OSHA Inspection: GENERAL ALUMINUM MFG. COMPANY

Issued

Jul 9, 2015

Abate by

Mar 20, 2017

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3): All energy isolating devices that were needed to control the energy to the machine or equipment were not physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the machine or equipment from the energy source(s):    General Aluminum Mfg. Company - Wapakoneta, Ohio: On April 28, 2015, the employer did not ensure that the energy isolating device that is needed to control energy to the Fox RLCA chop saw was operated so as to isolate energy while employees serviced the machine.  The saw was not locked out during blade change activities.

Issued

Jul 9, 2015

Abate by

Mar 20, 2017

Penalty

Initial $6,600 · Current $0 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:    General Aluminum Mfg. Company - Wapakoneta, Ohio: On or about May 4, 2015, the employer did not ensure that the Zyglo 3 Telesis machine was guarded to protect employees from pinch point hazards created as the machine's upper frame lowered to the fixed bottom frame.

Issued

Jul 9, 2015

Abate by

Mar 20, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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. General Aluminum Mfg. Co. - Wapakoneta, Ohio: On or about January 25, 2015, an employee sustained a laceration injury to the hand while operating the Zyglo 3 Telesis machine; the employer did not ensure the machine was guarded to protect employees from pinch point hazards created at the point of operation.    b. General Aluminum Mfg. Co. - Wapakoneta, Ohio: On or about May 4, 2015, the employer did not ensure the point of operation of the Zyglo 3 Telesis machine was adequately guarded; the barrier guard did not prevent employees from accessing the point of operation at a time the machine operated.