OSHA Inspection: TECH-AIR INC

Issued

May 5, 2014

Abate by

Jul 16, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,360 · Current $952 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 and flying chips:  In the shop the Ridgid drill press did not have a guard available to protect employees from being struck-by broken parts and/or flying chips.

Issued

May 5, 2014

Abate by

Aug 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(1)(i): The employer did not provide and ensure the usage of point of operation guards or properly applied point of operation devices on every operation performed on mechanical power press(es):  In the shop the Heim Press Brake was not guarded and had a single foot control - leaving the hands free and exposed to an amputation hazard.

Issued

May 5, 2014

Abate by

Aug 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,020 · Current $714 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.  Written - machine specific procedures had not been documented in an effort to control the hazardous energy employees may be exposed to while performing maintenance and setup.

Issued

May 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.32(a)(4): The employer did not post an OSHA 300A Form or equivalent by February 1 thru April 30.      The OSHA 300A Form had not been posted by the date of the inspection.

Issued

May 5, 2014

Abate by

Jul 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  The employer has not developed a hazard communication program that explains the labels on shipping containers and the safety data sheets, including the order of information and how the employee could obtain and use the hazard information. Throughout the facility where employees were using lubricants and fuel gasses without having a hazard communication program in place that explains the revised labeling elements on shipping containers or the revised safety data sheet format.