OSHA Inspection: NATIONAL TOOL & MANUFACTURING CO.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(c):  "Covers and guardrails." Covers and/or guardrails were not provided to protect personnel from the hazards of open pits, tanks, vats, ditches, etc.    a) South Bay - The employer did not ensure that covers and/or guardrails were provided to protect personnel from the hazards of open pits near machines, such as the Taurus Gun drill.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Jul 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.110(e)(4)(iii):  Permanent and removable fuel containers were not securely mounted to prevent jarring loose, slipping, or rotating.    a) South Bay - Permanent and removable fuel containers were not securely mounted to prevent from jarring loose, slipping, or rotating.  The LP gas cylinder located on the back side of the Hyster gas sit down type (fork lift) power industrial vehicle was not properly secured.  Model # S155XL2, SN # C024V02138C.  The bracket that held the cylinder in place was not connected.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,200 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 machines or equipment was not isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.    a) Facility Wide - The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training, and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6):  Nameplates or markings for the power industrial vehicle were not maintained in a legible condition for the user to see.      a) North Bay - The employer did not ensure that the nameplate or markings were maintained in a legible condition on the power industrial vehicle, such as the Toyota Forklift, ID #52415; FA-ID #14565.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,200 Reduced

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 the standard.      a) Facility Wide - The employer did not ensure that all employees who operated powered industrial trucks, such as the Toyota forklift, ID# 52415; FA-ID #14565, Toyota forklift, serial# 60500, Hyster forklift, serial# C024V02138C, and Caterpillar forklift, serial# AT82C-05390, were competent and had demonstrated their competency through training and an evaluation of their driving capabilities.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 21, 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 shall be conducted at least once every three years.    a) Facility Wide - The employer did not ensure that all employees who operated powered industrial trucks, such as the Toyota forklift, ID# 52415; FA-ID #14565, Toyota forklift, serial# 60500, Hyster forklift, serial# C024V02138C, and Caterpillar forklift, serial# AT82C-05390, were properly trained, evaluated and certified to perform the tasks in a safe manner at least once every three years.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $3,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(2):  Cranes in regular service 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 listed below were not carefully examined and a determination made as to whether they constituted a safety hazard:      (1)  All functional operating mechanisms for maladjustment interfering with proper operation (daily).    (2)  Deterioration or leakage in lines, tanks, valves, drain pumps, and other parts of air or hydraulic systems (daily).    (3)  Hooks with deformation or cracks.  Visual inspection daily; monthly inspection with a certification record which          includes the date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and the serial number,          or other identifier, of the hook inspection.    (4)  Hoist chains, including end connections, for excessive wear, twist, distorted links interfering with proper function, or          stretch beyond manufacturer's recommendations;  monthly inspection with a certification record which includes the           date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and an identifier of the chain which          was inspected.    (5)  All functional operating mechanisms for excessive wear of components.    (6)  Rope reeving for noncompliance with manufacturer's recommendations.    Cranes in service such as the:  a) North Bay - Two 5.0 Ton overhead cranes were not inspected on daily to monthly intervals as described above.  b) Center Bay - Two 5.0 Ton overhead cranes were not inspected on daily to monthly intervals as described above.  c) South Bay East - Two 5.0 Ton overhead cranes were not inspected on daily to monthly intervals as described above.  d) South Bay West - Two 10.0 Ton overhead cranes were not inspected on daily to monthly intervals as described above.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(3):  A complete periodic inspection of the cranes were not performed in intervals as generally defined in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(b) of this section, these inspections are to include the requirements of paragraph (j)(2) through (j)(2)(v)(iii).    a) North Bay - A complete periodic inspection of the two 5.0 ton overhead cranes had not been performed in the last           twelve months.  b) Center Bay - A complete periodic inspection of the two 5.0 ton overhead cranes had not been performed in the last       twelve months.  c) South Bay East - A complete periodic inspection of the two 5.0 ton overhead cranes had not been performed in the       last twelve months.  d) South Bay West - A complete periodic inspection of the two 10.0 ton overhead cranes had not been performed in       the last twelve months.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Sep 28, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,900

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) South Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding to protect employees from the point of operation on equipment, such as the unused portion of the metal cutting saw blade on the Amada horizontal bandsaw H-650HD.     b) Maintenance Area - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Bridgeport vertical milling machine SN #A-25.    c) Center Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the HMT drill press, No SN #.      d) South Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Challenger Drill Bit Sharpener Model #H618.    e) Center Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Dashin Studturn1430 lathe, Series #5170.      f) Center Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Hamai Duplex Mill #A-21204.      g) Center Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding that would protect employees from the point of operation, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks on equipment, such as the Hamai Duplex Mill #A-1010.    h) South Bay - The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding to protect employees from the point of operation on equipment, such as the unused portion of the metal cutting saw blade on the Amada plate saw #VM-3800.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Oct 29, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii):  Points of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during the operating cycle.    a) South Bay  The sliding barrier on the side of the Taurus gun drill, no model or serial number, did not prevent entry of hands into the drill housing where the bit rotates.  No interlock devise was installed, and the drill did not shut off when the guard protecting the EE from the rotating bit was opened.     b) Center Bay - The interlocked sliding barrier guard on the Mazak CNC Vertical Mill, Model #V-655/60 was inoperable allowing the machine to continue operating if the barrier were opened.    c) Center Bay - The interlocked sliding barrier guard on the Leadwell CNC Vertical Mill, Model #MCV 2200 did not shut the machine off when the guard was opened.      d) CNC Department - The interlocked sliding barrier guard on the Leblond Makino Horizontal Mill Model MC98 was inoperable allowing the machine to continue operating if the barrier were opened.     e) CNC Department - The interlocked sliding barrier guard on the Leblond Makino Horizontal Mill Model #MCB1210 was inoperable allowing the machine to continue operating if the barrier were opened.     f) CNC Department - The sliding barrier on the Leblond Makino Horizontal Mill Model #MC108 would not prevent entry of hands into the point of operation.  No interlock devise was installed allowing the machine to continue operating if the barrier were opened.     g) CNC Department - The sliding barrier on the Leblond Makino Horizontal Mill Model #MC1210 would not prevent entry of hands into the point of operation.  No interlock devise was installed allowing the machine to continue operating if the barrier were opened.

Issued

Jul 24, 2012

Abate by

Aug 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b):  Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i:    a) Production Area - Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i. at multiple work stations throughout the production area.