OSHA Inspection: FRANKLIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Issued

Oct 4, 2017

Abate by

Oct 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $12,675 · Current $8,873 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): The procedures shall clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance as required by 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)[A]-[D]:  a. The employer's lockout/tagout procedure for Vessel 8, did not clearly identify all the specific steps to be followed by authorized employees to isolate, relieve residual energy, and disable all hazardous energy sources, such as air pressure, prior to and throughout performing service and maintenance activities. The procedure also lacked specific verification steps to determine the effectiveness of the energy control measures.

Issued

Oct 4, 2017

Abate by

Oct 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d): Application of control. The established procedures for the application of energy control (the lockout or tagout procedures) shall cover the following elements and actions and shall be done in the following sequence as required by 29 CFR 1910.147(d)(1) through (d)(6):  a. On or about July 31, 2017, the attempted unclogging of the Vessel 8 discharge line in the Polymer Plant resulted in a violent release of hazardous air pressure due to the lack of energy control procedures being utilized. The following control measure elements and actions were not sequentially performed in accordance with the established company procedure:    1. An orderly shutdown to avoid increased hazards, as required by 147(d)(2), was not performed because the employers lockout/tagout procedure was not utilized by employees performing the work.     2. All energy isolating devices that were needed to control the hazardous energy for the Vessel, as required by 147(d)(3)-147(d)(4), were not operated in such a manner as to isolate and control the hazardous energy sources.    3. The stored energy was not relieved or otherwise rendered safe following the application of lockout devices for the Vessels energy sources in accordance with 147(d)(5). Verification of isolation of air pressure was not continued throughout the covered maintenance activity to identify if a reaccumulation of energy had occurred, as required by 147(d)(5)(ii).    4. Prior to starting the work on the Vessel discharge piping, authorized employees did not verify, in accordance with 147(d)(6), that the isolation and de-energization of the energy sources had been accomplished.