OSHA Inspection: GREAT LAKES SKIPPER LLC

Issued

May 14, 2013

Abate by

May 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective eye equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment:    (a)  The employer did not ensure that adequate eye protection was worn when employees changed the liquefied petroleum gas tanks on the Yale powered industrial vehicles (Models GLC050TGNUAE082 and GLC060VXNVSE085).

Issued

May 14, 2013

Abate by

Jun 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 (PPE):  (a)  The employer did not perform a certified hazard assessment to determine which job tasks would require personal protective equipment. Employees were changing liquefied petroleum tanks on the powered industrial vehicles without the use of safety glasses and/or gloves.

Issued

May 14, 2013

Abate by

Jun 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 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:    (a)  In Warehouse/Dock #1, an eyewash station for flushing of the eyes was not provided for employees who added water to the batteries on the Yale fork truck (NDR030AENL24TE095). Employees were exposed to corrosives while using a jug to pour the water into the battery.

Issued

May 14, 2013

Abate by

May 14, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is 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)  The employer did not ensure operators of the Yale powered industrial vehicles (Models GLC050TGNUAE082, GLC060VXNVSE085, and NDR030AENL24TE095) were provided with and completed a formal training program prior to driving.

Issued

May 14, 2013

Abate by

Jun 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):  (a)  The employer had not implemented the elements of the hazard communication program, such as but not limited to developing a chemical inventory and discussing methods of training for employees working with chemicals.

Issued

May 14, 2013

Abate by

Jun 10, 2013

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:  (a) The employer did not provide information and training to employees on chemicals that could reasonably be encountered while performing tasks, such as but not limited to changing liquefied petroleum tanks on the powered industrial vehicles.