Powered by GoogleTranslate

Violation Detail

Standard Cited: 5A0001 OSH Act General Duty Paragraph

Inspection Nr: 102596491

Citation: 01001

Citation Type: Serious

Abatement Status: X

Initial Penalty: $1,225.00

Current Penalty: $925.00

Issuance Date: 09/27/1991

Nr Instances: 4

Nr Exposed: 2

Abatement Date: 09/30/1991

Gravity: 05

Report ID: 0316700

Contest Date:

Final Order:

Related Event Code (REC):

Emphasis:


Penalty and Failure to Abate Event History
Type Latest Event Event Date Penalty Abatement Due Date Citation Type Failure to Abate Inspection
Penalty I: Informal Settlement 10/09/1991 $925.00 09/30/1991 Serious  
Penalty Z: Issued 09/27/1991 $1,225.00 09/30/1991 Serious  

Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 001 Hazard: CHEMICAL

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The %% employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to possible accidental injection of spray painting liquid(s) into body tissue(s). (a) A Grayco, EM490, portable airless paint sprayer in the Paint Shop Area had an inoperable trigger safety device on its spray gun, on or about May 20, 1991. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct the hazard is to routinely and periodically inspect all equip- ment safety devices, and remove from service all equipment that is found defective, until such defects are climinated. (b) A Grayco, EM490, portable airless paint sprayer in the Paint Shop Area was left unattended with residual pressure in the spray gun, after spraying had been completed, on or about May 20, 1991. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct the hazard is to follow the paint sprayer manufacturer's Pressure Relief Procedure, as provided in the Instructions - Parts List Manual for the equipment. (c) A Grayco, EM490, portable airless paint sprayer in the Paint Shop Area did not have a nozzle tip guard or other equivalent protection on its spray gun, on or about May 20, 1991. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct the hazard is to reinstall the nozzle tip guard on the paint sprayer's spray gun. (d) Stationary, airless spray painting apparatus in the Paint Shop Area was used to paint structural steel items, on or about May 20, 1991. There was no nozzle tip guard or other equivalent protection, on the spray gun of the apparatus during this time. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct the hazard is to reinstall the nozzle tip guard on the spray gun.

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.

Close