OSHA Inspection: BALL CORPORATION

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): Procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance including, but not limited to, 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(A), (c)(4)(ii)(B), (c)(4)(ii)(C) and (c)(4)(ii)(D):     On or about March 20, 2014, and at times prior thereto, at the facility, the employer generic procedures for Lockout / Tagout did not have detailed procedures, one which clearly and specifically outlines the steps to be followed for every machine or piece of equipment which must be de-energized to effectively isolate hazardous energy before beginning the servicing and / or maintenance activity, and means to enforce compliance. While troubleshooting Press #4, Employee #1, located on the east side of machine signaled for Employee #2 to start up the Press. Upon start-up, Employee #1 placed his hand in the die area to clear a jam and suffered severe amputation of his fingers. This practice of using a generic Lockout / Tagout procedure for all machines / equipment's may lead to confusion and error with respect to a particular machine / equipment that has been modified or that is manufactured differently, exposing employees to hazards of electric shock and / or burns and amputations.

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed:       On or about March 20, 2014, at the facility, the employer did not provide written documentation to indicate that the energy control program procedures were inspected at least annually, to ensure that the procedures and the requirements of this standard were being followed.     Instance a:  The periodic inspection shall be performed by an authorized employee other than the ones(s) utilizing the energy control procedure being inspected.     Instance b:  The periodic inspection shall be conducted to correct any deviations or inadequacies identified.     Instance c:  Where lockout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall include a review, between the inspector and each authorized employee, of that employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected.     Instance d:  Where tagout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall include a review, between the inspector and each authorized and affected employee, of that employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected, and the elements set forth in paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section.

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(f)(1)(ii): When lockout or tagout devices temporarily were removed from the energy isolating device and the machine or equipment was energized to test or position the machine, the employees were not removed from the machine or equipment area in accordance to the paragraph (e)(2):     On or about March 20, 2014 and at times prior thereto, in the End Department, employees were exposed to amputation hazards while operating/troubleshooting mechanical power press #4. While troubleshooting Press #4, Employee #1 located on the east side of mechanical press signaled for employee #2 to start up the press. Upon start-up, employee #1 placed his hand in the die area to clear a jam and suffered severe amputation of his fingers.

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(e)(2)(i): Before lockout or tagout devices were removed and energy was restored to the machine or equipment, authorized employees did not ensure that all employees had been safely positioned or removed from the work area:    On or about March 20, 2014 and at times prior thereto, at the End Department, employees were exposed to amputation hazards while operating/troubleshooting mechanical power press #4.  While troubleshooting Press #4, Employee #1 located on the east side of mechanical press signaled for employee #2 to start up the press. Upon start-up, employee #1 placed his hand in the die area to clear a jam and suffered severe amputation of his fingers.

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,930 · Current $6,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.217(d)(1)(ii): Hand tool(s) were not used for freeing and removing stuck work or scrap pieces from the die(s) of mechanical power press(es) so that no employee needed to reach into the point of operation for such purposes:    On or about March 20, 2014 and at times prior thereto, in the East Department, employees were exposed to amputation hazards while troubleshooting mechanical power press #4.  While troubleshooting Press #4, Employee #1 located on the east side of mechanical press signaled for employee #2 to start up the press. Upon start-up, employee #1 placed his hand in the die area to clear a jam and suffered severe amputation of his fingers.

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

May 30, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(iv): The certification of employee training by the employer did not contain each employee name and date of training:  On April 17, 2014, upon request by compliance officer the employer did not provide documentation of employee training that contained each employee name and date of training.

Issued

May 28, 2014

Abate by

Jun 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):   The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:   On or about March 20, 2014, at the facility, the written hazard communication program submitted and developed by the employer, did not include employee training on the new labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) elements. Employees manufacture canning for paints, aerosols, etc., which potentially exposes them to inhalation and dermal hazards.