OSHA Inspection: COLEMAN TOOL & MFG CORP

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,310 · Current $650 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(3):  The floor surface of a spray booth and operator's working area, if combustible, were not covered with non-combustible material of such character as to facilitate the safe cleaning and removal of residues:      (a)  In the spray finishing area, the employer did not ensure the spray booth was free from cardboard covering the floor. Employees used combustible spray finishes in the booth, such as but not limited to Atlas Copco Grey Enamel.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(9): A clear space of not less than 3 feet on all sides was not kept free from storage or combustible construction:    (a)  In the spray finishing area, the employer did not ensure the spray booth had a 3-feet clearance maintained on each side. Items such as a flammable storage cabinet, boxes, cart, and chemical drums were stored up against the booth perimeter.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,310 · Current $650 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.107(b)(10):  Illumination panels did not effectively isolate the spraying area from the area in which the lighting unit is located.    (a)  In the spray finishing area, the employer did not ensure all lighting panels were free from cracks and/or damage that encloses the lights. Employees use a combustible spray finish that was building up on the panels.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Nov 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,310 · Current $1,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    (a) The employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program to include how items such as but not limited to selection of respirators, fit tests and medical evaluations would be accomplished for employees who are required to wear 3M half-mask air purifying respirators when painting.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  (a) In the finishing department, the employer did not ensure employee(s) required to wear 3M half-mask air-purifying respirators while painting were provided medical evaluations prior to assigning the work.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Nov 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1):     The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    (a) In the finishing department, the employer did not ensure employee(s) required to wear 3M half-mask air-purifying respirators while painting were provided a qualitative or quantitative fit test prior to use.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Nov 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $4,300

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): Procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance including, but not limited to, 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(A), (c)(4)(ii)(B), (c)(4)(ii)(C) and (c)(4)(ii)(D):    (a)  The employer did not ensure energy control procedures included information as to the specific scope, purpose, and techniques to be used to de-energize equipment prior to maintenance and servicing activities on equipment, such as but not limited to robotic welder(s) and/or vertical and horizontal mill(s).

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,700 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:    (a)  The employer did not develop, document, and implement an adequate energy control program for the purposes of ensuring de-energization of equipment during maintenance and servicing activities. This includes but is not limited to energy control procedures, periodic inspections, training, and outside personnel safety.     Coleman Tool & Mfg. Corp was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard [29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1)], which was contained in OSHA inspection number 311402267, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on June 17, 2009, with respect to a workplace located at 1625 Leider Drive, Union Grove, Wisconsin.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Oct 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from   hazard(s) created by rotating parts and in-running nip points:      In the machine shop, employees were exposed to rotating parts and in-running nip points from the following machines  not having adequate methods of guarding:    (a) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure the Mazak Mazatech V-550 Vertical Mill was adequately guarded with an interlocking mechanism. Employees were exposed to entanglement hazards from rotating parts.    (b) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure the Mazak VTC-16B Vertical Traveling Column was adequately guarded with an interlocking mechanism. Employees were exposed to entanglement hazards from rotating parts.     (c) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure rotating parts on the Hardinge Lathe (M: 40) were adequately guarded by a non-rotating chuck guard. Employees were exposed to entanglement and/or struck-by hazards.      (d) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure the Mazak Quick Turn 20 Lathe was adequately guarded with an interlocking mechanism. Employees were exposed to entanglement hazards from rotating parts.     (e) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure the Mazak Quick Turn 30 Lathe was adequately guarded with an interlocking mechanism. Employees were exposed to entanglement hazards from rotating parts.     (f) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure the Mazak "Teal" Quick Slant 30 Lathe was adequately guarded with an interlocking mechanism. Employees were exposed to entanglement hazards from rotating parts.     (g) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure rotating parts on the South Bend Turn-nado EVS Lathe were adequately guarded with a non-rotating chuck guard. Employees were exposed to entanglement and/or struck-by hazards.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $0 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)    (a) In the press department, the employer did not ensure the Johnson #4052 mechanical power press had adequate safeguarding from the top side of the point of operation. A 35-inch by 19-inch opening exposed employees to amputation/crushing hazards.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(2)(i)(b): Point of operation guard(s) on mechanical power press(es) did not conform to the maximum permissible opening(s) specified in Table 10 O-10:    (a)  In the press department, the employer did not ensure the adjustable guarding on the front and the left sides of the Johnson #4052 mechanical power press was adequate to enclose the point of operation. The openings in the guarding exceeded the Table O-10 allowance.     (b)  In the press department, the employer did not ensure the adjustable guarding on the Toledo press #4051 was adequate to enclose the point of operation. The opening in the guarding exceeded the Table O-10 allowance.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 5, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,310 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Grinding machinery was not used with work rest(s) to support offhand grinding work:    (a) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure that the Sunex Tools bench top grinder was equipped with adjustable work rests on both the left and right abrasive wheels.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 5, 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:    (a) In the machining department, the employer did not ensure that the Sunex Tools bench top grinder was equipped with adjustable tongue guards on both the left and right abrasive wheels.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,310 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    (a) In the machine shop, the employer did not ensure that compressed air was regulated to a maximum pressure of 30 P.S.I. This included but was not limited to the nozzle adjacent to the Brother TC-R2A discharging at approximately 70 P.S.I.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $10,780 · Current $6,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):    In the press department, employees were exposed to amputation injuries from unguarded point of operations on the following equipment:     (a)  In the press department, employees were exposed to crushing/amputation hazards from Cincinnati hydraulic press brake not having point of operation guarding when the die initially closes to a 1/4 inch opening before bending parts.     (b)  In the press department, employees were exposed to crushing/amputation hazards from press brake #669 (mfg. unknown) not having point of operation guards when straightening parts.     (c)  In the press department, employees were exposed to crushing/amputation hazards from the Cincinnati #4042 press brake not having point of operation guarding when bending parts    Coleman Tool & Mfg. Corp. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard [29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 311402267, citation number 1, item number 4 and was affirmed as a final order on June 17, 2009, with respect to a workplace located at 1625 Leider Drive, Union Grove, Wisconsin.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Nov 22, 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:    (a)  The employer did not ensure a periodic inspection of energy control procedures was accomplished to ensure that authorized employees maintained their proficiency and skills when de-energizing equipment.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:  (a)  In the forklift battery charging area, the employer did not ensure an eye wash / flushing station was provided for the employee(s) who add de-ionized water to the batteries.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(1): An educational program was not provided for all employees to familiarize them with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting:  (a) The employer did not ensure information and training on portable fire extinguisher use, including a hands-on instruction, was provided to employees designated to fight incipient stage fires.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(l)(3)(iii)(d): Pendant control stations were not kept clean, and/or their function labels were not kept legible:  (a)  In the machining department, the R&M 10 ton overhead crane (S/N 3965-1) did not have all the control functions labeled.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(iii): Fixing of the selection was not by means capable of supervision by the employer.  (a)  In the press department, the stroke selector key for the 60-ton Bliss mechanical power press was left in the press and not under control of a supervisor.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(i): Portable cord and plug connected equipment and flexible cord sets (extension cords) were not visually inspected before use on any shift for external defects (such as loose parts, deformed and missing pins, or damage to outer jacket or insulation) and for evidence of possible internal damage (such as pinched or crushed outer jacket):  (a)  In the welding department, the Jan-Fan industrial floor fan did not have a grounding pin and was in use.

Issued

Jul 29, 2013

Abate by

Aug 8, 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 and appropriate hazard warnings regarding the chemicals contained therein:  (a) Near the Mitsubishi horizontal mill, the employer did not ensure that the bottle of DC-99 purple degreaser was labeled with its contents and hazard warnings.