OSHA Inspection: ACCU-CARE SUPPLY, INC.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 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):    (a) Workplace:  On or about 6/15/15, employees were routinely exposed to the following hazards, and a workplace hazard assessment had not been performed:    (1)  Exposure of the feet, body, arms and face to unknown and corrosive chemicals in the incoming return sodium hypochlorite container inspection operations,    (2)  Exposure of the feet, body, arms and face to corrosive chemicals in the filled sodium hypochlorite container inspection and capping operations,    (3)  Exposure of the feet, body, arms and face to corrosive chemicals in the sodium hypo chlorite drumming operations.      Abatement Note:   Once the PPE Hazard Assessment is completed you shall:      1) Certify that the hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification in accordance with 1910.132 (d)(2),      2) Provide training to affected employees in proper use of required PPE (1910.132 (f)(1)), and     3) Verify that the training of each affected employee has been completed and documented through a written certification in accordance with 1910.132 (d)(4).      Guidance on conducting and documenting a PPE Hazard Assessment can be found on OSHA's website at:    http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/personalprotectiveequipment/

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  (a) Workplace:  On or about 6/15/15, employees were routinely exposed to the following hazards and appropriate eye and face protection was not used:  (1)  Exposure of the face and eyes to unknown and corrosive chemicals in the incoming return sodium hypochlorite container inspection operations,    (2)  Exposure of the face  and eyes to corrosive chemicals in the filled sodium hypochlorite container inspection and capping operations,    (3)  Exposure of the face and eyes to corrosive chemicals in the sodium hypochlorite drumming operations.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 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:    (a) Bottle filling operations:  On or about 6/15/15 the employer had not provided suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body for employees working with corrosive chemicals (15% sodium hypochlorite).    (b) Return bottle washing operations:  On or about 6/15/15 the employer had not provided suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body for employees working with corrosive chemicals (15% sodium hypochlorite).

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The written hazard communication program did not include a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present, using an identity that was referenced on the appropriate material safety data sheet:    (a) Workplace:  On or about 6/15/15 the employer had not included with the written hazard communication a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present in the workplace.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

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) Workplace: On or about 6/15/15 the employer had not trained seasonal and temporary employees on the hazards associated with sodium hypochlorite when they were initially assigned to their jobs.  b) Workplace: On or about 6/15/15 the employer had not provided effective training for permanent employees on the hazards associated with sodium hypochlorite prior to their work assignment.