OSHA Inspection: AQUAMARK, INC.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):  A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:      On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not have a written respiratory protection program and employees were required to wear tight-fitting half-face respirators or dust masks when blending, loading, and unloading chemicals.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

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:      On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not provide medical evaluations to employees required to wear tight-fitting half-face respirators or dust masks when blending, loading, and unloading chemicals.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

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):      On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not fit test employees required to wear tight-fitting half-face respirators or dust masks when blending, loading, and unloading chemicals.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k):  The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable respirator training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:      On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not provide respiratory protection training to employees required to wear tight-fitting half-face respirators or dust masks when blending, loading, and unloading chemicals.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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:      On or about May 7, 2012, employees were exposed to sodium hypochlorite (pH 11-13) and sodium hydrosulfide (pH 11-12) when blending and repackaging chemicals and there was no eye wash station readily available.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $960 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2):  The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter:    On or about May 7, 2012, employees expected to use fire extinguishers in the event of a fire were not trained initially and then annually thereafter.      NOTE: APPLIES WHERE ALL EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO FIGHT FIRES

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,440 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i):  The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):      On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not ensure employees operating powered industrial trucks were trained in the safe operation of the equipment.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 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:      On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not have a written hazard communication program and employees were exposed to chemicals, such as, but not limited to, sodium hypochlorite, polyacrylamide emulsion, polyquaternary amine, aluminum hydroxyl chloride, and sodium hydrosulfide.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1):  Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:        On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not provide hazard communication training to employees exposed to chemicals, such as, but not limited to, sodium hypochlorite, polyacrylamide emulsion, polyquaternary amine, aluminum hydroxyl chloride, and sodium hydrosulfide.

Issued

May 22, 2012

Abate by

Jun 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done:    On or about May 7, 2012, the employer did not have a written certification of hazard assessment.  Employees were exposed to hazards such as, but not limited to; burns to the eyes and skin from exposure to corrosive chemicals.