OSHA Inspection: VULCAN INDUSTRIES, INC.

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 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):    Location: Facility    On or about 5/1/15, the employer did not assess and certify the workplace of hazards through a written hazard assessment for employees who add water to the lead/acid batteries and did not require a chemical apron, face shield, goggles, and gloves for the task.

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  Location: Facility  On or about 5/1/15, the employee that adds water to the lead acid batteries of the forklifts was not provided with the required personal protective equipment/clothing for the eyes, face, hands and body.

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Abate by

Mar 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:    Location: Facility    On or about 5/1/15, the employer did not establish an energy control program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training, and periodic inspections including but not limited to the employees who perform maintenance, cleaning and servicing on the following but not limited to machines;    1. (2) RG-50 press brakes,  2. (1) RG-35 press brake,  3. (6) Amada RG-80 press brakes

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each operator had successfully completed the training required by paragraph (l), except as permitted by paragraph (l)(5), prior to permitting an employee to operate a powered industrial truck:    Location: Facility    On or about 5/1/15, the employer did not evaluate powered industrial truck operators prior to being permitted to operate powered industrial trucks.

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service:    Location: Facility    On or about 5/1/15, the employer's three powered industrial trucks (PIT) were not inspected prior to use allowing the Clark, model #TW-208 PIT to be used with a hydraulic oil seal leak that supplied fluid to the lifting mechanism (forks) of the PIT.

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $1,900 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):    Location: Bending department    1. On or about 4/29/2015, the employer did not provide a guarding device on the RG-50, serial #50509524 press brake to protect workers from point of operation and amputation hazards, while bending small parts with the machine.  On or about 4/29/2015, an employee operating a RG-50 press brake amputated the left hand thumb to the first knuckle and did not return back to work.    2. On or about 5/1/2015, the employer did not provide a guarding device on their other RG-50 press brake located near the inspection department, to protect workers from point of operation and amputation hazards, while bending small parts with the machine.

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Abate by

Feb 25, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4): Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation of powered industrial truck were performed by the employer without the manufacturer's prior written approval:  Location: Facility  On or about 5/1/15, the employer did not receive written approval from the manufacturer to use the fork extensions and was not correctly marked to show the approximate weight capacity of the boom attachment on the following powered industrial trucks;  1. Yale, model FFCH-50, 93" fork extensions 2. Yale, model #GLC05DENUAE083, 78" fork extensions

Issued

Oct 8, 2015

Abate by

Feb 25, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5): The powered industrial truck was equipped with front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments, however the employer did not request that the truck be marked to identify the attachments and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered:  On or about 5/1/15, the employer did not have the capacity data plate changed to show the approximate weight capacity of the forks with the fork extensions on the following powered industrial trucks;  1. Yale, model FFCH-50, 93" fork extensions 2. Yale, model #GLC05DENUAE083, 78" fork extensions