OSHA Inspection: FRASER SHIPYARDS, INC.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i): Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not select appropriate respirators for employees performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel. Employees wearing half mask elastomeric respirators experienced exposures greater than the respirators designated assigned protection factor of 10.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A): The employer did not select a respirator that meets or exceeds the required level of employee protection:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not select appropriate respirators for employees torching and welding in the  tunnel areas.  An employee was wearing a half mask elastomeric respirator with an assigned protection factor of 10 and was exposed 20.79 times the permissible exposure limit.    (b) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not select appropriate respirators for employees torching and welding in the engine room areas.  An employee was wearing a half mask elastomeric respirator with an assigned protection factor of 10 and was exposed 14.21 times the permissible exposure limit.    (c) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not select appropriate respirators for employees torching and welding in the ballast tank areas.  An employee was wearing a half mask elastomeric respirator with an assigned protection factor of 10 and was exposed 11.66 times the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Employees utilizing half mask elastomeric respirators for protection against heavy metals, were not fit tested prior to initial use.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Employees utilizing half mask elastomeric respirators for protection against heavy metals were not clean shaven.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1)(i): Respirators issued for the exclusive use of an employee were not cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to be maintained in a sanitary condition:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Half mask elastomeric respirators utilized for protection against heavy metals were not cleaned as often as necessary to prevent employee exposure. Wipe samples collected from the inside of employees respirators indicated exposures to lead, cadmium, and arsenic.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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, damaging chemicals, and were not stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Half mask elastomeric respirators utilized for protection against heavy metals were not stored properly between use and at the end of the shift, as to prevent contamination.  Employees hung their respirators in the locker room and/or inside of the ship where they were exposed to ambient contamination.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide effective training initially, annually, or as often as necessary to ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of items (i)-(viii) of this section:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Employees utilizing half mask elastomeric respirators for protection against heavy metals were not provided effective training prior to use.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(e)(2): Initial monitoring was not performed for each workplace, or work operation covered by 29 CFR 1910.1018 to accurately determine the airborne concentration of inorganic arsenic to which employees may be exposed:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Initial monitoring was not performed to quantify employees exposure to arsenic while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(j)(1): Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment were not used by all workers working in regulated areas, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed from exposure to inorganic arsenic:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide appropriate protective clothing for employees exposed to arsenic who had the potential for skin or eye irritation while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(k)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of inorganic arsenic:    (a) Main Lunch Room; Surfaces including, but not limited to, lunch tables and the soda dispensing machine were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of arsenic.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(m)(1): Clean change rooms equipped with storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage facilities for protective clothing and equipment, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.141(e), were not provided for employees working in regulated areas or in areas subject to the possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide change rooms for employees who had the potential for skin or eye irritation from arsenic exposure while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(m)(2)(i): Employees working in regulated areas, or subject to the possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic were not required to shower at the end of the work shift:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not require employees who had the potential for skin or eye irritation from arsenic exposure while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel, to shower at the end of their work shift.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(o)(1)(i): A training program was not instituted for each employee who is subject to inorganic arsenic exposure above the action level, without regard to respirator use, or for whom there is a possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not institute a training program for employees who had the potential for skin or eye irritation from arsenic exposure while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1018(o)(1)(ii): Training was not provided for employee(s) at the time of initial assignment to an area where employees are subject to inorganic arsenic exposure above the action level, or for whom there is a possibility of skin or eye irritation from inorganic arsenic in regards to sections 1910.1018(o)(1)(ii)(A)-(F):    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Training on sections 1910.1018(o)(1)(ii)(A)-(F) of the standard was not provided initially for employees who had the potential for skin or eye irritation from arsenic exposure while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(1)(i): A medical surveillance program was not instituted for all employee(s) who were, or could be, exposed to lead above the action level for more than thirty days per year:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; A medical surveillance program was not instituted for employees who were, or could have been, exposed to lead above the action level while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(2)(i): Warning signs bearing the legend: WARNING, LEAD WORK AREA, POISON, NO SMOKING OR EATING, were not posted in each work area where the permissible exposure limit (PEL) was exceeded:                                                     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not post warning signs in each work area where employees performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks were exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5000.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(1)(i): The employer did not determine whether any employee was exposed to cadmium at or above the action level:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Initial monitoring was not performed to quantify employees exposure to cadmium while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(i)(1): Where skin or eye irritation was associated with cadmium exposure at any level, the employer did not ensure that employees used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide appropriate protective clothing for employees exposed to cadmium while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(k)(1): Surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of cadmium:    (a) Main Lunch Room; Surfaces including, but not limited to, employee lunchboxes were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of cadmium.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(m)(4)(i): The employer did not institute a training program for all employees who were potentially exposed to cadmium, ensure employee participation in the program, and maintain a record of the contents of such program:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not institute a training program for employees potentially exposed to cadmium while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(m)(4)(ii): Employee information and training were not provided prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to cadmium and at least annually thereafter:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not initially provide information and training to employees potentially exposed to cadmium while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(m)(4)(iii): The employer did not ensure that each employee who is potentially exposed to cadmium was informed of sections 1910.1027(A)-(H):    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Training on sections 1910.1027 (m)(4)(iii)(A)-(H) of the standard was not conducted for employees potentially exposed to cadmium while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $3500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.73(d): When employees were exposed to unguarded edges of decks, platforms, flats, or similar flat surfaces, more than 5 feet above a solid surface, the edges were not guarded by adequate guardrails meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1915.71(j)(1) and (2):    (a) Herbert C. Jackson, Engine Room; On February 10, 2016, employees were exposed to fall hazards of approximately 12 feet while working from an unguarded main deck during boiler removal operations.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6000.00 · Current $3000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.1000(a)(2):Employee(s ) were exposed to airborne concentrations of iron oxide listed in Table Z, in excess of the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) concentration of 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3):      (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to iron oxide did not exceed 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)of air, as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 where the employee was welding/torching/grinding in the tunnel entrance installing a door; the employee was exposed to iron oxide at an 8-hour TWA of 22.16 mg/m3 of air, approximately 2.22 times the permissible exposure limit of 10 mg/m3. Sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 6 minute period not sampled.     (b) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to iron oxide did not exceed 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)of air, as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). This violation occurred on February 10, 2016 where the employee was welding in ballast tank #5; the employee was exposed to iron oxide at an 8-hour TWA of 13.75 mg/m3 of air, approximately 1.38 times the permissible exposure limit of 10 mg/m3. Sampling was performed for 329 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 151 minute period not sampled.     (c) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to iron oxide did not exceed 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)of air, as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). This violation occurred on February 11, 2016 where the employee was welding in ballast tank #5; the employee was exposed to iron oxide at an 8-hour TWA of 12.56 mg/m3 of air, approximately 1.26 times the permissible exposure limit of 10 mg/m3. Sampling was performed for 466 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 14 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.1000(d)(1)(i): When determined by the computational formula specified in 29 CFR 1915.1000(d)(2)(i), employees were exposed to concentrations of more than one substance for which 8-hour time weighted averages are listed in Subparts Z of 29 CFR part 1910 in excess of the permissible exposure for the mixture:       (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee exposure to concentrations of more than one substance does not exceed the permissible exposure for the mixture of heavy metals to include iron oxide fume, copper fume, and inorganic lead. The mixture has additive toxic effects on the central nervous system, respiratory system, and the eyes. This violation occurred on February 10, 2016 where the employee was welding in the Engine Room. The employee was exposed to iron oxide fume at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of  1.7864 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of air, approximately 0.18 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 10 mg/m3; copper fume at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0055 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.055 times the PEL of 0.1 mg/m3; and lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0476 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.95 times the PEL of 0.05 mg/m3. The exposure concentration was approximately 1.19 times the permissible 8-hour TWA concentration for the mixture. Sampling was performed for 293 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the 187 minute period not sampled.    (b) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee exposure to concentrations of more than one substance does not exceed the permissible exposure for the mixture of heavy metals to include iron oxide fume, copper fume, inorganic lead, and zinc oxide fume. The mixture has additive toxic effects on the central nervous system, respiratory system, and the eyes. This violation occurred on February 10, 2016 where the employee was welding in the conveyor tunnel. The employee was exposed to iron oxide fume at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of  6.2531 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of air, approximately 0.63 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 10 mg/m3; copper fume at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0104 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.10 times the PEL of 0.1 mg/m3; lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0176 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.35 times the PEL of 0.05 mg/m3, and zinc oxide fume at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0299 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.006 times the PEL of 5.0 mg/m3.The exposure concentration was approximately 1.09 times the permissible 8-hour TWA concentration for the mixture. Sampling was performed for 324 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the 156 minute period not sampled.    (c) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee exposure to concentrations of more than one substance does not exceed the permissible exposure for the mixture of heavy metals to include iron oxide fume, copper fume, inorganic lead, and zinc oxide fume. The mixture has additive toxic effects on the central nervous system, respiratory system, and the eyes. This violation occurred on February 10, 2016 where the employee was welding in the conveyor tunnel. The employee was exposed to iron oxide fume at an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of  6.9224 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of air, approximately 0.69 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 10 mg/m3; copper fume at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0132 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.13 times the PEL of 0.1 mg/m3; lead at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0145 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.29 times the PEL of 0.05 mg/m3, and zinc oxide fume at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0936 mg/m3 of air, approximately 0.019 times the PEL of 5.0 mg/m3.The exposure concentration was approximately 1.13 times the permissible 8-hour TWA concentration for the mixture. Sampling was performed for 374 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the 106 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5000.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Initial monitoring was not performed to quantify employees exposure to chromium (VI) while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.1026(g)(1): Where a hazard was present or was likely to be present from skin or eye contact with chromium (VI); the employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing, and did not ensure that employees used such clothing and equipment:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide appropriate protective clothing for employees exposed to chromium (VI) who had the potential for skin or eye contact while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.1026(j)(1): The employer did not include chromium (VI) in the program established to comply with the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (� 1910.1200); and did not ensure that each employee was trained in accordance with the provisions of the HCS and paragraph (j)(2) of this section as well as the hazards associated with chromium (VI) exposure such as, but not limited to, cancer, skin sensitization, and eye irritation:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not include chromium (VI) in their Hazard Communication program, and did not ensure employees performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel were trained on the hazards related to chromium (VI).

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on February 10, 2016 when an employee welding in Ballast Tank #5 was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 466.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 11.66 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 329 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 271 minute period not sampled.    (b) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on February 11, 2016 when an employee welding in Ballast Tank #5 was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 161.9 ug/m3 of air, approximately 4.05 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 466 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 134 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on February 10, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 466.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 11.66 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) and on February 11, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 161.9 ug/m3 of air, approximately 4.05 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding in ballast tank #5.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on February 10, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 466.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 11.66 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) and on February 11, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 161.9 ug/m3 of air, approximately 4.05 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding in ballast tank #5.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching/grinding in the tunnel entrance area was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 831.7 ug/m3 of air, approximately 20.79 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 126 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016 (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 831.7 ug/m3 of air, approximately 20.79 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the tunnel entrance area.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016 (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 831.7 ug/m3 of air, approximately 20.79 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the tunnel entrance area.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 729.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 18.24 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 451 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 149 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 729.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 18.24 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 729.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 18.24 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:      (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 568.2 ug/m3 of air, approximately 14.21 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 506 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 94 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016 (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 568.2 ug/m3 of air, approximately 14.21 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016 (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 568.2 ug/m3 of air, approximately 14.21 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 560.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 14.02 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 495 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 105 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 560.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 14.02 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3)  while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 560.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 14.02 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3)  while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the side tank was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 373.5 ug/m3 of air, approximately 9.34 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 473 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 127 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 373.5 ug/m3 of air, approximately 9.34 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the side tank.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 373.5 ug/m3 of air, approximately 9.34 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the side tank.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching/grinding in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 303.0 ug/m3 of air, approximately 7.58 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 430 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 170 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 303.0 ug/m3 of air, approximately 7.58 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 303.0 ug/m3 of air, approximately 7.58 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 222.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 5.56 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 425 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 175 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 222.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 5.56 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room .

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 222.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 5.56 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room .

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on February 11, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 111.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.78 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 387 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 213 minute period not sampled.    (b) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching in the engine room was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 120.2 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.01 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 304 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 296 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on February 11, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 111.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.78 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) and on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 120.2 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.01 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on February 11, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 111.3 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.78 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) and on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 120.2 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.01 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on February 11, 2016 when an employee welding in the shell area was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 103.7 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.60 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 336 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 264 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on February 11, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 103.7 ug/m3 of air, approximately  2.60 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding in the shell plate area.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on February 11, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 103.7 ug/m3 of air, approximately  2.60 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding in the shell plate area.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching/grinding in the ballast tanks/cargo hold areas was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 181.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 4.54 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 473 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 127 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 181.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 4.54 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the ballast tanks/cargo hold areas.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 181.6 ug/m3 of air, approximately 4.54 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the ballast tanks/cargo hold areas.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching/grinding in the ballast tanks/cargo hold areas was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 136.4 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.41 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 471 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 129 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 136.4 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.41 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the ballast tanks/cargo hold areas .

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 136.4 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.41 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the ballast tanks/cargo hold areas .

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/torching/grinding in the shell area was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 132.8 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.32 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 512 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 88 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 132.8 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.32 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the shell area.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016  (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 132.8 ug/m3 of air, approximately 3.32 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/torching/grinding in the shell area.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight -8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employee(s) exposure to lead did not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, as a reduced 10-hour time weighted average (TWA) for the extended work shift. This violation occurred on March 23, 2016 when an employee welding/grinding in the ballast tanks/storm tunnels/cargo hold areas was exposed to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 93.0 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.33 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3. Sampling was performed for 486 minutes during one shift. Zero exposure was assumed for the 114 minute period not sampled.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(ii): For any employee who is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for 30 days or less per year, where the employer has implemented engineering controls to reduce exposures to 200 micrograms per cubic meter, the employer did not implement any combination of engineering, work practice and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below 50 micrograms per cubic meter or less:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer failed to implement an effective combination of engineering, work practice, and respiratory controls to reduce and maintain employee(s) exposures to or below 40 micrograms per cubic meter or less. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016 (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 93.0 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.33 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/grinding in the ballast tanks/storm tunnels/cargo hold areas.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.53(d)(1): In enclosed spaces, where surfaces covered with toxic preservatives were not stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches from the area of heat application, employees were not protected by air line respirators meeting the requirements of � 1915.154:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Surfaces were not stripped of all toxic preservative coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches before hot work was performed, nor were employees required to wear air line respirators. An employee was overexposed to lead on March 23, 2016 (exposure to lead at a 10-hour TWA of 93.0 ug/m3 of air, approximately 2.33 times the permissible exposure limit of 40 ug/m3) while welding/grinding in the ballast tanks/storm tunnels/cargo hold areas.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $37500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(2): An initial determination was not made to determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Initial monitoring was not performed to quantify employees exposure to lead while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel. Air sampling performed on February 10, 2016, February 11, 2016, and on March 23, 2016 indicated 14 employee exposures to lead at or above the action level.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(i): The employer did not implement a written compliance program to reduce exposures to or below the permissible exposure limit, solely by means of engineering and work practice controls:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not implement their written lead compliance program to ensure employees were not exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel. Air sampling performed on February 10, 2016, February 11, 2016, and on March 23, 2016 indicated 14 employee exposures to lead above the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1): Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment was not provided at no cost, and utilized, when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard of the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide appropriate protective clothing, including but not limited to, coveralls, shoes or disposable shoe coverlets, at no cost, for employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead:    (a) Main Lunch Room; The employer did not ensure that the employee lunchroom surfaces, including but not limited to counters, tables, microwaves, and the soda dispensing machine, were maintained as free as practicable of lead contamination.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(2)(ii): Shoveling, sweeping or brushing methods were used to remove lead accumulations where vacuuming or other equally effective methods were available and feasible:     (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Employees utilized shoveling, sweeping, or brushing methods to remove lead accumulations in locations, not limited to, the engine room, bulk heads, tunnels, and the cargo hold areas.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(1): The employer did not ensure that food or beverage was not present, or consumed; tobacco products were not present in areas where employees were exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not prohibit the presence or consumption of beverages where employees were exposed lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit; a water cooler and cups were located and utilized in the engine room.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(i): Clean change rooms were not provided for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of respirators:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide clean change rooms for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit during demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(ii): Change rooms were not equipped with separate storage facilities for protective work clothing, equipment, and for street clothes to prevent cross contamination from lead:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not provide change rooms that had separate storage facilities for dirty and clean items such as protective work clothing, equipment, and street clothes to prevent cross contamination from lead.  Employees had lead overexposures above the permissible exposure limit while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(i): Employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of respirators, were not required to shower at the end of the work shift:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not require employees with exposure to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit, to shower at the end of their work shift which involved demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(iii): Employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of respirators, were not required to wash their hands and face prior to eating, drinking, or smoking:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure that employees involved in demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel, and exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit washed their hands and face prior to eating, drinking, and smoking.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(iv): Employees entering lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment were not required to remove surface lead dust by vacuuming, downdraft booth, or other cleaning method(s):    (a) Main Lunch Room; Employees  exposed to lead while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel were not required to remove lead dust contamination before entering the lunch room. Lead was found on several surfaces within the lunch room including, but not limited to, tables, microwaves, and the soda machine buttons.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(f)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m) for each employee required by 29 CFR 1910.1025 to use a respirator:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not ensure the elements of the respiratory protection program were being implemented for each affected employee exposed to lead while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i): Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; Employees were exposed to lead hazards while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel and were not informed of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not train each employee who is subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not train each employee who was exposed to lead  at or above the action level while performing demolition, installation, and fabrication tasks aboard the vessel.

Issued

2016-07-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-02-02 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $70000.00 · Current $35000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1915.1001(k)(3)(i): Before work in areas containing ACM and PACM began, the employer did not identify the presence, location, and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM, as required by 29 CFR 1915.1001(k)(1) Communication of Hazards:    (a) Herbert C. Jackson; The employer did not identify  and inform employees of the presence, location, and quantity of ACM and/or PACM in areas of the vessel, including but not limited to, the engine room, where employees performed demolition.