Quebecor World - Salem Division, and its successors

Plain-English summary

Quebecor World ran a commercial printing plant in Salem, Illinois. After an inspection of its bindery, OSHA issued three serious lockout/tagout citations tied to the Spiral Grip 8150 Strapper/Wrapper machine, faulting the company for not providing lockout hardware, not training operators in energy control, and not having operators isolate energy before entering the machine's danger zone. The company argued the wrapper could not be unexpectedly energized while an operator was inside its cage, because a second person would have to close the gate, restart the multi-step sequence, and trigger an audible alarm first. The judge agreed the startup could never be "unexpected" and also found that changing film rolls and rethreading wrap were minor, routine servicing protected by multiple photoelectric eyes, which falls under the standard's minor-servicing exception. Because the lockout/tagout standard did not apply, all three citations were vacated and no penalty was imposed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(5)(i), (c)(7)(i), and (d)(3)
• Outcome: Citation 1, items 1, 2, and 3 all vacated; no penalty.
• Key point: The lockout/tagout standard did not apply because the machine could not start up unexpectedly and the routine film changes qualified as minor servicing with effective alternative protection.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                                                        United States of America
              OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                                                     1244 Speer Boulevard, Room 250
                                                      Denver, Colorado 80204-3582

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,

                                v.                                    OSHRC DOCKET NO. 01-0031

QUEBECOR WORLD - SALEM DIVISION,
and its successors

                          Respondent,

LOCAL 554-M, Graphic Communications
International Union,

                     Authorized Employee Representative.

APPEARANCES:

      For the Complainant:
               Helen Schuitmaker, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, Illinois

      For the Respondent:
               Brent I. Clark, Esq., Seyfarth and Shaw, Chicago, Illinois

Before: Administrative Law Judge: James H. Barkley

                                                   DECISION AND ORDER

      This proceeding arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.

Section 651 et seq.; hereafter called the "Act").
Respondent, Quebecor World - Salem Division, and its successors (Quebecor), at all times
relevant to this action maintained a place of business at 3935 Selmaville Road, Salem, Illinois, where it
was engaged in commercial printing and related activities. Respondent admits it is an employer
engaged in a business affecting commerce and is subject to the requirements of the Act.
Between June 5 and October 5, 2000, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) conducted an inspection of Quebecor's Salem plant. As a result of that inspection, Quebecor
was issued citations alleging violations of the lockout/tagout standards at §1910.147 et seq. of the Act,
together with proposed penalties. By filing a timely notice of contest Quebecor brought this
proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission).
On June 5, 2001, a hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri. The time allotted for submission of
briefs has elapsed. Respondent has submitted its brief. Counsel for the Secretary has not submitted a
brief; however, as this judge does not believe briefs are necessary in this case, this matter is ready for
disposition.
Alleged Violations
Serious citation 1, item 1 alleges:

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(i): Locks, tags, chains, wedges, key blocks, adapter pins, self-locking fasteners,
or other hardware were not provided by the employer for isolating, securing, or blocking of machines
or equipment from energy sources:

    At the Bindery Department, the employer failed to provide suitable lockout/tagout hardware for
    operators of the Spiral Grip 8150 Strapper/Wrapper Machine.

    Serious citation 1, item 2 alleges:

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide adequate training to ensure that employees
required (sic) the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage and removal of energy
control devices:

    At the Bindery Department, the employer failed to provide operators of the Spiral Grip 8150
    Strapper/Wrapper Machine with adequate training in lockout/tagout. These operators are not
    knowledgeable of the methods and means necessary for the energy isolation and control for this
    machine.

    Serious citation 1, item 3 alleges:

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3): All energy isolating devices that were needed to control the energy to the
machine or equipment was not physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the
machine or equipment from the energy source:

    At the Bindery Department, operators required to clear unexpected jams or to replace
    plastic-wrap belonging to the Spiral Grip 8150 Strapper/Wrapper were not locating and
    disconnecting electrical and pneumatic energy sources prior to by-passing barrier guards and
    entering the danger zone of the machine.

Facts
The 8150 Strapper/Wrapper machine which is the subject of this citation is designed to place
plastic strips around a pallet of magazine paper. The pallet is subsequently moved, via a conveyor belt,
into the wrapper cage (Tr. 12, 18, 22; Exh. C-1). The wrapper portion of the machine consists of an
overhead arm, which locks the pallet of paper into place, and a robotic arm that holds a roll of plastic
film wrap (Tr. 18, 22, 166). When photoelectric cells in the wrapper cage detect a pallet in position,
the arms engage; the wrapper arm rotates around the pallet, encasing the magazine paper in plastic
wrap for shipping.

   During the regular operation of the machine, its operator must routinely enter the cage to insert

a new roll of plastic wrap [three or four times per 8 hour shift], or to re-thread the wrapper arm after the
wrap has broken up to 20 times per shift. Before entering the cage, the operator first
moves a toggle switch on the control panel to switch the wrapper from auto to manual mode (Tr. 105).
The wrapper assembly returns to its "home position" in front of the cage's gate (Tr. 122). Indicator
lights on the control panel denote the machine's mode, and the operator hears the release of the
pneumatics on the wrapper head assembly (Tr. 105, 154-55). The operator then presses the start/pause
button, which drops the power to the arm's 1 horsepower drive motor (Tr. 155-56). In the manual
mode, power continues to flow to a fractional horsepower motor that is used to drive the rollers in the
arm assembly; the rollers can be operated independently by using a "jog" button on the wrapper head
(Tr. 109, 156; R-11).
After pausing the wrapper, the operator goes to the gate and raises a pin which holds the gate in
place. The gate swings out, breaking contact between a reflector on the gate and a photoelectric eye
placed on the opposing side of the cage (Tr. 157-58). The wrapper will not operate if the photoelectric
eye cannot "see" itself in the reflector (Tr. 114, 157-59). The operator changes the wrapper roll, if
necessary. After changing the roll, or in the event of a break, the operator pulls out three or four feet of
plastic (Tr. 108). The operator rolls the plastic film into a tail, feeds it into the wrapper head assembly
and presses the jog button to advance the wrap through the rollers (Tr. 108-11). The operator exits the
cage, locks the gate to align the photoelectric interlock, and returns the toggle switch to the automatic
mode (Tr. 118). After he hears the pneumatics re-engage, the operator presses the start button (Tr. 118-
19). An audible alarm sounds, and the wrapper arm engages, slowly gaining speed (Tr. 120, 141).
Kevin Clark, a wrapper operator for Quebecor (Tr. 101-03), testified that the gate cannot be
closed while the operator is changing a roll, as the operator must stand in the doorway of the cage (Tr.
123-24, 126). The operator does step approximately four feet into the cage to feed the wrap through
the rollers; however, it takes less than a minute to re-load the film (Tr. 123-24). Clark testified that
there is no way for the gate, which is six to seven feet tall and six to seven feet wide, to swing shut
accidentally while the operator is in the cage (Tr. 126). The gate must be lifted, moved, and placed
back into the closed position (Tr. 126).
Paul McDaniels, Quebecor's director of engineering (Tr. 149), testified that it is standard
practice to change the film roll between pallets (Tr. 173). If photoelectric eyes in the cage do not detect
a pallet in place, the wrapper arm will not engage (Tr. 121). Moreover, there is a U shaped PVC
bumper on the front of the wrapper arm intended to detect obstructions in the cage. Should the bumper
come in contact with an employee in the cage, it would be deflected, breaking the beam between a
photoelectric eye mounted inside the bumper, the "downright eye," and shutting the wrapper down (Tr.
143, 164-67; Exh. R-11). Finally, if any of the photoelectric eyes should fail, the wrapper will not
work (Tr. 162).
Discussion
The lockout/tagout standard at §1910.147 et seq. provides:
(a) Scope, application and purpose–(1) Scope. (i) This standard covers the servicing and
maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start
up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to
employees.. . .
***
(2) Application. (i) This standard applies to the control of energy during servicing and
/or maintenance of machines and equipment.
(ii) Normal production operations are not covered by this standard (See subpart O of
this part). Servicing and/or maintenance which takes place during normal production
operations is covered by this standard only if;:
(A) An employee is required to remove or bypass a guard or other safety device;. . .

   Complainant maintains that an operator must bypass the interlock on the wrapper cage to

change the roll of plastic or to rethread broken wrap. According to Complainant's Compliance Officer
(CO), Leland Darrow, once in the cage, the operator is in danger of being struck by the rotating arm of
the wrapper (Tr. 25-26). Quebecor argues that, given the configuration of the wrapper cage, and the
proximity and complexity of its controls, there is no possibility of the wrapper being unexpectedly
energized while the operator is in the cage. CO Darrow admitted that in order for the wrapper to
become reenergized, the gate to the wrapper cage would have to be closed, and an employee other than
the operator would have to deliberately restart the machine (Tr. 33, 170). Darrow further admitted that
this scenario was "far fetched" (Tr. 76).
The record amply demonstrates that there could be no unexpected activation of the wrapper
mechanism while the operator is inside the wrapper cage changing a roll or rethreading wrap. The
evidence establishes that the wrapper could only be reactivated by a second employee deliberately
taking the machine out of its "manual" mode and restarting it. No one could complete the multi-step
start up procedure, without closing the cage's gate, located only a few feet from the operator servicing
the wrapper. The closing of the gate, the start of the pneumatics, and the audible alarm would, of
necessity, alert the operator to the wrapper's impending start-up. Because the operator would
inevitably become aware of this activity, the machine's startup would not be unexpected. See, General
Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Division, 17 BNA OSHC 1217, 1995 CCH OSHD ¶30,793 (Nos. 91-
2973, 91-3116 & 91-3117, 1995).
In addition, Quebecor asserts that replacing rolls of plastic wrap, and addressing wrap breaks,
fall under an exception to ¶(a)(2)(ii) for minor servicing, and are not subject to the lockout/tagout
standard. The cited exception states:
NOTE: Exception to paragraph (a)(2)(ii): Minor tool changes and adjustments, and other minor
servicing activities, which take place during normal production operations, are not covered by
this standard if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of the equipment for
production, provided that the work is performed using alternative measures which provide
effective protection (See subpart O of this part).

     The Commission has held that, in order to show that an operation falls within the exception to

¶(a)(2)(ii), the employer must demonstrate that the disputed adjustments are minor, that they take place
during normal production operations, and that effective alternative protection is provided during the
operation. Westvaco Corporation, 16 BNA OSHC 1374, 1993 CCH OSHD ¶30,201 (No. 90-1341,
1993).
The record shows that changing rolls of film wrap, and rethreading film into the wrapper rollers
are routine adjustments, which the wrapper operator must perform during normal production to ensure
the proper operation of the machine. Such adjustments involve no tools, and take up only moments of
the operator's time. They clearly constitute "minor" servicing. The evidence also establishes that the
multiple photo-electric eyes in the wrapper cage provide effective alternative protection by detecting
the presence of the operator in the cage, and preventing the start up of the wrapper.
Quebecor has established not only that the lockout/tagout provisions of §1910.147 et seq. are
inapplicable here, but that, even if regulated under the lockout/tagout standard, the cited operations fall
under the exception to ¶(a)(2)(ii). The citation in this matter will be vacated.
ORDER

1. Citation 1, items 1, 2 and 3, alleging violation of §1910.147 et seq. are VACATED.

                                                        /s/
                                                      James H. Barkley
                                                      Judge, OSHRC
   

Dated: August 1, 2001