OSHA Inspection: A&E CLEANING AND GRINDING, INC.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $5,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):    (a) The employer did not conduct a PPE hazard assessment that properly addressed the potential for debris to come into contact with employee's faces.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  (a) The employer did not ensure that face protection was worn to protect employees from flying particles when conducting grinding work.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.  (a) The employer did not ensure that employees were using proper hand protection when using a drill press machine. An employee was using leather gloves that could be entangled in the drill press, causing laceration and amputation injuries.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Oct 31, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $3,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:    (a) The employer did not ensure that hazardous energy control procedures were developed for servicing and maintenance work for all machines including, but not limited to, the Fox and Setco brand stationary grinding machines.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · 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:    (a) The employer did not ensure that a periodic inspection was conducted of the hazardous energy control procedures.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(i):   The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, shall be guarded. The guarding device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standards therefore, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, shall be so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.    (a) On the Cincinnati Bickford drill press, the employer did not ensure the point of operation was guarded, resulting in employee exposure to amputation injuries.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $6,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(1): Abrasive wheel(s) used on grinding machinery were not used with safety guards:    (a) On or about February 12, 2018, the employer did not ensure that grinding machinery was equipped with guarding, resulting in serious injury to an employee.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(d)(1): Spindle speed(s) on grinding machine(s) were not checked before mounting to assure that it did not exceed the maximum operating speed marked on the wheel:  (a) On or about February 12, 2018, the employer did not ensure that a Top Cat grinding machine did not exceed the maximum operating speed marked on a Metal Master grinding wheel, resulting in serious injuries to an employee.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:    (a) On the # 7 Fox grinding machine, the employer did not ensure that a work rest did not exceed a one-eighth inch opening.      (b) On the # F73 Fox grinding machine, the employer did not ensure that a work rest did not exceed a one-eighth inch opening.

Issued

Aug 3, 2018

Abate by

Aug 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:    (a) The employer did not ensure the tongue guard on the # 5 Fox grinding machine did not exceed one fourth of an inch from the abrasive wheel.     (b) The employer did not ensure the tongue guard on the # F73 Fox grinding machine did not exceed one fourth of an inch from the abrasive wheel.