OSHA Inspection: SEABRING MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC.

Issued

Jul 13, 2018

Abate by

Aug 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,543 · Current $5,543

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each employee on a walking-working surface with an unprotected side or edge that was 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level was protected from falling by one or more of the following:  Guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:    a. On or about May 2, 2018, in the manufacture area, the employer failed to ensure that employees working and walking exposed to a fall of more than four feet to the floor were protected from falling. Employees were observed spraying Gelcoat and applying fiber-glass standing on molds, exposed to falls up to seven feet without using any method of fall protection.

Issued

Jul 13, 2018

Abate by

Aug 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,543 · Current $5,543

Hazardous substances 22809130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(l)(1): Evaluations of the workplace were not conducted to ensure the written respiratory protection program was being effectively implemented:    a. On or about May 2, 2018, in the Gel-Coat area, the employer failed to evaluate the implementation of the "maintenance and care" section of the company's respiratory protection. Employees were observed using a tight fit half-mask respirator with facial hair between the skin and the respirator seal and with a contaminated inside surface.     b. On or about May 15, 2018, in the grinding and sanding area, the employer failed to evaluate the implementation of the "selection, issue and use" section of the company's respiratory protection. An employee was observed improperly donned a Jackson-Safety n-95 particulate respirator with a both straps blow the ears.

Issued

Jul 13, 2018

Abate by

Aug 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  a. On or about May 2, 2018, in the Gel-Coat spray area, the employer failed to ensure that any employee conducting spraying operations were wearing appropriate eye protection. The Gel-Coat spray workers were observed wearing safety glasses, instead of goggles, which did not provide adequate protection from Gelcoat vapors and particles.