OSHA Inspection: EXODUS MOVING & STORAGE, INC.

Issued

Feb 5, 2013

Abate by

Feb 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(h)(1):  The sides of the lower exposed portion of the blade of the radial saw was not guarded to the full diameter of the blade by a device that automatically adjusted itself to the thickness of the stock and remained in contact with them:    (a)	Exodus Moving & Storage at 1730 East Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80525: On and before September 5, 2012, the employer did not ensure that the Craftsman radial saw in the warehouse was properly fitted with a guard over the lower exposed portion of the blade to protect operators and other employees from hazards created by the rotating blade.  This condition exposed the employees to amputation and other injuries caused by an unprotected cutting blade on a power tool.

Issued

Feb 5, 2013

Abate by

Feb 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(3): Abrasive wheels used on vertical portable grinder(s) (right angle head grinders) were not provided with safety guard(s) having a maximum exposure angle of 180 degrees and located between the operator and wheel:      (a)	Exodus Moving & Storage at 1730 East Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80525: On and before September 5, 2012, the employer did not ensure that the Makita, Model 9067L, 7 inch angle grinder in the warehouse was properly fitted with a guard over the portion of the blade closest to the users hands to protect operators and other employees from hazards created by the rotating blade.  This condition exposed the employees to abrasion, laceration, and other injuries caused by an unprotected rotating grinding wheel on a power tool.

Issued

Feb 5, 2013

Abate by

Feb 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,260 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1):  The employer did not develop, implement, and maintain a written hazard communication program which at least described 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 included a hazardous chemicals list and methods used to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks.    (a)   Exodus Moving & Storage at 1730 East Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80525:  On and before September 5, 2012, the employer had not developed a written hazard communication program which at least described how the criteria specified for labels and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also included a hazardous chemicals list and methods used to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks.  This condition exposed the employee to hazards associated with chemicals such as but not limited to corrosives, solvents, glycols, flammables.

Issued

Feb 5, 2013

Abate by

Feb 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) therein:    (a)	Exodus Moving & Storage at 1730 East Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80525:  On and before September 5, 2012, the employer did not ensure each container of hazardous chemicals was labeled or marked to indicate the contents.  This condition exposed the employees to hazards associated with chemicals such as but not limited to corrosives, solvents, glycols, flammables.

Issued

Feb 5, 2013

Abate by

Feb 28, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification which included the requirements as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):    Exodus Moving & Storage at 1730 East Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80525:  On and before September 5, 2012, the employer did not ensure through written verification that a workplace personal protective equipment (PPE) hazard assessment had been performed.