OSHA Inspection: REEF INDUSTRIES, INC.

Issued

Jun 16, 2014

Abate by

Jul 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,620 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): Floor(s) of workroom(s) were not maintained in a clean and, so far as possible, a dry condition:    In the Permalon/Multihead building on March 4, 2014, the employer did not ensure that floors were maintained in a dry condition, exposing employees to slip and fall hazards.

Issued

Jun 16, 2014

Abate by

Jul 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

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 activities covered by this section:     a. On the North side of Multihead building on March 4, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on Multihead machine, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.     b. On the Southeast corner of the Permalon building on March 4, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on the bag line machine, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.     c. On the West side of the print shop building on March 4, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on the multi color print machine, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.        d. On the Northeast side of the print shop building on March 4, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees when performing maintenance on the slitter machine, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.        e. On the Southwest side of the Permalon building on June 3, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on the Permalon machine , exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.        f. On the East side of the Armorlon building on June 3, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on the Armorlon machine, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.        g. On the North side of the print shop building on June 3, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on slitter, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.        h. On the Southwest side of the print shop building on June 3, 2014, the employer did not develop specific energy control procedures for employees performing maintenance on strip cutter machine, exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in-between hazards.

Issued

Jun 16, 2014

Abate by

Jul 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

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:     At the facilities located on 10020 Mykawa Road Houston, Texas the employer did not ensure that the energy control procedures were evaluated at least annually or sooner, exposing employees to  caught in between and struck by hazards

Issued

Jun 16, 2014

Abate by

Jul 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 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. On the North side of Multihead building on March 4, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Multi head machine, exposing the employees to caught-in between hazards.    b. On the Southeast corner of the Permalon building on March 4, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Bagging line machine, exposing the employees to caught-in between hazards.    c. On the West side of the print shop building on March 4, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on a Multi color printing machine, exposing the employees to caught-in between hazards.      d. On the Northeast side of the print shop building on March 4, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Slitter machine, exposing the employees to caught-in between hazards.      e. On the Southwest side of the Permalon building on June 3, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Permalon machine, exposing the employees are exposed to caught-in between hazards.      f. On the East side of the Armorlon building on June 3, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Armorlon machine, exposing the employees are exposed to caught-in between hazards.      g. On the North side of the print shop building on June 3, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Slitter machine, exposing the employees to caught-in between hazards.      h. On the Southwest side of the print shop building on June 3, 2014, employees were not protected from rotating parts and nip points on the Strip cutter machine, exposing the employees to caught-in between hazards.