OSHA Inspection: MAMA ROSA'S, LLC

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $3,500 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)  Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about December 20, 2012, the employer did not ensure that employees were protected from caught-by hazards while using the Bridgeport Machines, Inc. manufactured milling machine.  Employees used the machine with an unguarded rotating chuck to perform work on various items.    b)  Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about November 8, 2012, the employer did not ensure that employees were protected from caught-by hazards while using the Dayton manufactured 20 Drill Press.  Employees used the machine with an unguarded rotating chuck to perform work on various items.

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $6,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.332(b)(1):  Employees were not trained in and familiar with the safety-related work practices required by 1910.331 through 1910.335 that pertained to their respective job assignments:    a) Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about December 20, 2012, the employer did not ensure that employees were provided with training on electrical safety-related work practices, such as but not limited to electrical shock hazards, arc flash/blast hazards, proper verification techniques and protective equipment for the face, head and hands to protect against electrical hazards while working on or near energized or potentially energized conductors.  Employees engaged in fuse changing activities along with general electrical service/repair did not utilize electrical safety-related work practices.

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(a):  Safety-related work practices were not employed to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts, when work was performed near or on equipment or circuits which were or could be energized:    a) Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about December 20, 2012, the employer did not ensure that electrical safety-related work practices were employed to prevent electrical shock or other injuries when employees were performing maintenance operations on electrical systems.

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i):  Employees working in areas where there were potential electrical hazards were not provided with electrical protective equipment that was appropriate for the specific parts of the body that needed to be protected and for the work being performed:    a) Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about December 19, 2012, the employer failed to ensure that employees were protected from electrical hazards in that electrical protective equipment for the hands were not required to be used by employees who accessed potentially live electrical panels.  The employees were exposed to 480 volts while testing fuses and verifying power to the electrical equipment.

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(iv):  Employees exposed to the danger of head injury from electric shock or burns due to contact with exposed energized parts did not wear nonconductive head protection:    a) Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about December 19, 2012, the employer failed to ensure that employees were protected from electrical hazards in that nonconductive head protection was not required to be worn by employees who accessed potentially live electrical panels.  Employees were exposed to 480 volts while testing fuses and verifying power to electrical equipment.

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(v):  Employees exposed to the danger of injury to the eyes or face from electric arcs or flashes or from flying objects resulting from electrical explosion did not wear protective equipment for the eyes or face:    a) Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about February 9, 2012, the employer failed to ensure that employees were protected from electrical hazards in that nonconductive face protection was not used by employees who accessed potentially live electrical panels.  Employees were exposed to 480 volts while testing fuses and verifying power to electrical equipment.

Issued

Feb 6, 2013

Abate by

Feb 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(ii):  Protective equipment was not maintained in a safe, reliable condition and/or was not periodically inspected or tested:    a) Mama Rosa's, LLC, Sidney, Ohio:  On or about December 20, 2012, the employer failed to ensure that rubber insulating gloves provided to employees were periodically inspected as required.  One pair of gloves had a test date stamp of May 2004 and a second pair had test date stamp of April 2006.  Both pairs of gloves were available for employee use when they were engaged in electrical service/repair work.