OSHA
[ Tutorial ]
[ Hot Topics ]
[ Case Studies ]
[ LOTO standard ]
[ LOTO preamble ]
[ Compliance directive ]
[ Selected case law ]
[ Selected letters of interpretation ]
Case Study 5: Sour Water Pipeline Repairs
Correct.
This employer failed to meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.147(c)(4)(ii). The work authorization permit was overly vague in that the energy
isolation points were not identified on the permit and the specific procedures outlined in
their generic hazardous energy control procedure were not implemented. The employer may
use a work authorization permit in conjunction with a generic hazardous energy control
procedure if the permit identifies the equipment to be serviced, the types and unique
energy characteristics to be encountered, specific energy isolation points, methods for
safe work, and the process or procedures to be used to accomplish the task.
For more information: Refer to the Dow
Chemical U.S.A. April 10, 1991 letter of interpretation for details.
<<Return to Case Study
Discussion | Question 3>>
|