OSHA Inspection: TEKPAK, INC.

Issued

Mar 24, 2015

Abate by

Apr 17, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,060 · Current $2,142 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while operating underhung crane(s) that had not been inspected to move material:   a) At The Applicade:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer failed to ensure the 1/2 Ton underhung crane had been inspected annually exposing employees to crush-by hazards.  b) At The Paper Sledder:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer failed to ensure the 2 Ton underhung crane had been inspected annually exposing employees to crush-by hazards.

Issued

Mar 24, 2015

Abate by

Apr 17, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,601 · Current $1,821 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while operating an underhung crane beyond its rated capacity:  a)  At The Applicade:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer allowed employees to lift rolls of paper weighing 1400 lbs. with an underhung crane that was rated for 1000 lbs. exposing employees to struck-by and crushing hazards from the potential failure of the overhead crane due to lifting products heavier than what it is rated for.

Issued

Mar 24, 2015

Abate by

Apr 17, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $2,678 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:  a) At Fill Room 3:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Rop machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.  b) At Fill Room 6:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Tray maker machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.  c) At Fill Room 6:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Metal Detector machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.   d) At Fill Room 3 and 4:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Salt/Perper Twin Pack Line which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.  e) At Peco Labeling Machine:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Salt/Peper Labeling machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.   f) At Carpet Fresh Line:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Carpet fresh mixer machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.  g) At Arpac Shrink Wrap :  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Arpac Shrink Wrap machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.   h) At Building 8:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the SeasonAll machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.   i) At Building 8:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the SeasonAll Blender machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.   j) At Building 8  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to the potential hazardous energies in that employees were allowed to work on the Applicade machine which has multiple energy sources such as electrical and air without those employees having a written machine specific lock out procedure to ensure that those energy sources were controlled while the employees were performing maintenance or servicing of the machine.

Issued

Mar 24, 2015

Abate by

Apr 17, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,601 · Current $1,821 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) At Maintenance Shop:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer failed to ensure a lathe operated by employees had a guard installed exposing the employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Mar 24, 2015

Abate by

Apr 17, 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:  a)  At Tekpak, Inc Marion, Alabama:  On or about March 10, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to chemical hazards in that employees were not provided the new information and training on the Global Harmonized System (GHS) to include Safety Data Sheets.