OSHA Inspection: CLEVELAND DIE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 3, 2015

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances 8870

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 March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees performing maintenance on the Mazak CNC machines were trained as authorized employees.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 3, 2015

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances 8870

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 March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees performing maintenance on the Mazak CNC machines applied a lock to ensure the machine is not energized.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 23, 2015

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(2)(iii): A certification record which includes the date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and the serial number, or other identifier, of the hook inspected, was not maintained:    a. On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure certified hook inspections were performed and documented for the Yale 5 ton crane, serial number W52389 in the tool room.        b. On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure certified hook inspections were performed and documented for the Yale 5 ton crane, serial number 649814211E in the tool room.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(j)(2)(iv): Monthly inspections of hoist chains, with a certification record which includes the date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and an identifier of the chain which was inspected, were not performed:  a. On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure certified wire rope inspections were performed and documented for the Yale 5 ton crane, serial number W52389 crane in the tool room.    b. On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure certified wire rope inspections were performed and documented for the Yale 5 ton crane, serial number 649814211E crane in the tool room

Issued

Jun 18, 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 March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees operating both of the Mazak CNC machines were protected against contact with the rotating spindle by having an operational interlock or other form of machine guarding in place.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(viii): Mechanical power press(es) using part revolution clutches with clutch/brake control systems, which contained both single and continuous functions, were not designed so that completion of continuous circuits could be supervised:    On or about April 1, 2015, the employer failed to ensure the key to control the continuous operation was not left in Bliss #1501, serial number 7995, model number S2150-42/30.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 23, 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 mechanical power presses:    a. On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees operating Bliss #1501, serial number 7995, model number S2150-42/30 were protected against contact with the point of operation.      b. On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees operating Minster #2003, serial number 15801, model number S2-200 were protected against contact with the point of operation.      c.     On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees operating Verson #5002, serial number 18302, model number S2-300-84-54S2150-42/30 were protected against contact with the point of operation.       d.     On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees operating Clearing #5000, were protected against contact with the point of operation.     e.     On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees operating Minster #1505, serial number E2-150-13994, model number E2-150 were protected against contact with the point of operation.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jun 28, 2015

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(vii)(d): Two hand controls used with mechanical power press(es) were not fixed in position so that only a supervisor or safety engineer was capable of relocating the controls:    On or about April 1, 2015, the employer failed to ensure the two (2) hand control for Bliss #1501, serial number 7995, model number S2150-42/30, was securely fastened to the floor.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 3, 2015

Penalty

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

Hazardous substances 8870

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:    On or about April 1, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees performing electrical work, to include voltage testing, were protected against contact with live voltage by wearing arc rated clothing.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8870

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(ii): Protective equipment was not maintained in a safe, reliable condition and/or was not periodically inspected or tested:  On or about April 1, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees performing electrical work, to include voltage testing, were protected against contact with live electrical by wearing voltage rated gloves that have been tested.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8870

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(v): Employees did not wear protective equipment for the eyes or face wherever there is danger of injury to the eyes or face from electric arcs or flashes or from flying objects resulting from electrical explosion:  On or about April 1, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees performing electrical work, to include voltage testing, were protected against contact with live electrical by wearing face protection.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $1,800 Reduced

Hazardous substances 004020852180

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 March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees exposed to acetone, ethanol, propyl acetate, and isopropanol were trained to read and understand safety data sheets.

Issued

Jun 18, 2015

Abate by

Jul 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 004020852180

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include 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 employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  On or about March 19, 2015, the employer failed to ensure employees exposed to acetone, ethanol, propyl acetate, and isopropanol were trained on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).