OSHA Inspection: AIR-FLO MFG. CO. INC.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Jun 19, 2020

Penalty

Initial $5,205 · Current $3,383 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user.      a)  Welding Department, on or about 1/14/2020:  The employer did not ensure that employees wearing Miller LPR-100  air-purifying respirators voluntarily to weld mild steel were medically able to use that respirator.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Jun 9, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator and at least annually thereafter.  a) Welding Department, on or about 1/14/2020:  Employees who are welding stainless and galvanneal steel are required to wear air-purifying respirators such as but not limited to, Miller LPR 100 half-masks and were not fit tested prior to initial use and at least annually thereafter.  b)  Paint Department, on or about 1/14/2020:  Employees, including temporary workers, who are performing sanding and painting are required to wear air-purifying respirators, such as but not limited to 3M half-masks and were not fit tested prior to initial use and at least annually thereafter.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Aug 19, 2020

Penalty

Initial $6,940 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4): Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation were performed by the customer or user without manufacturers prior written approval. Capacity, operation, and maintenance instruction plates, tags, or decals were not changed accordingly.    a)  Paint Area, on or about 1/14/2020:   The employer did not obtain written approval from the manufacturer to add fork extensions to the #10 Hyundai LP powered industrial truck.   The use of these locally fabricated fork extensions affect the capacity and safe operation of the powered industrial truck. The capacity, operation and plates were not changed accordingly.    b)  Weld Area, on or about 1/15/20:  The employer did not obtain written approval from the manufacturer to add fork extensions to the #5 Yale powered industrial truck.   The use of these locally fabricated fork extensions affect the capacity and safe operation of the powered industrial truck. The capacity, operation and plates were not changed accordingly.    c)  Fabrication Area, on or about 1/14/2020:   The employer did not obtain written approval from the manufacturer to weld and repair the forklift carriage on the #3 Yale powered industrial truck.  Modifications such as welding lift components affect the capacity and safe operation of the powered industrial truck.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Aug 19, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5): The user did not request, for trucks equipped with front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments, that the truck be marked to identify the attachments and show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered:    a)  Air-Flo Mfg. Co. Inc., on or about 1/15/20:  The employer fabricated and installed fork extensions on the #10 Hyundai LP powered industrial truck and did not have the truck marked accordingly to identify the attachments and to show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered.     b)  Air-Flo Mfg. Co. Inc., on or about 1/15/20:  The employer fabricated and installed fork extensions on the #5 Yale powered industrial truck and did not have the truck marked accordingly to identify the attachments and to show the approximate weight of the truck and attachment combination at maximum elevation with load laterally centered.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

May 26, 2020

Penalty

Initial $10,409 · Current $6,766 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):      a)  Air-Flo  Mfg. Co. Inc., on or about 1/14/2020:  The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator received formal training and a performance evaluation prior to operation.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

May 26, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1): Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe had not been  taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition(s):  a)  Air-Flo Mfg. Co. Inc., on or about 1/14/2020:  The following powered industrial trucks were in need of repairs and had not been taken out of service:      1)  #12 Nissan - Locking pins to secure the forks were missing; horn did not work;      2)  #3 Yale - Backup lights were broken, locking pins to secure the forks were missing, back-up warning light did not work;      3)  #8 Caterpillar - Hydraulic fluid leaks, warning lights did not work;      4)  #5 Yale - Emergency brake release cable was broken.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Jun 1, 2020

Penalty

Initial $6,940 · Current $4,511 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:    a)   Fabrication Department, on or about 1/14/2020:  Knuth Drill Press, Model KGB25, was not equipped with a chuck guard to prevent contact with the rotating chuck and serrated cutting tool.    b)  Fabrication Department, on or about 1/14/2020:  Knuth Drill Press, Model SSB32, was not equipped with a chuck guard to prevent contact with the rotating chuck and serrated cutting tool.    c)  Fabrication Department, on or about 11/15/2019:  Bridgeport Mill was not equipped with a chuck guard to prevent contact with the rotating chuck and serrated cutting tool.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Jun 1, 2020

Penalty

Initial $8,675 · Current $5,639 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) and the foot pedal was not guarded to prevent unintended operation:    a)  Fabrication Department, on or about 1/15/2020:  90-Ton Cincinnati Press Brake, was not equipped with point of operation guarding to prevent the operator from having their hands in the danger zone during the operating cycles.    b)  Fabrication Department, on or about 1/15/2020:  GEKA Ironworker was not equipped with point of operation guarding to prevent the operator from having their hands in the danger zone during the operating cycle of the punch side and the foot pedal was not guarded to prevent unintended operation.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Jun 19, 2020

Penalty

Initial $6,940 · Current $4,511 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.252(b)(2)(ii): Workers or other persons adjacent to the welding areas were not protected from the rays by noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields or required to wear appropriate goggles.    a)  Snow Plow Area, on or about 1/14/2020:  Employees working adjacent to welding operations were not protected from the welding rays by the use of noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields.    b)  Reading Line, on or about 1/14/2020:   Employees working adjacent to welding operations were not protected from the welding rays by the use of noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields.    c)  Pro Max Area, on or about 1/14/2020:   Employees working adjacent to welding operations were not protected from the welding rays by the use of noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields.    d)  Fabrication Area, on or about 1/15/2020:  Employees working adjacent to the plasma cutter were not protected from the plasma arc by the use of noncombustible or flameproof screens or shields.

Issued

May 15, 2020

Abate by

Jun 9, 2020

Penalty

Initial $10,409 · Current $6,766 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a)  Paint Department, on or about 1/14/2020:  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation of employees who are required to wear tight fitting half-face and full-face respirators while sanding and painting.      Air-Flo Mfg, Co. Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1112720, Citation number 1, item number 1B and was affirmed as a final order on 2/15/2016, with respect to a workplace located at 365 Upper Oakwood Avenue, Elmira, NY 14903.