OSHA Inspection: SLIM HANEY MACHINING, INC.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,428 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):     The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees    a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, A seatbelt was not provided on a TCM forklift operated by employees in the yard and in the shop, which exposes employees to crushing hazards from forklift tip-over.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

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 is 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.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, The employer did not ensure completion of forklift training and evaluation for employees who operated forklifts in the shop and in the yard which exposes employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $1,071 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2):     Floor(s) of workroom(s) were not maintained in a clean and, so far as possible, a dry condition:      a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, Oil was present on the concrete floor around machine SNM 654 and New Britain machine 12 exposing employees to slip hazards.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $1,785 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1):     When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    a.  On or about 10/11/2012, Davenport Machine Area, A noise monitoring program was not established for Davenport automatic screw machine operators exposed to workplace noise in excess of an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 50%:    1.  A Davenport machinist was exposed to an 8-hr TWA of 92.2 dBA, or equivalently a noise dose of 135.3%.  The     noise monitoring result was derived from a personal sampling time of 431 minutes and a non-sampled time of 49 minutes, assumed to be a zero noise exposure period.         2.  A Davenport machinist was exposed to an 8-hr TWA of 90.2 dBA, or equivalently a noise dose of 96.8%.  The noise monitoring result was derived from a personal sampling time of 421 minutes and a non-sampled time of 59 minutes, assumed to be a zero noise exposure period.         b.  On or about 10/11/2012, Parts Washer, A noise monitoring program was not established for a parts washer exposed to workplace noise at an 8-hour TWA of 88.9 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 85.7%.    c.  On or about 10/11/2012, New Britain Machine Area 2, A noise monitoring program was not established for a machine operator exposed to workplace noise at an 8-hour TWA of 87.5 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 71.1%.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1):     The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:      a.  On or about 10/11/2012, Davenport Machine Area, An audiometric testing program was not established for Davenport automatic screw machine operators exposed to workplace noise in excess of an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 50%:    1.  A Davenport machinist was exposed to an 8-hr TWA of 92.2 dBA, or equivalently a noise dose of 135.3%.  The noise monitoring result was derived from a personal sampling time of 431 minutes and a non-sampled time of 49 minutes, assumed to be a zero noise exposure period.         2.  A Davenport machinist was exposed to an 8-hr TWA of 90.2 dBA, or equivalently a noise dose of 96.8%.  The noise monitoring result was derived from a personal sampling time of 421 minutes and a non-sampled time of 59 minutes, assumed to be a zero noise exposure period.         b.  On or about 10/11/2012, Parts Washer, an audiometric testing program was not established for a parts washer exposed to workplace noise at an 8-hour TWA of 88.9 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 85.7%.      c.  On or about 10/11/2012, New Britain Machine Area 2, an audiometric testing program was not established for a machine operator exposed to workplace noise at an 8-hour TWA of 87.5 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 71.1%.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3)(iii):     The employer did not ensure that each employee was informed of the purpose of audiometric testing, and an explanation of the test procedures:    a.  On or about 10/11/2012, Davenport Machine Area, Training on audiometric testing was not provided to Davenport automatic screw machine operators exposed to workplace noise in excess of an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 50%:    1.  A Davenport machinist was exposed to an 8-hr TWA of 92.2 dBA, or equivalently a noise dose of 135.3%.  The noise monitoring result was derived from a personal sampling time of 431 minutes and a non-sampled time of 49 minutes, assumed to be a zero noise exposure period.         2.  A Davenport machinist was exposed to an 8-hr TWA of 90.2 dBA, or equivalently a noise dose of 96.8%.  The noise monitoring result was derived from a personal sampling time of 421 minutes and a non-sampled time of 59 minutes, assumed to be a zero noise exposure period.         b.  On or about 10/11/2012, Parts Washer, Training on audiometric testing was not provided to a parts washer exposed to workplace noise at an 8-hour TWA of 88.9 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 85.7%.    c.  On or about 10/11/2012, New Britain Machine Area 2, Training on audiometric testing was not provided to a machine operator exposed to workplace noise at an 8-hour TWA of 87.5 dBA or equivalently a noise dose of 71.1%.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $1,071 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):     Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, Adequate protective clothing for the forearms was not used by employees who worked where splashes of petroleum based metal cutting fluids and 142 solvent were present which exposes employees to skin irritants.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):     The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done:      a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, The employer did not develop a written document certifying completion of personal protective equipment hazard assessment and employees worked with petroleum based metal cutting fluid, 142 solvent, and metal fines and cuttings which exposes employees to chemical hazards.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $1,071 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3):     The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye hazards wears eye protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or wears eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses:    a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, Eye protection with side shields was not worn by employees who wore prescription glasses when operating drill presses for fabrication of metal parts which exposes employees to flying metal particulates.    b.  On or about 10/11/12, Shop, Eye protection with side shields was not worn by employees who wore prescription glasses when operating Davenport and Brown & Sharpe machines which expose employees to flying metal particulates and/or splashes of oil.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $1,785 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.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, Energy control procedures were not developed and documented for maintenance and servicing work on metal parts forming machines including but not limited to automatic screw machines which exposes employees to injuries from unexpected energizing or startup of machines with moving parts.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i):     The employer did not provide adequate training to ensure that employees acquired the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage and removal of energy control devices:      a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, The employer did not provide lockout tagout training to all employees who perform maintenance and servicing on the metal parts forming machines including but not limited to automatic screw machines which exposes employees to unexpected energization and startup of machines with moving parts.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i):     Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees:    a.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, A lockout tagout device was not affixed to a Brown and Sharpe automatic screw machine that was undergoing repair work which exposes employees to unexpected energization or start-up and moving parts.    b.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, A lockout tagout device was not affixed to a Davenport automatic screw machine that was undergoing set-up work which exposes employees to unexpected energization or start-up and moving parts.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Abate by

May 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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.  On or about 10/11/12, CNC Area, a protective shield or guard for the rotating chuck and swarf generated from drilling metal parts was not present on a Porter Cable drill press which exposes employees to rotating parts and flying metal chips.    b.  On or about 10/10/12, Davenport Area, Davenport automatic screw machines 13, 14, 9A, 9, 8, and 6 had unguarded rotating shafts, wheels, gears, cams, and stock reel carriers that expose employees to caught-by hazards and pinch points.    c.  On or about 10/10/12, New Britain Area, New Britain machine 2 and 3 had inadequately guarded rotating stock reel carriers that exposes employees to caught-by hazards.

Issued

Mar 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $1,785 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.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, There was an unguarded belt and pulley for a drive spindle on a Brown & Sharpe machine which exposes employees to in-going nip points and caught-by hazards.    b.  On or about 10/10/12, Shop, There was an unguarded belt and pulley for a drive spindle on a Bridgeport milling machine which exposes employees to in-going nip points and caught-by hazards.