WESTBROOK, ME —
OSHA Inspection: SIGCO, INC.
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of SIGCO, INC. in 48 SPILLER DRIVE, WESTBROOK, ME 04092 (NAICS 327215). OSHA activity number 338659030.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- SIGCO, INC.
- Site address
- 48 SPILLER DRIVE
- City
- WESTBROOK
- State
- ME
- ZIP
- 04092
- Mailing
- 48 SPILLER DRIVE, WESTBROOK, ME 04092
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 327215
- Employees
- 113
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
10 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.147 C04 II D
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 8, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $4,500 · Current $3,750 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(D): The energy control procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the requirements for testing a machine or equipment to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout devices, tagout devices, and other energy control meausres: At the Facility - The employer's energy control procedures did not describe how to test a machine or equipment to insure the effectiveness of the lockout devices.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3750
- — Z (S) $4500
1910.335 A01 I
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 22, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i): Employees working in areas where there were potential electrical hazards were not using electrical protective equipment that was appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed: At the Facility - Employees that performed voltage testing did not wear the appropriate personal protective equipment while doing so.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.147 C06 I
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 8, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $4,500 · Current $3,750 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct an annual or more frequent inspection of the energy control procedure to ensure that the procedure and requirements of this standard were followed: At the facility - The employer did not conduct annual inspections of the energy control program.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3750
- — Z (S) $4500
1910.212 A01
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $3,600 · Current $2,500 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: Spandrel Department - The rotating chuck of a JET drill press was not equipped with a guard.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2500
- — Z (S) $3600
1910.212 B
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 20, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $3,600 · Current $2,500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.212(b): Machine(s) designed for fixed location(s) were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving: Maintenance Shop - The Ryobi bench grinder was not anchored to the bench.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2500
- — Z (S) $3600
1910.215 A04
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 15, 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: Maintenance Shop - The work rest on the Ryobi bench grinder was 3/8" away from the grinding wheel.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.215 B09
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 22, 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: Maintenance Shop - The distance between the abrasive wheel and the top of the peripheral member of the grinder measured 7/8".
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.303 F
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 22, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $3,600 · Current $2,500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.303(f): Each service, feeder and branch circuit, at its disconnecting means or over current device, was not legibly marked to indicate its purpose, nor located and arranged so the purpose was evident: Shipping/Receiving Area - Six breakers in electrical panel ELV were not labeled.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2500
- — Z (S) $3600
1910.137 B02 XII
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 8, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.137(b)(2)(xii): The employer did not certify that electrical protective equipment had been tested in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(viii), (b)(2)(ix), and (b)(2)(xi) of this section: At the Facility - The rubber insulating gloves used as electrical protective equipment had not been tested per Table 1-6 of this section or, before issue and every 12 months thereafter.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
1910.145 C02 I
- Issued
- Feb 11, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 22, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.145(c)(2)(i): Caution signs were not used to warn against potential hazards or to caution against unsafe practices: At the Facility - Caution signs were not installed on 120V electrical panels to warn against arc flash hazards.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
More inspections at Sigco, INC.
View Sigco, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 327215)
More inspections in ME
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 338659030.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.