EFFINGHAM, IL —
OSHA Inspection: JOHN BOOS & COMPANY
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of JOHN BOOS & COMPANY in 3601 S BANKER ST, EFFINGHAM, IL 62401 (NAICS 321999). OSHA activity number 342321353.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- JOHN BOOS & COMPANY
- Site address
- 3601 S BANKER ST
- City
- EFFINGHAM
- State
- IL
- ZIP
- 62401
- Mailing
- 3601 S BANKER ST, EFFINGHAM, IL 62401
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- A
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 321999
- Employees
- 240
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
4 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.147 C04 II
- Issued
- Nov 9, 2017
- Abate by
- Jan 12, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $12,548 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): The energy control procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, including, but not limited to Items of this section: The employer did not ensure that energy control procedures for the CNC Router machines specifically outlined the techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy. The procedures were not updated to reflect the current machine location in the new shop and steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machines to control hazardous energy.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $12548
1910.147 C07 I A
- Issued
- Nov 9, 2017
- Abate by
- Dec 7, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $12,548 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A): Authorized employee(s) did not receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control: In the CNC router department, the employer did not provide lockout training for employees performing tool bit changes on the CNC router #1, CNC router #2, and CNC router #3.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $12548
1910.147 D
- Issued
- Nov 9, 2017
- Abate by
- Dec 7, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $12,548 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.147(d): The established procedure for the application of energy control (the lockout or tagout procedures) did not cover the actions listed in and was not done in sequence as required by 29 CFR 1910.147(d)(1)-(6): Employees were exposed to machine hazards associated with moving parts during servicing and cleaning of the Biesses CNC Router Machines located in the wood plant. The employer failed to implement energy control application steps as the machine was not shut down or turned off to perform the servicing work [per the 1910.147(d)(2) requirements]. As a result, the remaining applicable energy control elements, involving machine isolation [(d)(3)], LOTO device application [(d)(4)], dissipation of residual energy [(d)(5)], and verification of isolation [(d)(6)], were not implemented to protect employees from machine servicing hazards.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $12548
1910.212 A01
- Issued
- Nov 9, 2017
- Abate by
- Dec 7, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $10,755 · Current $8,066 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: a) The employer failed to ensure one or more methods of machine guarding, such as an adjustable chuck and bit guard, was provided to protect employees from an entanglement hazard created by the rotating chuck and bit when the Walker Turner drill press was used to drill holes in wood stock. b) The employer failed to ensure one or more methods of machine guarding, such as an adjustable chuck and bit guard, was provided to protect employees from an entanglement hazard created by the rotating chuck and bit when the Clausing Drill Press was used to drill holes in wood stock. c) The employer failed to ensure one or more methods of machine guarding, such as an adjustable chuck and bit guard, was provided to protect employees from an entanglement hazard created by the rotating chuck and bit when the Grizzly Industrial Drill Press was used to drill holes in wood stock. d) The employer failed to ensure one or more methods of machine guarding, such as an adjustable chuck and bit guard, was provided to protect employees from an entanglement hazard created by the rotating chuck and bit when the Horizontal Boring Machine was used to drill holes in wood stock.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $8066
- — Z (S) $10755
More inspections at John Boos & Company
View John Boos & Company's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 321999)
More inspections in IL
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 342321353.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.