JONESBORO, GA ·
OSHA Inspection: MAACO INC.
Planned inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned health inspection of MAACO INC. in 8284 TARA BLVD., JONESBORO, GA 30236 (NAICS 811121). OSHA activity number 339776668.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- MAACO INC.
- Site address
- 8284 TARA BLVD.
- City
- JONESBORO
- State
- GA
- ZIP
- 30236
- Mailing
- 8284 TARA BLVD., JONESBORO, GA 30236
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 811121
- Employees
- 9
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
4 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.132 A
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2014
- Abate by
- Sep 18, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,100 · Current $2,100
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered: (a) Spray painting and prep station areas- An employee was exposed to eye irritation while mixing and spraying chemicals such as but not limited to, Dimension Pro Urethane Hardener (Hexamethylene diisocyante), Dimension VOC Sealer (xylene), Ultra 7000 Basecoat Mica Mixing Clear (ethylbenzene), and HAPS Free Stabilizer (Hexamethylene diisocyante polymer), while not wearing eye protection.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $2100
1910.132 D02
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2014
- Abate by
- Sep 18, 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) Throughout the facility- The employer did not verify that a personal protective equipment workplace hazard assessment had been performed for employees using hazardous substances, such as but not limited to, paints, hardeners, and reducers containing isocyanates, xylene, toluene and n-butyl acetate. The employer could not produce the written certification that identified the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the dates of the hazard assessment. It was not clear exactly what personal protective equipment was to be worn for specific jobs/tasks such as paint mixing, spraying and gun cleaning.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $0
1910.1200 E01
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2014
- Abate by
- Sep 18, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,100 · Current $2,100
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: The employer had not established a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to hazardous substances, such as but not limited to, Dimension Pro Urethane Hardener (Hexamethylene diisocyante), Dimension VOC Sealer (xylene), Ultra 7000 Basecoat Mica Mixing Clear (ethylbenzene), and HAPS Free Stabilizer (Hexamethylene diisocyante polymer).
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $2100
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2014
- Abate by
- Sep 18, 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: a) Body shop: The employer did not establish or implement a respiratory protection program for employees required to wear a SAS N-95 2-strap filtering face piece. There was no written program, medical evaluations, fit-testing, or training. b) Paint area: The employer did not establish or implement a respiratory protection program for one employee wearing a 3M half-mask respirator while spray painting automobile parts. There was no written program, medical evaluations, fit-testing, or training.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (O) $0
More inspections at Maaco INC.
View Maaco INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 811121)
More inspections in GA
Source
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 339776668.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.