|
Safety Info Posts -
OSHA Compliance Posts
|
|
Written by Bryan Haywood
|
|
Although this decision was really about when OSHA can cite an employer for exposure to a hazard. The company claimed there was none or very little exposure to these unguarded lathe chucks because only one worker used these lathes only once or twice a year; however, OSHA cited for the unguarded equipment based on this level of exposure and the OSHRC affirmed the citation. During the inspection on May 12, 2008, a compliance officer observed two lathes in a machine shop, a Lodge and Shipley lathe and a Harrison AA lathe. The lathes are used in the manual mode for polishing parts and drilling washers. Both lathes had unguarded rotating chucks. The periphery of both lathes was irregular, and both had horizontally protruding jaws to hold the work. In the manual mode, the lathe chuck rotates at approximately 625 revolutions per minute (RPM). Employees use these lathes to perform exact work close to the piece as it is rotating. These lathes are not operated automatically for production purposes. Both lathes are continuously available for use. A machinist told the CSHO that he used the Harrison AA lathe five to ten minutes, once each week, and had used the Lodge and Shipley lathe once since he began working in January 2008. At the hearing, he testified he used the Harrison lathe once a month for about 10 minutes. He further testified that the Lodge and Shipley lathe was used once or twice a year. Two other employees also use these lathes. Company was issued a citation on May 19, 2008, pursuant to the inspection on May 12, 2008. In Citation No. 1, Item 1, Complainant alleges a serious violation of 29 CFR § 1910.212(a)(1) as follows: Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by rotating parts. (a)Bldg 676 - On or about May 12, 2008, lathes were not properly guarded to protect employees during operation. In order to establish a violation of an occupational safety or health standard, the Secretary has the burden of proving: (a) the applicability of the cited standard, (b) the employer’s noncompliance with the standard’s terms, (c) employee access to the violative conditions, and (d) the employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the violation (i.e., the employer either knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known, of the violative conditions.) Click Here to see the entire decision.
|
SAFTENG Safety Info Posts
