OSHA’s inspection found several deficiencies in the plant’s process safety management program to identify, address and eliminate hazards associated with processes using, storing, manufacturing, handling or moving of large amounts of highly hazardous chemicals onsite. In this case, the hazardous chemical is the flammable liquid, vinyl acetate, which is used in large amounts at the company’s plant. Specifically, OSHA found 13 serious violations because the company: lacked complete information about process equipment; failed to determine and document that the equipment met good engineering practices; lacked written procedures to manage changes to the process; had incomplete or outdated process hazard analyses; did not resolve process hazard analysis recommendations in a timely manner; failed to promptly address and resolve findings from a 2012 incident report; did not conduct a compliance audit of the process every three years and did not document correction of deficiencies cited in an earlier compliance audit.
Here is a breakdown of the citations:
PLEASE NOTE: these citations are NOT the final settlement and some are BEFORE the employer’s informal conference. They are shared as a learning tool to show what types of issues OSHA and EPA are finding in their PSM/RMP inspections. I have scrubbed all company information from these postings as this is NOT about any one company, but rather a trend of issues that continue to be found by OSHA and EPA.
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,500
29 CFR 1910.106(d)(2)(iii): Flammable or combustible liquid containers were not in accordance with Table H-12: Building 27, Storage Room Next to
Reaction Room: On, or about, July 31, 2013, 2 one gallon glass containers were used to store an acetone based kill stop solution. Acetone is a Category 2 flammable liquid with a flashpoint of -4 degree F.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(B): Information concerning the technology of the process did not include process chemistry:
Building 27: On, or about, October 25, 2013, the company did not have documentation to demonstrate that the quantity and concentration of an inhibitor and/or kill stop solution provided at each reactor and on standby in portable containers would be effective to stop a runaway reaction in the polymerization process.
Citation 1 Item 3a
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B): The employer did not develop piping and instrument diagrams for the equipment that was part of the process:
Building 27: On, or about, October 25, 2013, the company did not have piping and instrument diagrams for the reactor vessel rupture disk relief piping system and underground catch tank.
Citation 1 Item 3b
Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): Information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include relief system design and design basis:
Building 27: On, or about, September 16, 2013, the company did not have information pertaining to the relief design and design basis for the following equipment:
A. Piping system leading from each rupture disk to the underground catch tank. B. The design and sizing of the catch tank.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $2,100
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(C): Information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include the electrical classification:
Building 27: On, or about, July 31, 2013, the Plot’Plan provided for the company for the covered process did not indicate the area around the reactor vessels that had been classified as a Class I, Division 2 location.
Citation 1 Item 5a
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,500
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(F): Information pertaining to the equipment and process did not include design codes and standards that were employed:
Building 27: On, or about, July 31, 2013, the company did not have, or have knowledge of, design codes and standards employed in the design and construction of the equipment used in the polymerization process such as, but not limited to, storage tanks, piping systems, valves, pressure vessels, pressure relieving equipment and containment systems, circulation equipment, measuring devices and gauges.
Citation 1 Item 5b
Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(iii): For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices no longer in general use, the employer did not determine and document that the equipment in the process was designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner:
Building 27: On, or about, July 31, 2013, a determination had not been made by the company to ensure that legacy equipment used in the polymerization process met recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Equipment in the process included piping systems, valves, pressure vessels, pressure relieving equipment and containment systems, circulation equipment, ventilation and measuring devices and gauges.
Citation 1 Item 6a
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:
Building 27: On, or about, October 25, 2013, the company could not document that underground effluent catch tank provided at the termination of the relief piping system met recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices such as, but not limited to, “Emergency Relief Systems Using DIERS Technology”. Specific guidelines include, but are not limited to, proving a high-level alarm, providing a manhole for entry and cleaning, providing a pump for transferring the accumulated liquid, providing an anti-vortex baffle and designing the catchtank for a minimum design pressure of 50 psig. (additional reference NFPA 69 Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems).
Citation 1 Item 6b
Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED
29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer did not establish or implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to facilities that affect a covered process:
Building 27: On, or about, October 25, 2013, the company could not document that a Management of Change had been conducted to address the installation of the underground effluent catch tank provided at the termination of the relief piping.
Citation 1 Item 7a
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process:
Building 27: On, or about, July 31, 2013, the company had not documented hazards related to the covered process that had been discussed and addressed in the Process Hazard Analysis for polymerization process. The Process Hazard Analysis did not address the.loss of process water, especially during the exothermic phase of the process, and did not address the inadvertent mixing of incompatible chemicals either in process equipment or while handling oxidation and reduction chemicals.
Citation 1 Item 7b
Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED
29 CFR 1910.119( e)(3)(vi): The process hazard analysis did not address human factors:
Building 27: On, or about, July 31, 2013, the company had not documented hazards related to the covered process had been discussed and addressed in the Process Hazard Analysis for polymerization process. The Process Hazard Analysis did not address human factors such as, but not limited to, the inadvertent mixing of chemicals and the lack of drills for the spill team.
Citation 1 Item 8
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer did not assure that PHA recommendations were resolved in a timely manner:
Building 27: On, or about, August 23, 2013, the company had not developed and implemented procedures to promptly address Process Hazard Analysis findings and recommendations. As of2013, findings included on the original PHA conducted in 1999 had not been documented as completed or in progress, including findings related to the mechanical integrity of the process equipment. The following PHA’s lacked follow-up documentation:
A. Unloading Monomer Tank.
B. Charging Vinyl Acetate from Storage Tank to Pre-Emulsion Tank.
C. Feeding Vinyl Acetate from Pre-Emulsion Tank to Reactor during Reaction Process.
D. Complete Manufacturing of a Homopolymer.
E. Use ofScrnbber System.
F. Complete Manufacturing Process of a Copolymer.
G. Pumping Monomers Directly to Reactor 3.
Citation 1 Item 9
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,500
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): The process hazard analysis was not updated and revalidated every five years:
Building 27: ‘On, or about, August 23, 2013, the company had not revalidated each Process Hazard Analysis every five years: A. Report 7a “Use of Scrubber System” was dated 2004. B. Report 20 “Pumping Monomer directly to Reactor 3” was dated 2005.
Citation 1 Item 10
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.l 19(j)(2): The employer did not establish or implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:
Building 27: On, or about, August 23, 2013, the company had not established and implemented a mechanical integrity program that ensured that equipment in the covered process was inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Procedures had not been developed for equipment such as, but not limited to, process tanks and pressure vessels, process piping, including valves, pressure relief and effluent containment systems, and ventilation systems.
Citation 1 Item 11
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5): The employer did not establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report findings and recommendations:
Building 27: On, or about, August 23, 2013, the company had not established a system to promptly address and resolve findings from an incident investigation following a process upset that occurred on March 7, 2012. In the Summary Report, the company listed a finding to make the process mistake proof and referred to the use of interlocks. The process equipment had not been modified and no action to modify the equipment had been documented.
Citation 1 Item 12
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,500
29 CPR 1910.119(0)(1): The employer did not certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years:
Building 27: On, or about, October 25, 2013, the company did not conduct and document that a compliance audit of the Process Safety Management Program was conducted at least every three years.
Citation 1 Item 13
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,900
29 CFR 1910.119(0)(4): The employer did not correct deficiencies identified during the compliance audit in a timely manner:
Building 27: On, or about, October 25, 2013, the company had not documented that each finding related to the Process Safety Program in the October, 2002 compliance audit had been addressed. The company stated that the majority of the items were “partially in progress”.
CLICK HERE to download the citations (pdf)