OSHA Inspection: 3M COMPANY

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.137(c)(2)(viii): Electrical protective equipment was not subjected to periodic electrical tests. Test voltages and/or the maximum intervals between tests were not conducted in accordance with Table I-4 and Table I-5.           (a)  3M Company, 1301 Lowell Street, Elyria, Ohio:  On or about February 13, 2016, the employer did not ensure that electrical protective gloves used by employees operating the CML #1 and CML #2 production processes were tested every 6 months after issue and after use without protectors.  Electrical protective gloves were used by employees for several years without being tested and without protectors.  Employees were are at risk of electrical shock from using gloves with compromised insulating properties.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Abate by

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(iii):  The insulating capability of protective equipment was subject to damage during use and the insulating material was not protected:         (a)  3M Company, 1301 Lowell Street, Elyria, Ohio:  On or about February 13, 2016, the employer did not ensure that employees operating the CML #1 and CML#2 production processes used protective equipment over the electrical protective gloves while working on or near the production equipment.  There were numerous sharp corners and edges on the production lines which increased the risk of the insulating gloves becoming damaged.  Employees using damaged electrical gloves would be at risk of electrical shock from the exposed energized conductors.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Abate by

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $7,000

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)  3M Company, 1301 Lowell Street, Elyria, Ohio:  On or about February 13, 2016, the employer did not ensure that employees operating the CML #1 and CML #2 production equipment followed safe related work practices.  Employees operating the CML #1 and CML #2 processes equipment routinely approached within 6 inches of exposed, energized conductors and were not protected from electrical shock.

Issued

Jul 20, 2016

Abate by

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(2)(ii): Protective shields, protective barriers, or insulating materials were not used to protect each employee from shock, burns, or other electrically related injuries while that employee was working near exposed energized parts which might accidentally contacted:         (a)  3M Company, 1301 Lowell Street, Elyria, Ohio:  On or about February 13, 2016, the employer did not ensure that employees operating the CML #1 and CML#2 production processes were protected from coming into contact with the exposed, energized electrical wires, terminals, and electrodes on the CML #1 and CML#2 production lines.  Employees routinely worked near the energized parts in the cook zones of the lines and were at risk of electric shock.