OSHA Inspection: VERTICAL TURBINE SPECIALIST

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(b)(1):     Where mechanical handling equipment was used, sufficient safe clearances were not allowed for aisles, at loading docks, through doorways and wherever turns or passage must be made. Aisles and passageways were not kept clear and in good repairs, with no obstruction across or in aisles that could create a hazard.    The employer did not ensure that Aisles and passageways were kept clear and in good repairs, with no obstruction across or in aisles that could create a hazard exposing employees to struck by hazards from tipping or falling equipment. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012 where a forklift was operated over shreads of metal potentially locking up the wheels causing load to tip.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(b)(2):     Permanent aisles and passageways were not appropriately marked.    The employer did not ensure that aisles and passageways were marked, where pedestrainas and forklifts operators employees used the same isles and passageways that were not marked. This violation was most rescently observed:    a) On or about 15 March 2012 where employees and forklifts were using the same isle and pasageway that was not marked near the King Mills exposing the employees to struck by hazrds    b) On or about 15 March 2012 where employees and forklift usded the same passageway near finishing area exposing employees to struck by hazrds

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,800 · Current $1,440 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(f):     Review of emergency action plan. The employer did not review the emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan:    The employer did not ensure to review the emergency action plan with each employee covered by the plan. This violation was most recently observed    a) On or about 05 April 2012 when changes to the plan and facility were made and not reviewed with each employee who was required to evacuate.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(9):     Cleaning. Spray booths were not so installed that all portions were readily accessible for cleaning. A clear space of not less than 3 feet on all sides was not kept free from storage or combustible construction.      On or about 30 March 2012 the employer did not ensure that Spray booths were so installed so that all portions were readily accessible for cleaning and not less than 3 feet of free space kept on all sides.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(c)(8):     Portable electric lamps were used in spraying area during spraying operations. Portable electric lamps, if used during cleaning or repairing operations, were not of the type approved for hazardous Class I locations.    a) On or about 30 March 2012, The employer did not ensure that electric lamps were not used in spraying areas, and did not ensure that they were approved for hazardous class locations.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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. The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.    The employer did not ensure that employees were medically evaluated to determine the employees ability to use a respirator. This violations was most rcently observed     a) On or about 15 March 2012 where employees in the dry spray coating booth were wearing respirators and had not been medically evaluated to determine their fitness to wear the respirator.      b) On or about 15 March 2012 where employees in the wet spray coating booth were wearing respirators and had not been medically evaluated to determine their fitness to wear the respirator.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1):     Energy control program. The employer did not establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performs any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment was not isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.      The employer did not ensure that programs and procedures for affixing appropriate lockout devices or tag out devices to energy isolating devices, and to otherwise disable machines or equipment is stablished.  This violation was most rescently observed     a) On or about 15 March 2012 where the employer did not have a program.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 are engaged in the activities covered by this section.     Note: Exception: The employer need not document the required procedure for a particular machine or equipment, when all of the following elements exist: (1) The machine or equipment has no potential for stored or residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down which could endanger employees; (2) the machine or equipment has a single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; (3) the isolation and locking out of that energy source will completely deenergize and deactivate the machine or equipment; (4) the machine or equipment is isolated from that energy source and locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device will achieve a locker-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not create hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing this exception, has had no accidents involving the unexpected activation or reenergization of the machine or equipment during servicing or maintenance.    The employer did not ensure that energy control procedures are developed, documented, and utilized for the control of hazardous energy on machinery, at 1802 50th ST, Lubbock TX.     a)This was observed on or about 15 March 2012 , where maintenance was performed on the VTC machine without specific energy control procedures, exposing employees to struck by, caught between or exposure to electrocution or electrical shock hazards    b)This was observed on or about 15 March 2012 , where maintenance was performed on a drill press without specific energy control procedures, exposing employees to struck by, caught between or exposure to electrocution or electrical shock hazards

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i):     The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirements of this standard were being followed.    The employer did not ensure that periodic inspection of their lock out tag out hazardous energy control procedures are conducted at least annually to ensure that the procedures and the requirements of this standard were being properly followed. This violation was most rescently observed:     a)On or about 15 March 2012, when periodic inspection records where requested and were not available for review.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(ii):     The employer did not certify that the periodic inspections have been performed. The certification shall identify the machine or equipment on which the energy control procedure was being utilized, the date of the inspection, the employees included in the inspection, and the person performing the inspection.    On or about 15 March 2012 the employer had not certified in accodance with this subpart that periodic inspections of their hazardous energy control procedures had been performed

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(D):     Identifiable. Lockout devices and tagout devices did not indicate the identity of the employee applying the device(s).    The employer does not ensure that lockout devices and tagout devices used by employees indicate the identity of the employee applying the devices. This violation was most recently observed on     a) 29 March 2012 where maintenance employees performing work on machinery (VTC) and or equipmentused locks and tags that did not indicate the identity of the employee who applied the device.    b) 02 April 2012 where maintenance employees performing work on machinery near plasma cutter and or equipment used locks and tags that did not indicate the identity of the employee who applied the device.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i):     The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees.     The employer did not ensure that training was provided as specified by this subpart to employees defined by this standard as "authorized", "affected", and "other" who work with and or around machinery and equipment capable of releasing hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance activities.    a) On or about 15 March 2012 when training documents were requested for those who work with and or around machinery and equipment capable of releasing hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance activities. and were not available for review.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4):     Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation were performed by the customer or user without manufacturers prior written approval. Capacity, operation, and maintenance instruction plates, tags, or decals were not changed accordingly.    The employer does not ensure that modification performed to Powered industrial vehicles are approved by manufacturer prior to initiating. This vilation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 30 March 2012 where forks forklifts had holes drilled into them affecting the capacity and safe operation of the equipment exposing employees to struck by caught between hazard.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l).    The employer did not ensure that each powered indutrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial  truck safely, as demonstrated by the succesful completion of the training and evaluation specified in paragraph(l). This violation was most rescently observed:    a) On or about 15 March 2012 the employer had not trained employees who operate powered industrail vehicles.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(i):     Refresher training, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of that training, was not conducted as required by paragraph (l)(4)(ii) to ensure that the operator has the knowledge and skills needed to operate the powered industrial truck safely.    The employer did not ensure that employees were retrained after being observed operating the vehicle in an unsafe or distracted manner exposing employees to struck by hazard. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012 where an employee was observed operating a forklift and talking on the phone while in forward motion near the finishing area.    b) On or about 15 March 2012 where an employee was observed operating a forklift with no seatbelt, and not looking in the direction of travel as per 1910.178(n)(6)

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 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 conducted at least once every three years.    The employer did not ensure that an evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance is conducted at least once every three years. This violation was most recently observed:    a) On or about 15 March 2012 employees who operated powered industrial trucks had not been evaluated at least once every three years.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7):     Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service, and were not removed from if the examination shows any condition adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle. Such examination was not made at least daily. Where industrial trucks were used on a round-the-clock basis, were not examined after each shift. Defects when found were not immediately reported and corrected.     The employer did not ensure that powered industrial trucks which were used on a round the clock basis were examined for defects before use. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012 powered industrial truck had not been inspected.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(g)(1)(v):     Pendant control boxes were not constructed to prevent electrical shock and were not clearly marked for identification of functions.    The employer did not ensure that pendant controls were maintained to prevent electrical shock and were clearly marked for identification. This violation was most rescently observed:    a) On or about 13 March 2012 where in the welding area a pendant control was missing contol covers and labelling was not maintaind visible exposing employees to struck by and electrical hazards of 110 volts at the pendant.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(2):     Frequent inspection. The following items were not inspected for defects at intervals as defined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section or as specifically indicated, including observation during operation for any defects which might appear between regular inspections. All deficiencies such as listed were not carefully examined and determination made as to whether they constituted a safety hazard:    The employer did not ensure that frequent inspections were conducted to identify defects and dificiencies. This violation was most rescently identified    a) On or about 15 March 2012 hook with damaged or missing locking clamp was not replaced repaired or put out of service exposing employees to struck by caught betrween hazard    b) On or about 15 March 2012 where a latch on a hook was not identified as damaged due to lack of inspection    c) On or about 02 April 2012 where a hook mising the locking mechanism was in use and not identified as unsafe due to lack of inspection.    d) On or about 02 April 2012 where a locking mechanism on a hook had a bolt  isntead of a manufacturer recommended pin to hold it in place.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(c)(1):     Slings that were damaged or defective were in use.    The employer did not ensure that damaged slings were kept from being used exposing employees to a struck, caught by hazard. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012 where slings with damaged edges were in use in welding area.    b) On or about 29 March 2012 where damaged sling where in use throught the facility    c) On or about 30 March 2012 wher a damged sling was used in the lathe area    d) On or about 30 March 2012 where near the lathe area a damaged sling in use

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(d):     Inspections. Each day before being used, the sling and all fastenings and attachments were not inspected for damage or defects by a competent person designated by the employer. Additional inspections were not performed during sling use, where service conditions warrant. Damaged or defective slings were not immediately removed from service.    The employer did not ensure that slings and all fastenning attachments were inspected for damage or defects by a competent person designated by the employer. This violatin was most rescently observed     a) On or about 15 March 2012 no one employee was designated as a copetent person to conduct damage assement inspections of slings used in the VTS fabrication ares.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(1):     Sling identification. Alloy steel chain slings did not have permanently affixed durable identification stating size, grade, rated capacity, and reach.    The employer did not ensure that alloy steel chain slings had a permanent affixed durable identification stating size, grade, rated capacity and reach. This violation was most rescently observe    a) On or about 15 march 2012 in the drill press area where a internal fabricated sling was being used that did not have an identification tag.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):     Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding were 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. Examples of guarding methods are-barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices,electronic safety devices, etc.    The employer did not protect the operator and employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. This violation was most recently  observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012 where employee was using Cincinati Bickford drill press with no guard    b) On or about 15 March 2012 employee was using Summit Radial drill with no guard    c) On or about 29 March 2012 employees used the Delta drill press in the finishing area with no guard    d) On or about 29 March 2012 employees used of the bridgeport drill press in the finishing area

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii):     The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, was not guarded. The guarding device was not in conformity with any appropriate standards therefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, was not so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.    The employer did not ensure that point of operation of machinery were guarded to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone during operation. This violation was most rescently observed     a) On or about 15 March 2012 , on Monarch engine Lathe SN 32330     b) On or about 15 March 2012, on King boring mill SN 3395    c) On or about 29 March 2012, Summit Lathe SN 35487    d) On or about 30 March 2012, on Monarch engine Lathe SN 1493

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $1,920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(2):     The safety guard was not available to cover the spindle end, nut, and flange projections. The safety guard was not mounted so as to maintain proper alignment with the wheel, and the strength of the fastenings did not exceed the strength of the guard, except:    The employer did not protect the operator and other employees in the fabrication area by ensuring that the safety guard of the bench grider in place to cover spindle end, nut, and flange projections, this violation was most recently observed     a) On or about 15 March 2012 in the prep area employee exposed to a struck by caught by hazard from the lack of safety guard on bench grider

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4):     Work rests. On offhand grinding machines, work rests were not used to support the work. They were not of rigid construction and designed to be adjustable to compensate for wheel wear. Work rests were not kept adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one-eighth inch to prevent the work from being jammed between the wheel and the rest, which may cause wheel breakage. The work rest shall be securely clamped after each adjustment. The adjustment shall not made with the wheel in motion.      The employer did not ensure that grinder work rests were adjusted so that the maximum opening is one eight of an inch, exposing employees to struck by hazards, this was most rescently observed:    a) On or about 30 March 2012 and times prior thereto on a Blue point bench grinder in the Lathe section, had anopenin of 1/2 inch on the work rest     b) on or about 30 March 2012 and times prior thereto on a bench grinder in employee Bustillos work area had no work rest in place    c) On or about 02 April 2012 and times prior thereto on a dewalt bench grinder in the shop maintenance area, had an opening of about 1/2inch on the work rest    d) on or about 02 April 2012 and times prior thereto on a Dewalt  DW756 bench grinder in the supply section work bench, had an opening of over 1 inch at the work rest    e) on or about 02 April 2012 and times prior thereto on a Landis Machine CO. bench grinder across from the warner and swaysey tureet lathe, had an opening of over 1 inch at the work rest.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9):     Exposure adjustment. Safety guards of the types described in Subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this paragraph, where the operator stands in front of the opening, were not constructed so that the peripheral protecting member could be adjusted to the constantly decreasing diameter of the wheel. The maximum angular exposure above the horizontal plane of the wheel spindle as specified in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section shall never be exceeded, and the distance between the wheel periphery and the adjustable tongue or the end of the peripheral member at the top shall never exceed one-fourth inch. (See Figures O-18, O-19, O-20, O-21, O-22, and O-23.)    The employer did not ensure the distance between the wheel periphery and the adjustment peripheral memeber does not exceed on fourth inch, exposing employees to struck by hazards, this was mos rescently observed:    a) On or about 30 March 2012 and times prior thereto on a Blue point bench grinder in the Lathe section, had an     b) On or about 30 March 2012 and times prior thereto on a bench grinder had no tongue guard in place    c) On or about 02 April 2012 and times prior thereto on a dewalt bench grinder in the shop maintenance area, had an opening of about 1/2inch    d) On or about 02 April 2012 and times prior thereto on a Dewalt  DW756 bench grinder in the supply section work bench, had an opening of over 1 inch    e) On or about 02 April 2012 and times prior thereto on a Landis Machine CO. bench grinder across from the warner and Swaysey tureet lathe, had no tounge guard in place.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1):     Guarding. Pulleys, any parts of which were seven (7) feet or less from the floor or working platform, were not guarded in accordance with the standards specified in paragraphs (m) and (o) of this section. Pulleys serving as balance wheels (e.g., punch presses) on which the point of contact between belt and pulley is more than six feet six inches (6 ft. 6 in.) from the floor or platform were not guarded with a disk covering the spokes.    The employer did not ensure that equipment with pulleys and belts is properlly guarded exposing employees to nip point caught in hazard. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 02 April 2012 on the Heath Shape cutter where a pulley and belt were exposed    b) On or about 02 April 2012 in the shipping prep area on the banding cutting machine where a pulley and belt were exposed

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(1)(i):     Where both runs of horizontal belts were seven (7) feet or less from the floor level, the guard did not extend to at least fifteen (15) inches above the belt or to a standard height, except that where both runs of a horizontal belt are 42 inches or less from the floor, the belt was not fully enclosed in accordance with paragraphs (m) and (o) of this section.      The employer did not ensure that equipment with pulleys and belts is properlly guarded exposing employees to nip point caught in hazard. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 02 April 2012 on the Heath Shape cutter where a pulley and belt were exposed    b) On or about 02 April 2012 in the shipping prep area on the banding cutting machine where a pulley and belt were exposed

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3):     Sprockets and chains. All sprocket wheels and chains were not enclosed unless they were more than seven (7) feet above the floor or platform. Where the drive extends over other machine or working areas, protection against falling shall be provided. This subparagraph does not apply to manually operated sprockets.    The employer did not ensure that sprocket wheels and chains were enclosed unless they were more than seven (7) feet above the floor exposing employees to caught in hazards. This violation was most rescently observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012 in the training area on a roller machine    b) On or about 30 March 2012 in welding area on a Dart roller machine    c) On or about 30 March 2012 in the head weld area on the Dayton roller

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b):     Compressed air used for cleaning. Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i. and then only with effective chip guarding and personal protective equipment.      Employer did not ensure that compressed air used for cleaning purposes was reduced to less than 30 p.s.i and with effective chip guarding and personnel protective equipment. These violations  were observed     a) On or about March 15, 2012 where employees were observed using the equipment measurement with of 51 p.s.i.      b) On or about March 30, 2012 where employees were observed using the equipment with a measurement of 77 p.s.i.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(3):     Vertical portable grinders. Safety guards used on machines known as right angle head or vertical portable grinders did not have a maximum exposure angle of 180 deg., and the guard was not so located so as to be between the operator and the wheel during use. Adjustment of guard was not such that pieces of an accidentally broken wheel will be deflected away from the operator. (See Figure P-4.) (For Figure P-4, http://www.osha.gov/OshStd_gif/10PFP_4.gif)    The employer did not ensure that safety guards for all abrasive wheels used on vertical portable grinders are in place. This violation was most recently observed on or about    a) On or about 15 March 2012 in the welding area, Dewalt  portable grinder model D28474 SN 6447 missing guard    b) On or about 15 March 2012 in the welding area, Dewalt portable grinder model D28131 SN 019145 being used without a guard    c) On or about 15 March 2012 in the welding area, Dewalt portable grinder model D28131 SN 09131 mising guard

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2):     Installation and use. Listed or labeled equipment was not installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.    The employes did not ensure electrical equipment is used or installed in accordance with the listing or labeling instructions. This violation was observed on or about:    a) 15 March 2012 in welding area, where a metal electrical receptacle box designed to be installed inside of a wall or mounted was used on the end of an extension cord supplying power to portable tools    b) 15 March 2012 behind VTC machine where a metal electrical receptacle box designed to be installed inside of a wall or mounted was used on the end of an extension cord supplying power to portable light     c) 30 March 2012 In Hoist 25 work area where metal electrical receptacle box designed to be installed inside of a wall or mounted was used on the end of an extension cord supplying power to portable grinder    d) 30 March 2012 In Hoist 29 work area where metal electrical receptacle box designed to be installed inside of a wall or mounted was used on the end of an extension cord supplying power to a fan and portable light    e) 02 April 2012 In plasma cutter work area where metal electrical receptacle box designed to be installed inside of a wall or mounted was used on the end of an extension cord supplying power to a fan and portable light

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i):     Except as elsewhere required or permitted by this standard, live parts of electric equipment operating at 50 volts or more were not guarded against accidental contact by use of approved cabinets or other forms of approved enclosures.    The employer did not ensure live parts of electrical ewuipment operating at 50 Volts  or more were guarded against accidental contact by approved cabinets or other forms of enclosures. This was observed on or about:    a)  29 March 2012 where an employee working on summit lathe where a wire to a Coolant Pump, 220/440 Volt was not conected and exposed employee to energized parts    b) 02 April  2012 where an employee working near high flow filtration system in the employee breakroom where wires are capped but were not enclosed to protect employees from contacting energized parts    c) 02 April 2012 where employees working with or near a Dayton sound system control panel in maintenance room were not protected from contacting energized parts

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(i):     Conductors entering cutout boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not protected from abrasion, and openings through which conductors enter were not effectively closed.    The employer did not ensure that unused openings on electrical equipment was closed exposing employees to electrical hazard. This violation was observed on or about:    a) 15 March 2012 on electrical box on support beam next to Daewoo Puma machine was not effectively closed exposing live wires.    b) 15 March 2012 on 480V electrical box supplying power to King boring mill    c) 29 March 2012 on electrical box for Mazak SQ15-169 machine near J-4    d) 29 March 2012 on electrical box on back side of hydraulic power press in finishing area.    e) 29 March 2012 on Warner Casey lath in finish area

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i):     All pull boxes, junction boxes, and fittings were not provided with covers identified for the purpose. If metal covers are used, they shall be grounded. In completed installations, each outlet box shall have a cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy. Covers of outlet boxes having holes through which flexible cord pendants pass were not provided with bushings designed for the purpose or shall have smooth, well-rounded surfaces on which the cords may bear.    The employer did not ensure that all outlet boxes had covers, faceplates or fixture canopy exposing employees to electrical hazard. This violation was observed on:    a) 02 April 2012 a face plate was not on a receptacle near the Warner an Swasey lathe exposing employees to (110-Volts)    b) 3 April 2012 a faceplate was not on a receptacle on a support beam next to the bay door on the west side of building near plasma cutter exposing employees to 110 V

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A):     Flexible cords and cables -- As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure;    The employer did not ensure that flexible cords were not used as substitutes for permanent wiring. The violation was observed, and times thereafter.    a) 02 April 2012, In the employee breakroom where flexible cord was attached to the wall     b) 04 April 2012, In the head cut out area where flexible cord was attached to beam    c) 29 March 2012, next to the Victor lathe where flexible cord was attached

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(ii):     Flexible cords were not used only in continuous lengths without splice or tap. Hard-service cord and junior hard-service cord No. 14 and larger may be repaired if spliced so that the splice retains the insulation, outer sheath properties, and usage characteristics of the cord being spliced.    Employer used flexible cords which were not continues in length and which were not free of splice or tap. This violation was most observed on:    a) 15 March 2012 where in the shape cutting area a flexible cord was taped and was powering a fan    b) 15 March 2012 where in the J-14 welding area a flexible cord was taped and was powering a make shift fan    C) 30 March 2012 where in the J-25 work area a flexible cord was taped connecting a pig tail to it

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii):     Flexible cords and cables were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief was provided that would prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws.    Employer did not ensure that flexible cords were connected to devices and fittings so that tension would not be transferred to joints or terminal screws. This violation was observed     a) On or about 15 march 2012 in welding area on a cord leading to a fan and a cord leading to a junktion box exposing employees to electrical hazard.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Sep 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,880 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(i):     Portable cord and plug connected equipment and flexible cord sets (extension cords) were not visually inspected before use on any shift for external defects (such as loose parts, deformed and missing pins, or damage to outer jacket or insulation) and for evidence of possible internal damage (such as pinched or crushed outer jacket). Cord and plug connected equipment and flexible cord sets (extension cords) which remain connected once they were put in place and were not exposed to damage need not be visually inspected until they are relocated.      The employer did not inspect extension cords to ensure they are free from recognized defects. This violation was most recently observed on.    a) 15 March 2012 in the head weld area where an extension cord used to power a portable grinder had damaged insulation.    b) 30 March 2012 near colm stage 1 where an extensioin cord used to power a light and a portable grinder was damged

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(d):     When determined by the computational formula specified in 29 CFR 1910.1000(d)(2)(i), employees were exposed to concentrations of more then one substance for which 8-hour time weighted average are listed in Subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910 in excess of the permissible exposure for the mixture.       The employer did not ensure that employee exposure did not exceed the permissible exposure limits. This violation was most recently observed                                                                                                                                                                          a) On or about 03 May 2012 where  a welder was exposed to copper fumes at an 8-hour time weighted average(TWA) of 0.125 milligrams per cubic meter(mg/m3) of air, approximately 0.025 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of the  0.1mg/m3.

Issued

Sep 11, 2012

Abate by

Oct 18, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):     Employer did not develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also includes the following:      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: This violation was most recently observed    a) On or about 15 March 2012, when the employer had not developed, implemented, and maintained a written communicaiton program for employees working in the spray booths, dip tank area and those working in the welding area who were exposed to metal fumes.