OSHA Inspection: PROFORM INDUSTRIES

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,377 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:       On or about October 24, 2012, and at time prior thereto, at the facility the employer did not provide medical evaluation to determine employee's ability to use a respirator prior to allowing employees to wear respirator in the workplace.  Without prior medical evaluation employees were exposed to possible respiratory difficulty while wearing a respirator.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $2,295 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:      On or about October 24, 2012, and at times prior thereto, at the establishment the employer did not develop and document step-by-step lock-out/tag-out procedures for the control of potentially hazardous energy of specific equipment when employees were engaged in maintenance operation.  Employees were exposed to unexpected release of energy hazards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

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 requirement of this standard were being followed:      On or about October 24, 2012, and at times prior thereto, at the establishment the employer had employees performing maintenance operations that require lock-out/tag-out equipment.  However, the employer did not conduct periodic inspection of the procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure was effective and being followed.  Employees were exposed to unexpected release of energy hazards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $2,295 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:      On or about October 24, 2012, and at times prior thereto, employees were allowed to operate machines that were found not having guards provided, including but not limited to the following instances:    1: At the press brake area, a press brake being operated via either foot pedal or two-hand control without machine guard provided to protect operator and other employees from exposing to point-of-operation while in operation.      2: At the shear area, a shear being operated without blade guard provided to protect employees from contacting the blade while in operation.    3: At the band saw area, a band saw being operated without a blade guard provided to protect  employees from contacting the blade while in operation.    4: At the roller in the aluminum line, a roller being operated without tripwires provided to shut the roller off in case of emergency.       Employees were exposed to possible amputation and crushing hazards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Jan 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,377 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(2):     Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not provided with safety guard(s) which covered the spindle end, nut, flange projections:      On or about October 25, 2012, and at times prior thereto, in the steel line areas employees were allowed to operate an abrasive wheel grinding machine which did not have safety guard provided to cover the spindle end, nut, and flange projections.  This exposed employees to hazards contacting the spindle end, nut and flange projection while in operation.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Jan 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4):     Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:      On or about October 25, 2012, and at times prior thereto, in the maintenance shop and steel line employees were operating abrasive wheel grinding machines where the opening between the work rest and the wheel was greater than one-eighth inch.  Employees were exposed to flying fragments in the event of an exploding wheel.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9):     The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:      On or about October 25, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer allowed employees to operate abrasive wheel grinding machines that either did not have the tongue guard provided or the opening between the tongue guard and the wheel was greater one-fourth inch, including but not limited the following instances:         1) 8" grinder manufactured by Delta Machinery located in the steel line areas.         2) 6" grinder manufactured by DeWat Industrial Tool Co. located in maintenance shop.    Employees were exposed to flying fragments in the event of an exploding wheel.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(d)(1):     Wheel(s) on grinding machine(s) were not sounded (ring test) and inspected for damage before mounting:      On or about October 25, 2012, and at times prior thereto, in the steel line areas an employee was not instructed how to conduct a "ring test" to check for cracks prior to mounting a new wheel on a grinding machine.  Employees were exposed to flying fragments in the event of exploding abrasive wheel.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(d)(3):     The contact surface(s) of wheel(s), blotter(s) or flange(s) on grinding machine(s) were not flat and free or foreign matter:      On or about October 25, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer allowed employees to operate abrasive wheel grinding machines that had the abrasive wheels unevenly worn and metal particles deposited on the wheels, including but not limited to the following instances:         1) In the steel line areas, 8" grinding machine manufactured by Delta Machinery.         2) In the maintenance shop, 6" grinding machine manufactured by DeWalt Industrial Tools Co.    The employees were exposed to flying fragments in the event of exploding wheels

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Mar 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $2,295 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(1)(i):     The employer did not provide and ensure the usage of point of operation guards or properly applied point of operation devices on every operation performed on mechanical power press(es)      On or about October 24, 2012, and at times prior thereto, in the Eagle press areas employees were operating a mechanical power press which did not have guards provided on the sides of the machine.  Employees were exposed to an amputation caused by the press while in operation.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Jan 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,377 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(b)(2):     Outlet devices had an ampere rating less than the load being served:      On or about October 25, 2012, or at times prior thereto, in the main production office areas a cold drink vending machine and a coffee maker were plugged into the same outlet device which had a current rating less than the load being served.  This exposed employees to fire hazards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Jan 30, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(i)(5)(iv):     The tag containing the most recent change to the sorbent beds was not kept or maintained at the compressor:      On or about October 31, 2012, and at times prior thereto, at the powder coating areas an employee was observed wearing a supplied air respirator through an oil less-lubricated compressor.  The employer did not have a tag posted at the compressor containing the most recent filters change date and the signature of the person authorized by the employer to perform the change. The employee was exposed to the hazards caused by dirty filters.