OSHA Inspection: HANSEN ENGINEERING & MACHINERY CO., INC.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

Jun 28, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $3,500 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:    2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA 01923    a) On or about October 18, 2018, procedures were not developed for the control of potentially hazardous energy while employees conduct setups on equipment, including, but not limited to horizontal lathes.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

Jun 28, 2019

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $3,000 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:    2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA 01923    On or about October 29, 2018, employees were not protected from the point of operation of the horizontal lathes, due to a lack of interlocking mechanisms. This includes, but is not limited to the following instances;    a) On or about October 29, 2018, NT-4 was found to have  no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.     b) On or about October 29, 2018, NT-5 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.     c) On or about October 29, 2018, Slant 7 DK-4 was found to have an operational chip conveyer that ran while the door was in an open position.     d) On or about October 29, 2018, Slant 7 DK-5 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    e) On or about October 29, 2018, Nakamura-Tome SC-450 NT-10 was found to have an interlock switch that was in the off position.     f) On or about October 29, 2018, Nakamura-Tome SC-450 NT-13 was found to have an interlock switch that was in the off position.     g) On or about October 29, 2018, Nakamura-Tome SC-450 NT-12 was found to have an interlock switch that was in the off position.     h) On or about October 29, 2018, Nakamura-Tome SC-450 NT-11 was found to have an interlock switch that was in the off position.     i)  On or about October 29, 2018, Mori-Seiki SLC M-7 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    j) On or about October 29, 2018, DK-1 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    k) On or about October 29, 2018, Mori-Seiki SL-6 M-8 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    l) On or about October 29, 2018, DK-2 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    m) On or about October 29, 2018, DK-3 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    n) On or about October 29, 2018, Mori-Seiki SL-7 was found to have no interlocks or non-functional interlocks that would prevent the door from opening while the machine was in operation.    o) On or about October 29, 2018, Matsuura 444E MC-1000VG was found to have shields that did not prevent chips or metalworking fluids from exiting the machine, and did not prevent the operator from contacting the point of operation.     p) On or about October 29, 2018, Matsuura 444B MC-1000V was found to have shields that did not prevent chips or metalworking fluids from exiting the machine, and did not prevent the operator from contacting the point of operation.     q) On or about October 29, 2018, Matsuura 444A MC-1000V was found to have shields that did not prevent chips or metalworking fluids from exiting the machine, and did not prevent the operator from contacting the point of operation.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

Jul 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $9,282 · Current $3,500 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):    2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Shop floor    a) On or about October 18, 2018, employees were exposed to the point of operation of machinery that was not guarded during removal of the part from the horizontal lathe. An employee removing the part from the lathe was struck by a material hoist when the employee contacted a button that started the lathe instead of releasing the chuck holding the part. The rotation of the machine caused unintended movement of the hoist, striking the employee.     Or in the alternative     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) On or about October 18, 2018, employees did not have procedures for removal of parts from horizontal lathes after the part machining was complete. An employee did not utilize an energy control procedure to remove the part from the machine. An employee removing the part from the lathe was struck by a material hoist when the employee contacted a button that started the lathe instead of releasing the chuck holding the part. The rotation of the machine caused unintended movement of the hoist, striking the employee.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

May 20, 2019

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(i)(C): All operators and attendants of resistance welding or resistance brazing equipment did not use transparent face shields or goggles, depending on the particular job, to protect their faces or eyes, as required:    2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA, Brazing Room    a) On or about March 14, 2019, employees conducting brazing were not wearing face shields or goggles to protect their eyes or face. Employees wore shaded safety glasses that did not bear a marking indicating the protection factor.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

May 20, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(ii)(G): Lenses did not bear some permanent distinctive marking by which the source and shade could be readily identified:  On or about March 14, 2019, employees wore glasses that did not bear a marking that indicated the source and shade during brazing operations.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

May 20, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(3): Employees exposed to the hazards created by welding, cutting, or brazing operations were not protected by personal protective equipment in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.132:  2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA, Brazing Room  a) On or about March 14, 2019, employees did not have required personal protective equipment to protect against burn hazards while using a brazing torch, including, but not limited to hand protection.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

May 20, 2019

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(a)(2)(vii): Where practicable, combustible materials were not relocated at least 35 feet (10.7 m) from the cutting or welding operation work site:    2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA, Brazing Room    a) On or about October 29, 2018, the work location where brazing was conducted was not kept clear of combustible materials. Cardboard was found to be within 35 feet of the brazing operation, where it was used to deflect roof leaks.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

May 20, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.253(b)(5)(ii)(I): Cylinders were not kept far enough away from the actual welding or cutting operation so that sparks, hot slag, or flame would not reach them:  2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA, Brazing Room  a) On or about March 14, 2019, employees were exposed to fire and explosion hazards from oxygen and acetylene cylinders that were not kept far enough away from a brazing operation. The cylinders were kept adjacent to a station where an employee was performing brazing operations.

Issued

Apr 15, 2019

Abate by

May 20, 2019

Penalty

Initial $744 · Current $300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    2 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA    a) On or about October 18, 2018, employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals, including, but not limited to solder, flux, and coolant. A hazard communication program had been developed, but employees were not trained.