OSHA Inspection: LYNAR CORPORATION

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.124(g)(2): Employees who worked with liquids that could burn, irritate, or otherwise harm their skin were not provided with an emergency shower and eye-wash station close to the dipping and coating operation:    a. South west end of shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operating a Toyoda FA450 horizontal machining center were cleaned parts using Bulk RP-1004 in a parts washer without an available emergency shower and eye-wash station.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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. North west end of the shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees used a corrosive chemical, IPI-25c to wash metal parts before painting, but the employer did not have a suitable facility available in the area for quick drenching and flushing of the eyes.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

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. Lathe Zone - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated a Colchester 15 lathe manufactured by Clausing without chuck guards to protect the operator from injury when operated with the jaws extending past the periphery of the chuck.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

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. Lathe Zone - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated a Baldor bench grinder with model number 1021W, but the work rests were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one-eighth inch.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 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. Lathe Zone - on or about February 18, 2016 employees operated a Baldor bench grinder with model number 1021W, but the distance between the abrasive wheel peripheries and the adjustable tongue exceeded one fourth inch.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,400 · Current $2,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    a. South West end of the shop - on or about February 18, 2016 employees used a pneumatic air gun at 65 p.s.i to clean and dry manufactured parts from a dip tank located next to the Toyoda 450 Machining Center.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met::    a. Throughout shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees used hazardous chemicals at the facility for metal machining operations, but the employer did not implement the written hazard communication program that had been developed.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    a. Throughout Shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees used hazardous chemicals for metal machining operations and were not provided information and training on the hazardous chemicals used in their work area at the time of initial assignment or whenever a new hazard was introduced.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

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 operating a forklift without using a seatbelt which exposed employees to potential crushing hazards:    a. East and west end of shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated a Caterpillar Forklift, model E6000, but the employer did not require employees use the installed seatbelt during operations, exposing employees to struck-by and tip-over hazards.    Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable method to correct these hazards, are to utilize the installed restraint system in accordance with the current version of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B56.1, "Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks," and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B56.1-2005, "Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks", Section 5.4.1 which requires that all operators read and follow the manufacturer's operator manual and abide by the safety rules and practices.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 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. West and east side of shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated an electric stand-up forklift manufactured by Crown for the placement of materials into storage areas, but the employer did not ensure that each operator was competent through the completion of training and evaluation as required.    b. Throughout shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated an electric forklift manufactured by Caterpillar with model number E6000, but the employer did not ensure that each operator was competent through the completion of training and evaluation as required.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service:    a. East and west end of shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated a stand-up electrical forklift manufactured by Crown daily for material handling and storage operations, but the employer did not ensure the powered industrial vehicle was being examined before use.    b. West end of shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees operated a Caterpillar E6000 powered industrial vehicle for moving machined parts for manufacturing operations, but the employer did not ensure the truck was examined before use.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    a. South east end of shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees, accessing the second floor mezzanine above the offices to move and store equipment, were working at heights of 10 feet above the first floor without any means of fall protection provided.    b. South west end of the shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees, climbing onto the FA450 horizontal machining center to replace the vents attached to the smog hog, worked at heights of greater than seven feet from ground level without any means of fall protection provided.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 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):    a. Throughout shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees performing metal fabrication are exposed to hazards from use of machinery and chemicals in the workplace, but the employer did not perform a  workplace assessment to determine the hazards present which would necessitate the use of personal protective equipment.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards wore eye protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection that could be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses.      a. Throughout shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees manufactured metal parts with the use of machinery to include, but not limited to, lathes, milling machines, and drill presses, but the employer did not require employees wearing prescription glasses engaged in these operations to wear approved eye protection.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees hands were exposed to hazardous condition(s):    a. South west end of the shop - on or about February 18, 2016, employees performed dipping operations to clean machined metal in a parts washer containing Bulk RP-1004, but the employer had not selected and required the use of hand protection for employee during this process.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $28,000 · Current $14,000 Reduced

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) Toyoda FA630 Horizontal Machining Center and load station/North East of Shop - on or about February 15-18, 2016 employees were exposed to machine hazards associated with moving machine parts while performing maintenance on the proximity switches.  The employer failed to implement energy control application steps as the machine was not properly shut down or turned off to perform the servicing work. As a result, the remaining applicable energy control elements involving machine isolation, LOTO device application, dissipation of residual energy, and verification of isolation were not implanted to protect employees from potential amputation and crushing hazards.       b) Mazak 510 Vertical Machining Center/North End of Shop - on or about February 15-18, 2016 employees were exposed to machine hazards associated moving machine parts and in-going nip points while they disassembled the chain from the sprockets for the motor drive and unjammed an accumulation of metal chips caught in a shaft and belt. The employer failed to implement energy control application steps as the machine was not properly shut down or turned off to perform the servicing work. As a result, the remaining applicable energy control elements involving machine isolation, LOTO device application, dissipation of residual energy, and verification of isolation were not implanted to protect employees from potential amputation and crushing hazards.    c) Toyoda FA450 Horizontal Machining Center/South West End of Shop - on or about February 16, 2016 employees were exposed to machine hazards associated with moving machine parts while replacing curtains and filters. The employer failed to implement energy control application steps as the machine was not properly shut down or turned off to perform the servicing work. As a result, the remaining applicable energy control elements involving machine isolation, LOTO device application, dissipation of residual energy, and verification of isolation were not implanted to protect employees from potential amputation and crushing hazards.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide adequate training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program was understood by employees:    a. Throughout Shop - on or about February 18, 2016 employees performed servicing and maintenance on machinery with multiple sources of energy to include, but not limited to, the Toyoda FA630 horizontal machining center, Mazak 510 vertical machining center, and the Toyoda FA450 horizontal machining center, but the employer did not provide training to ensure the purpose and function of energy control was understood by all employees.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.4(a): The employer did not record each work-related fatality, injury or illness case that resulted in the general recording criteria on the OSHA Form 300 or equivalent.     a) On or about February 18, 2016, the employer did not record a workplace eye injury occurring on January 6, 2016 on the OSHA 300 or equivalent for calendar year 2016.    b) On or about February 18, 2016, the employer did not record a workplace injury of a cut to the left arm occurring on February 8, 2016 on the OSHA 300 or equivalent for calendar year 2016.

Issued

Apr 19, 2016

Abate by

Jun 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.32(a)(2): At the end of each calendar year, an annual summary was not created for injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA 300 Log:    a. On or about February 18, 2016, the employer had not created an annual summary for injuries and illnesses for calendar year 2015 on the OSHA 300A or equivalent form and posted in the workplace by February 1, 2016.