OSHA Inspection: WILBERT FUNERAL SERVICES, INC

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Sep 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $3,240 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:    The employer did not ensure an emergency shower or eye wash was available for employees working with corrosive chemicals and exposed them to adverse health effects.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Sep 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $3,240 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(f)(2): The storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gas fuel was not in accordance with NFPA Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (NFPA No. 58-1969), which is incorporated by reference as specified in 29 CFR 1910.6:    The employer did not ensure liquid propane tanks were stored properly and exposed employees to explosion hazards.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Sep 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,160 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(1): Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not used with safety guard(s).    The employer did not ensure grinding machinery had safety guards in place before employees engaged in production activities used the equipment and exposed them to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Aug 3, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven 7 feet or less above floors or platforms were not enclosed.  The employer did not ensure guards were placed on a cement mixer and exposed employees using the equipment to caught-in hazards.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Sep 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,160 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(7)(iv): Electrical equipment had damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment, such as parts that are broken, bent, cut, or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating:    The employer did not ensure electrical equipment was repaired in the production plant and exposed employees to electrical shock hazards due to a broken faceplate and junction box on an electrical outlet.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:  In the production plant, employees engaged in production activities were exposed to electrical hazards due to the use of flexible cables being used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(B): Flexible cords and cables may not be used where run through holes in walls, ceilings or floors:  In the break room, employees engaged in production activities were exposed to electrical hazards due to flexible cables being run through the ceiling exposing employees to electrical hazards.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(b): Alerting techniques were not employed to warn and protect employees from hazards which could cause injury due to electric shock, burns, or failure of electric equipment parts.  In the production plant, employees engaged in production activities were exposed to electrical shock hazards when operating electrical equipment connected the un-labeled breakers.

Issued

Jul 8, 2016

Abate by

Sep 1, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,780 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 5 ppm:    In the production plant, employees engaged in production activities were exposed to inhalation hazards due to the employer failing to ensure employee exposures did not exceed permissible exposure limits .