OSHA Inspection: PRIEFERT MFG. CO., INC.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.137(b)(2)(viii): Electrical protective equipment was not subjected to periodic electrical tests:    The employer does not ensure that rubber-insulating gloves are subjected to periodic electrical tests.      a) This violation was discovered on or about October 10, 2013, in the maintenance department; where the following pairs of rubber-insulating gloves that were used by employees while working on energized circuits were not subjected to periodic electrical tests, and exposed employees to the hazards of electric shock and burns:            1) Salisbury, Size 10, Class 0, Type 1 rubber-insulating gloves;            2) Salisbury, Size 11, Class 2, Type 1 rubber-insulating gloves; and,             3) G.B. Industries, Novax, Size 8, Class 0, type 1 rubber-insulating gloves.    b) This violation occurred on or about October 16, 2013, in the slitter department; where at least one (1) employee wore a pair of Salisbury, Size 11, Class 2, Type 1 rubber-insulating gloves while trouble shooting energized electrical circuits to a 35-ton overhead crane that was not subjected to periodic electrical test.  The employee was exposed to the hazards of electric shock and burns.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Apr 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in the activities covered 29 CFR 1910.147:   The employer does not ensure that procedures are developed, documented and utilized for the control of potential hazardous energy when employees perform service and/or maintenance work on a machine and/or equipment.  This violation occurred on or about October 9, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building, where:  a) At least one (1) employee, who was modifying electrical equipment and circuits to a heavy-duty, variable-speed combination straightening machine and coil cradle, was  exposed to the hazards associated with the unexpected energization or startup of the machine or equipment, or release of stored energy.  b) At least two (2)employees, who removed a gear box from a heavy-duty, variable-speed, combination straightening machine and coil cradle, were exposed to the hazards associated with the unexpected energization or startup of the machine or equipment, or release of stored energy.     The employer did not develop, document and utilize energy control procedures for service and/or maintenance work on the combination straightening machine and coil cradle.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(a)(1): Live parts to which an employee may be exposed were not de-energized before the employee worked on or near them:  The employer does not ensure that live parts to which an employee may be exposed are de-energized before the employee worked on or near them.  This violation occurred on or about October 9, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building; where at least one (1) employee, who was working in the electrical control cabinet of a heavy-duty, variable-speed, combination straightening machine and coil cradle, was not protected against electrical shock by de-energizing and grounding the circuit at the service (panelboard).

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Apr 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): The energy control 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):    The employer does not ensure that energy control procedures clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to ensure compliance.  This violation was discovered on or about November 6, 2013, where the employer's energy control 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 ensure compliance;    Contain a specific statement of the intended use of the procedure;    Contain specific procedural steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy;    Contain specific procedural steps for the placement, removal and transfer of lockout devices or tagout devices and the responsibility for them; and    Contain specific requirements for testing a machine or equipment to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout devices, tagout devices, and other energy control measures.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii): Lockout devices and tagout devices were used for other purposes:    The employer uses lockout devices for purposes other than that to prevent the unexpected energization or startup of machines or equipment, or release of stored energy.  The violation was observed on or about October 10, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building; where a lockout device, which was applied on or about August 5, 2013, was used to remove the Niagra 200-ton straight-side power press from service.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(D): Lockout devices and tagout devices did not indicate the identity of the employee who applied the device(s):  The employer does not ensure that lockout devices indicate the identity of the employee applying the devices.  This violation was discovered on or about October 10, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building; where the name on the identification tags of two lockout devices issued to a production electrician was illegible.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1)(viii): Electric equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. Safety of equipment was not determined using factors that contributed to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment:    When switch enclosures contain feed-through conductors, the employer does not ensure that a warning label is applied to the enclosure that identifies the closest disconnecting means for each feed-through conductor.  This violation was observed on or about October 10, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building; where conductors for to both a mechanical power press and a combination straightening machine and coil cradle entered the enclosure to a heavy-duty switch, but the switch was the disconnecting means to only the press.  A warning label was not applied to the switch enclosure that identified the disconnecting means for the feed-through conductor to the combination straightening machine and coil cradle.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(e)(2): The marking on electric equipment giving voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings as necessary was not of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved:    The employer does not ensure that the marking on electrical equipment is of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.  This violation was observed on or about October 10, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building; where the marking giving voltage on the electric disconnect to the Niagara, 200-ton straight-side power press was illegible.

Issued

Mar 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii): Unused openings in cabinets, boxes, and fittings were not effectively closed:    The employer does not ensure that unused openings in cabinets, boxes and fittings are effectively closed.  This violation was observed on or about October 10, 2013, in the small parts department of the wing building; where the enclosure to a heavy-duty switch (disconnecting means to the Niagra 200-ton straight-side power press) had a 1 1/2-inch diameter unused opening that exposed employees to energized equipment and circuits.