013, a hair stylist working with General Keratin in the salon was exposed to formaldehyde vapors at 1.19 ppm which is approximately 0.60 times the short term exposure limit of 2.0 ppm; exposure calculations are based off a 15 minute sample. The employer did not monitor employees to determine if formaldehyde was present.    On or about February 7, 2014, a hair stylist working with General Keratin in the salon was exposed to formaldehyde vapors at 1.16 ppm which is approximately 0.58 times the short term exposure limit of 2.0 ppm; exposure calculations are based off a 15 minute sample. The employer did not monitor employees to determine if formaldehyde was present.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $2000

1910.1048 M05

Other-than-serious 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Jun 2, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

29 CFR 1910.1048(m)(5): The employer did not develop, implement, and maintain at the workplace, a written hazard communication program for formaldehyde exposures in the workplace:    On or about November 21, 2013, the hair stylist working with General Keratin in the salon was exposed to formaldehyde vapors and the employer did not have a written hazard communication program for formaldehyde exposure in the workplace.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1048 N01

Other-than-serious 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Jun 2, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

29 CFR 1910.1048(n)(1): The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to formaldehyde participated in a training program:    On or about December 6, 2013, the hair stylist working with General Keratin in the salon was exposed to formaldehyde vapors at 1.19 ppm. The employer did not train employees exposed to formaldehyde at or above 0.1 ppm.    On or about February 7, 2014, the hair stylist working with General Keratin in the salon was exposed to formaldehyde vapors at 1.16 ppm. The employer did not train employees exposed to formaldehyde at or above 0.1 ppm.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 E01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Jun 2, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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:    On or about November 21, 2013, the employer did not develop and implement a hazard communication program for employees who handle chemicals such as hair dye and perming solution.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 G01

Deleted Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Apr 19, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical which they used:   On or about November 21, 2013, the employer did not have a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for hazadous chemicals such as hair dye, perming solution, or General Keratin.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 H01

Deleted Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Apr 19, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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:  On or about November 21, 2013, the employer did not provide training and information to employees who handle hazardous chemicals such as hair dye or perming solution.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.132 D02

Other-than-serious 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Apr 1, 2014
Abate by
Jun 2, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.    On or about November 21, 2013 the employer did not have a written hazard assessment identifying the hazards throughout the facility.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $0

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 339496275.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.