Have We Learned Anything About Safety In The Last Fifty Plus Years?

In September/October, I wrote about the top 10 OSHA Frequently Cited Standards. Failure to follow proper lockout & tagout procedures and training, and lack of machine safeguarding, always make the list. Here is a good example of a recent case. I left out the name of the employer, but OSHA has all of the information on their website, which is published weekly. This accident happened in 2020 but was finally settled in 2022, with the employer receiving a reduced fine of $36,450.00.

OSHA Case Example – Thermoforming Machine Injury

The OSHA report stated, “At 2:30 p.m. on July 22, 2020, an employee working for a plastic packaging manufacturer was operating a thermoforming machine. The employee was cleaning out debris on the Thermoforming Machine #3 while the machine was in operation. The employee failed to perform the proper lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedures and reached into the operating stacker, and his arm was crushed.

At 8:00 a.m. on July 22, 2020, DOSH was notified of the incident in compliance with 342(a) and arrived on site on September 14, 2020. The employee sustained a fractured forearm and was treated at Riverside Medical Center, but was not hospitalized.”

Fatal Thermoforming Accident – Internet Report

In another accident that was found on the internet, this article stated, “The U.S. Department of Labor finds Ohio plant allegedly failed to use machine safety procedures, leading to fatal injuries to the production manager.

As a production manager attempted to clear plastic parts stuck in a thermoforming machine, he became trapped when the machine’s conveyor cycled automatically and was fatally crushed at a Cambridge plastics plant.”

A federal workplace safety investigation of the Nov. 17, 2021, incident by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that if ------- Industries Inc. – operating as ------- Plastics Corp./------- – had remedied failures that allegedly contributed to the incident, the company could have prevented the tragedy.

Specifically, the investigation determined that the company allegedly continued to perform service and maintenance tasks after identifying that the machine components continued to move after opening an interlocked machine enclosure door. The company also allegedly failed to ensure its energy control procedures included the steps needed to shut down and de-energize the machine.

OSHA also found Encore Industries allegedly failed to audit machine safety procedures periodically for effectiveness and to train employees on their use.

Compounding the tragedy, investigators learned that two similar incidents occurred on the same machine – one on the day of the fatal incident and another two days prior – adding to the tragic nature of the investigation. In the two prior incidents, workers barely escaped injury.

“Our investigation found that -------- Industries removed jams and performed other service and maintenance tasks with the knowledge that its inadequate and failing lockout tagout procedures exposed its workers to the risks associated with moving machine parts,” said OSHA Area Director Larry M. Johnson in Columbus. “The company ignored reports of malfunctioning equipment and near misses. By doing so, -------- Industries failed to prevent this tragedy and the avoidable loss of a family member and co-worker.”

Additional OSHA Findings

During its investigation at -------, OSHA opened a second investigation after a complaint alleged safety hazards in its warehouse. There, investigators found the company had allegedly failed to train workers on safe operation of forklifts and did not keep passageways and emergency exits clear or adequately marked, as the law requires.

In total, the investigations led OSHA to issue citations for one willful, one repeat, five serious, and two other safety violations to --------- Industries. In 2020, OSHA issued citations to --------- Industries for violating lockout/tag out standards twice at this facility. The company faces $291,086 in proposed OSHA penalties for the violations.

-------- Industries is a subsidiary of -----, a global packaging provider for food, consumer, agricultural, logistics, and environmental end-markets. The company manufactures products at 20 facilities located in Canada, the U.S., Ireland, the U.K., and China, and operates three research and development facilities in Canada and the U.S. Its Cambridge facility manufactures plastic buckets, lids, and paint trays.

OSHA’s machine guarding and control of hazardous energy webpages provide information on what employers must do to limit worker exposure to machine hazards.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, I have written safety solutions for machine guarding, how to conduct proper lockout & tagout procedures, how to conduct periodic lockout & tagout audits, and where to find free thermoforming training materials on the OSHA e-tools website.

Do I think we have changed in the last fifty years? My answer is still a big no. I will still make our readers the offer of coming to your place of employment and conduct a mock OSHA inspection for a reasonable cost, and tell you how your program fares against the safety standards.

These people did not have to get injured or be killed if they just followed the proper procedures. If you have any questions, you can e-mail me at johnpodojil@msn.com.