OSHA Inspection: ROLL-N-LOCK CORPORATION

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards wore eye protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection that could be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses.      On or about July 25, 2013, at the above addressed jobsite, in the machine shop, employees were using milling machines without safety glasses.

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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 energing, 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:      On or about July 25, 2013, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer had not established a lockout tagout program to ensure the isolation of energy during repair and maintenance of the Hydraulic presses, Russel #2 punch press, Blitz Alva 500, and other machines.

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Abate by

Sep 18, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $2,520 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 July 25, 2013, at the above addressed jobsite, the Bridgeport milling machines and drill presses did not have a guard.

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i): Except as elsewhere required or permitted by Subpart S of Part 1910, live parts of electric equipment operating  at 50 volts or more were not guarded against accidental contact by use of approved cabinets or other forms of approved enclosures or by any of the means identified in paragraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of 29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i):    On or about July 25, 2013, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer left the cover off the Ingersoll Rand Air compressor exposing employees to live electrical parts.

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:     On or about July 25, 2013, at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not have a written hazard communication program to show the employees the hazards of 3M 94 (flammable) and Terand penetrating lubricant among other products.

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use:    On or about July 25, 2013 at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not have material safety data sheets for 3M primer, Terand Lubricant, and 303 Aerospace protectant.

Issued

Aug 22, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h): Employees were not provided effective information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and -2 on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced:      On or about July 25, 2013 at the above addressed jobsite, the employer did not provide training for those employees using chemicals at the workplace.