OSHA Inspection: PRESRITE CORPORATION

Issued

May 13, 2019

Abate by

May 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $13,260 · Current $7,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(2): The machine or equipment was not turned off or shut down using the procedures established for the machine or equipment:      a) On or about February 21, 2019 the employer failed to shut down or turn off the machine to perform servicing in accordance with their established procedure, thereby exposing employees to the hazards of moving machine parts and in-going nip points while they serviced the shear outside of normal production. As a result, the remaining applicable energy control elements, involving machine isolation [(d)(3)], LOTO device application [(d)(4)], stored energy [(d)(5), if applicable], and verification of isolation [(d)(6)], were not implemented to safeguard employees from the machine servicing hazards.

Issued

May 13, 2019

Penalty

Initial $7,577 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.184(f)(1): Wire-rope slings did not  have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as prescribed by the manufacturer  that indicated the recommended safe working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it is based, and the number of legs if more than one:    On or about February 21, 2019 the employer failed to ensure that the wire cable sling used to suspend a load of metal bars at the #1 shear contained legible identification markings prior to use.

Issued

May 13, 2019

Abate by

May 31, 2019

Penalty

Initial $13,260 · Current $13,260

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 February 21, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place to protect the employees from the feed rollers of the #1 shear. The barrier guard was not effective in protecting employees in that it only covered the side and employees are able to reach the hazard area in the front and opposite side.   b) On or about February 21, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place to protect the employees from the pinch point of the hold down and the die area of the #1 shear. The barrier guard was not effective in protecting employees in that it they were able to reach over or under the guard and reach the hazard area.   c) On or about February 21, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place to protect the employees from the feed rollers of the #2 shear. The barrier guard was not effective in protecting employees in that it only covered the side and employees are able to reach the hazard area in the front and opposite side.   d) On or about February 21, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place to protect the employees from the pinch point of the hold down and the die area of the #2 shear. The barrier guard was not effective in protecting employees in that it they were able to reach over or under the guard and reach the hazard area.   e) On or about February 21, 2019, the employer failed to ensure that effective machine guarding was in place to protect the employees from the pinch point of the hold down and the die area on the backside of the #2 shear. No barrier guarding was present on the rear of the shear area.