OSHA Inspection: VISTA WINDOW COMPANY, LLC

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(a)(3): Exit route(s) were not kept free and unobstructed:    On or about December 4, 2014, the emergency exit located in the Storage Area near the Casement Saw, was blocked with production materials.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equaled or exceeded a dose of 50% over the extended work shift:       On or about December 4, 2014, the employer did not provide baseline and annual audiograms for the following employees:     a)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Frame Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 168.7% during the 556 minute sampling period.        b)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Screen Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 112.5% during the 549 minute sampling period.        c)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Sash Cleaner was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 85.7% during the 607 minute sampling period.        d)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Casement Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 73.8% during the 484 minute sampling period.        e)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Screen Press was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 74.3% during the 508 minute sampling period.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(3): Employees were not given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer:  On or about December 4, 2014, the employer did not provide several types of hearing protectors for employees who are exposed to noise over the Action Level as listed below:    a)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Frame Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 168.7% during the 556 minute sampling period.     b)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Screen Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 112.5% during the 549 minute sampling period.     c)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Sash Cleaner was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 85.7% during the 607 minute sampling period.     d)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Casement Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 73.8% during the 484 minute sampling period.     e)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Screen Press was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 74.3% during the 508 minute sampling period.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above the Action Level in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k).:     On or about December 4, 2014, the employer did not institute a training program and ensure that employees, who are exposed to noise at or above the action level, participated in the program, as listed below:     a)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Frame Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 168.7% during the 556 minute sampling period.        b)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Screen Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 112.5% during the 549 minute sampling period.        c)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Sash Cleaner was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 85.7% during the 607 minute sampling period.        d)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Casement Saw was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 73.8% during the 484 minute sampling period.        e)  On or about December 4, 2014, an employee operating the Screen Press was exposed to noise above the Action Level of 50% dose at the 80 dBA threshold level time weighted over the extended work shift.  The level found was 74.3% during the 508 minute sampling period.          Note:  The employer shall ensure that each employee is informed of the following:   (i) The effects of noise on hearing;   (ii) The purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use, and care; and   (iii) The purpose of audiometric testing, and an explanation of the test procedures.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 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):    On or about October 22, 2014, the employer did not perform workplace hazard assessments for all of their operations, including but not limited, to operating the mechanical power press at the screen saw line and handling glass (both tempered and regular glass).

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee, who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards, used protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection over the prescription glasses or protective lenses with side shields:  On or about December 4, 2014, the employer did not ensure that employees wearing prescription glasses in the production area of the facility that were subjected to eye hazards, such as operating the Sash Cleaner, Casement Cleaner, and the Mechanical Press on the Screen Line, used eye protection that incorporated the prescription in its design or eye protection over their prescription glasses.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 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:    On or about October 22, 2014, the employer failed to develop lockout/tagout specific procedures for all of their pieces of equipment including but not limited to the Sash Saw, Sash Welder, Frame Saw, Frame Welder, Casement Saw, and Casement Welder.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 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:    On or about October 22, 2014, the employer failed to provide training to employees on their lockout/tagout program.      Note:  1910.147(c)(7)(iv) states that the employer shall certify that employee training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date.  The certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of training.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 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    On or about October 22, 2014, employees who were unjamming and cleaning equipment such as the Sash Saw were de-energizing the equipment but not applying energy isolating devices such as locks.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2): The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter:    On or about October 22, 2014, portable fire extinguishers were available for employees to use, but initial training was not provided for all employees.        Note the employer may exercise one of the following options:    1. Provide portable fire extinguishers as specified in 29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1), meet the distribution requirements per 29 CFR 1910.157(d) (75 to the nearest extinguisher for Class A fires and 50 to the nearest unit for Class B fires), and provide training and education for all employees in the use of such equipment and the hazards associated with incipient stage fire fighting as specified in 29 CFR 1910.157(g).  The other sections of 29 CFR also apply.    2. Provide extinguishers as specified in 29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1), designate certain employees to be the only employees authorized to use such equipment and require all other employees to immediately evacuate upon the sound of the fire alarm, establish this in writing in an emergency action plan as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.38(a) and train/educate designated employees per 1910.157(g).  Utilizing this option exempts the employer from distribution requirements of 29 CFR 1910.157(d).    3. Establish a written fire safety policy which requires the immediate and total evacuation of employees from the workplace upon the sounding of a fire alarm signal.  This policy shall include an emergency action plan and a fire prevention plan as specified in 29 CFR 1910.38(a) and 29 CFR 1910.39(a).  Utilizing this option exempts the employer from the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.157 to include the need for providing portable fire equipment unless a specific standard requires that a portable fire extinguisher be provided (such as those requirements in 29 CFR 1910.106/107 related to the use/storage of flammable/combustible liquids).  If extinguishers are provided, but not intended for employee use, 29 CFR 1910.157(e) and (f) are still applicable (inspection, maintenance, and testing of equipment).

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):     On or before October 22, 2014, at least one employee was allowed to operate powered industrial equipment, such as a forklift and/or powered pallet jack, at the site without successfully completing their training program or being evaluated.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 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:    On or about October 22, 2014, October 29, 2014, and December 4, 2014 the employer failed to adequately guard the following equipment:    a)  The Sash Saw that is run in automatic mode was not guarded in that the cabinet that holds the spinning saw blades was not locked and there was a pinch point between the frame of the saw enclosure and the push arm that pushes out the cut pieces.      b)  The Sash Cleaner that is operated by foot pedal  did not have the hold downs guarded.      c)  The Sash Welder that is operated by hitting one button did not have guarding for the hold downs.  The light curtain that was attached to the welder was inoperable.      c)  The Frame Welder that is operated by hitting one button did not have guarding for the hold downs.  The light curtain that was attached to the welder was inoperable.      d)  The Frame Cleaner that is operated by foot pedal did not have guarding for the hold downs.      e)  The Miscellaneous Frame Saw that is operated by foot pedal did not have guarding for the hold downs.     f)  The Frame Saw that runs in automatic mode did not have guarding for the parts trolley.  The light curtain was inoperable.      g)  The Frame Saw that is run in automatic mode was not guarded in that the cabinet that holds the spinning saw blades was not locked and there was a pinch point between the frame of the saw enclosure and the push arm that pushes out the cut pieces.      f)  The Screen Saw that is operated by foot pedal did not have guarding for the hold downs.      g)  The Miscellaneous Sash Saw that is operated by foot pedal did not have guarding for the hold downs.    h)  The Casement Welder that is operated by hitting a button did not have guarding for the hold downs.        i)   The Casement Saw that is operated by rotating toggle switch did not have guarding for the hold downs.      j)   The Casement Cleaner that is operated by actuating a switch with the frame of the window did not have guarding for the hold downs.        k)  The Surtz End Finisher (SMI-JN 300/Notch Saw) that is operated by foot pedal did not have guarding for the hold downs.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 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):     On or about October 22, 2014, October 29, 2014, and December 4, 2014 the employer failed to adequately guard the following equipment:    a)  The Sash Saw that is run in automatic mode was not guarded in that there was access to the second cutting blade.    b)  The Sash Cleaner that is operated by foot pedal was not guarded to protect employees from the cutting blades.     c)  The Sash Welder that is operated by hitting one button did not have guarding to protect employees from the movement of the hot plates and hot pieces of vinyl.  The light curtain was inoperable.        d)  The Frame Saw that runs in automatic mode did not have saw blade guarding.  The front opening had an inoperable light curtain and the back opening had no guard.        e)  The Frame Cleaner that is operated by foot pedal was not guarded to protect employees from the cutting blades.    f)  The Frame Welder that is operated by hitting one button did not have guarding to protect employees from the movement of the hot plates and hot pieces of vinyl.  The light curtain was inoperable.      g)  The Miscellaneous Frame Saw that is operated by foot pedal did not have adequate guarding, in that the guard opening was greater than a quarter inch.      h) The Screen Saw that is operated by foot pedal did not have guarding to protect employees from the saw blades.    i)  The Miscellaneous Sash Saw that is operated by foot pedal did not have adequate guarding, in that the guard opening was greater than a quarter inch.      j)  The Casement Welder was not guarded in that the it did not have guarding to protect employees from the movement of the hot plates and hot pieces of vinyl.      k)  The Casement Cleaner that is operated by activating a switch with the frame of the window was not guarded in that there was access to the cutting blades from the front and sides of the equipment.        l) The seven pneumatic punch presses in the Sash Department are operated by foot pedal and were not guarded.    m) The two pneumatic punch presses in the Screen Department are operated by foot pedal and were not guarded.      n) The ten pneumatic punch presses in the Frame Department are operated by foot pedal and were not guarded.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:    On or about October 22, 2014, the Delta Bench Grinder had the work rest on the left side grinding wheel adjusted to over one eight of an inch.  The distance was measured to be a quarter of an inch between the wheel and the work rest.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:  On or about October 22, 2014, the Delta Bench Grinder was missing its tongue guards on both the left and right sides.  The left side measured a half inch from the wheel to the top of the metal cover and the right side measured over a quarter inch from the top of the wheel to the metal cover.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(3)(i): Mechanical power press(es) using full revolution clutches did not incorporate a single-stroke mechanism:    On or about October 24, 2014, the mechanical power press, Press Rite Number 51374 made by the Havir MFG Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, used on the Screen Line, did not have a single stroke mechanism and repeatedly cycled when the pedal was held down.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(4)(iii): Pedal return spring(s) of pedal(s) used on mechanical power press(es) using full revolution clutches were not of the compression type, operating on a rod or guided within a hole or tube, or designed to prevent interleaving of spring coils in event of breakage:      On or about October 24, 2014, the mechanical power press, Press Rite Number 51374 made by the Havir MFG Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, used on the Screen Line, had a broken spring in its foot pedal making it inoperable.  Employees had to actuate the equipment by using their foot to push on the cord that was attached to the foot pedal and the clutch.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

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 the mechanical power press:    On or about October 24, 2014, the mechanical power press, Press Rite Number 51374 made by the Havir MFG Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, used on the Screen Line, did not have any point of operation guarding.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(i): A program of periodic and regular inspections of mechanical power press(es) was not established and followed to ensure that all parts, auxiliary equipment and safeguards were in a safe operating condition and adjustment:    On or about October 24, 2014, the employer did not have a program of periodic and regular inspections for the mechanical power press, Press Rite Number 51374 made by the Havir MFG Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, used on the Screen Line.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.304(g)(5): The path to ground from circuits, equipment, and enclosures was not permanent, continuous, and effective:    On or about October 29, 2014, the floor fan, located next to the mechanical press in the Screen Department, had the ground prong missing from its electrical plug.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6): The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:    On or about October 22, 2014, the employer provided dust masks for employees to wear voluntarily, but failed to train new employees on the information in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

Apr 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2): Listed or labeled electrical equipment was not used or installed in accordance with instructions included in the listing or labeling:   On or about October 29, 2014, next to the Frame Welder, a receptacle box, designed for fixed installation, was wired with a black flexible cord and was not securely affixed to any surface.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    On or about October 22, 2014, the employer failed to develop, implement, and/or maintain a written hazard communication program, for employees who work with chemicals, including but not limited to, propane and cleaners, such as the orange cleaner.

Issued

Apr 20, 2015

Abate by

May 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    On or about October 22, 2014, the employer failed to provide hazard communication program training, for employees who work with chemicals, including but not limited to, propane and cleaners, such as the orange cleaner.      Note:  Employees shall be informed of:    a) The requirements of this section;   b) Any operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present; and,   c) The location and availability of the written hazard communication program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and safety data sheets required by this section.      Employee training shall include at least:    a) Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical in the work area (such as monitoring conducted by the employer, continuous monitoring devices, visual appearance or odor of hazardous chemicals when being released, etc.);   b) The physical, health, simple asphyxiation, combustible dust, and pyrophoric gas hazards, as well as hazards not otherwise classified, of the chemicals in the work area;   c) The measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used; and,   d) The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, including 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 employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information