OSHA Inspection: VIEJAS CASINO & RESORT

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $8,051 · Current $5,636 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): Procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance including, but not limited to, 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(A), (c)(4)(ii)(B), (c)(4)(ii)(C) and (c)(4)(ii)(D):    Laundry Facility: Employees perform maintenance and servicing on laundry equipment, including the Chicago Flatwork Ironer. The procedures lacked specific steps to control hazardous energy, such as isolating and verifying de-energization of all energy sources. Employees were exposed to entanglement and/or burn hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $8,051 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A): Authorized employee(s) did not receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control:     Laundry Facility: Employees perform maintenance and servicing on laundry equipment, including the Chicago Flatwork Ironer. Employees were repairing and/or performing preventative maintenance without adequate training at the authorized level. Employees were exposed to entanglement and/or burn hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(D): Each authorized employee did not affix a personal lockout or tagout device to the group lockout device before working on the machine or equipment:     Laundry Facility: Two employees performed maintenance and/or servicing on equipment, such as cleaning lint and greasing bearings. During this task, an employee applied a single lockout device for both authorized workers. Employees were exposed to entanglement hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Abate by

Mar 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $4,831 · Current $3,382 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates or markings were maintained in a legible condition:    Outside of the barn: Employee(s) use the Clark forklift to move large items, such as dumpsters and conex boxes. The information printed on the placard was illegible, including the lifting capacity. Employees were exposed to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Abate by

Mar 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $6,440 · Current $4,508 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(1): Any power-operated industrial truck not in safe operating condition was not taken out of service, and/or repairs were not made by authorized personnel:  In the following instances, forklifts were not maintained in safe condition and employees were exposed to struck by hazards:  a) Outside of the barn: The Clark forklift used for moving large items, such as dumpsters and conex boxes, had one of the tips broken and in disrepair.  b) Outside of the barn: The Caterpillar forklift used for hauling plywood and pallets of material was identified with the horn not functioning and in disrepair.  c) Warehouse dock: The Toyota forklift used for moving pallets in the warehouse and delivering food to the bingo hall was in service with the right rear turn signal not functioning and in disrepair.

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $4,106 · Current $2,874 Reduced

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:  Small Appliance Repair Shop: Employees use the 6-inch Sunex Tools bench grinder to sharpen tools. The tongue guard was measured at a one-inch distance from the abrasive wheel. Employees were exposed to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 27, 2019

Abate by

Mar 18, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  In the following locations, employees used unguarded drill presses and did not have effective chip guarding while in use. Employees were exposed to struck-by hazards and/or eye injuries:  a) Mechanic/Welding Shop: A Dayton 20-inch drill press was used to drill holes in sheet metal.  b) Wood Shop: A Delta drill press was used to drill holes into wood boards.