OSHA Inspection: RADISSON HOTEL WAIKIKI

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $3,188 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.137(b)(2)(viii): Electrical protective equipment was not subjected to periodic electrical tests. Test voltages and the maximum interval between tests shall be in accordance with Table I-5 and Table I-6:      a)  During the period of June 1, 2013 through November 4, 2013, at the above location employees used electrical insulating gloves that were not subjected to periodic electrical tests in accordance with Table I-5 and Table I-6. The gloves were last tested in July 1997. The lack of periodic test exposed employee to hazards associated with live electrical parts.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i): Employees working in areas where there are potential electrical hazards were not provided with, and shall use, electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed:          a) Between June 4, 2013 and November 4, 2013, at the above located work place, employees performing voltage testing on electrical equipment of 220 to 440 volts, were not provided and/or required to use personal protective equipment including but not limited to flame resistant clothing, and double layer switching hoods or arc flash suit hoods when working on or near energized electrical (440 volt) parts. Employees were thereby exposed to hazards associated with energized electrical parts.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $3,188 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(e)(1): Cabinets, cutout boxes, fittings, boxes, and panelboard enclosures in damp or wet locations were not installed so as to prevent moisture or water from entering and accumulating within the enclosure.  In wet locations the enclosure was not weatherproof.        a) On or about November 4, 2013, at the above located workplace, maintenance employees worked with and around a damaged 120 volt cold water control solenoid in chiller room. The cover was loose and allowed water and steam into an area having energized wires. Employees that worked with and around the cold water control solenoid were thereby exposed to an electrical hazard.   b) On or about November 4, 2013, at the above located workplace, kitchen employees at the stainless steel meat slicing table, worked with and around a damaged 120 volt outlet box cover. The outlet box cover was held on with duct tape. The lack of a properly installed cover allowed moisture and water into the electrical box. Employees that worked around the improperly sealed outlet box were thereby exposed to an electrical hazard.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $3,188 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(b)(2)(i):   The employer did not maintain a copy of the written procedures outlined in 29 CFR 1910.333(b)(2) and did not make it available for inspection by employees:     a) On or about November 4, 2013, maintenance employees were required to work with premises wiring, lighting, machinery and other equipment. The employer did not have in place and/or in writing a safety-related work practices program as required by 29 CFR 1910.333(b)(l).   The employees were thereby exposed to electrical hazards.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Abate by

Dec 31, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(2)(i):  Hepatitis B vaccination was not made available after the employee had received the training required in 29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(I) or within 10 working days of initial assignment to employees who had occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials:      a) Between approximately June 4, 2013 and November 4, 2013, at the above located workplace, all new employees having occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials were not offered the Hepatitis B vaccination series within the first ten working days of initial assignment.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1): Employees were not able to open an exit route door from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge:           a) On or about November 4, 2013, at the above located workplace employees were required to work in a walk-in refrigerator. The exit route from the refrigerator was not maintained free and unobstructed. The refrigerator door's could be locked from the outside and the door could not open from the inside. An employee in the refrigerator did not have a readily available emergency exit and thereby were exposed to the hazards associated with low temperatures.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:       a) On or about November 4, 2013, at the above located workplace, employees were required to work with hazardous chemicals such as EcoLab Solar Brite, and EcoLab Fast Form Degreaser. The employee's skin and eye were exposed to the hazards and necessitated the uses of personal protective equipment.  The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed.

Issued

Dec 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(ii): Employers did not develop, implement, and maintain a written hazard communication program which at least describes the methods the employer used to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks:      a) On or about November 4, 2013, at the above located workplace, employees worked with hazardous chemicals. The employer's written hazard communication program did not describe the methods the employer used to inform employees of the hazards associated with non-routine tasks.