OSHRC can not agree on what a "machine" is as it applies to LOTO (OSHRC)
Holy cow batman, have we really come to this in the safety profession?!?!?! An apprentice is crushed to death while standing inside (or technically under) a "machine" looking at some fans he was going to be working on, while the facility technician was performing the LOTO on "the machine". To get this "machine" to the zero energy state, the technician had to release counter weights (e.g. release stored energy) which in turn killed the apprentice who happen to be standing under one of the counter weights when the energy was released. The ALJ found that since the contractor was intending to work on "the fans" inside/under "the machine" and since the apprentice was not killed by the fans he was inspecting at the time, that LOTO did not apply to the contractor being inside/under "the machine" and vacated the citation. The decision made it to the full commission review and the commission was split in their position so it defaulted back to the ALJ's decision and the citation was vacated. How anyone could come to the conclusion that 1910.147 did not apply here is just amazing! Here is the case info - LESSON to be learned... Legal does equate to something being SAFE! I have posted BOTH decisions from the two commissioners, which one do you think was right? |
Partner Organizations I am proud to announce that The Chlorine Institute and SAFTENG have extended our"Partners in Safety" agreement for another year (2024) CI Members, send me an e-mail to request your FREE SAFTENG membership
Member Associations
|
