OSHA Inspection: RONTEX AMERICA INC.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4): Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation of powered industrial truck were performed by the employer without the manufacturer's prior written approval:    a. Site-  Employees operating a Nissan forklift, model #CPJ02A25PV, and a Baker forklift, model #ETD-020, were not protected from hazards associated with overloading and tipping over a forklift where homemade carpet pole attachments that had no known rated capacities were used without approval from the forklift manufacturers.    b. Site- Employees operating a Nissan forklift, model number was not legible on the identification plate, were not protected from hazards associated with overloading and tipping over a forklift where a Cascade clamp attachment, model #12015-P-1, was used without approval from the forklift manufacturer.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5): When trucks are equipped with front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments, it was not requested that the truck be marked to identify the attachments and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered:    a. Site- Employees operating a Nissan forklift, model #CPJ02A25PV; Nissan forklift, model number was not legible on the identification plate; and a Baker forklift, model #ETD-020, were not protected from hazards associated with overloading and tipping over a forklift where two homemade carpet pole attachments and a Cascade clamp attachment were installed without having the appropriate identifications plates attached to the forklfits.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates or markings were not maintained in a legible condition:    a. Site- Employees operating two Nissan forklifts were not protected from hazards associated with overloading and tipping over a forklift where the identification plates providing information including, but not limited too, the model number, serial number, and maximum lifting capacity was not legible.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 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):    a. Site- An employee authorized to operate a forklift was not protected from hazards associated with overloading and tipping over a forklift where forklift training was not provided by the employer.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operators performance was not conducted at least once every 3 years:    a. Site- Employees authorized to operate forklifts were not provided with a performance evaluation at least once every three years.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.332(b)(1): Employees were not trained in and familiar with the safety-related work practices required by 1910.331 through 1910.335 that pertained to their respective job assignments:    a. Site- Employees conducting electrical work on process equipment were not protected from electric shock and burns where electrical safety-related work practice training was not provided by the employer.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 14, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(b)(2)(ii)(B): Control circuit devices, such as push buttons, selector switches, and interlocks, were used as the sole means for deenergizing circuits and equipment:    a. Site- Employees conducting electrical work on process equipment were not protected from electric shock and burns where lock out/tag out procedures did not include locking out the electric disconnects located next the main electric panel board.

Issued

Jan 8, 2013

Abate by

Jan 14, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i): Employees working in areas where there were potential electrical hazards were not provided with electrical protective equipment that was appropriate for the specific parts of the body that needed to be protected and for the work being performed:    a. Site- Employees engaged in voltage testing activities were not protected from electric shock and burns where voltage rated insulating gloves were not provided by the employer.    b. Site- Employees engaged in voltage testing activities were not protected from burns where protective clothing for the body to prevent injuries during an arc flash were not provided by the employer.