OSHA Inspection: OHIO GASKET & SHIM COMPANY

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Feb 23, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed:      On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that a periodic inspection of the energy control procedures was performed annually. Employees are required to perform maintenance and servicing on equipment including but not limited to feed rollers. feeding equipment, press brakes, and power presses. Hazardous energy sources include pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical, and gravitational.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 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) On or about June 15, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the in feed rollers of the automatic feed system for press 124 were effectively guarded to prevent employees from reaching the ingoing nip point. The rollers had adjustable barrier guards in place, however were not adjusted properly to prevent access.    b)On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the in feed rollers of the automatic feed system for press 130 were effectively guarded to prevent employees from reaching the ingoing nip point. Guarding was not present on the in feed side.    c) On or about June 15, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the in feed rollers of the automatic feed system for press 123 were effectively guarded to prevent employees from reaching the ingoing nip point. Guarding was not present on the in feed side.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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):    On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that effective guarding was in place and utilized on the Toyokoki Hyb-100 hydraulic press brake. The foot pedal is not affixed in place and is easily movable by employees. Light curtains in place on the press brake were disabled and not utilized by operators.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(ix): Mechanical power press(es) using with part revolution clutches, and with both foot and hand controls, were not designed so that selection between hand and foot control could be supervised:    On or about June 5, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the selection between hand and foot controls was supervised on part revolution mechanical power press #111. The key for the selector switch was left in the operator controls for employee use.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(2)(i)(a): Point of operation guard(s) on mechanical power press(es) did not prevent entry of hands or fingers into the point of operation by reaching through, over, under or around the guard(s);    a) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the point of operation guards present on press #129 prevented employees from reaching under to access the point of operation. A section of guarding was removed to allow for the placement of the retrieval arm.    b) On or about June 16, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the point of operation guards present on press #101 prevented employees from reaching over to access to the point of operation. A section of guarding was removed on the top of the barrier guard allowing employee to reach the point of operation.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(2)(i)(d): Point of operation guard(s) on mechanical power press(es) did not utilize fasteners not readily removable by the operator, so as to create minimize the possibility of misuse or removal of essential parts:      On or about June 15, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that point of operation barrier guards were affixed. The barrier guards on press 101 were mounted in tracks that allowed the operator to slide them to the side to access the point of operation. These sections were not secured shut by the hex bolt which was present on the equipment. The hex key was loose and easily removable by employees.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(f): Mechanical power press(es) using presence sensing point of operation devices were not provided with guards to protect all areas of entry to the point of operation not protected by the presence sensing device;    On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the presence sensing point of operation devices on press #110 were provided with guards to protect the blanked areas. Sections of the light curtain present were blanked by paper and taped to the equipment. These areas were not guarded to prevent employee exposure to the point of operation.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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:      a) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that two hand controls used for the operation of press #111 were fixed in position and not able to be moved by the operators or employees.    b) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that two hand controls used for the operation of press #101 were fixed in position and not able to be moved by the operators or employees.      c) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that two hand controls used for the operation of press #130 were fixed in position and not able to be moved by the operators or employees.      d) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that two hand controls used for the operation of press #124 were fixed in position and not able to be moved by the operators or employees.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 3, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(d)(9)(iv): Safety blocks were not used when mechanical power press die(s) were being adjusted or repaired in the press:    a) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that safety blocks were used when an employee performed adjustments and change over to press #138.     b) a) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that safety blocks were used when an employee performed adjustments and change over to press #107.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Nov 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(ii): Mechanical power press(es) were not inspected and tested at least weekly to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism, anti-repeat feature and single stroke mechanisms;     The employer did not test and inspect each press, no less than weekly for full revolution mechanical power presses and monthly for part revolution mechanical power presses with brake monitoring and control reliability, to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism, anti-repeat feature and single stroke mechanism. Mechanical power presses were being operated with parts, auxiliary equipment and safeguards that were not installed, adjusted, and in safe operating condition.          NOTE: The employer shall maintain a certification record of inspections which includes the date of the inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and the serial number, or other identifier, or the power press that was inspected.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Nov 28, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,260 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(m)(1)(i): Standard conditions were not secured by the use of the following materials:  expanded metal, perforated or solid sheet metal, wire mesh on a frame of angle iron, or iron pipe securely fastened to floor or to frame of machine:    a) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the metal mesh guarding in place around the feed rollers and accompanying belts for press #101 was securely fastened to the ground or frame around the belt drives.     b) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the metal mesh guarding in place around the feed rollers and accompanying belts for press #115 was securely fastened to the ground or frame around the belt drives.

Issued

Nov 18, 2015

Abate by

Dec 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $49,000 · Current $29,400 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 press(es):     a) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the part revolution mechanical power press #130 contained effective guarding to prevent employee exposure to the point of operation. The operator was operating the press in continuous mode. The cycles were initiated by single actuation of two hand controls. The two hand controls did not require constant pressure during continuous press mode allowing the operator to place themselves into the hazard area.      b) On or about June 17, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the part revolution mechanical power press #130 contained effective guarding to prevent employee exposure to the point of operation from the rear of the press. The operator enters the rear of the press for scrap and part retrieval. No guarding was in place to protect the employee from the point of operation.       c) On or about June 15, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the part revolution mechanical power press #124 contained effective guarding to prevent employee exposure to the point of operation. The operator was operating the press in continuous mode. The cycles were initiated by single actuation of two hand controls. The two hand controls did not require constant pressure during continuous press mode allowing the operator to place themselves into the hazard area.     d) On or about June 15, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the part revolution mechanical power press #124 contained effective guarding to prevent employee exposure to the point of operation from the rear of the press. The operator enters the rear of the press for scrap and part retrieval. No guarding was in place to protect the employee from the point of operation.     e) On or about June 15, 2015, the employer failed to ensure that the Benchmaster part revolution punch press contained effective guarding to prevent employee exposure to the point of operation. Employees operate the press in continuous mode without any guarding in place.