OSHA Inspection: JACK'S PAINT PLACE, INC.

Issued

2016-11-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-11-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4276.00 · Current $2566.00 Reduced

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:  Paint shop: On or about September 9, 2016, and times prior thereto, employee(s) performing spray paint operations were exposed to chemical hazards from the use of automotive paint products which contained chemicals such as, but not limited to, Hexamethylene Diisocyanate, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, and Methyl Ethyl Ketone which are skin irritants, permeators, and sensitizers, and chemical resistant foot wear was not provided to prevent dermal contact.

Issued

2016-11-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-12-05 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2850.00 · Current $1710.00 Reduced

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) Prep Shop, Body shop, Paint Shop: On or about September 9, 2016, employee(s) were exposed to hazards of undue physiological burden from the mandatory use of 3M tight-fitting half mask respirators without first receiving a medical evaluation to determine that the employees were medically able to use that respirator.  b) Paint Shop: On or about September 9, 2016, employee(s) were exposed to hazards of undue physiological burden from the mandatory use of a full face SATA Supplied Air Respirator while performing spray paint processes in an enclosed spray paint booth without first receiving a medical evaluation to determine that the employees were medically able to use that respirator.

Issued

2016-11-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-11-16 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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) Prep Shop, Body shop, Paint Shop: On or about September 9, 2016, employee(s) were exposed to hazards of undue physiological burden from the mandatory use of 3M tight-fitting half mask respirators and a fit test was not performed.   b) Paint Shop: On or about September 9, 2016, employee(s) were exposed to hazards of undue physiological burden from the mandatory use of a full face SATA Supplied Air Respirator while performing spray paint processes in an enclosed spray paint booth and a fit test was not performed.

Issued

2016-11-09 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-11-25 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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) Prep Shop: On or about September 9, 2016, the employer did not ensure that employee(s) who were required to wear 3M half mask tight fitting respirators while performing sanding operations were free of facial hair between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face.  b) Paint Shop: On or about September 9, 2016, the employer did not ensure that employee(s) who were required to wear 3M half mask tight fitting respirators while performing paint operations were free of facial hair between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face.