OSHA Inspection: STAMCO INDUSTRIES INC.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,000 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):    On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to ensure the workplace and tasks performed by employees were assessed to determine the hazards present. Employees engaged in portable grinding of production pieces were not provided face shields.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective face equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment.  On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to ensure that employees tasked with portable grinding of production pieces were provided with adequate face protection. Employees were provided safety eye glasses but not face shields.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(6)(iii): Each operator of multiple operator mechanical power press(es), using full revolution clutches, did not have a separate set of controls:    On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to ensure that secondary operators on the rear of mechanical power press BB34 were equipped with separate two hand controls. No barrier guarding was in place for the operator tasked with retrieval of production pieces from the hazard area. An emergency trip wire was present on the back of press where the second operator was stationed.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(iii): Fixing of the selection was not by means capable of supervision by the employer.    On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to ensure that keys for the selection between single stroke and continuous mode were under supervision by the employer. Operators of mechanical power presses BB34 and BB35 were permitted to have the keys and were in the operator controls at the time of inspection.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(c)(1)(i): The employer did not provide and ensure the usage of point of operation guards or properly applied point of operation devices on every operation performed on mechanical power press(es)    On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to ensure that point of operation guarding of the Minster 200 ton (SE-200-84-48) were effective in preventing the operator from contacting the hazard area. Barrier guarding was not present on the front of the press. The rear of the press contained light curtains. The operator had a safety mat on the front of the press, however it did not extend to protect them from the entire point of operation. The unprotected area was only taped off for awareness.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Abate by

Aug 24, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(ii)(A): Inspections and tests of each press on a weekly basis were not being completed to determine the condition of the clutch/ brake mechanism, anti repeat feature and single stroke mechanism.       On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to inspect mechanical power presses in use at the facility at least weekly.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.243(c)(1): Abrasive wheels shall be used only on machine provided with safety guards as defined in paragraph (c) (1) through (4) of 29 CFR 1910.243.    On or about June 16, 2016, the employer failed to ensure that electrical portable hand held angle grinders were equipped with safety guards. Safety guards were equipped from the manufacturer but not in place on the equipment.