OSHA Inspection: ELITE COLLISION INC

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

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:  a. Autobody and wet spray booth - the employer did not have a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to chemical products such as, but not limited to, enamels, primers, hardeners, catalysts, reducers, solvents and activators. Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  a. Autobody and spray booth - the employer did not have material safety data sheets for employees exposed to chemical products such as, but not limited to, enamels, primers, hardeners, catalysts, reducers, solvents and activators. Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

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:  a. Autobody and wet spray booth - the employer did not provide hazard communication training for employees exposed to chemical products such as, but not limited to, enamels, primers, hardeners, catalysts, reducers, solvents and activators. Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:  a. Auto body and wet spray booth - the employer did not have a written workplace hazard assessment.  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  b. Wet spray booth - a respiratory protection program was not developed for employees required to wear N95 SAS Safety Corp half face respirator during wet painting operations.  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  a. Autobody - The employer did not provide information contained in Appendix D when employees voluntarily used 3M N95 07048 respirators.  Violation obeserved on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

Apr 24, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  d. Wet spray booth - the employer did not provide respirator medical evaluations when N95 SAS Safety Corp half face respirators were required for dry painting operations.  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

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):  b. Wet spray booth - the employer did not provide respirator fit tests when N95 SAS Safety Corp half face respirators were required for painting operations.  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(2): An initial determination was not made to determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level:  a. Wet spray booth - the employer did not determine if lead exposures exceeded the action level.  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i): Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025:  a. Wet spray booth - the employer did not inform employees of the information contained in the Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025.  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):  a. Wet spray booth - the employer did not determine if there was exposure for chromium (VI).  Violation observed on or about 12/13/13.

Issued

Mar 20, 2014

Abate by

May 6, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(i): Employees were allowed to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present; however, the employer did not ensure that the eating and drinking areas were maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI):  a. Breakroom - wipe samples indicated 0.12 micrograms of hexavalent chromium on the Hotpoint refrigerator. The employer did not prevent employees from eating and drinking in areas that contained hexavalent chromium, in that, consumable products were stored on surfaces containing hexavalent chromium.   Violation observed on or about 2/13/14.