OSHA Inspection: WELLSVILLE TERMINAL CO.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):     The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to evaluate the hazards which necessitated the need for personal protective equipment related to douching and unclogging the lime hopper.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):     The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:    On or about October 1, 2012, no written workplace hazard assessment had been completed by the employer for all of the terminal operations, including but not limited to douching the lime hopper and entering the lime basement.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $700 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

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 October 1, 2012, a medical evaluation was not performed for at least one employee who wears a tight fitting cartridge style respirator while performing work in the lime plant, including but not limited to loading trucks.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):     Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not annually fit tested and were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    On or about October 1, 2012, annual fit testing was not performed for at least five employees and initial fit testing was not performed for at least one employee, who are required to wear tight fitting cartridge style respirators while working and cleaning the Lime Plant.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i):     Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or  were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:      On or about October 1, 2012, respirators were stored in the Lime Plants office on tables.  They were exposed to lime dust, sunlight, and environmental factors.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3):     Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:    On or about October 1, 2012, initial training required by the Respiratory Protection standard was not instituted for at least one employee who is required to wear a tight fitting respirator for cleaning and work in the Lime Plant.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(5):     Respiratory protection retraining was not conducted annually:    On or about October 1, 2012, annual training required by the Respiratory Protection standard was not instituted for at least five employees who are required to wear tight fitting respirators for cleaning and work in the Lime Plant.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Feb 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

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 September 12, 2012, the employer failed to develop, implement, and maintain a written hazard communication program at the workplace for employees working with hazardous materials including but not limited to quick lime.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    On or about September 12, 2012, in the Lime Plant the employer failed to label the bins and hoppers that contained quick lime with the name of the hazardous chemical they contained.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:    On or about September 12, 2012, in the Lime Plant the employer failed to label the bins and hoppers that contained quick lime with the appropriate hazard warnings.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Feb 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):     The employer did not ensure that material safety data sheets were readily accessible to the employees in their work area during each work shift:    On or about September 12, 2012, the employer failed to provide material safety data sheets for employees working with hazardous materials including but not limited to quick lime.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Feb 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

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 September 12, 2012, the employer failed to provide hazard communication training for employees working with hazardous materials including but not limited to quick lime.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.22(a):     The employer did not inform employees handling hazardous cargo of the nature of the hazard and special precautions to be taken to prevent employee exposure:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to inform employees of the hazards of quick lime and failed to review special precautions to be taken to prevent employee exposure to quick lime, hot water, and steam when douching (cleaning out) a hopper of quick lime.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.26(b):     A first aid kit and at least one person holding a valid first aid certificate were not at the terminal when work was in progress:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to have at least one person holding a valid first aid certificate at the terminal when work was in progress.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(i):     The employer having employee(s) with occupational exposure did not establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to have implemented a Bloodborne Pathogens Exposure Control Plan for employees required to provide first aid.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(1)(i):     The employer did not make available the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series to all employees who have occupational exposure:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to make available the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series to employees required to perform first aid duties.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each employee with occupational exposure participated in a training program:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to provide training on Bloodborne Pathogens to employees required to provide first aid.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,360 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.27(b)(1):     Immediate supervisors of cargo handling operations of more than five persons did not satisfactorily complete an accident prevention course:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer failed to train their immediate supervisor in accident prevention.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Feb 12, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.91(a)(1):     The employer did not ensure the use of eye and/or face protection equipment when employees were exposed to eye and/or face hazards:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer did not ensure that employees exposed to quick lime while douching the quick lime hopper in the Lime Plant used appropriate eye and face protection, including but not limited to safety glasses with side shields, chemical goggles, and face shields.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Feb 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.95(a)(1):     The employer did not direct employees performing work that required special protective clothing to wear such clothing:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer did not ensure that employees exposed to quick lime while douching the quick lime hopper in the Lime Plant used appropriate body protection, including but not limited to long sleeved overalls, gloves of cloth or leather that cover the sleeves and have elasticized wrists, protection for the neck such as cloth scarves, and protective barrier creams.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.95(c):     The employer did not provide well maintained emergency bathing, eye washing or other facilities where employees were exposed to hazardous substances:    On or about August 29, 2012, the employer did not provide emergency facilities, such as an eyewash and safety shower in the area of the Lime Plant, where caustic materials such as quick lime are regularly handled.

Issued

Feb 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.7(b)(3):     The employer did not correctly classify the following work-related injuries or illnesses on the OSHA Form 300 or equivalent.     On or about October 1, 2012, the employer did not correctly classify the following workplace injury on the OSHA 300 Log for the calendar year 2012:     On August 29, 2012, a recordable injury occurred when an employee suffered skin burns after being exposed to hot water, steam, and quick lime.  The case, which is listed as case number 2 on the log, did not have a check mark in column H for days away from work, column K was not filled in with an estimated number of days away from work, and column E was not filled in with the location where the event occurred.