OSHA Inspection: NANOGATE JAY SYSTEMS, LLC

Issued

Mar 22, 2018

Abate by

Apr 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,239 · Current $0 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:    Nanogate Jay Systems, LLC - Mansfield, Ohio:  On or about December 28, 2017, a periodic inspection of the energy control procedures was not performed to assure that lockout/tagout procedure and requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147 were being followed.  The employer did not assure that the energy control procedure for the #27 Engel molding press (s/n 208536) was inspected.

Issued

Mar 22, 2018

Abate by

Apr 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,239 · Current $4,619 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide adequate training to ensure that employees acquired the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage and removal of energy control devices:    Nanogate Jay Systems, LLC - Mansfield, Ohio: On or about December 28, 2017, the employer did not ensure that employees who maintain/clean molding machines such as, but not limited to, the #27 Engel molding machine (s/n 208536), were trained in the skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of energy controls.  Employees who cleaned the machines were not trained to isolate and/or render energy sources safe.

Issued

Mar 22, 2018

Abate by

Apr 4, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,239 · Current $4,619 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):    Nanogate Jay Systems, LLC - Mansfield, Ohio: On or about December 28, 2017, employees were exposed to crushing and struck-by injuries in that the #27 Engel molding machine (s/n 208536) was not deenergized prior to servicing tasks such as, but not limited to, cleaning the machine.  The employer did not ensure that energy control application steps were implemented to control hazardous electrical/hydraulic and pneumatic energy sources of the machine's platen and associated parts picker; prior to the servicing task - the employer did not:  - Ensure employees had the method or means to control hazardous energy.  - Physically operate energy isolating devices and affix lockout device(s) to control the energy source(s).   - Verify that isolation and de-energization of the machine or equipment had been accomplished.

Issued

Mar 22, 2018

Abate by

Apr 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,391 · Current $3,696 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(n)(6): Industrial truck drivers were not required to look in the direction of, and keep a clear view of the path of travel:    Nanogate Jay Systems, LLC - Mansfield, Ohio: On or about January 19, 2018, employees in the E-brite 6 section were exposed to struck-by hazards in that the employer did not ensure that forklift operators had a clear view of the path of travel while transporting packaging boxes to molding machines.  Forklift operators travel forward with the load blocking their view to deliver the boxes to employees in the area.

Issued

Mar 22, 2018

Abate by

Apr 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,239 · Current $4,619 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:    Nanogate Jay Systems, LLC - Mansfield, Ohio: On or about January 19, 2018, employees were exposed to struck-by injuries in that the parts picker arm associated with the #24 molding machine was not guarded.

Issued

Mar 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,543 · Current $2,771 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    Nanogate Jay Systems, LLC - Mansfield, Ohio: On or about January 19, 2018, compressed air was used in excess of 60 psi to clean debris from fiberglass parts at the E-brite Line 5 Destat area, exposing employees to embedding particles in their skin or eyes.