This is a really good case to read. It involves light-curtains and lasers as “guarding” and the fact that they were not functioning. One of the machines had broken a manager’s foot when he/she entered to troubleshoot a problem (LOTO citation). The facility had put tape on the floor as an indicator rather than fixing the guarding. The Willful citation was due to the Maintenance Manager disabling a light curtain because of too many trips, causing the line to slow down. The line ran that way for three years, during which time employees voiced concerns. The response by management was to bring in a “temporary worker” and have them operate the unguarded machine.
At its facility in Alabama, Respondent manufactures gas tanks, which are later installed in motor vehicles. In the process of manufacturing and testing these gas tanks, Respondent utilizes at least three types of machines relevant to this case.
One type of machine is a Blow Mold Machine, a mainly automated machine that diecasts the plastic gas tanks.
A second type of machine is a Helium Test Machine, which injects the finished gas tanks with helium and measures levels of escaped helium to detect any leaks present in the tanks.
A third type of machine is a Pad Check Machine, which senses whether a number of rubber pads have been properly attached to the finished and tested gas tanks.
The Helium Test Machines and the Pad Check Machines are named for their “lines,” which refer to the make and model of the vehicle in which they are to ultimately be installed. At issue here are two Helium Test Machines, the TMA Line and UMA Line Helium Test Machines (“TMA Helium Test Machine” and “UMA Helium Test Machine”), and two Pad Check Machines, the ADA and LFA Line Pad Check Machines (“ADA Pad Check Machine” and “LFA Pad Check Machine”). (Citation, at 7 & 8). If there are multiple Blow Mold Machines present in the Respondent’s facility, only “Blow Mold Machine #1” is relevant for the purposes of this case.
The Helium Test Machines are equipped with manufacturer-installed “light curtains” on the front and sides of the machine. A light curtain is a bar with a “transmitter” and a “receiver” between which invisible light beams run. If something breaks the plane of the light curtain, an employee’s hand for instance, the Helium Test Machines immediately stop mid-cycle. In a similar fashion, the Pad Check Machines are equipped with “laser safety scanners,” which create a perimeter of invisible light beams around the machines and stop the Pad Check Machines if the perimeter is disrupted.
In early 2019, OSHA received a complaint indicating the light curtains on the Helium Test Machines and the laser safety scanners on the Pad Check Machines in Respondent’s Auburn facility were not functioning properly. On February 5, 2019, OSHA sent a Compliance Safety and Health Officer (“CSHO”) to investigate this complaint. After inspecting Respondent’s facility and its manufacturing equipment and conducting interviews with employees, managers, and safety personnel, the CSHO learned the following:
Regarding the Helium Test Machines, the CSHO learned the light curtains installed on the TMA and UMA Helium Test Machines were either not functional or only partially functional at the time of his inspection and had been that way for several months.
He learned the laser safety scanner on the LFA Pad Check Machine had similarly not been functional for a number of months.
Regarding the ADA Pad Check Machine, the CSHO learned its laser safety scanner had been deliberately disabled by the Respondent’s maintenance manager approximately three years before the inspection. This was done expressly for the purpose of increasing production efficiency because a number of “false alarms” had halted the cycling of the machine. This laser safety scanner was still disabled at the time of the CSHO’s inspection.
Over the course of his investigation, the CSHO also learned of an incident involving the Blow Mold Machine which had occurred earlier that year. On January 23, 2019, a Respondent’s production manager entered the Blow Mold Machine to observe it in motion in an attempt to address quality issues with the gas tanks being produced by the machine. As the machine was completing its cycle, a portion of the machine struck and broke the observing manager’s foot.
Following his investigation, the CSHO concluded that the Respondent had violated three of OSHA’s general industry safety standards promulgated pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. OSHA, therefore issued a two-item serious Citation and Notification of Penalty (“Citation”) and a one-item willful Citation to Respondent alleging as follows: