PORTLAND, ME —
OSHA Inspection: AC SEAFOOD
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of AC SEAFOOD in 555 COMMERCIAL STREET, PORTLAND, ME 04101 (NAICS 311712). OSHA activity number 339328643.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- AC SEAFOOD
- Site address
- 555 COMMERCIAL STREET
- City
- PORTLAND
- State
- ME
- ZIP
- 04101
- Mailing
- P.O. BOX 350, PORTLAND, ME 04112
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 311712
- Employees
- 20
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
8 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Aug 30, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced
General-duty citation text
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): Section 5(A)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to: Crushing hazards while operating powered industrial trucks without wearing seat belts.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1000
- — Z (S) $2000
1910.132 D02
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Sep 17, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced
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:
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $800
- — Z (S) $1600
1910.133 A01
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Sep 4, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation: Processing Area - The employer did not require employees to use goggles while using Oakite CFC, a corrosive cleaning material, from Shemetall.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.178 L04 III
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Sep 18, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years: At the Facility - The employer did not insure that an evaluation of powered industrial truck operator's performance was conducted every three years.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $800
- — Z (S) $1600
1910.178 L06
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Sep 18, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(6): The certification did not include the name of the operator, the date of the training, the date of the evaluation, and the identity of the person(s) performing the training or evaluation: At the Facility - The employer had no written certification for training of operators of powered industrial trucks.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.151 C
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Sep 17, 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: Processing Area - An eyewash station was not available for emergency use where Oakite CFC, a corrosive material, was used.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $800
- — Z (S) $1600
1910.219 F03
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Sep 17, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven -7 feet or less above floors or platforms were not enclosed: Fillet Room - The chain and sprocket drive for the last conveyor motor was not fully guarded.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $800
- — Z (S) $1600
1910.37 B05
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2013
- Abate by
- Aug 30, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.37(b)(5): Each doorway or passage along an exit access that could be mistaken for an exit was not marked "Not an Exit" or similar designation, or be identified by a sign indicating its actual use (e.g. closet): Fillet Room - A door that was not used as an exit but could be mistaken for one and was blocked from the outside was not labeled "not an exit".
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
More inspections at AC Seafood
View AC Seafood's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 311712)
More inspections in ME
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 339328643.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.