OSHA Inspection: TFP CORPORATION

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

Jul 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $4,574 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each employee on a walking-working surface with an unprotected side or edge that was 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level was protected from falling by one or more of the following:  Guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:    On or about November 13, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that employees tasked with working from atop of header #12 were protected from a fall greater than 4 feet by the use of fall protection devices. An employee climbed onto the top of the equipment without the use of a ladder. No guardrails or PFAS were provided.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

Nov 8, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $6,403 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) On or about November 7, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Rockford Manufacturing Group wire feed coil machine (serial number 10816-1312). At the time of inspection the access door was able to be opened during certain operations including jogging and setup. The pinch point was not effectively guarded. The interlock only functioned in full operation mode.     b) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the feed rollers of the #20 cold former. 3 separate areas on the line did not have barrier guarding in place over the ingoing nip point.     c) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #20 cold former. The access door for the drawer area was not interlocked or affixed in a closed position to prevent employees from reaching the hazardous area.     d) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #20 cold former. The primary access door was not interlocked to prevent employees from accessing the main operation area during production. The interlocked limit switch was not functioning or disabled.     e) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the feed rollers of the #19 cold former (Formax Plus). Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the ingoing nip point.     f) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the feed rollers of the #18 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the ingoing nip point.     g) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #174 thread roller. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts.     h) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #172 hand roller. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts.     i) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #175 hand roller. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts.      j) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #187 auto roller. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts.    k) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #186 hand roller. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts.    l) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #252 Shaver. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts. Employee hand feeds product into the work area    m) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #161 pointer. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving table and other moving machine parts. Employee hand feeds product into the work area.      n) (DELETED)  On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #707 Hot Header. Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the closing action of the press. The press is operated by foot pedal without the use of any guarding.     o) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #12 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     p) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #21 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     q) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #001 bolt maker. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     r)  On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #109 bolt maker. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     s) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #17 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     t) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #7 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     u) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #14 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     v) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #6 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     w) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #5 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     x) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #3 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     y) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #008 cold former. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.     z) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Miyano mini mills (CNC). The three mini mills did not have guarding or interlock mechanism to prevent employees from accessing the hazardous area during operation.     aa)  On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Unimate (serial number 1012405) robotic cell. Effective machine guarding was not in place. Simple mobile chain link barricades were placed around the hazardous area.     bb) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Mazak  VQC20/40B (vertical CNC). The equipment did not have guarding or interlock mechanism to prevent employees from accessing the hazardous area during operation.     cc) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Mazak  quick turn 8 (CNC). The equipment did not have guarding or interlock mechanism to prevent employees from accessing the hazardous area during operation.     dd)  On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Leblond Lathes. The equipment did not contain chuck or chip guards to protect operators.      ee) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Palletizer of the #21 cold former. The equipment did not have guarding to prevent employees from accessing the hazardous area during operation. The lowering and raising table of the palletizer was not guarded.     ff)  On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the #112 bolt maker. Barrier guarding was not in place to protect employees from the moving machine parts. Areas in need of guarding include infeed rollers, rotating cams, moving actuators, and crank rods. Barrier guarding was not in place or not affixed at the time of inspection.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $6,403 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):    a) On or about November 7, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that effective point of operation guarding was in place for employees operating the centerless grinders located in the secondary machining area of the facility. Employees hand feed materials into the hazardous area without guarding in place.      b) On or about November 7, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that effective point of operation guarding was in place for employees operating the centerless grinders located in the tool room area of the facility. Employees hand feed materials into the hazardous area without guarding in place.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,147 · Current $4,574 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(d)(9)(i): The employer did not establish a die setting procedure for mechanical power press(es) that would ensure compliance with 29 CFR 1910.217(c) ;    On November 7, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that die setting procedures were established and in place. Employees are tasked with setting up two mechanical power presses located in the secondary machining area of the facility. Press #702 and press #704 are setup by employees without procedures in place.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $6,403 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1): Inspection and maintenance records. The employer shall establish and follow an inspection program having a general component and a directed component.    On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that inspections for mechanical power presses #702 and #704 located in the tool room were conducted. The employer had not performed any press inspections of both general and directed components.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $6,403 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(b)(1): Flywheel(s) with parts seven feet or less above floor(s) or platform(s) were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv)(a)    a) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective guarding was in place on the flywheel apparatus of the #1 bolt maker. Employees stand directly in front of the flywheel while operating the equipment.    b) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective guarding was in place on the flywheel apparatus of mechanical power press #704 located in the secondary machining area.    c) On or about November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective guarding was in place on the flywheel apparatus of mechanical power press #702 located in the secondary machining area.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $6,403 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(1)(i): Where both runs of a horizontal belt were 42 inches or less from the floor, the belt was not fully enclosed in accordance with paragraphs (m) and (o) of this section:     On or about November 13, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that the belt of the Cincinnati grinder located in the tool room area was effectively guarded. The belt and pulley of the drive motor system was not guarded.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $12,805 · Current $6,403 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven (7) feet or less above the floor or platform were not enclosed:    On or about November 13, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that effective guarding was in place on the chain and sprocket drive system of the Unimate robot conveyor. The chain and sprocket being powered by the three phase Baldor motor was not covered to protect employees.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,488 · Current $2,744 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): Unless specifically permitted otherwise in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, flexible cords and cables may not be used as a substitute for permanent building wiring.    On or about November 13, 2017 the employer did not ensure that flexible cords were only used for temporary installations. The palletizer and scale for the #21 header were being supplied power by flexible cords at the time of inspection. These were permanent installations.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,488 · Current $2,744 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords and cables shall be connected to devices and fittings so that the strain relief is provided that will prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws.    On or about November 13, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that electrical connections on mechanical power press #704 contained strain relief. At the time of the inspection strain relief was not provided and wiring was visibly being pulled from connector.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

May 22, 2018

Penalty

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

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 November 7, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that periodic inspections of the machine specific LO/TO procedures had taken place at the facility. Equipment serviced or maintained at the facility includes but is not limited to presses, CNC machines, robotic arms, and headers. Hazardous energies include but are not limited to electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and mechanical.     TFP Corporation was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard (name previously cited standard), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1064884, citation number 1, item number 1(b) and was affirmed as a final order on July 28, 2015 with respect to a workplace located at 460 Lake Road, Medina, OH.

Issued

Apr 16, 2018

Abate by

Jun 8, 2018

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i): Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees:    On or about November 13, 2017 the employer failed to ensure that lockout devices were affixed to the hazardous energy isolating devices prior to removing a jam from the unimate robot located in the secondary machining area. An employee was observed performing the task by only using the stop button and entering a chain barrier guard.       The TFP Corporation was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1064884, citation number 1, item number 2b and was affirmed as a final order on July 28, 2015 with respect to a workplace located at 460 Lake Road, Medina, OH.