OSHA Inspection: OPTIMUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): The employer did not provide protective eyewear for employees who required prescription glasses.     a) Production floor - In an area where eye protection was required, an employee operating a slitter was exposed to eye injuries from flying particles, in that; only prescription eye glasses were being worn, and no other protection was provided.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): 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):    a) Production and Coating - Energy control procedures did not clearly outline equipment type, procedures for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines; steps for the placement, removal and transfer of lockout devices or tagout devices; and specific requirements for testing a machine or equipment to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout devices or tagout devices, and other energy control measures for equipment such as,  but not limited to: coating machine, slitters, oven.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(f)(3)(i): A procedure was not utilized to afford the employees a level of protection equivalent to that provided by the implementation of a personal lockout or tagout device when servicing and/or maintenance was performed by a crew, craft:  a) Coating - Employees were exposed to caught in hazards, in that; the employer allowed multiple employees to perform maintenance on a coating machine without ensuring each employee had placed a lockout/tagout device on the energy isolating device.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 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:    a) Production and Coating - The employer did not inspect its energy control procedure at least annually to correct deviations or inadequacies, nor review each authorized employee's responsibility under the energy control procedures.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i): Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees:     a) Coating - Employees were exposed to caught in hazards, in that; the employer allowed maintenance to be performed on a coating machine without ensuring that the two employees had placed tagout devices on the energy isolating device.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(B): Lockout and tagout devices were not standardized within the facility in at least one of the following criteria: color; shape; or size:   a) Production and Coating - Employees were exposed to caught in hazards, in that; when performing lockout/tagout of slitters and coating machines, lockout devices were not standardized by the color or shape.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 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 applying the device(s):  a) Production and Coating - Employees were exposed to caught in hazards, in that; when performing lockout/tagout of slitters and coating machine, lockout devices did not identify the authorized employees who applied them.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv): Flexible cords and/ or cables were used for purposes prohibited by paragraphs (A) through (F) of 29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv):     (a) Production floor - The employer exposed employees to a fire hazard, in that; an extension cord used to supply power to a work station was attached to the building structure and run through the ceiling.     (b) Production floor - The employer exposed employees to a fire/ electrical shock hazard, in that; extension cords used to power drills, and the power cords of the drills, were permanently attached to equipment. The cords were being used as a substitute for fixed wiring.

Issued

Jul 10, 2014

Abate by

Aug 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(i): Portable cord and plug connected equipment and flexible cord sets (extension cords) were not visually inspected before use on any shift for external defects (such as loose parts, deformed and missing pins, or damage to outer jacket or insulation) and for evidence of possible internal damage (such as pinched or crushed outer jacket):    (a) Production floor - The employer exposed employees to a fire hazard, in that; an extension cord used to supply power to a work station was attached to the building structure, run through the ceiling and could not be inspected for defects   (b) Production floor - The employer exposed employees to a fire/ electrical shock hazard, in that; extension cords used to power drills, and the power cords of the drills, were permanently attached to equipment, had electrical tape around the cord, and could not be inspected for defects.