Some may think this is crazy, I do; but I have had many debates with businesses during audits and serious accident investigations around this argument. There are a lot of mind-sets in plants that have many presses that LOTO does not apply to this task as it would slow production too much and put them out of business. I am floored each time, as you will see in this analysis, their argument is no where near complying with LOTO!
Facts of the case: Company fabricates metal parts for various customers. At the time of the OSHA inspection, it employed approximately 250 employees and operated two shifts. The plant’s manual department has 23 mechanical power presses used to fabricate metal parts. The mechanical presses, manufactured by Minsters, Niagra, Danly, and Clearing & Verson, are part revolution presses which allow the operator to disengage the clutch at any point before the crank shaft has completed a full revolution and the press slide a full stroke. On February 21, 2008, an OSHA compliance officer inspected the plant because, according to OSHA records, the employees’ accident/injury rate was high for the industry. His inspection focused on the mechanical power presses in the manual department. Plant provided the CSHO with copies of its LOTO program and its die changing program. During his walk around inspection, the CSHO observed four employees changing dies on the power presses without utilizing LOTO procedures.
Argument & Analysis: According to the company, employees changing dies follow specific procedures for die changing and are exempt from its LOTO program. While the presses were in normal operation, the CSHO observed the press operators freely moving the two-hand controls around in front of the presses. He also saw two operators using a single two-hand control to operate the Danly #39 press. Based upon his inspection, the plant received the citation alleging the violations at issue. There is no dispute that the presses in the manual department are mechanical power presses within §1910.217 and that OSHA’s LOTO standards at §1910.147 apply when performing “servicing and maintenance” on the presses. Also, the plant does not dispute its knowledge of the cited conditions or that it did not comply with the terms of the cited LOTO and mechanical power press standards. The issues in dispute are whether die changing is “servicing and maintenance” within the application of LOTO and whether the employees were exposed to hazards during die changing or the normal operation of mechanical power presses. The plant’s written LOTO program applies to the presses in the manual department and is required to be followed when performing “servicing and maintenance” work on the presses. The program identifies the presses as having the potential for unexpected energizing, start-up or release of stored energy and having more than one energy source. It describes the sources of energy as electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic. The procedure establishes eight steps in applying LOTO to the presses. The Secretary does not dispute that the plant’s written LOTO program complies with § 1910.147. The minor tool change exception has not been asserted by the plant. The dispute arises because the plant does not consider changing dies on the presses as “servicing and maintenance” work and does not require its die-setters to apply LOTO procedures. The die-setters are specifically exempted from its LOTO procedures. Company considers changing dies as part of normal production work. The CSHO observed four employees changing dies during his inspection; plant identified 37 die-setters. Plant die-setters are required to follow other written procedures entitled Manual Department Die Set-Up Instruction and Check Sheet when changing the dies. Die changing procedures do not comply with §1910.147 because the sources of potential energy are not locked out.
Decision: Company’s argument that the LOTO requirements do not apply to die changing procedures is rejected. The Secretary defines “servicing and/or maintenance” as: Workplace activities such as constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting, modifying, and maintaining and/or servicing machines or equipment. These activities include lubrication, cleaning or unjamming of machines or equipment and making adjustments or tool changes, where the employee may be exposed to the unexpected energization or startup of the equipment or release of hazardous energy. See, § 1910.147(b). The Secretary defines “setting up” as: any work performed to prepare a machine or equipment to perform its normal production operation. See, §1910.147(b). “Normal production operation” is defined as: The utilization of a machine or equipment to perform its intended production function. See, §1910.147(b). The Secretary’s definitions and the LOTO standards make it clear that “servicing and maintenance” includes die changing within the setting up activities on the presses. The wording of a standard must be interpreted in a reasonable manner consistent with a common sense understanding. The words are to be viewed in context, not in isolation, and judged in light of its application to the facts of the case. The Secretary’s intent to apply LOTO to die changing is reflected in her Standard Interpretations. The December 28, 2006, Standard Interpretation clearly states “Die-setting activities constitute servicing activities and are covered by the LOTO standard, i.e., pursuant to the definitions of “Setting up” and “Servicing and/or maintenance” contained in §1910.147(b)”. Also, an April 22, 2005, Standard Interpretation states “Setting up activities, by definition, involve work that prepares a press to perform its intended normal production operation; therefore, this exception [minor tool changes] generally would not apply to hydraulic and mechanical power press die-setting because the servicing activity is not taking place during NPOs [normal production operation]”. In this case, the record does not support a claim that changing dies is part of “normal production.” Supervisor of the press shop, testified the presses run to produce a part. When the company finishes producing the part, the presses stop and the die is changed and a new part produced. The dies may not be changed for a couple of days or they may be changed as often as six times in an eight-hour shift. It takes approximately 30 minutes to change a die. This is not normal production, as all production stops while the die is changed. Die changing is servicing of the presses. The plant has 21 different presses and no evidence was presented as to how its method of changing dies protects employees from the potential of unexpected energizing, start-up or release of stored energy. The sources are not locked out. Also, the plant offered no explanation as why it uses LOTO on the presses when engaged in “servicing or maintenance” and not its alternative die changing procedures which it alleges are as safe. The Secretary notes, in Standard Interpretation dated April 22, 2005, that in some cases, the implementation of effective machine guarding techniques may eliminate worker exposure to hazardous energy, providing a feasible and acceptable alternative to LOTO. However, when machine guarding methods do not eliminate exposure to hazardous energy, LOTO is required to prevent die-setter employees from being seriously injured when performing die-set servicing activities. Effective machine guarding techniques were not shown in this case. To change the dies, the employees bypassed the light curtains and worked at the press’ point of operation. Also, the LOTO standard is intended to work in conjunction with the machine guarding standards to provide optimum employee protection. The LOTO standards apply to CFI’s die changing activities.