OSHA Inspection: PRO AUTO BODY, INC.

Issued

2015-05-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-05-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $840.00 Reduced

Hazardous substances 044010402460

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)  Pro Auto Body, Inc. 892 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about January 13, 2015, the employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program.  Employees, who were required to wear 3M tight-fitting cartridge-style half-mask respirator, were exposed to solvents and were at risk of injury from hazards including, but not limited to, chemical exposure.

Issued

2015-05-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-06-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 044010402460

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:         (a)  Pro Auto Body, Inc. 892 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about January 13, 2015, the employer required an employee to use a 3M tight-fitting, cartridge-style, half-mask respirator while working.  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation of the employee to determine if the employee was able to safely wear the respirator.  The employee was exposed to paint solvents and at risk of serious injury if using the negative pressure respirator aggravated an underlying medical condition.

Issued

2015-05-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-06-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 044010402460

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:           (a)  Pro Auto Body, Inc. 892 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about January 13, 2015, the employer did not ensure that employees who were required to wear 3M tight-fitting, cartridge-style, respirators were fit tested prior to initial use.  The employees were exposed to solvents and were at risk of injury from hazards including, but not limited to, chemical exposure.

Issued

2015-05-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-06-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 044010402460

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:             (a)  Pro Auto Body, Inc. 892 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about January 13, 2015, the employer did not ensure that an employee who was required to wear a 3M tight-fitting cartridge-style half-mask respirator was clean shaven.  The employee had several days growth beard.  Employees were exposed to solvents and were at risk of injury from hazards including, but not limited to, chemical exposure.

Issued

2015-05-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-05-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 044010402460

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:       (a)  Pro Auto Body, Inc. 892 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about January 13, 2015, the employer did not provide respirator training to employees required to use 3M tight-fitting, cartridge-style, half-mask respirators.  Employees were exposed to solvents, and were at risk of injury from hazards including, but not limited to, chemical exposure.

Issued

2015-05-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-05-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 044010402460

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)  Pro Auto Body, Inc. 892 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about January 13, 2015, the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program to address the hazards in the work area.  Employees were exposed to dusts, flammable liquids, and solvents including but not limited to, n-butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and toluene, and were at risk of injury from hazards including, but not limited to, fire and chemical exposure.