OSHA Inspection: HIGUCHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jun 23, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(8)(ii): Every floor hole into which an employee can accidentally walk was not protected by a floor hole cover of standard strength and construction:  Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) were exposed to a trip hazard from an uncovered floor hole, measuring approximately 4 inches in diameter by 7-1/4 inches in depth, which was located in the walkway between the Komatsu L2M 200 (Model L2M 200-3BM, SN 10128) and the AIDA PMX (Model PMX-L2- 3000(1)).

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jun 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,410 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:  a) Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) operating a Komatsu L2M 300 Press Machine (Model L2M300-3BM(WL), SN 1NB054) were exposed to continuous noise at a dose of 97.6% (8-Hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 461 minute sampling period. For a full eight hour work shift this exposure is equivalent to an average sound level of 89.8 dBA. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 19 minutes not sampled. The company did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared.  b) Assembly Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) operating a Komatsu OBS-33 (Model OBS35-33, SN 15484) were exposed to continuous noise at a dose of 79.7% (8-Hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 454 minute sampling period. For a full eight hour work shift this exposure is equivalent to an average sound level of 88.4 dBA. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 26 minutes not sampled. The company did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jul 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(3): Employees were not given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer:  a) Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) were not provided with more than one suitable style of hearing protectors to choose from for protection from noise exposure exceeding an 8-hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA in the work place while operating a Komatsu L2M 300 (Model L2M300-3BM(WL), SN 1NB054) Press Machine.  b) Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) were not provided with more than one suitable style of hearing protectors to choose from for protection from noise exposure exceeding an 8-hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA in the work place while operating a Komatsu L2M200 (Model L2M 200-3BM, SN 10128) Press Machine.  c) Assembly Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) were not provided with more than one suitable style of hearing protectors to choose from for protection from noise exposure exceeding an 8-hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA in the work place while operating a Komatsu OBS-33 (Model OBS35-33, SN 15484) Press Machine.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jun 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,890 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k). The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:    a) Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) operating a Komatsu L2M 300 Press Machine (Model L2M300-3BM(WL), SN 1NB054) were exposed to continuous noise at a dose of 97.6% (8-Hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 461 minute sampling period. For a full eight hour work shift this exposure is equivalent to an average sound level of 89.8 dBA. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 19 minutes not sampled. The company did not provide training  in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k).     b) Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) operating a Komatsu L2M200 (Model L2M 200-3BM, SN 10128),  were exposed to continuous noise at a dose of 110.2% (8-Hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 460 minute sampling period. For a full eight hour work shift this exposure is equivalent to an average sound level of 90.7 dBA. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 20 minutes not sampled. The company did not provide training  in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k).     c) Assembly Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, employee(s) operating a Komatsu OBS-33 (Model OBS35-33, SN 15484) were exposed to continuous noise at a dose of 79.7% (8-Hour Time Weighted Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 454 minute sampling period. For a full eight hour work shift this exposure is equivalent to an average sound level of 88.4 dBA. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 26 minutes not sampled. The company did not provide training  in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k).

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Sep 16, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,410 Reduced

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:    Warehouse:  On or about January 22, 2014, and times prior there to, the employer did not have a written certification of the evaluation of area(s) where employee(s) use corrosive chemicals, such as but not limited to Sulfuric Acid (70-100% by Wt.) and  CHEMFOS 700HNR (Phosphoric Acid, zinc bis(dihydrogen phosphate), zinc nitrate, manganese bis(dihydrogen phosphate), nickel dinitrate), to access the need for personal protective equipment, such as face shields and chemical splash goggles, to protect employee(s) from chemical hazards.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jun 23, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,410 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:    E-Coat Area: On or about January 22, 2014, the employer did not ensure the use of face protection, such as but not limited to, face shields and chemical splash goggles, for employee(s) who were exposed to chemical hazards while transferring approximately 12 Liters of CHEMFOS 700HNR (Phosphoric Acid, zinc bis(dihydrogen phosphate), zinc nitrate, manganese bis(dihydrogen phosphate), nickel dinitrate) to the Stage 7 area of the E-Coat machine.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jul 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye hazards wears eye protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or wears eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses:    Stamping Area:  On or about March 3, 2014, and times prior there to, employee(s) in the Stamping Area, who were exposed to eye hazards, such as flying particles, were not provided with eye protection that incorporated the employees' prescription in its design or with eye protection that could be worn over the employees' prescription lenses.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Jun 23, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,410 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:  a) Stamping Area, Komatsu L2M 200: On or about March 22, 2014, and times prior there to, Komatsu L2M200 (Model L2M 200-3BM, SN 10128) press machine operators were exposed to caught-in hazards from an ingoing nip point on an attached ORII Straightener Feeder (Model LCC04HF2MAP-EVAS, SN 06HF20011T) used to feed metal coil into the press machine;  b) Stamping Area, Komatsu E2W300: On or about March 22, 2014, and times prior there to, Komatsu E2W300 (Model E2W300-11, SN 10230) press machine operators were exposed to caught-in hazards from an ingoing nip point on an attached ORII Straightener Feeder (Model LCC04HF2XAX-EVAS, SN 11HF20001T) used to feed metal coil into the press machine;  c) Stamping Area, Komatsu OBW 250: On or about March 22, 2014, and times prior there to, Komatsu OBW250 (Model OBW250, SN 10155) press machine operators were exposed to caught-in hazards from an ingoing nip point on an attached ORII Straightener Feeder (Model LCC04HF2MAX-EVAS , SN 06HF20013T) used to feed metal coil into the press machine;  d) Stamping Area, Komatsu OBS 150: On or about March 22, 2014, and times prior there to, Komatsu OBS 150 (Model OBS150-6, SN 14084) press machine operators were exposed to caught-in hazards from an ingoing nip point on an attached ORII Straightener Feeder (Model LCC04HF2MAP-EVAS, SN 06HF20012T) used to feed metal coil into the press machine;  e) Stamping Area, Komatsu L2M 300: On or about March 22, 2014, and times prior there to, Komatsu L2M 300 (Model L2M300-3BM(WL), SN 1NB054) press machine operators were exposed to caught-in hazards from an ingoing nip point on an attached ORII Straightener Feeder used to feed metal coil into the press machine.  f) Stamping Area, Komatsu OBW 250 press machine: On or about March 3, 2014, and times prior there to, employee(s) in the Stamping Area were exposed to a caught-in hazard from an unguarded entry to the point of operation on the rear side of a Komatsu OBW250 (Model OBW250, SN 10155) press machine.  g) Stamping Area, Komatsu OBS 150 press machine: On or about March 3, 2014, and times prior there to, employee(s) in the Stamping Area were exposed to a caught-in hazard from an unguarded entry to the point of operation on the rear side and right side of a Komatsu OBS 150 (Model OBS150-6, SN 14084)  press machine.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 16, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,410 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(d)(9)(iv): Safety blocks were not used when mechanical power press die(s) were being adjusted or repaired in the press:    Stamping Area, AIDA PMX: On or about December 17, 2013, employee(s) were exposed to caught-in hazards when  machine press die adjustments were performed without the use of safety blocks and parts of the employee(s) body were placed into the point of operation.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 16, 2014

Penalty

Initial $63,000 · Current $44,100 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:    Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, the company did not establish a lockout/tagout program to ensure that employee(s) who perform  tasks, to include maintenance and servicing, where hands and other body parts enter the point of operation on mechanical press machines, such as but not limited to a Komatsu OBS 150 (Model OBS150-6, SN 14084),  were not exposed to equipment hazards arising from the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy that could cause injury.

Issued

Jun 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 16, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(d)(9)(i): The employer did not establish a die setting procedure for mechanical power press(es) that would ensure compliance with 29 CFR 1910.217(c):    Stamping Area: On or about December 17, 2013, and times prior there to, the company did not develop and ensure the use of a written die setting procedure for employee(s) who perform die changes and are exposed to hazards, such as but not limited to, caught-in, struck-by and hazardous energy on the following machinery:    a) Komatsu OBS 150 (Model OBS150-6, SN 14084);    b) Komatsu L2M 300 (Model L2M300-3BM(WL), SN 1NB054);    c) Komatsu L2M200 (Model L2M 200-3BM, SN 10128);    d) AIDA PMX (Model PMX-L2- 3000(1));    e) Komatsu E2W300 (Model E2W300-11, SN 10230);    f) Komatsu OBW250 (Model OBW250, SN 10155).