OSHA Inspection: GEORGETOWN WOOD AND PALLET CO.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Dec 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(B): The energy control procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy.    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had employees perform maintenance operations on equipment within the facility, and the employers machine specific lockout procedure did not list specific procedural steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy.  These specific lockout procedures include but are not limited to the following:      a. Blower,   b. Cutoff,   c. Resaw,   d. Planer Saw,   e. Air Compressor,   f. Big Notcher,   g. Little Notcher, and    h. Bin Pump.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Dec 16, 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:    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had employees perform maintenance operations on equipment within the facility, and the employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of energy control procedures at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirements of 1910.147 were being followed.  This periodic inspection would include the following:      a. The periodic inspection shall be performed by an authorized employee other than the one(s) utilizing the energy control procedure being inspected,    b. The periodic inspection shall be conducted to correct any deviations or inadequacies identified,   c. Where lockout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall include a review, between the inspector and each authorized employee, of that employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected,   d. Where tagout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall include a review, between the inspector and each authorized and affected employee, of that employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Nov 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $1,000 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:    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had employees perform maintenance operations on equipment within the facility, and the employer did not apply a lockout or tagout device to each energy isolating device during blade changes.  These instances include the following:      a. Multi-Head Band Saw  - Not locked out and  b. Planer Saw - Air not locked out.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Nov 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service:    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had employees operate powered industrial trucks daily, and the employer did not conduct daily forklift inspections.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Nov 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 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:    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had an employee exposed to ingoing nip points from an unguarded conveyor, associated with the stacker work operation in the Recycle Department.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Dec 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,500 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):    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had employees exposed to the unguarded point of operation on the Planer Saw in the Mill, as they removed boards after cutting.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Nov 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

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:     Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had hazardous chemicals at the facility, which were utilized by employees.  The employer did not develop, implement, and maintain a written hazard communication program.  This written hazard communication program would describe how the following criteria would be met by the company:      a. Labels and other forms of warning,   b. Material safety data sheets,   c. Employee information and training,   d. List of hazardous chemicals present at facility, and   e. Methods the employer will use to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Nov 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The written hazard communication program did not include a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present, using an identity that was referenced on the appropriate material safety data sheet:    Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had hazardous chemicals at the facility, which were utilized by employees.  The employer did not develop a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present at the facility.

Issued

Oct 31, 2013

Abate by

Nov 13, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(6): The employer did not certify that each operator has been trained and evaluated as required by this paragraph (l):  Georgetown Wood and Pallet Co. had employees operate powered industrial trucks daily, and the employer did not certify that each employee had received training and evaluation as specified by 1910.178(l).  This certification would include:     a.         Name of the operator,  b.         Date of the training, c.         Date of the evaluation, and  d.         Identity of the person(s) performing the training or evaluation.