OSHA Inspection: FELKER BROTHERS CORPORATION

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,791 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4): Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation of powered industrial truck were performed by the employer without the manufacturer's prior written approval:    The employer had additions to powered industrial trucks  which affect capacity and safe operation without the manufacturer's prior written approval.    a) On or about March 13, 2017, an oval master link was attached to a Toyota forklift to assist in lifting out a "J Bar" from a press without the manufacturer's prior written approval.    b) On or about April 13, 2017, the employer used 10 foot extensions on the Toyota forklift without the forklift manufacturer's prior written approval.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5): The powered industrial truck was equipped with front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments, however the employer did not request that the truck be marked to identify the attachments and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered:     The employer equipped the powered industrial truck with front-end attachments but did not have the truck marked to identify the attachment and show the approximate weight.     a) On or about March 13, 2017, an oval master link was attached to a Toyota forklift to assist in lifting out a "J Bar" from a press without the truck marked to identify the attachment and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered.     b) On or about April 13, 2017, the employer used 10 foot extensions on the Toyota forklift without the forklift marked to identify the extensions and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered .

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,791 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.179(l)(3)(i): Unsafe condition(s) disclosed during the frequent or periodic inspection(s) required by 29 CFR 1910.179(j) were not corrected before operation of the crane(s) was resumed:    On or about February 27, 2017, the employer continued to use overhead cranes after the periodic inspection revealed unsafe conditions that had not been corrected.    a) The Konecranes 5 ton overhead crane (serial number A20099 2167628), located in East Bay Center was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the hoisting brake had "heavily worn splines" and "Do not use/Lock out".    b) The Konecranes 5 ton overhead crane (serial number A20099 2167628), located in East Bay Center was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the hoisting motor was a "safety risk" and should be replaced.    c) The Konecranes 5 ton overhead crane (serial number A20099 2167628), located in East Bay Center was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the hoisting wire rope was a "safety risk" and should be replaced.    d) The Konecranes 5 ton overhead crane (serial number A20099 2167628), located in East Bay Center was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the general wiring and conduits were a "safety risk" and in need of repair.    e) The Konecranes 5 ton overhead crane (serial number CT22277), located in East Bay North was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the latch was "damaged" and in need of repair.    f) The Harnischfeger 10 ton overhead crane (serial number CH20780), located in the East Bay South was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the hoisting gear was a safety risk and "Do not use/Lock out".    g) The Harnischfeger 10 ton overhead crane (serial number CH20780), located in the East Bay South was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the traveling brake had worn friction material and was a safety risk and should be replaced.    h) The Harnischfeger 10 ton overhead crane (serial number CH20780), located in the East Bay South was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the hoisting brake holding had damaged components and was a safety risk and should be replaced.    i) The Harnischfeger 10 ton overhead crane (serial number CH20780), located in the East Bay South was used on a daily basis although the periodic inspection stated the Operation Control had worn contacts and was a safety risk and should be replaced.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,791 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:    The employer did not provide machine guarding to protect lathe operators from the rotating chuck.    a) On or about April 4, 2017 the Gisholt horizontal lathe, serial number 632X47, was operated without a chuck guard present.    b) On or about April 4, 2017, the Cincinnati horizontal lathe was operated without a chuck guard.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,791 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):    On or about April 4, 2017, the employer did not ensure that employees using the Pacific hydraulic brake press were protected from having any part of their body in the danger zone during operation.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $7,243 · Current $5,432 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(b): Machine(s) designed for fixed location(s) were not securely anchored to prevent walking or moving:    On or about February 27, 2017, the employer did not ensure that the welding positioners were anchored to prevent teetering and tipping during use.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $7,243 · Current $7,243

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.244(a)(1)(ii): Rated load(s) of portable jack(s) were not legibly and permanently marked in a prominent location on the jack(s) by casting, stamping, or other suitable means:    On or about February 27, 2017, the portable jacks used to support piping were not marked with the rated loads.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.244(a)(2)(vi)(a): Each jack used constantly or intermittently at a single locality  was not thoroughly inspected at least once every six months:    On or about February 27, 2017, the portable jacks used to support piping were not inspected at least once every six months.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,432 · Current $4,074 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(a)(2)(vii): Where relocation of combustible was impracticable, cutting or welding was permitted when combustible were not protected with flame-proofed covers or otherwise shielded with metal, asbestos guards, or curtains. Where practicable, combustible materials were not relocated at least 35 feet (10.7 m) from the cutting or welding operation work site:    On or about February 27, 2017, combustible materials were not protected nor relocated where practicable.    a) Wooden racking for storing purging foam plugs was located within 35 feet of welding stations.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $9,054

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) which exceeded 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, as an 8-hour time-weighted average:  On March 7, 2017, a grinder was exposed to hexavalent chromium airborne concentration of 8.9 micrograms per cubic meter as an 8-hour time-weighted average, which is 1.78 times the permissible exposure limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter as an 8-hour time-weighted average.  The sample was collected over 469 minutes, with zero exposure assumed for the remaining 11 minutes.

Issued

Aug 18, 2017

Abate by

Sep 11, 2017

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,791 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0689

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employers shall provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees have not previously been trained about is introduced into their work area. Information and training may be designed to cover categories of hazards (e.g., flammability, carcinogenicity) or specific chemicals. Chemical-specific information must always be available through labels and material safety data sheets.    On or before February 27, 2017, the employer did not include a description of the hazards and concerns associated with exposure to hexavalent chromium in its hazard communication training.