OSHA Inspection: PRESTIGE IMPORTS

Issued

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $1,785

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 is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:     1) On January 13, 1024, and at prior times, an employee in the painting department was required to wear a 1/2 mask respirator.  The employer had not provided a medical evaluation to determine the employees physical ability to wear respiratory protection.

Issued

Feb 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A):  Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:    1) On January 13, 2014, an employee in the painting department who was required to wear a 1/2 mask respirator had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece.

Issued

Feb 18, 2014

Abate by

Mar 14, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i):  Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:    1) On January 16, 1024, and at prior times, an employee in the painting department was exposed to hexamethylene diisocyanate and hexamethylene diisocyanate homopolymer while spraying clear coat.  The employer did not provide an air supplied respirator, which is the respirator type recommended by the paint manufacturer and the respirator manufacturer for use during spray applications of isocyanates.