OSHA Inspection: D&J PALLET, INC.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The employer did not furnish employment or a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards which were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards from the bursting of PVC piping that was used to deliver compressed air to all areas of the facility.  ASTM D2665 specification for this type of PVC piping (drain/waste) is for liquids only and it is not for use with compressed air which contains large amounts of stored energy.  In the event of a pipe system failure, pipe shards could be launched into the shop.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 17, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): All places of employment, passageways, storerooms or service rooms were not kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary condition.  a)   On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire and tripping hazards because floors and walkways were not maintained free from obstructions and wood, saw dust and other materials were allowed to accumulate.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, and administrative or engineering controls were not utilized, personal protective equipment was not provided and used to reduce the sound levels within the levels of the table:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, the employer did not ensure that employees exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of greater than 90 dBA were protected against the effects of the noise exposure.  On April 25, 2013, an employee operating the dismantler was exposed to noise at a level of 95.8 dBA (224.2% dose) as an 8-hour TWA.  The sampling was conducted for a period of 232 minutes, and the calculation assumed zero exposure for the unsampled portion (248 minutes) of the shift.  Employees that used the dismantler did not always use hearing protection.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:   a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, the employer did not protect the hearing of employees by implementing a hearing conservation program which included initial noise monitoring, baseline and annual audiograms, and employee training for employees that worked with a pallet disassembler, notcher, and other woodworking equipment and were exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of greater than 85dBA (50% dose) as follows:      1)  On April 25, 2013, an employee operating the dismantler was exposed to noise at a level of 95.8 dBA (224.2% dose) as an 8-hour TWA.  The sampling was conducted for a period of 232 minutes, and the calculation assumed zero exposure for the unsampled portion (248 minutes) of the shift.      2)  On April 25, 2013, an employee operating the dismantler was exposed to noise at a level of  89.7 dBA (95.9% dose) as an 8-hour TWA.  The sampling was conducted for a period of 174 minutes, and the calculation assumed zero exposure for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors were worn as indicated in subdivisions i and ii of this subparagraph:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, the employer did not ensure that employees exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of greater than 90 dBA wore hearing protectors.  In addition, the employer did not ensure that employees who had not received a baseline audiogram and were exposed to an 8-hour TWA sound level of greater than 85 dBA wore hearing protectors.  Employees that used the dismantler did not always use hearing protection.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

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 April 25, 2013, employees were exposed to amputation injuries while they performed maintenance and repair work on machines such as wood saws, the notcher and other woodworking machinery without isolating or locking out the energy sources for those machines.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 9, 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 the purpose and function of the energy control program was understood by employees:   a)  On or about April 25, 2013, employees were exposed to amputation injuries while they performed maintenance and repair work on machines such as wood saws, the notcher and other woodworking machinery without isolating or locking out the energy sources for those machines.  The employer did not provide adequate training to ensure that employees understood energy control procedures.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

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 April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to injuries from misuse of the forklift they operated because the employer had not provided them with a training program and an evaluation of their ability to safely use the forklift.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(h)(1): Radial saw(s) were not provided with an upper hood that completely enclosed the upper portion of the blade down to a point including the end of the saw arbor, and the sides of the lower exposed portion of the blade were not guarded to the full diameter of the blade:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to amputations because the employer did not fully guard the saw blades on the Newman KM-16 Trimmer.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(i)(1): Non-working portion(s) of the blade of bandsaw(s) were not enclosed or guarded:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to amputations because the employer did not guard the unused portion of the saw blade for a Rockwell Model 14 Bandsaw.    b)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to amputations because the employer did not guard the unused portion of the saw blade for the pallet dismantler.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to amputation injuries because the ET Hazledine Notcher used by employees to make stringer pieces for pallets was not guarded at the point of operation.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 17, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven -7 feet or less above floors or platforms were not enclosed:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to injuries from nip points where chains and sprockets on the conveyor for the Newman KM-16 saw were unguarded.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i): All pull boxes, junction boxes, and fittings were not provided with covers identified for the purpose.  Each outlet box in completed installations did not have a cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy:  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock while they worked around electrical outlets that did not have covers in the pallet dismantling area.    b)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock wile they worked around exposed wiring on the notcher machine that was not enclosed by a box.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Sep 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords were not connected to devices and fittings so that tension would not be transmitted to joints or terminal screws:                                                                  a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical shock and fire hazards because a flexible cord connected to the notcher did not have adequate strain relief and the insulation on the cord had been damaged.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 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, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:    a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, the employer did not verify, through written certification, that a hazard assessment of the workplace had been performed to determine the type of personal protective equipment necessary to protect employees from hazardous chemicals, flying chips and particles, and power tools.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 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 employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:     a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees wore half-face elastomeric respirators without first being medically evaluated to ensure that they were physiologically fit  to wear the respirator.

Issued

Sep 3, 2013

Abate by

Oct 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):  The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:       a)  On or about April 25, 2013, and at times prior, employees working with a variety of hazardous chemicals did not have access to information pertaining to the hazards of those chemicals because the employer did not maintain material safety data sheets for any of the chemicals used in the workplace.