OSHA Inspection: THE ARTHUR CORPORATION

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Sep 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $2,380

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:    a. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 6, 2014, employees who use a utility knife to cut plastic sheets and scrap were exposed to laceration hazards.  The employer did not ensure that employees used personal protective equipment for the hands to protect against cut injuries.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Sep 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:  a. On or about June 6, 2014, the employer's hazard assessment did not protect employees from identified laceration hazards.  The employer did not have affected employees use personal protective equipment for the hands that would protect against cut injuries when using a utility knife to cut plastic sheets and scrap plastic.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Oct 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,380 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. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about May 13, 2013, the employer did not ensure that energy control procedures identify specific steps to follow to control hazardous energy of the F-1 Thermoformer.  Procedures lacked specific steps for the placement of blocks to control gravitational energy and specific step to verify energy control measures.    b. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about August 12, 2014, the employer did not ensure that energy control procedures identify specific steps for the placement of lockout devices to control hazardous energy during maintenance of the E-1 line.   Procedures lacked specific steps for the use and placement of lockout devices to control electrical and hydraulic energy while maintenance personnel repaired a hydraulic cylinder.  Procedures directed employees to use tags for energy control.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Oct 17, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,380 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. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about May 20, 2014, the employer did not assure that the stacker located on the F-3 line was guarded to protect employees from pinch points created as sheets of plastic trays were trimmed and stacked.  Operators using compressed air to clear scrap pieces under the stacker were exposed to the pinch points.    b. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 6, 2014, the employer did not assure that an ingoing nip point of two rollers located at the silicon application of Extruder 1 (E-1) was guarded.  Employees were exposed to being caught in the in-going nip point when filling the silicon trough.     c. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 6, 2014, the employer did not assure that the in-going nip point created by two rollers at the draw roll stand of Extruder 1 (E-1) was adequately guarded.  Employees clearing plastic shavings in the area were exposed to being caught in the in-going nip point.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,380 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):    a. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about May 20, 2014, operators at the F-3 line were exposed to amputation injury in that the guillotine's point of operation was not adequately guarded.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Mar 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,380 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.332(b)(1): Employees were not trained in and familiar with the safety-related work practices required by 1910.331 through 1910.335 that pertained to their respective job assignments:    a. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 4, 2014, the employer did not assure that employees who are exposed to electrical hazards while performing work on or near energized parts were trained in electrical safety-related work practices. A maintenance employee was exposed to electrical-related injuries in that safe work practices were not employed when performing electrical work/tests.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Mar 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(a): Safety-related work practices were not employed to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts, when work was performed near or on equipment or circuits which were or could be energized:    a. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 4, 2014, the employer did not develop and implement electrical safety related work practices which cover employees exposed to live electrical conductors while performing electrical work.  Maintenance personnel responsible for troubleshooting and/or performing electrical tests were exposed to hazards in that electrical safe work practices were not employed to prevent electrical shock and/or arc flash/blast injuries.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Mar 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i): Employees working in areas where there were potential electrical hazards were not provided with electrical protective equipment that was appropriate for the specific parts of the body that needed to be protected and for the work being performed:    a. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 4, 2014, the employer did not assure that employees who perform electrical tests to troubleshoot and verify absence of energy are provided with and use personal protective equipment to protect against electrical hazards.  A maintenance employee, using a multi-meter to troubleshoot circuits at a 480 volt electrical distribution panel for ovens of F-7, was exposed to electrical shock and arc flash hazards in that flame resistant clothing, insulated gloves with leather gloves, hard hat, and arc rated face shield were not worn during the troubleshooting activities.

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Sep 18, 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. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about May 13, 2014, the employer did not ensure lockout devices were marked to identify the employee applying the lock.  Two employees performing a changeover of the F-1 line used lockout devices marked "F-1" and "Changeover".  b. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about May 30, 2014, the employer did not ensure lockout devices were marked to identify the employee applying the lock.  Two employees performing cleaning operations at the F-7 line used lockout devices marked "F-7" and "Trainee".

Issued

Aug 25, 2014

Abate by

Nov 15, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i)(C): Where lockout was used for energy control, the periodic inspection did not include a review, between the inspector and each authorized employee, of that employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected:    a. The Arthur Corp. - Huron, Ohio: On or about June 6, 2014, the employer did not adequately conduct periodic inspections of energy control procedures.  Inspections did not include a review of the energy control procedures between the inspector and authorized employee(s).