Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,197,549Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-27 Last loaded 2026-08-31

OSHA Inspection: THE BEACH WATERPARK

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of THE BEACH WATERPARK in 2590 WATERPARK DR, MASON, OH 45040 (NAICS 713110). OSHA activity number 342417045.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch The Beach Waterpark for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for The Beach Waterpark is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
THE BEACH WATERPARK
Site address
2590 WATERPARK DR
City
MASON
State
OH
ZIP
45040
Mailing
2590 WATERPARK DR, MASON, OH 45040
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
713110
Employees
250
Ownership type
Private (A)

11 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.134 C01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $4,617 · Current $1,539 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    (a) The Employer did not establish or implement a written respirator program for employees who are required to wear 3M 5000 half face air purifying respirators when moving chlorine (respiratory irritation, lung damage) and hydrochloric acid (respiratory irritation) barrels.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1539
  • · Z (S) $4617

1910.134 E01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: Note: the employer may discontinue an employees medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.    (a) Employees were not provided with a medical evaluation prior to being required to wear a 3M 5000 half face air purifying respirator when moving chlorine and hydrochloric acid barrels to the pump station by the maintenance shop.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.134 F02

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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) The employer did not ensure that employees required to use a 3M 5000 half face air purifying respirator while performing tasks such as moving barrels of hydrochloric acid (respiratory irritation) and barrels of chlorine (respiratory irritation, lung damage) to the pump station by the maintenance shop were fit tested prior to use.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.134 H01 II

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1)(ii): Respirators issued to more than one employee were not cleaned and disinfected before being worn by different individuals:  (a) The employer did not ensure the respirators being worn and shared by employees were cleaned and disinfected prior to each use.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.134 K

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:  (a) The employer did not ensure employees required to wear 3M 5000 air purifying respirators while moving barrels of chlorine and hydrochloric acid were provided with respirator training.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.151 C

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Penalty
Initial $4,617 · Current $1,539 Reduced
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) The eyewash station located in the south building where employees were working with chemicals such as, but not limited to, chlorine (skin burns, severe eye damage) and hydrochloric acid (skin burns, severe eye damage), was not operational in that extension cords were laying in the water basin, the left spigot was missing, and had no water running to it.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $1539
  • · Z (S) $4617

1910.1200 E01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $4,617 · Current $1,539 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    (a) The employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to, chlorine (respiratory irritation) and hydrochloric acid (respiratory irritation).
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $1539
  • · Z (S) $4617

1910.1200 E01 I

Deleted Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The employer did not compile a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present using a product identifier that was referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet:  (a)The employer's written hazard communication program did not include a chemical inventory list.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 F06 II

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:    a) The employer did not ensure that the 1500 gallon tanks of chlorine (skin burns, conjunctivitis) located beside the north and south buildings were labeled with the chemical identity and hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 H03 IV

Deleted Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the  safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  (a) The employer did not train employees on how they could obtain and use the information on the safety data sheets.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.132 D02

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Sep 28, 2017
Abate by
Nov 16, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:  a) The employer did not provide a written certification that a workplace hazard assessment had been performed for employees working with and around chlorine (skin burns, eye damage, respiratory damage) and hydrochloric acid (skin irritation, eye irritation).
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $0

View The Beach Waterpark's full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 342417045.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.