OSHA Inspection: ALUMINUM CASTING & ENGINEERING CO., INC.

Issued

Aug 19, 1992

Abate by

Aug 23, 1992

Penalty

Initial $35,000 · Current $25,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which
were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause
death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were
exposed to:
(a)  The employer did not establish and enforce a written program,
including training for affected managers, supervisors, and workers
involved with the maintenance and the operation of the three
pressure vessels (autoclaves) at the workplace.  The employer
operated the unlicensed and uninspected east autoclave used to
impregnate metal castings with sodium silicate for more than three
months when:
a).  The locking ring, used to rotate and clamp the locking lugs
on the vessel lid and on the vessel, did not fully close.
With an operating pressure of 65 psig, there was more than
58 tons of force against the forty-eight inch diameter vessel
lid.
b).  There were two operating modes for the autoclave.  The
control panel could be set using an "automatic" or "manual"
sequencer.  The employer took no action to use a combination
of locks, operator training, and administrative order to
designate the allowed operating mode for supervisors, main-
tenance workers, and engineers with detailed knowledge of the
features of the machine and the hazards of errored operation.
c).  The "automatic" operating system for the autoclave operation
system properly had the safe closure switch on the lid wired
in series.   Because the locking ring did not fully close
and set the lid safety switch, operators who used the "auto-
matic" mode had to manually trip the safety switch.  The
"manual" operating system, that was also available defeated
the safe closure switch on the atuoclave lid.  Workers were
given no instructions on which mode to use.  For an extended
period of time, operating the autoclave could only be done by
defeating the lid safety switch.
d).  The build-up of sodium silicate on the lugs of the lid and
the vessel was not monitored, and the accumulation pro-
gressively made full closure of the locking ring more dif-
ficult.
e).  Workers were routinely required to hammer, by using an
aluminum mallet on the lid and locking ring, to cause the
locking ring to open and the lid to lift at the end of the
silicate impregnation cycle.
f).  The employer did not provide the operators with training and
clear written instructions that described what was normal or
abnormal operation of the autoclave and the operator's
authority to operate the machine under those situations.
g).  On Saturday, March 14, 1992, a written repair order with the
highest priority was issued.  The repair order indicated that
the locking ring on the east autoclave would not close.  The
employer did not take action to lock out the controls and
supplying air (gas) pressure to the autoclave.  The employer
did not issue specific and immediate "do no use" instructions
to the operators.  An explosive release of the autoclave lid
occurred on the morning of Monday, March 16, 1992, with
extreme worker injury.

Issued

Aug 19, 1992

Abate by

Aug 23, 1992

Penalty

Initial $5,000

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
%%
employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which
were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause
death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were
exposed to:
(a)  The hazards of bursting or failing components caused by an un-
approved pressure vessel (known as the east impregnator) on March
16, 1992.  The pressure vessel did not meet the requirements of
ASME (Amerian Society of Mechanical Engineers) Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code Section VIII Rules for Construction of Pressure
Vessels, Division 1 and State of Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations Chapters IHLR 41
and 42 Boiler and Pressure Vessels.
For Example:
A)  ASME Section VIII Division 1 UG-125(A) Pressure Relief Devices:
All Pressure vessels within the scope of this Division, irrespec-
tive of size or pressure shall be provided with protective devices
in accordance with the requirements of U.G.-125 through U.G.-136
and
B)  Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter ILHR 41.94 Pressure relief
devices required for unfired pressure vessels:
1)  Every unfired pressure vessel shall be provided with or pro-
tected by a pressure relief device set to relieve at or below
the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel.
(b)  The hazards of bursting or failing components caused by an un-
approved pressure vessel (known as the east impregnator) on March
16, 1992.  The pressure vessel did not meet the requirements of
AMSE (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) Boiler and Pres-
sure Vessel Code Section VIII Rules for Construction of Pressure
Vessels, Divison 1 and State of Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations Chapters IHLR 41
and 42 Boiler and Pressure Vessels.
For Example:
A)  Wisconsin Administrative Code Boiler and Pressure Vessels.  Sub
Chapter V Secondhand Vessels ILHR 42.45 Inspection and Testing of
Secondhand Vessels.
1)  Every secondhand vessel shall be inspected and given a hydro-
static pressure test at one and one-half times the maximum
allowable working pressure at its new point of installation
location before it is placed in operation.
(c)  The hazards of bursting or failing components caused by an un-
approved pressure vessel (known as the east impregnator) on March
16, 1992.  The pressure vessel did not meet the requirements of
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) Boiler and Pres-
sure Vessel Code Section VIII Rules for Construction of Pressure
Vessels, Division 1 and State of Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations Chapters IHLR 41
and 42 Boiler and Pressure Vessels.
For Example:
A)  Wisconsin Administrative Code Boiler and Pressure Vessels.
IHLR 41.37 Maintenance:
2)  Safe conditions.  The inspector shall note conditions during
internal inspection, external inspection, or hydrostatic
pressure test and shall order changes or repairs which will
place the boiler or pressure vessel in a safe working con-
dition.
Among other feasiable methods of acceptable methods to correct these
hazards is to provide pressure relief valve at or below 100 PSI working
pressure, hydrostatic test vessel, and assure that locking ring and
worn locking lugs are maintained and/or repaired with periodic testing
of safety limit switches.