OSHA Inspection: ST. BERNARD SOAP COMPANY

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): \\r\\n\\r\\nProcedures had not been developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in the activities covered by this section:  \r\n\r\nThere were no wriiten machine specific lockout procedures for the Uni-Lever line (Robot cells #6 & 7 and transfer cart) that had multiple energy sources.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii): \\r\\n\\r\\nLockout devices and tagout devices were not used for lockout and tagout purposes only:\\r\\n\\r\\na.  There were numerous red Master brand long shank lockout locks used on lockers in the mens locker room.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): \\r\\n\\r\\nThe employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirements of this standard are being followed.\\r\\n\\r\\na.  There had not been any periodic or at least annual inpsections of the energy control (lockout) procedures of the technicians performing clean-up and housekeeping tasks within robot cells (with records kept).

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): \\r\\n\\r\\nThe employer did not provide adequate training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program was understood by employees:  a. The temporary employee that entered the robot #7 cell to help clean up spilled and damaged soap was trained as an authorized employee.  b.  The technician that work inside the #6 and #7 robot cell was inadequately trained on the lockout procedures in that he allowed a non-trained and non-authorized temporary employee to rely on his lockout lock. c.  The technician that works inside the #3 robot cell was inadequately trained on the lockout procedures in that on or about July 29, 2011, he allowed a non-trained and non-authorized temporary employee to rely on his lockout lock. d. The team leader for C team was inadequately trained on lockout procedures in that on or about July 10, 2011, he loaned one of his lockout locks to a non-trained and non-authorized temporary employee who was helping him clean up in robot cells #1 through #5.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3): \\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nAll energy isolating devices that were needed to control the energy to the machine or equipment were not physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the machine or equipment from the energy source(s):\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n(a)   On or about August 23, 2011, all energy sources of the Robot #6 & 7 and the transfer cart were not physically located and operated before entry as only the safe entry interlock switch for #7 robot was operated to clean up around robot #7.

Issued

Sep 7, 2011

Abate by

Oct 7, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i): Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees:  \\r\\n(a)   On or about August 23, 2011, a temporary employee entered the robot cells for robot #6 and #7 and the transfer car area between the tow robots and did not lockout all energy sources.\\r\\n(b)  On or about August 23, 2011, a technician entered the robot cell for robot #7 and did not lockout the main power disconnect for robot #7 and all the energy sources for the equipment within the cells including the transfer car and robot #6 as he only locked the safe entry interlock switch.  In addition, the technician allowed the non-trained and non-authorized temporary employee rely on his lockout lock.