OSHA Inspection: ROSEDALE TRANSPORTATION

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,620 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) Rear Refueling Area: The employer allowed employees to handle liquid propane gas while refueling propane tanks on forklifts without wearing eye protection.  Exposure to propane gas could result in irritation or frostbite to eyes.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(f)(2): The storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gas fuel was not in accordance with NFPA Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (NFPA No. 58-1969), which is incorporated by reference as specified in 29 CFR 1910.6:    a) Warehouse Dock; The employer did not ensure employees who were transferring and installing liquid LP-Gas had completed training in the following areas: 1) Safe work practices 2) The health and safety hazards of LP-Gas 3) tank inspections.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1): Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe had not been  taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition(s):    a) Warehouse Dock; The employer did not ensure that the Toyota 7FGCU25 (SN 88855) forklift was taken out of service during a time in which the left front tire was worn down.    b) Warehouse Dock; The employer did not ensure that the Toyota 8FGCU25 (SN 18927) forklift was taken out of service during a time in which an error message was displayed upon starting the forklift.    c) Warehouse Dock; The employer did not ensure that the Toyota 8FGCU25 (SN 18863) and Toyota 8FGCU25 (SN 18927) forklifts were taken out of service when the inspections revealed that pins holding the pole and forks in place were missing.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(6): The employer did not certify that each operator has been trained and evaluated as required by this paragraph (l):  a) Warehouse Dock; The employer had not ensured that each employee operating the following Toyota forklifts had been trained and certified to operate the powered industrial truck: Model No. 8FGCU25 (Serial Nos. 18863 and 18927),  Model No. 7FGCU25 (Serial Nos. 95801 and 88855).

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(5)(i): When a powered industrial truck is left unattended, load engaging means were not fully lowered, controls were not netralized, power was not shut off, and brakes set.  a) Warehouse Dock; The employer failed to ensure that the brakes on the Toyota 7FGCU25 (SN 95801), Toyota 7FGCU25 (SN 88855), and Toyota 8FGCU25 (SN18927) forklifts were set while parked.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

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) Warehouse Dock; The employer had not established or implemented a written Hazard Communication program.  Employees were exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to, propane gas.  Exposure to propane gas could result in skin irritation.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

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) Warehouse Dock; Employees were required to work with chemicals such as, but not limited to propane gas. The employer did not provide training specific to the hazards of chemicals used at the establishment to all employees working with hazardous chemicals.  Exposure to propane gas could result in skin irritation.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(10): The employer did not ensure that workplace labels or other forms of warnings were legible, in English and prominently displaced on the container or readily available in the work area throughout each work shift  a) Building Rear: The employer failed to ensure that workplace labels or other forms of warnings were legible on the propane refueling tank used for forklifts.