OSHA Inspection: API ENTERPRISES, INC.

Issued

May 24, 2016

Abate by

Jul 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $2,295 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:     On or about May 3, 2016, and at times prior thereto, at the establishment the employer did not effectively develop and document proper step-by-step lock-out/tag-out procedures for the control of potentially hazardous energy of specific equipment when employees were required to do lock-out/tag-out.  Employees were exposed to unexpected release of energy hazards.

Issued

May 24, 2016

Abate by

Jul 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 May 3, 2016, and at times prior thereto, at the establishment the employer had employees to perform lock-out/tag-out equipment.  However, the employer did not conduct periodic inspection of the procedures at least annually to ensure that the procedure was effective and being followed.  Employees were exposed to unexpected release of energy hazards.

Issued

May 24, 2016

Abate by

Jun 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $2,295 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:     On or about May 3, 2016, and at times prior thereto, employees were allowed to operate machines that were found not having guards provided, including but not limited to the following instances:        1) In the machine shop, a horizontal band saw being used without blade guard provided to cover the unused portion of the blade to prevent employees contacting the blade while in operation.       2) Throughout the shop, conveyor belt systems having in-going nip points without guards provided to prevent employees having fingers got caught in pinch points.    Employees were exposed to possible amputation and caught-in hazards

Issued

May 24, 2016

Abate by

Jun 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,377 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): Guard for abrasive wheel machine where the operator stands in front of the machine was not constructed so that the peripheral protecting member could be adjusted to the constantly decreasing diameter of the wheel:    On or about May 3, 2016, and at times prior thereto, in the machine shop the employer allowed employees to operate abrasive wheel grinding machine which did not have tongue guard provided.  Employees were exposed to struck by hazards.

Issued

May 24, 2016

Abate by

Jun 2, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,377 Reduced

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.:    On or about May 3, 2016, and at times prior thereto, throughout the facility employees were allowed to use compressed air nozzles for cleaning purpose which was not the type that would reduce the pressure to less than 30 p.s.i.  The employees were exposed to skin and eye injury hazards.

Issued

May 24, 2016

Abate by

Jul 8, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 1910.9(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:    On or about May 3, 2016, and at times prior thereto, throughout facility employees were exposed to noise levels above 85 decibels.  The employer did not have a hearing conservation program in writing at the facility.