OSHA Inspection: GILES ENTERPRISES, INC.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to stuck by hazards:  a)  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to struck by hazards in that employees were allowed to walk and work around steel storage racks that had column base plates that were not anchored to the floor.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $1,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to amputation hazards:  a) Press Brake; On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to potential crushing and amputation hazards in that the pedal mechanism was not protected to prevent accidental operation from falling/moving objects or by accidental stepping on the pedal.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Abate by

Feb 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:  a) Laborer:  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employees to noise at levels of 80.7% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 88.4 dBA) which is 1.61 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBA) while working in the plant.  Results were calculated for a 455 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 25 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.    b) Laborer:  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employees to noise at levels of 60.0% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 86.3 dBA) which is 1.20 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBA) while working in the plant.  Results were calculated for a 454 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 26 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.      c) Laborer:  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed the employees to noise at levels of 61.4% (equivalent to an 8 hour time weighted average TWA of 86.4 dBA) which is 1.22 times the action level of 50% (equivalent to an 8 hour TWA of 85dBA) while working in the plant.  Results were calculated for a 459 minutes sampling period with a zero concentration assumption for the remaining 21 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Abate by

Feb 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,900 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.   a)  Forklift battery charging station:  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; employees handling forklift batteries containing sulfuric acid (corrosive chemical) are not provided with a functional eye and body wash station.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Abate by

Feb 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):  a)   On or about November 18, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to struck-by hazards in that employees were allowed to operate a powered industrial truck without the employer first ensuring the employees were competent to operate the equipment as demonstrated by the completion of the required training and evaluation specified by the regulation.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:  a) On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to struck-by hazards in that employees were allowed to operate a powered industrial truck without the employer ensuring that the operators had received the required evaluation at least once every three years as specified in the regulation.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Abate by

Feb 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,975 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):  Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by ingoing nip points and rotating parts:  a)  Tool and die area;   On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed his employees to rotating parts hazards in that employees were allowed to operate the Republican Lagun RL-16x40 lathe that did not have the rotating chuck guarded.   b) Mechanical Press Brake; On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to potential crushing and amputation hazards in that the die area was not guarded to prevent employees from sticking their hands / arms into the point of operation.    c) Nisshinbo HIQ-1250 Power Press; On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to potential crushing and amputation hazards in that the pneumatic cylinder was not properly guarded (door with the safety switch by-passed).

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Abate by

Feb 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,200 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)  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to struck-by hazards in that they were allowed to operate a BALDOR 7307 bench grinder with the work rest exceeding one eighth inch.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior, the employer exposed employees to struck-by hazards in that they were allowed to operate a BALDOR 7307 bench grinder with the tongue guard missing.

Issued

Feb 2, 2016

Abate by

Feb 12, 2016

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.255(b)(4): All press welding machine operations, where there was a possibility of the operator's fingers being under the point of operation, were not effectively guarded by use of a device such as electronic eye safety circuit, two hand control, or similar protection:   a)  On or about November 17, 2015 and at times prior; the employer exposed employees to crush/amputation hazards in that employees were allowed to operate the LORS 1100AR-DV press welding machine where the point of operation was not effectively guarded by use of an electronic eye safety circuit, two hand control, or other similar protection as required by the regulation.