OSHA Inspection: EMT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Issued

Mar 31, 2020

Abate by

Apr 28, 2020

Penalty

Initial $7,374 · Current $5,162 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). If such hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer shall select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment; communicate selection decisions to each affected employee; and select PPE that properly fits each affected employee:  On or about December 20, 2019 through December 21, 2019, the employer did not access the workplace to determine the hazards present to employees exposed to, and applying, epoxy flooring in the machine shop.  The employer shall assess the workplace to determine what PPE is necessary during the epoxy process, including eye protection, respiratory protection and hand protection.

Issued

Mar 31, 2020

Abate by

Apr 28, 2020

Penalty

Initial $7,374 · Current $5,162 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be 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. Examples of guarding methods are-barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices,electronic safety devices, etc.  (a)  Four VMC CNC operated milling machines located in the machine shop were not provided adequate guarding to prevent employees from accessing the hazard areas of the machine.  The machines were equipped with barrier guards that were easily defeated and could be opened during operation.  (b)  A HMC Mazak CNC operated mill located in the machine shop was not provided adequate guarding to prevent employees from accessing the hazard areas of the machine during operation.  The machines were equipped with barrier guards that were easily defeated and could be opened during operation.  (c)  Two perforation grinders located in the machine shop were not provided with any from of guarding to prevent employees from accessing the point of operation or becoming struck by sparks and debris flying off the grinding wheel.

Issued

Mar 31, 2020

Abate by

Apr 28, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures shall be developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section.   The employer did not develop, document, and utilize a lockout tagout procedure for the Mazak HMC Model H-1000Q CNC Operated Mill located in the machine shop when employees performed servicing and maintenance tasks such as changing tooling.    Note: Exception: The employer need not document the required procedure for a particular machine or equipment, when all of the following elements exist: (1) The machine or equipment has no potential for stored or residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down which could endanger employees; (2) the machine or equipment has a single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; (3) the isolation and locking out of that energy source will completely deenergize and deactivate the machine or equipment; (4) the machine or equipment is isolated from that energy source and locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device will achieve a locker-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not create hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing this exception, has had no accidents involving the unexpected activation or reenergization of the machine or equipment during servicing or maintenance.