OSHA Inspection: PITTSBURGH LUBES INC.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jun 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,519 · Current $4,502 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.29(f)(2): The minimum clearance between handrails and any other object was not at least 2.25 inches (5.7 cm):      a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in the stairway between floors near bay 1 and 2, the employer did not ensure that handrail systems had sufficient clearance from any object in that part of the railing was touching the wall as it came down the stairway system.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jun 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.29(f)(7): Handrails and the top rails of stair rail systems were not capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied in any downward or outward direction within 2 inches (5 cm) of any point along the top edge of the rail:   a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in the stairway between floors near bay 1 and 2, the employer did not ensure that handrail systems were of sufficient strength in that the wall attachment bracket had broken completely away from the wall near the top of the handrail system.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,519 · Current $4,502 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used 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) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, during work such as oil changes in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that employees performing work used appropriate eye/face protection.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.135(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee wore a protective helmet when working in areas where there was a potential for injury to the head from falling objects:   a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, during work such as oil changes in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that employees performing work used appropriate head protection.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,519 · Current $4,502 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1)(i): Equipment was not suitable for use as instructed by listing or labeling for the device:      Instances including, but not limited to, the following:    a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in the lower bay, the employer did not ensure that a relocatable power tap (power strip) was used in accordance with listing/labeling requirements. Deficiencies noted during the inspection included, but were not limited to, the device was used in an industrial setting where designed only for home/office applications, it was exposed to oil/other fluids getting onto/inside of it and it was used to power devices such as space heaters.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): The employer did not ensure that flexible cords were not used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:   Instances including, but not limited to, the following:  a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in between bays 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 in the lower bay area, the employer permitted the use of flexible cords in lieu of permanent wiring in that a relocatable power tap was hung near the ceiling and multiple device cords were drawing electrical current from it.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords and cables were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief is provided that will prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws:   Instances including, but not limited to, the following:  a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in between bays 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that adequate strain relief was in use on cords plugged into the relocatable power tap located near the ceiling.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(1): Portable equipment was not handled in a manner which would not cause damage, flexible cords connected to equipment was permitted to be used for raising or lowering the equipment or flexible cords were permitted to be fastened with staples or otherwise hung in such a fashion that could damage the outer jacket or insulation:   Instances including, but not limited to, the following:  a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in between bays 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 in the lower bay area, the employer permitted a relocatable power tap to be inappropriately hung from the ceiling.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(i): Portable cord and plug connected equipment and flexible cord sets (extension cords) were not visually inspected before use on any shift for external defects (such as loose parts, deformed and missing pins, or damage to outer jacket or insulation) and for evidence of possible internal damage (such as pinched or crushed outer jacket):   Instances including, but not limited to, the following:  a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in between bays 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that electrical cords were inspected for external defects at a relocatable power tap, where electrical tape was used to try to repair a damaged strain relief area on a cord that had oil leaking onto it.   b) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, near bay 4 in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that electrical cords were inspected for damage in that a cord plugged into an outlet in the ceiling was found to have a cut in it that penetrated the outer jacket.    c) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, near bay 3 in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that electrical cords were inspected for damage in that a cord plugged into an outlet in the ceiling was found to have a cut in it that penetrated the outer jacket.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jun 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,519 · Current $4,502 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(7): Electric equipment was not installed in a neat and workmanlike manner:      Instances including, but not limited to, the following:    a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, at bay 2 in the lower bay, the employer did not ensure that electrical equipment was properly installed in that electrical wiring was joined with a wire nut and left open and exposed to contact.    b) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, at bays 3 & 4 in the lower bay, the employer did not ensure that electrical equipment was properly installed in that broken/damaged conduit existed.      c) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, at bay 2 in the lower bay, the employer did not ensure that electrical equipment was properly installed in that an outlet box was not secured to a structure, but rather was allowed to freely hang on flexible type conduit.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(a)(2)(ix): Lamps for general illumination were not protected from accidental contact or breakage by a suitable fixture or lampholder with a guard:   Instances including, but not limited to, the following:  a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, near bays 2 & 3 in the lower bays, the employer did not ensure that lighting systems were provided with appropriate covers.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(i): Conductors entering cutout boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not protected from abrasion, or  openings through which conductors enter shall be effectively closed:   a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, at the rear of bay 2 in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure the electrical conductors entering the bottom of a box were protected from abrasion.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii): Unused openings in cabinets, boxes, and fittings were not effectively closed:   Instances including, but not limited to, the following:  a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, near the area of bay 1 and bay 2 in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that unused openings in boxes were effectively closed.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jun 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $19,555 · Current $10,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): All places of employment, passageways, storerooms, service rooms, and walking-working surfaces were not kept in a clean, orderly, and sanitary condition:      a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, throughout the facility, the employer did not ensure that areas such as stairways between levels, or floors and catwalks in the lower bay, were kept clean in that these surfaces were covered with oil/other similar materials which made these surfaces slippery to walk/work on.      b) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in the supply room located in the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that the floor was kept clean or sanitary in that a water/sewer leak had occurred, causing puddles of fluid to exist in the walking/working area.     Pittsburgh Lubes Inc. dba Jiffy Lube was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.22 (a)(2), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1006169, citation number 2, item 1, and was affirmed as a final order on December 10, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at 201 Freeport Road, Aspinwall, PA.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jun 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $326 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(8)(ii): The employer did not apply floor markings at least 6 feet (1.8 m) from the edge of the pit in colors that contrast with the surrounding area or did not place a warning line at least 6 feet (1.8 m) from the edge of the pit as well as stanchions that were capable of resisting, without tipping over, a force of at least 16 pounds (71 N) applied horizontally against the stanchion at a height of 30 inches (76 cm) or did not place a combination of floor markings and warning lines at least 6 feet (1.8 m) from the edge of the pit:      a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, during work in the upper bay area of the facility, the employer did not ensure that appropriate fall protection practices were followed while working near service repair pits, exposing employees to fall hazards of approximately 5 1/2 feet in depth in that the employer did not ensure that floor markings at least 6 feet around the pits were maintained or that other permissible fall protection options were complied with.    Pittsburgh Lubes Inc. dba Jiffy Lube was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard, 29 CFR 1910.23 (a)(5), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1006169, citation number 1, item 2, and was affirmed as a final order on December 10, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at 201 Freeport Road, Aspinwall, PA.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jun 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $1,630 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.7(b)(3): When an injury or illness involves one or more days away from work, the employer did not record the injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log with a check mark in the space for cases involving days away and an entry of the number of calendar days away from work in the number of days column, and when the employee was out for  an extended period of time, the employer did not estimate the number of days that the employee would be away, and did not update that count when the actual number of days was known:      a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about March 2, 2017, the employer did not ensure that OSHA injury and illness records were properly maintained in that the entry section for case number 17-004 was not classified with days away from work and did not show the number of work days that were missed.     b) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about March 2, 2017, the employer did not ensure that OSHA injury and illness records were properly maintained in that the entry section for case number 17-007 was not classified with days away from work and did not show the number of work days that were missed.

Issued

Jun 12, 2017

Abate by

Jul 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not utilize appropriate hazard warnings, or alternatively, words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals, and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, that provided employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:      Instances including, but not limited to, the following:    a) Job site, 5125 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA: On or about February 23, 2017, in the supply room of the lower bay area, the employer did not ensure that tanks of oil were properly labeled in that they had only the name and type of the oil on them.