In August 2013, a 32-year-old machine helper entered a large wire mesh manufacturing machine to retrieve a fallen metal bar, and he was struck and killed by a part that feeds the wire into the machine’s welding area. The light curtain that would have automatically turned the machine off before he entered the danger zone had been disabled. Proper operation of the machine’s guards, a basic safety requirement, could have saved his life. Following its investigation of the incident and inspection of the worksite, OSHA cited business for eight (8) per-instance willful violations as well as a number of other repeat, serious and other-than-serious citations. Proposed penalties total $697,700. The company has been put into OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which focuses resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their legal obligations by committing willful, repeated or failure-to-abate violations. The per-instance willful citations include the employer’s failure to guard the wire mesh manufacturing machine as well as three other large machines that make wire mesh or straighten and test the wire. Additionally, the company failed to assure that four machines, including the one involved in the incident, were shut down and hazardous sources of energy were locked or tagged out prior to employees’ entering and servicing the equipment where no guards protected them from harm.
OSHA proposes $560,000 in fines for the eight per-instance willful violations.
A total of 22 serious violations allege a variety of conditions, including:
- a factory floor cluttered with broken pallets creating a hazard that could lead to workers tripping and falling into moving machine parts;
- an electrical outlet left on the ground wrapped in tape that posed a shock hazard; and
- a bathroom with a sink that had been clogged for months with maggots swimming in standing water.
Fines for the serious violations total $126,700.
Business was also cited for a repeat violation for failing to administer an effective hearing conservation program. The company violated this standard at its Illinois facility in 2012. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. There are $11,000 in proposed fines for the repeat violation.
Finally, the company was cited for four other-than-serious safety and health violations for failing to:
- mark exits,
- assure crane operation safety and
- develop an effective respirator program for employees required to wear respirators.
Here is a breakdown of the “per-instance” Willfuls for LOTO and Guarding:
Citation 2 Item 1
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:
- On or about August 15, 2013, in the west wire bay, energy control procedures for the MEP-3 feed cart were not utilized, exposing employees to being struck-by the feed cart.
- On or about August 15, 2013, in the west wire bay, energy control procedures for the MEP-3 weld head were not utilized, exposing employees to being crushed-by or caught in the weld head.
Citation 2 Item 2
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:
- On or about August 16, and September 10, 2013, in the west wire bay, energy control procedures for the Promostar rebar machine were not utilized, exposing employees to being struck-by or caught-in the moving parts of the machine.
Citation 2 Item 3
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the west wire bay, energy control procedures for the MEP-1 wire mesh machine were not utilized, exposing employees to being struck-by or caught-in the moving parts, of the machine.
Citation 2 Item 4
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the east wire bay, energy control procedures were not utilized for the MEP-2, exposing employees to being struck-by or caught-in the moving parts of the machine.
Citation 2 Item 5
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CPR 1910.212(a)(l): Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by the point of operation and moving parts:
- On or about August 15, 2013, in the west wire bay, the helpers station of the MEP-3 was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck-by the feed cart.
- On or about August 14, 2013, in the west wire bay, the weld-head of the MEP-3 was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck-by the feed cart.
- On or about August 15, 2013, in the west wire bay, the evacuation side of the MEP-3 was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck-by the evacuation cart.
- On or about August 15, 2013, in the west wire bay, the MEP-3 was not guarded by a parameter fence barrier guard around the moving parts of the helpers station, the cart table, the weld head, and the evacuation area of the machine, exposing employees to being caught-in or struck-by the moving parts of the machine.
Citation 2 Item 6
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(l): Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by flying chips:
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the quality control lab, the United Tensile Test device was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck by chips from metal wire fragments.
Citation 2 Item 7
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CPR 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 the point of operation and moving parts:
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the east wire bay, the left side of the wire accumulator roller assembly was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck-by or caught-in the accumulator roller.
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the east wire bay, the right side of the wire accumulator roller assembly was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck-by or caught-in the accumulator roller.
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the east wire bay, the front of the wire accumulator roller assembly was not guarded, exposing employees to being struck-by or caught-in the accumulator roller.
Citation 2 Item 8
Type of Violation: Willful; $70,000
29 CPR 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 the point of operation and moving parts:
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the east wire bay, the turn table of Tuerema wire draw machine was not guarded, exposing employees to the being struck-by or caught-in the moving parts of the machine.
- On or about August 16, 2013, in the east wire bay, the spooler of the Tuerema wire draw machine was not guarded, exposing employees to the being struck-by or caught-in the moving parts of the machine.
View all of the citations in this case*. The business has more than 200 employees nationwide, and recorded $60 million in revenue in 2012.