OSHA Inspection: R. S. HANLINE AND CO., INC.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $4,500

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to burn injuries.    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 8, 2015, the employer did not ensure that a maintenance worker who performed electrical tests to troubleshoot and verify absence of energy was provided with and used arc rated hair and beard nets.  Prior to replacing a 240 volt power cord, a maintenance worker was exposed to burn injury while verifying the absence of energy in that synthetic hair and beard nets were required to be worn during the electrical tests.     b. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 13, 2015, the employer did not ensure that a maintenance worker(s) who performed electrical test to troubleshoot electrical equipment was provided with and used arc rated hair and beard nets.  A maintenance worker was exposed to burn injury while troubleshooting loss of power in a 480 volt electrical panel located in the Cooler 15 compressor room in that a synthetic hair net was required to be worn during the electrical tests.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

May 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i): Employees working in areas where there were potential electrical hazards were not provided with electrical protective equipment that was appropriate for the specific parts of the body that needed to be protected and for the work being performed:    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 8, 2015, the employer did not ensure that employees who perform electrical tests to troubleshoot and verify absence of energy were provided with and used personal protective equipment to protect against electrical hazards.  An employee replacing a 240 volt power cord in the celery/carrot room was exposed to electrical shock and arc flash hazards in that flame resistant clothing, hard hat, and arc rated face shield were not worn during the electrical tests.    b. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 13, 2015, the employer did not ensure that maintenance workers who troubleshoot electrical equipment were provided with and used personal protective equipment to protect against electrical hazards.  An employee using a multi-meter to troubleshoot loss of power at an electrical panel in the cooler 15 compressor room was exposed to electrical shock and arc flash hazards in that flame resistant clothing, arc rated gloves, hard hat, and arc rated face shield were not worn while troubleshooting live electrical equipment.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $4,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:  a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, the employer did not develop and utilize energy control procedures for authorized employees who clean, unjam, and service the corn machine.  Employees were exposed to injury in that energy control was utilized for servicing and maintenance tasks.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d): The established procedure for the application of energy control (the lockout or tagout procedures) did not cover the actions listed in and was not done in sequence as required by 29 CFR 1910.147(d)(1)-(6):  a. R S Hanline & Co, Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, employees were exposed to amputation and pinch point hazards in that the corn machine was not locked out prior to maintaining and servicing the machine.  Prior to accessing hazard areas of the machine for cleaning and servicing activities such as, but not limited to, repairing the conveyor/carrier, the employer did not implement energy control application steps as required by paragraph (d) of this section, the employer did not:     -  Ensure employees had the method or means to control hazardous energy. -  Physically operate energy isolating devices to control energy sources and affix lockout device(s). -  Ensure that all potentially hazardous stored or residual energy was relieved, disconnected, and rendered safe. -  Verify that isolation and deenergiziation of the machine or equipment had been accomplished.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $6,300

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 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 point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    a. R S Hanline & Co. Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, employees operating/loading stock onto the corn machine were exposed to pinch points created by the machine's conveyor.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Mar 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):      a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 18, 2015, the employer did not ensure that Shanklin machine, used to wrap and seal plastic around cabbage, was adequately guarded to protect employees from burns and pinch point hazards.  An operator could inadvertently access the hazard area when the machine's sealer arm lowered to the stop bar.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(2)(i): All exposed part(s) of horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform were not protected by stationary casing(s) enclosing shafting completely or by trough(s) enclosing sides and top or sides and bottom of shafting:    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, employees were exposed to injuries associated with rotating parts in that a horizontal shaft located at the corn machine's second blade, which cuts the top from corn cobs, was not guarded with a stationary guard.      b. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, employees were exposed to injuries associated with rotating parts in that a horizontal shaft located on a rotating blue drum between the corn machine's first and second blade, was not guarded with a stationary guard.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(4)(i): Unguarded projecting shaft end(s) did not present a smooth edge and end and projected more than one half the diameter of the shaft:    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, a projecting shaft end located at the corn machine's second blade, which cuts the top from corn cobs, was not guarded.  The rotating part projected approximately two inches and was approximately one inch in diameter, exposing employees to a caught-by hazard.     b. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, a projecting shaft end located at the end of the corn machine's conveyor was not guarded.  The rotating part included a keyway and projected approximately one inch and was approximately one inch in diameter, exposing employees to a caught-by hazard.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven (7) feet or less above floors or platforms were not enclosed:    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, the employer did not ensure that the sprocket located at the start of the corn machine and used to move the machine's conveyor was guarded to protect employees from being injured by the moving parts.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Jul 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $4,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.332(b)(1): Employees were not trained in and familiar with the safety-related work practices required by 1910.331 through 1910.335 that pertained to their respective job assignments:    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 8, 2015, the employer did not ensure that maintenance workers who performed work on or near energized parts were trained in electrical safety-related work practices.  Employees were exposed to electrical-related injuries in that safe work practices were not employed during repair and troubleshooting activities.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Jul 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(a): Safety-related work practices were not employed to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts, when work was performed near or on equipment or circuits which were or could be energized:    a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 8, 2015, the employer did not develop and implement electrical safety related work practices which cover maintenance workers exposed to live electrical conductors while performing electrical work.  Employees were exposed to electrical-related injuries in that safe work practices were not employed during repair and troubleshooting activities.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done:  a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - Shelby, OH: On or about December 15, 2015, the employer did not provide a written certification that identifies a workplace hazard assessment was performed.  An assessment that identified the areas assessed, the date of the assessment, and the person performing the assessment was not documented.

Issued

Mar 11, 2016

Abate by

Apr 5, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(D): Lockout devices and tagout devices did not indicate the identity of the employee applying the device(s):  a. R S Hanline & Co., Inc. - On or about December 12, 2015, the employer did not ensure that lockout devices were marked to identify the employee applying the lock.  A lock without identifying information was used to lockout the #11 and #12 potato wrapper machines during cleaning.