Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,194,531Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-11 Last loaded 2026-08-14

OSHA Inspection: APOLLO POOLS INC.

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of APOLLO POOLS INC. in 3709 LITHIA PINECREST ROAD, VALRICO, FL 33596 (NAICS 453998). OSHA activity number 342365426.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Apollo Pools INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Apollo Pools INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
APOLLO POOLS INC.
Site address
3709 LITHIA PINECREST ROAD
City
VALRICO
State
FL
ZIP
33596
Mailing
PO BOX 6025, BRANDON, FL 33508
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
453998
Employees
20
Ownership type
A

8 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.133 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Penalty
Initial $3,622 · Current $1,174 Reduced
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) At the outside chlorine tank, employees were not provided with eye protection when working with chlorine. This violation was discovered on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1174
  • · Z (S) $3622

1910.138 A

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Penalty
Initial $5,070 · Current $2,340 Reduced
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.    a) In the field, employees were not provided with hand protection when working with chlorine. This violation was discovered on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $2340
  • · Z (S) $5070

1910.151 C

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Penalty
Initial $5,070 · Current $2,535 Reduced
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) At the outside chlorine tank, employees were exposed to chemical burns and eye injuries when employees used corrosive chemical UltraChlor - Sodium Hypochlorite, but were not provided with a suitable facility for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body. This violation was discovered on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $2535
  • · Z (S) $5070

1910.134 C01

Deleted Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Abate by
Nov 24, 2017
Penalty
Initial $406 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures.   a. In the construction department, employees were required to wear 3M 5000 series half-face dual cartridge respirators with 5101 cartridges without the employer establishing and implementing a written respiratory protection program. This violation was observed on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $406

1910.134 D01 I

Deleted Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Abate by
Nov 24, 2017
Penalty
Initial $406 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i): Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:  a. In the construction department, employees were required to wear 3M 5000 series half-face dual cartridge respirators with 5101 cartridges, that are for protecting against organic vapor, while working with acid. This violation was observed on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $406

1910.134 D01 IV

Deleted Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Abate by
Nov 24, 2017
Penalty
Initial $406 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iv): The employer did not select respirators from a sufficient number of respirator models and sizes to ensure the respirators used in the worksite were acceptable to and correctly fit the users:  a. In the construction department, employees were required to wear 3M 5000 series half-face dual cartridge respirators with 5101 cartridges without having an a sufficient number of sizes to ensure correct fit. This violation was observed on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $406

1910.134 F02

Deleted Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Abate by
Nov 24, 2017
Penalty
Initial $406 · Current $0 Reduced
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. In the construction department, employees were required to wear 3M 5000 series half-face dual cartridge respirators with 5101 cartridges without having an appropriate fit test performed. This violation was observed on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $406

1910.1200 G01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Oct 27, 2017
Penalty
Initial $406 · Current $223 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use:    a) In the workplace, safety data sheets were not kept up to date on the premises. This violation was discovered on or about June 1, 2017.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $223
  • · Z (O) $406

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 342365426.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.