LAGRANGE, GA —
OSHA Inspection: FRANK'S COLLISION CENTER
Planned inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned health inspection of FRANK'S COLLISION CENTER in 263 S. DAVIS RD, LAGRANGE, GA 30241 (NAICS 811111). OSHA activity number 341038834.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- FRANK'S COLLISION CENTER
- Site address
- 263 S. DAVIS RD
- City
- LAGRANGE
- State
- GA
- ZIP
- 30241
- Mailing
- 4754 WARMS SPRING RD., LAGRANGE, GA 30241
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 811111
- Employees
- 25
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
7 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.38 B
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.38(b): An emergency action plan was not in writing, kept in the workplace, and available to employees for review: a) Facility: The employer did not have a written emergency action plan for employees working in the facility. The employees were not aware of the procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency evacuation.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $1200
1910.38 F01
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.38(f)(1): The employer did not review the emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan when the employee was assigned initially to a job: Facility: The employer required new employees to work in the facility but did not review and provide employees with information on the Emergency Evacuation Plan when the employee were initially assigned.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1200 E01
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $720 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 a)Shop Area: The employer did not establish a written hazard communication program for the employees exposed to hazardous substances such as, but not limited to Bondo that has the potential to cause severe skin or eye irritation.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $720
- — Z (S) $1200
1910.1200 G08
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not ensure that Safety Data Sheets were readily accessible during each work shift to employees when they were in their work area(s) a. Facility: The employer did not ensure Safety Data Sheets were readily accessible to the employees.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1200 H03 IV
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information: a) Facility: The employees have not received training on the new labeling requirements and safety data sheet format.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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) Spray Paint Booth: The employer requires employees to wear a 3M half face respirator but has not ensured all employees are medically fit to wear the respirator.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
1910.134 F01
- Issued
- Dec 16, 2015
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT): a) Spray Paint Booth - The employees working in the spray booth are required to wear a 3M tight fitting half face respirator but have not passed a FIT test. The employees were exposed to upper respiratory irritation.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 811111)
More inspections in GA
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 341038834.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.