OSHA Inspection: TITANIUM METALS CORP OF AMERICA

Issued

Apr 26, 2012

Abate by

May 9, 2012

Penalty

Initial $63,000

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $63,000

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $63,000

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $63,000

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

General-duty citation text

Nevada Revised Statute 618.375(1):  Every employer shall furnish
employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are
likely to cause death
or serious physical harm to his or her employees:
a.The employer failed to furnish employment and a place which was free from
recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious
physical harm to his or her employees, as follows:
1.The employer failed to analyze each task performed in an electrolytic
cell
line working zone for the risk of arc flash hazard injury. Employees
frequently removed electrolytic cells from the direct current buss system
by disconnecting a flexible buss that is bolted in four places to the main
direct current buss system. The employer's lockout procedure utilized
control circuitry that did not isolate the hazardous electrical energy but
held the energy at zero amps by control circuits. The procedure instructed
magnesium recovery operators to leave the control circuit in
semiautomatic mode, instead of utilizing available energy isolating
devices, such as circuit breakers and disconnect switches.
2.The employer failed to provide appropriate personal protective equipment
to prevent injury from an arc flash hazard associated with working on
equipment that had not been isolated by energy isolating devices. The
direct current buss system had not been properly deenergized and
unexpectedly energized while employees were removing the bolts that
connected electrolytic cell 2-3 to the direct current buss system by way of
a flexible buss connector. The employees were severely burned when the
8.1 cal/cm2 fire rated (FR) coveralls they had been provided either melted
or caught fire during an arc flash. The employees received second and
third degree burns from the arc flash.
References:
National Fire Protection Association 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in
the Workplace
(2009 Edition):
Page 70E-46, paragraph 310.5(C)(1) Arc Flash Hazard Analysis Procedure
"Each task
performed in the electrolytic cell line working zone shall be analyzed for
the risk of arc flash
hazard injury. If there is risk of personal injury, appropriate measures
shall be taken to protect
persons exposed to the arc flash hazards. These measures shall include one
or more of the
following: (1) Provide appropriate personal protective equipment [see
310.5(D)(2)] to prevent
injury from the arc flash hazard. (2) Alter work procedures to eliminate
the possibility of the
arc flash hazard. (3) Schedule the task so that work can be performed when
the cell line is
deenergized"
One feasible and acceptable abatement method would be to determine the
incident energy at the
electrolytic cell shunts while the equipment is energized and also ensure
that electrolytic cell
shunt removal work is done only after the equipment has been deenergized
with energy isolating
devices and properly locked out. Also ensure that the employees verify
that the equipment is
deenergized and cannot unexpectedly reenergize.

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,500

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300

Issued

Mar 2, 2012

Abate by

Mar 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,500