OSHA Inspection: GENERAL LOOSE LEAF BINDERY, INC.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):  The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment.     a) Battery Charging Station - The employer did not asses the workplace to determine if hazards were present or likely to be present which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment. The employer did not select the appropriate personal protective equipment, such as, splash resistant goggles or face shield, chemical resistant gloves, and a chemical resistant apron.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.      a) Battery Charging Station - The employer did not ensure the use of appropriate eye and face protection such as splash resistant goggles or face shield to protect against chemical exposure to the eyes.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a):  The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.      a) Battery Charging Station - The employer failed to select and require the use of appropriate personal protective equipment, such as gloves, when employees were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances, such as battery acid.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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).    a) Shipping and receiving - The employer did not ensure that all employees who operated powered industrial trucks, such as the Clark Stand up Reach Forklift, serial# NP 246 0175 6672, were competent and had demonstrated their competency through training and an evaluation of their driving capabilities.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Oct 17, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii):  Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s).    a) Rivet Department - The employer did not ensure that the point of operation on machinery was guarded to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during the operating cycle on equipment such as the Duplex Head Rivet Machine #2 SN# 970120.      b) Rivet Department - The employer did not ensure that the point of operation on machinery was guarded to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during the operating cycle on equipment such as the Duplex Head Rivet Machine #3.      c) Rivet Department - The employer did not ensure that the point of operation on machinery was guarded to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during the operating cycle on equipment such as the Duplex Head Rivet Machine #5.    d) Rivet Department - The employer did not ensure that the point of operation on machinery was guarded to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during the operating cycle on equipment such as the Duplex Head Rivet Machine #6 SN# 2372.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1):  Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o).    a) Case Making Department - The employer did not ensure that the pulleys were guarded on equipment, such as the Potdevin (Large Size) Glue Machine.      b) Case Making Department - The employer did not ensure that the pulleys were guarded on equipment, such as the Potdevin (Medium Size) Glue Machine.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3)(i):  Vertical or inclined belt(s) were not enclosed by guard(s) conforming to the requirements specified at 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o).    a) Case Making Department - The employer did not ensure that the inclined belt was guarded on equipment, such as the Potdevin (Large Size) Glue Machine.      b) Case Making Department - The employer did not ensure that the inclined belt was guarded on equipment, such as the Potdevin (Medium Size) Glue Machine.

Issued

Sep 5, 2012

Abate by

Sep 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1):  Gear(s) were not guarded by a complete enclosure or by one of the methods specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)(iii):      a) Case Making Area - The employer did not ensure that rotating gears were guarded on equipment, such as the Potdevin (Large Size) Glue Machine.      b) Case Making Area - The employer did not ensure that rotating gears were guarded on equipment, such as the Potdevin (Medium Size) Glue Machine.