OSHA Inspection: FARMER MOLD AND MACHINE WORKS, INC

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Abate by

Jan 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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. In the machine shop, employees were exposed to struck by and amputation hazards, in that, the three Bridge Port milling machines, model #F51A SN #1155001, while drilling holes in plastic and metal were not guarded,on or about 10/27/2015.  b. In the machine shop, employees were exposed to an amputation hazard, in that, band saw # PNLC31,33,35 had 3 1/2 inches of the blade exposed while 1/2 inch cutting aluminum, on or about 10/27/2015.  c. . In machine shop, employees were exposed to an amputation hazard, in that, band saw # PNLC31,33,35 would resume operation automatically when the power was restored because it was not equipped with a power interrupter, on or about 10/27/2015.

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(2): Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not provided with safety guard(s) which covered the spindle end, nut, flange projections.  a. In the machine shop, employees were exposed to caught in and struck by hazards, in that, while de-burring metal parts there was no guard which covered the spindle end, nut, or flange projections to protect employees during use, on or about 10/27/2015.

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:  a. In the machine shop, employees are exposed to amputation hazards, in that, while de-burring using abrasive wheel grinder #31 the work rest was at 1/2 inch, abrasive wheel grinder SN #CW11241 did not have work rest, and Dayton 6 inch variable speed 6 inch abrasive wheel grinder model 2LKR7 did not have a work rest on the right side, on or about 10/27/2015.

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:  a. In the machine shop, employees are exposed to amputation hazards, in that, while de-burring using abrasive wheel grinder #31 it did not have a tongue guard, abrasive wheel grinder SN #CW11241 did not have a tongue guard, Dayton 6 inch variable speed 6 inch abrasive wheel grinder model 2LKR7 did not have a tongue guard  on the left side of the grinder, on or about 10/27/2015.

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1): Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o):  a. In the machine shop, employees were exposed to caught in hazards, in that, there were no guards on the drive pulleys on grinders # 82, located 45 inches from the floor and # 84, located 52 inches from the floor, on or about 10/27/2015.

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Abate by

Jan 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:  a. a. At the establishment, the employer did not have a written assessment of the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), on or about 10/27/2015

Issued

Dec 8, 2015

Abate by

Jan 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 the establishment, the employer did not have a written lock out tag out program to instruct employees on the control of potentially hazardous energy when engaged in maintenance for equipment, on or about 10/27/2015