OSHA Inspection: SPARKLE AUTO WASH

Issued

Jun 2, 2015

Abate by

Jun 25, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):  At the car wash - PPE hazard assessment had not been conducted as evidenced by the lack of PPE used while handling the corrosive material.

Issued

Jun 2, 2015

Abate by

Jun 25, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  At the car wash - The employer did not ensure that the employees were working with adequate/appropriate eye and face protection when working with the corrosive material Aluma Brite.

Issued

Jun 2, 2015

Abate by

Jun 25, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.  At the car wash - The employer did not ensure that the employees were working with adequate/appropriate hand protection when working with the corrosive material Aluma Brite.

Issued

Jun 2, 2015

Abate by

Jun 25, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:  At the car wash - An eye wash station was not available for emergency use where corrosive materials were used.

Issued

Jun 2, 2015

Abate by

Jun 25, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,200 Reduced

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:  At the car wash - A written hazardous communication program was not established which includes:  (a) properly labeling hazardous materials.  The 30 gallon drum containing the corrosive material Aluma Brite and the prep bottles containing a mixture of Aluma Brite and water were not properly labeled.  The 30 gallon drum of Aluma Brite had markings that were not legible.  The prep bottle had no marking to indicate the corrosive material being used.  (b) Safety Data Sheets (SDS) were not available for hazardous chemicals being used in the workplace.  A variety of SDS were available for materials that were used in the past.  However, no SDS was available for Aluma Brite at the time of the inspection.  (c) Training regarding information and proper handling of hazardous materials had not been conducted.  Proper use of the hazardous material including SDS, reading labels, and appropriate work practices such as using proper PPE for the use of corrosive chemicals was not available for employees.