OSHA Inspection: NEW VENTURE GEAR OF NEW YORK, LLC

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards that
were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that employees
were exposed to a fall hazard from the vertical spacing of the first rung
of the fixed industrial
ladder not being within the range of 14 inches:
a)Dept. 1450, Q22, pit #3, on or about 9/19/02:  A fixed ladder at the east
corner of the chip chute was not uniform throughout, in that it was 33
inches
to reach the first rung.
b)Dept. 1450, outside pad, east side, on or about 10/8/02:  A fixed ladder
used
to access the roof was not uniform throughout, in that it was 36 inches to
reach the first rung.

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $975 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $975 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,250 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $975 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,300 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $975 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $975 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $975 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,625 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Penalty

Initial $25,000 · Current $16,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards that
were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees
in that employees
were exposed to the hazard of being struck by the load should the overhead
hoist, below-the-
hook lifting devices or bridge crane system fail:
a)The following below-the-hook lifting devices had no rated load capacity
markings:
1.Test Garage, RR40, on or about 8/6/02:  A below-the-hook lifting
device attached to overhead hoist #362 had no rated load capacity
markings.
2.Dept. 865, CC40, Palletize Area, on or about 8/7/02:  A below-the-
hook lifting device used for lifting transfer cases had no rated load
capacity markings.
3.Dept. 1276, Inspection Area, KK24 and LL24, on or about 8/22/02:
Two below-the-hook lifting devices attached to two Aro 1/4 ton hoists
on Bridge Crane #1121A and Bridge Crane #1121B had no rated load
capacity markings.
4.Dept. 892, JJ30, on or about 8/28/02:  A below-the-hook lifting device
at the Okuma grinder #291642 had no rated load capacity markings.
5.Dept. 890, GG31, on or about 8/29/02:  A below-the-hook lifting
device attached to a Coffing two ton overhead hoist at Federal Broach
#290741 had no rated load capacity markings.
6.Dept. 870, CC28, on or about 8/29/02:  A below-the-hook lifting
device at the Okuma grinder #290518 attached to a Cyclone overhead
hoist, had no rated load markings.
7.Dept. 660, L34, Palletize, on or about 9/10/02:  Two below-the-hook
lifting devices used on Aro overhead hoists Bridge Crane #1151 had
no rated load capacity markings.
8.Dept. 1450, J30, on or about 9/12/02:  A below-the-hook lifting device
attached to an Ingersoll Rand 1/4 ton hoist on Monorail #293 used for
lifting chip boxes had no rated load capacity markings.
9.Dept. 1450, U30, on or about 9/12/02:  A below-the-hook lifting device
attached to an Aro 1/2 ton hoist on Monorail #1004 used for lifting
chip boxes had no rated load capacity markings.
10.Dept. 1510, T22, Prototype Crib Area, on or about 9/12/02:  Two
below-the-hook lifting devices next to bins of parts had no rated load
capacity markings.
11.Dept. 0510, S3, inside crib, on or about 9/30/02:  A below-the-hook
lifting device used for lifting transfer cases attached to a Aro overhead
hoist at Bridge Crane #963, had no rated load capacity markings.
12.Dept. 280, T12, on or about 10/1/02:  A below-the-hook lifting device
used for lifting fixtures on a Monorail Crane #137 at the Qualifier
#246686, had no rated load capacity markings.
13.Dept. 1450, M4, Drag Systems 1 and 2, on or about 10/4/02:  Two
below-the-hook lifting devices had no rated load capacity markings.
14.Dept. 1450, outside, east pad, north of A7 vestibule, on or about
10/8/02:  A below-the-hook lifting device used to lift aluminum chips
at the dumpster, had no rated load capacity markings.
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to
correct
these hazards is to:
1.Mark the rated load of the lifting device on the main structure or
equivalent in accordance with ASME B30.20-1993, Section 20-1.2.1.
b)The following bridge crane/jib structures had not been re-rated after
modification were made, and/or the supporting structures for the hoists
were
underrated for what the hoist capacity was rated for, and/or the rated load
capacity for the supporting structure was unknown, and/or had damaged
support structures, and/or end stop of rail was not adjusted to prevent
damage to hoists:
1.Dept. 1276, Audit, HH40, on or about 8/7/02:  An Aro overhead hoist
rated for 1/2 ton was mounted on a bridge crane structure #822B
which was rated for 1/4 ton.
2.Dept. 861, DD40, Palletize Area, on or about 8/7/02:  The angle iron
support for the bridge crane #349 was bent.
3.Dept. 866, GG39, on or about 8/7/02:  The end stop of the Bridge
Crane #852, with an Aro 1/4 ton overhead hoist attached, was not
adjusted properly to prevent the bridge rail from hitting the column.
4.Dept. 863, FF39, on or about 8/7/02:  The end stop of the Bridge
Crane #856, with a 1/4 ton Budgit overhead hoist attached, was not
properly adjusted to prevent the hoist from hitting the column.5.Dept.
1276, Inspection Area, KK24 through LL24, on or about
8/22/02:  Bridge rail at the north end was missing a bolt where the
two bridge rails connected for Bridge crane #1121A and #1121B.
6.Dept. 690, J32, on or about 9/10/02:  A jib crane with a 1/2 ton CM
Cyclone overhead hoist attached, at the Toyoda Grinder #292031, had
no rating load markings on the jib.
7.Dept. 1510, T26, Prototype, on or about 9/12/02:  A monorail with a
Ingersoll Rand 1/4 ton hoist attached above the Gleason Chamfering
machine #291609 had no rated load markings on the rail.
8.Dept. 1450, N26, Gleason Pit System 13, south end, on or about
9/16/02:  A monorail with a one ton Coffing overhead hoist attached
had no rated load markings on the rail.
9.Dept. 1400, Wet Well #1, on or about 9/24/02:  A monorail with a CM
overhead hoist attached had no rated load markings on the rail.
10.Dept. 0510, Lower Test Garage, on or about 9/30/02:  A one ton jib
crane #1024 with an Aro 1/4 ton overhead hoist attached had a
extension welded on the end.  No re-rating of the structure was done
and no testing was done to the jib after modifications were made.
Among other methods, several feasible and acceptable abatement methods to
correct
these hazards are to:
1.Prior to installation and use, ensure the supporting structure is
designed to withstand the loads and forces imposed by the hoist for
the rated load in accordance with ANSI B30.11-1980, Section 11-2.2.2.
2.Repair any deformed structural support members in accordance with
ANSI B30.11-1980, Section 11-2.1.3 and 11-2.3.3
3.Adjust the end stops on the bridge rail to prevent the hoist from
damage in accordance with ANSI B30.11-1980, Section 11-1.3.1.
4.Mark the rated load markings on the bridge or jib.
5.Re-test and re-rate the jib structure after modifications have been
made in accordance with ANSI B30.11-l980, Section 11-1.3.5.
c)The following overhead hoists had broken or missing safety latches on the
lifting hooks and the overhead hoist did not have sufficient clearance:
1.Dept. 1450, N25, Gleason Pit, System 13, north end of tank, on or
about 9/16/02:  A Wright 1/2 ton overhead hoist had a missing safety
latch on the lifting hook.
2.Dept. 173, Heat Treat, D7, on or about 9/23/02:  A Yale one ton
overhead hoist on Gantry #50 over the Lindberg Furnace #7313 had
a broken safety latch on the lifting hook.
3.Dept. 1450, M4, Drag System 1 and 2, on or about 10/4/02:  Sufficient
clearance was not provided between a Coffing one ton overhead hoist
on Monorail #33 and the ventilation system duct work where the hoist
would strike the duct work when it was moved.
Among other methods, on feasible and acceptable abatement method to
correct this
hazard is to:
1.Install new safety latches on the lifting hooks in accordance with ANSI
B30.16-1993 Section 16-1.2.9.
2.Move the monorail away from the duct work so there is sufficient
clearance from obstacles in accordance with ANSI B30.16-1993,
Section 16-3.1.3.
NEW VENTURE GEAR CORP., NEW PROCESS GEAR DIV. WAS
PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS EQUIVALENT STANDARD WHICH WAS
CONTAINED IN OSHA INSPECTION NUMBER 300633278, CITATION NUMBER
1, ITEM NUMBER 1, ISSUED ON 10/26/99, WITH A FINAL ABATEMENT
DATE OF 1/3/00, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED AT 6600
NEW VENTURE GEAR DRIVE, EAST SYRACUSE, NEW YORK.USE,

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $25,000 · Current $16,250 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003

Penalty

Initial $25,000 · Current $16,250 Reduced

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Jan 8, 2003

Issued

Jan 3, 2003

Abate by

Feb 5, 2003