OSHA Inspection: GENERAL SHOE SUPPLIES LIMITED

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Jul 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(iii): Mechanical power press(es) using part revolution clutches were not provided with a means of selecting off, inch, single stroke, and continuous (when the continuous function was furnished) with the clutch/brake control to select the type of operation of the press. A fixed selection mode that the employer was capable of supervising was not provided:     a) The TORC-PAC 60 ton part revolution press was only run in the "inch" mode. The selector key had broken off inside the selector switch, only allowing the press to be operated in inch mode.     b) The Rockford part revolution press' mode selector switch did not have a means capable of being supervised. The mode selector was a turn knob with no locking mechanism.     c) The Minister part revolution press' mode selector switch did not have a means capable of being supervised. The mode selector was a turn knob with no locking mechanism.     d) The Heim part revolution press' key was left in the mode selector switch. The employer did not provide sufficient supervison of the mode selector function while employees operated the mechanical power press.     e) The SBL South Bend Johnson press' mode selector key was left in the mode selector switch. The employer did not provide sufficient supervision of the mode selector function while employees operated the mechanical power press.      f) The EW BLISS Co. part revolution press' mode selector key was left in the mode selector switch. The employer did not provide sufficient supervision of the mode selector function while employees operated the mechanical power press.     g) The mode selctor key for the Verson-150, S/N: 25095, was attached to the control panel. The employeer did not provide sufficient supervision of the mode selector function while employees operated the mechanical power press.     h) The mode selector key was left in the switch on the F55 part revolution press while employees were operating the machine. The employer did not provide sufficient supervision on the mode selector function while employees operated the mechanical power press.     i) The mode selector key was left in the switch on the V&O 605-29 part revolution press while employees were operating the machine. The employer did not provide sufficient supervision on the mode selector function while employees operated the mechanical power press.     j) The Federal Press part revolution press' mode selector switch did not have a means capable of being supervised. The mode selector function was a turn knob with no locking mechanism.     k) The Danly part revolution press' mode selector switch did not have a means capable of being supervised. The mode selector function was a turn knob.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Jul 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(v)(a): Each two hand control for single stroke operations on mechanical power press(es) using part revolution clutches was not protected against unintended operation:    a) The two hand controls on the Minister part revolution press were not protected from unintentional operation as the buttons were above the sideshields.     b) The two hand controls on the EW Bliss 28 1/2 part revolution press were not protected from unintentional operation as the buttons were above the sideshields.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Jul 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(v)(c): The two hand control system of mechanical power press(es) using part revolution clutches did not incorporate an antirepeat feature:    a) The two-hand controls on the TORC-PAC 60 part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.     b) The two-hand controls on the Rockford part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.     c) The two-hand controls on the Heim part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.    d) The two-hand controls on the SBL South Bend part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.    e) The two-hand controls on the EW Bliss part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.    f) The two-hand controls on the EW Bliss Hastings part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.    g) The two-hand controls on the Verson part revolution press did not incorporate an antirepeat feature exposing employees to a point of operation hazard.    Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Jul 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(1)(i): The employer did not provide and ensure the usage of point of operation guards or properly applied point of operation devices on every operation performed on mechanical power press(es):     a) The TORC-PAC 60 part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation while in the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     b) The Verson 150 - OBI part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation while in the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     c) The Rockford part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     d) The Minster part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     e) The Heim part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     f) The SBL South Bend part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     g) The Danly part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during hte hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     h) The EW Bliss 28 1/2 part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     i) The EW Bliss Hastings part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     j) The Verson 150 part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     k) The F55 part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     l) The V & O part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     m) The Federal Press part revolution press was not guarded on any side to prevent access to the point of operation during the hazardous downward stroke of the press cycle.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Jul 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(5)(i): The employer did not use a control system and a brake monitor which comply with paragraphs (b)(13) abd (14) of this section when operators feed of remove parts by placing one or both hands in the point of operation and a two-hand control, presence sensing device or Type B gate or movable barrier was used for safeguarding:     a) The Rockford 3-S part revolution power press did not have a control reliable system or a brake monitoring system to ensure employees placing their hands inside the point of operation to feed or remove parts were protected from an amputation hazard if critical components of the press failed.     b) The Minster No. 6 part revolution power press did not have a control reliable system or a brake monitoring system to ensure employees placing their hands inside the point of operation to feed or remove parts were protected from an amputation hazard if critical components of the press failed.     c) The Heim 55 ton part revolution power press did not have a control reliable system or a brake monitoring system to ensure employees placing their hands inside the point of operation to feed or remove parts were protected from an amputation hazard if critical components of the press failed.     d) The EW Bliss 28 1/2 part revolution power press did not have a brake monitoring system to ensure employees placing their hands inside the point of operation to feed or remove parts were protected from an amputation hazard if the braking system were to malfunction.    e) The EW Bliss Hastings Works part revolution power press did not have a control reilable system or a brake monitoring system to ensure employees placing their hands inside the point of operation to feed or remove parts were protected from an amputation hazard if critical components of the press failed.     f) The V & O part revolution press did not have a brake monitoring system to ensure employees placing their hands inside the point of operation to feed or remove parts were protected from an amputation hazard if the brake system were to malfunction.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Apr 8, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(i): A program of periodic and regular inspections of mechanical power press(es) was not established and followed to insure that all parts, auxiliary equipment and safeguards were in a safe operating condition and adjustment:    On or about December 8th, 2011 the company had not established a preventative maintenance program to insure all parts of their part revolution mechanical power presses were being operated in a safe operating condition.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Apr 8, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(f)(2): Operator(s) were not trained and instructed in the safe method of work before starting work on mechanical power press(es):    Operators were not trained properly in the safe operating procedures for the mechanical power presses. Operators were running the presses in "inch" mode and not trained to identify when a press was not operating in a safe condition.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Abate by

Apr 8, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(ii): The employer did not certify that periodic inspections of the energy control procedures had been performed:    The employer did not certify that a periodic inspection of the energy control procedures had been performed to identify any deficiencies associated with the company's energy control procedures.     Abatement Certification and Abatement Documentation Required.

Issued

Mar 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5): Fan blade guards, where the periphery of the blades was less than seven feet above the floor or working level, had openings larger than one half inch:    A cord and plug fan less than seven (7) feet off the ground had openings 1 7/8 inches wide.     No Abatement Certification or Abatement Documentation Required.