OSHA Inspection: ACH FOAM TECHNOLOGIES

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,190 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):  Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:     Employee(s) changing out propane tanks on industrial fork trucks were exposed to physical injuries due to no personal protective equipment being worn such as chemical goggles, chemical aprons, safety glasses, and etc., to prevent inadvertent contact with propane.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,190 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):  The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):      A personal protective equipment assessment was not performed for each job position to determine the types of personal protective equipment needed, such as, but not limited to employee(s) changing propane tanks on powered industrial trucks were exposed to struck by hazards due to no personal protection equipment hazard assessment.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,570 · Current $1,785 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees:    Employee(s) performing maintenance and preventive maintenance on hard wired equipment such as the block mold machine, extruder machine, lamination line, and etc. were exposed to caught between hazards due to no training being performed on the company's lockout / tagout program.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,570 · Current $1,785 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(g)(1): The employer did not provide training so that all employees whose work was regulated by 29 CFR 1910.146 (permit required confined spaces) acquired the understanding, knowledge, and skills necessary for the safe performance of the duties assigned under 29 CFR 1910.146:    Employees working inside confined spaces such as the extruder were exposed to caught in between / asphyxiation hazards due to no training being provided covering entry into confined spaces.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,570 · Current $1,785 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(5)(i)(C): When the employer used the alternate procedures specified in 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(5)(ii) for entering a permit space, the employer did not develop monitoring and inspection data that supported the demonstrations required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(5):    Employee(s) entering a permit required confined space to look for cracks in the fluid bed section of the extruder were exposed to asphyxiation hazards due to no air monitoring data being created to support using alternative procedures for reclassifying a permit required confine space to a non-permit required confined space.

Issued

Jun 3, 2014

Abate by

Sep 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,190 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 burns:    Machine operators were exposed to burn hazards due to inadequate machine guarding on the following equipment:    (a)  Pad line down cutter had no guards for the back side of the machine where 11 heating wires rated at 250 degrees fahrenheit were not guarded against inadvertent contact with employees, thus exposing employees to burn hazards.  The heated wires were used to cut bulk billets.    (b)  Pad line down cutter guard had approximately 14-1/2 inches of Plexiglas missing on the west side of the machine, thus exposing employees to burn hazards due to heating wires not being guarded against inadvertent contact with employees.  The heating wires were rated at 250 degrees fahrenheit and were used to cut bulk billets.    (c)  Down cutter harp on the combination cutter had no guarding to prevent inadvertent contact with 9 heated wires rated at 250 degrees fahrenheit with employees, thus exposing employees to burn hazards.  The heated wires were used to cut bulk billets.    (d)  Rear of combo cutter - slabber harp had no guarding for the heated wiring bus bar rated at 250 degrees fahrenheit, thus exposing employees to burn hazards. The heated wires were used to cut bulk billets.    (e)  Manual line down cutter had plastic guarding that could not be used because it was rubbing against the product causing the billets to be cut wrong, thus exposing employees to inadvertent contact with approximately 7 heated wires rated at 250 degrees fahrenheit, thus exposing employees to burn hazards.  The heated wires were used to cut bulk billets.    (f)  Pad line slabber did not have guarding to prevent inadvertent contact with 4 heated wires rated at 250 degree fahrenheit with employees, thus exposing employees to burn hazards.  The heated wires were used to cut bulk billets.    (g)  The lower section of the right side plexiglas guard for the Pad line slabber was missing approximately 12 inches of plexiglas, thus exposing employees to burn hazards due to inadvertent contact with heated wires rated at 250 degrees fahrenheit.    (h)   The right side plexiglas guard for the Pad line slabber heating element bar rated at 250 degree fahrenheit was unable to be secured closed, thus exposing employees to burn hazards.     (i)  The left side plexiglas guard for the Pad line slabber heating element bar rated at 250 degree fahrenheit was unable to be secured closed, thus exposing employees to burn hazards.