A contractor lost consciousness from ammonia exposure at an ice cream plant leading OSHA to propose more than $200,000 in fines against the company and the contractor.
Here is a breakdown of the citations to the facility and the contractor…
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B): The employer did not include all equipment that was part of the process on piping and instrument diagrams:
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not include all equipment utilized in the +28 re-circulator process in the piping and instrument diagram(s), including but not limited to pressure relief valves and globe valves.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(ii): The host employer did not inform contract employers of potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to working on or adjacent to a covered process:
Instance a) On or about February 8th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the host employer did not inform BridgePoint Electric, Inc. on the potential hazards of toxic release when working adjacent to a covered process.
Instance b) On or about February 8th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the host employer did not inform Kebodeaux Brothers on the potential hazards of toxic release when working adjacent to a covered process.
Instance c) On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the host employer did not inform American Thermal Systems, Inc. on the potential hazards of toxic release when working adjacent to a covered process.
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(n): The employer did not implement an emergency plan for the entire plant in accordance with the provisions of29 CFR 1910.38:
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not implement a safety and health program for responding to an ammonia release.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.120(g)(3)(iii): Positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus or positive-pressure airline respirators equipped with an escape air supply were not used when the chemical exposure levels present created a substantial possibility of immediate death, immediate serious illness, or injury, or impair the ability to escape:
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not ensure employees responding to an ammonia leak exceeding IDLH conditions wore a Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA).
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): The employer failed to complete and compile information pertaining to the equipment in the process and did not include relief system design and design basis:
On or about March 2, 2021, the employer failed to ensure PSI pertaining to the ammonia refrigeration system included the relief system design and design basis to include, but is not limited to the following:
a. Relief system design and design basis for the ammonia refrigeration system,
b. 2 PRVs for -28 Re-circulator 526
c. 2 PRVs for +28 Re-circulator 529
d. 2 PRVs for High Pressure Receiver 507
e. 2 PRV for High Stage Compressor 543
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Instance a) On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not document that equipment complied with its chosen recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice (RAGAGEP), such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 (International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration) section 6.6.2, when pipes penetrating the machinery room separation were not sealed to the wall to which they penetrated.
Instance b) On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not document that equipment complied with its chosen recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice, such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 section 6.10.2, when the southwest door of the machinery room was not constructed with a self-closing mechanism and was not constructed to open in the direction of egress for occupants leaving the machinery room.
Instance c) On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not document that equipment complied with its chosen recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice, such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 section 6.12.1, when the emergency stop switch for mechanical equipment in the refrigerating machinery room was not installed adjacent to the machine1y room door and the function of the switch was not clearly marked by signage.
Instance d) On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not document that equipment complied with its chose!’ recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice, such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 section 6.12.2, when an emergency ventilation control switch for mechanical equipment in the refrigerating machinery room was not installed outside and adjacent to the machinery room door.
Instance e) On or about March 2nd 2021, the employer did not document that equipment complied with its chosen recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice, such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 section 6.13.1, when audible and visual alarms were not installed inside and outside of each entrance to the machinery room.
Instance f) On or about March 2nd 2021, the employer did not document that equipment complied with its chosen recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice, such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 section 6.14.7.4, when the failure of the emergency mechanical ventilation system in the machinery failed to notify a monitored location.
Instance g) On or about March 2nd 2021, the employer did not document that it complied with its chosen recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice, such as ANSI IIAR-2 2014 section 6.14.7.1, when the emergency mechanical ventilation system provided less than the required 30 air changes per hour based on the gross machinery room volume.
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D): The employer’s written operating procedures covering the steps for each operating phase did not address emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown in a safe and timely manner.
On or about March 2nd, 2021, the employer failed to implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions and did not address at least emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4): The employer did not develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel.
On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as control over entrance into a facility by employees, contractor employees, and other support personnel.
Citation 1 Item 5
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,802
29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training was not provided at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process. The employer, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, did not determine the appropriate frequency of refresher
training.
On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not provide refresher training at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process.
The alleged violations below have been grouped because they involve similar or related hazards that may increase the potential for injury or illness.
Citation 1 Item 6a
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,802
29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(i): The employer, when selecting a contractor, did not obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract employer’s safety performance and programs.
On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not evaluate information regarding the safety performance and programs of the following contractors but not limited to:
a.) Bridge Point Electric, Inc.
b.) CSC Engineers
Citation 1 Item 6b
Type of Violation: Serious;
29 CFR 191O.119(h)(2)(v): The employer did not periodically evaluate the performance of contract employers in fulfilling their obligations as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
On or about March 2, 2021, employer did not periodically evaluate HSSE and safety audit performances for the following contract employers but not limited to:
a) Bridge Point Electric, Inc.
b) CSC Engineers
Citation 1 Item 7
Type of Violation: Serious; $9,753
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment.
On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not ensure that written procedures for testing or inspecting of process equipment were implemented including, but not limited to Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI) for ammonia vessels and piping.
Citation 1 Item 8
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspections and tests on process equipment.
On or about March 2, 2021, the employer did not perform testing on process equipment for the ammonia refrigeration systems, including process equipment such as, but
not limited to:
a. Oil Pressure Differential Cut Out for the compressor 533
b. High and Low Pressure Cut Out for the compressor 538
c. High temperature Cut out for the compressor 543
Citation 1 Item 9
Type of Violation: Serious; $13,653
29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer did not establish and implement written ·procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process.
On or about March 2, 2021 the employer did not establish and implement written procedures to manage changes for replacing the pump (Ammonia 5 + 28 Recirculator) from Cornell manufacturer to Teikoku USA Inc.
American Thermal Systems, Inc. and its successors
The alleged violations below have been grouped because they involve similar or related hazards that may increase the potential for injury or illness.
Citation 1 Item 1a
Type of Violation: Serious; $9,557
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select appropriate respirators and cartridges based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker(s) were exposed:
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, employees were provided with 3D N95 and half mask respirators utilizing organic vapor cartridges while working in ammonia concentrated atmosphere.
Citation 1 Item 1b
Type of Violation: Serious
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant’s chemical state and physical form:
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, an evaluation of respiratory hazards at the job-site was not conducted and did not consider ammonia as a hazard while working in a Process Safety Management covered facility.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $9,557
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer shall provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee’s medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, medical evaluations were not given to employees prior to the issue of respirators to be used on the job site. Employees are exposed to the hazards associated with respirator use and ammonia.
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $9,557
29 CPR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, employees were not fit tested prior to being issued respirators for use on the job-site.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $9,557
29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function;
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, employer did not ensure employees required to wear respirators were clean shaven when issued a respirator for use. Employees are exposed to the hazards associated with respirator use and ammonia.
Citation 1 Item 5
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,096
29 CPR 1910.134(l)(1): The employer shall conduct evaluations of the workplace as necessary to ensure that the provisions of the current written program are being effectively implemented and that it continues to be effective.
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, provisions were not taken to ensure the written respiratory protection program was implemented prior to the start of the project. Employees are exposed to the hazards associated with respirator use and ammonia.
Citation 2 Item 1
Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $1,366
29 CFR 1904.7(6)(6): Employer must record a work-related injury or illness if the worker becomes unconscious, regardless of the length of time the employee remains unconscious.
On or about February 13th, 2021, and at times prior thereto, the employer improperly classified an employee injury and did not note the employee loss of consciousness on the OSHA Form 300.
CLICK HERE for both sets of Citations