OSHA Inspection: SUPERIOR LIDGERWOOD MUNDY CORPORATION

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

May 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $1,934 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:  (a) Machine Shop area:  Procedures were not developed, documented and used for the control of potentially hazardous energy sources on machinery such as, but not limited to, F30 Dainichi, M# 30X250, S#22813, and the V70 Vertical Milling Machine, and the Machine Systems Vertical Milling Machine.

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(B): Lockout and tagout devices were not standardized within the facility in at least one of the following criteria: color; shape; or size:  (a)  Throughout the facility; Lockout/tagout station lockout devices were not standardize.  In addition; similar types of locks were used for none lockout applications.

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

May 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $1,161 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each operator had successfully completed the training consisting of a combination of formal instruction, practical training (demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee), and evaluation of the operator's performance in the workplace:  (a) Machine Shop; A comprehensive training and evaluation program was not implement by the employer for all power industrial truck operators.

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

May 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:  (a) Machine Shop; An evaluation of authorized operators was not conducted by the employer for each power industrial truck operator.

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

May 11, 2012

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) Throughout the facility; The employer did not document that each power industrial truck operator was trained and evaluated by preparing a certification that contained the operators name, the date of training, the date of evaluation and the name of the trainer.

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

May 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,547 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:  (a) Machine shop area;  Employees were not protected from the point of operation and rotating parts hazards on metal fabrication machinery, such as, but not limited to the LeBlonde, Tarnow and American metal lathes; and the Alliant milling machines.

Issued

Apr 16, 2012

Abate by

May 11, 2012

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 which at included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii): (Agriculture Reference: 1928.21(a)(5))  (a) Throughout the facility: The employer did not develop and maintain a written hazardous communication program where employees were expose to chemical such as, but not limited to, lubricant, paints, solvents and metal cleaning agents.