OSHA Inspection: SUPPLYSIDE, USA

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,488 · Current $5,043 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): The surface areas of the workroom was not maintained in a clean condition.      a.  On or about November 1, 2017, in the facility, employees required to work in the saw room were exposed to the hazard of fire due to accumulations of wood dust on electrical equipment, conduit and floors.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $6,147 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k):    a. An employee in the building department was exposed to continuous noise at 273% of the permissible daily dose level, when measured with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 97.2 dBA for the 384 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017. Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 96 minutes not sampled.     b.  An employee in the saw department was exposed to continuous noise at 248% of the permissible daily dose level, when measure with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 96.5 dBA for the 434 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 46 minutes not sampled.      c.  An employee in the saw department was exposed to continuous noise at 158.9 of the permissible daily dose level, when measure with a 90 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 93.3 dBA for the 439 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 41 minutes not sampled.      d. An employee in the building department was exposed to continuous noise at 137.7% of the permissible daily dose level, when measure with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 92.3 dBA for the 408 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 72 minutes not sampled.      e.  An employee in the building department was exposed to continuous noise at 117.4% of the permissible daily dose level, when measure with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 89.7 dBA for the 351 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 129 minutes not sampled.      f.  An employee in the pallet up-ender department was exposed to continuous noise at 84.2% of the permissible daily dose level, when measure with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 88.8 dBA for the 346 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 134 minutes not sampled.      g.  An employee in the sorting department was exposed to continuous noise at 82.3% of the permissible daily dose level, when measure with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 88.6 dBA for the 423 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 57 minutes not sampled.      h.  An employee in the sorting department was exposed to continuous noise at 74% of the permissible daily does level, when measure with a 80 dB threshold, or equivalent sound level of approximately 87.8 dBA for the 424 minute sampling time on November 1, 2017.  Exposure calculation included a zero increment for the 56 minutes not sampled.      The employer had not implemented a continuing, effective hearing conservation program which included an employee training program.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Feb 23, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $9,658 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:    a.  On or about October 13, 2017, in the facility, the employer did not establish a program to protect employees involved in servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment, including but not limited to Smetco High Speed Pallet Sorting System, from the unexpected energizing, start up, or release of stored energy.  Energy sources included, but were not limited to, electrical and hydraulic.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  a. On or about October 13, 2017, employees were exposed to machine hazards associated with rotating and moving parts when they engaged in servicing and maintenance activities on Smetco high Speed Pallet Sorting Equipment. The employer did not ensure that employees implemented energy control application steps prior to allowing them to troubleshoot equipment, exposing them to fractures and amputations.    The machines were not shut down or turned off prior to engaging in these servicing and maintenance activity. As a result, the remaining applicable energy control elements, involving machine isolation [1910.147(d)(3)], lockout/tagout device application [1910.147 (d)(4)], dissipation of residual energy [1910.147 (d)(5)(I)], and verification of isolation [1910.147 (d)(6)] were not implemented to protect employees from machine servicing hazards.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $25,609 · Current $12,805 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by a rotating blade:    a.  On or about October 25, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that pallet stripper/dismantling band saw was guarded to prevent employee contact with the blade.  Employees were exposed to amputation hazards when operating the band saw.      The Prime Woodcraft Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard 1910.212(a)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1249628, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on October 23, 2017, with respect to a workplace located at 8916 Rainbow Highway, West Salem, Ohio, 44287.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.213(a)(12): A guard was not so arranged as to prevent accidental contact with the saw:    a.  On or about October 25, 2017, in the saw room, employees who operated the two trim saws were exposed to amputation hazards when required to work adjacent to the blade with an inadequate guard to prevent accidental contact.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(m)(1)(i): Pulley system was not guarded with metal, perforated or solid sheet metal, wire mesh on a frame of angle iron, or iron pipe securely fastened to floor or to frame of machine:    a.  On or about November 1, 2107, in the saw room, the chop saw had a rotating belt which operated on a pulley system.  Employees were exposed to caught between hazards when the physical pressboard placed in front of the belt pulley system was not substantial and did not prevent accidental contact with the rotating pulley.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $6,147 Reduced

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:    a.  On or about November 1, 2017, in the saw room, employees were exposed to electrocution hazards when the electric used to power the trim saw was not fixed in conduit and was flexible.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Abate by

Mar 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $365 · Current $200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    a.  On or about October 25, 2017, in the facility, the employer failed to have a written hazard communication program which adequately addresses employee training, container labeling, and the maintenance of safety data sheets. Employee exposure included machine oils, lubricants and combustible dust.    The Prime Woodcraft Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard 1910.1200(e)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1253183, citation number 2, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on October 23, 2017, with respect to a workplace located at 8916 Rainbow Highway, West Salem, OH 44287.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $5,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.39(a)(2): The employer did not report the in-patient hospitalization of one or more employees to OSHA within twenty-four (24) hours.    a. On or about October 13, 2017, in the facility, an employee was injured after a work-related incident.  The employer failed to report the in-patient hospitalization of an employee within 24 hours after the hospitalization.

Issued

Jan 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $1,830 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.40(a): The employer did not provide an authorized government representative the records within the four business hours.    a.  On or about October 25, 2017, the employer failed to provide copies of the injury and illness records to an authorized representative.