OSHA Inspection: APPLETON SUPPLY CO., INC.

Issued

Dec 19, 2014

Abate by

Feb 11, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,430 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(B): The energy control procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy:    (a)  The employer failed to develop clear and specific steps for shutting down equipment prior to clearing jams on equipment such as but not limited to:  Press #23.  This exposed employees to accidental/inadvertent restart of the equipment.

Issued

Dec 19, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 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 was understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls were acquired by employees.      On or about June 25, 2014; the employer did not ensure that the authorized employees were adequately trained in specific LOTO procedures before performing service and maintenance to machine equipment.

Issued

Dec 19, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $2,380

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)  In the Press Department, Niagara A 1 3/4 Punch press #23 had inadequate guards by the limit switch used to activate the shear blade exposing employees to crushing and amputation hazards.      (b)  In the Press Department, Niagara A 1 3/4 Punch press #23 by the shear ram had moving parts inadequately guarded exposing employees to crushing hazards.      (c)  In the Press Department, Rousselle Punch Press #8 did not have guards over the moving parts from the ram advancing the sheet into the shear exposing employees to crushing hazards.    (d)  In the Footage Department, the Tru-Cut Tool & Machine Corp Cut Off Die #52 at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.  (e)  In the Footage Department, the Tru-Cut Tool & Machine Corp Cut Off Die #53 at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop. (f)  In the Footage Department, the Cut Off Die #54 at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.  (g)  In the Footage Department, Work Center #72 Rafter Machine Co (S/N:  3138) cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.   (h)  In the Footage Department, Work Center #64 Tru-Tech cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.  (i)  In the Footage Department, Work Center #50 cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.   (j)  In the Footage Department, Work Center #57 cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.   (k)  In the Soffit Department, Work Center #86 cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.   (l)  In the Soffit Department, Work Center #83 cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.   (m)  In the Soffit Department, Work Center #75 cut off die machine at the in-feed had inadequate guarding exposing employees to pinch hazards when the die came back and contacted the back stop.  (n)  In the Soffit Department, Knutson #89 cut off die had a gate which could be easily opened allowing access to the blades exposing employees to struck by hazards.

Issued

Dec 19, 2014

Abate by

Feb 11, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $2,380

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)   In the Press Department, machine #48 had inadequate guarding on the infeed side exposing employees to in-running nip points from the form rollers.     (b)  In the Press Department, the Artos Engineering Co Hemmer Machine #70 had inadequate guarding on the in-feed side in that the guard was could be lifted during operation exposing employees to in-running nip points from the form rollers.     (c)  In the Press Department, machine #42 roll former had inadequate guarding in that the guards could be lifted during operation exposing employees to in-running nip points from the three sets of form rollers.    (d)  In the Press Department, Rouselle Punch Press #8 had the outfeed where the part comes out inadequately guarded in that employees could reach the die blocks exposing employees to struck-by hazards.    (e)  In the Footage Department, the Hemming Machine #52 had inadequate guards in that the guard opening allowed access to the in-running nip points from the form roller.      (f)  In the Footage Department, the Hemming Machine #53 had inadequate guards in that the guard opening allowed access to the in-running nip points from the form roller.     (g)  In the Footage Department, the Hemming Machine #54 had inadequate guards in that the guard opening allowed access to the in-running nip points from the form roller.