OSHA has cited a Frozen Food Manufacturer for six serious process safety management (PSM) violations. At about 1:40 PM on July 20, 2013, approximately 13,800 pounds of anhydrous ammonia was released when a telescoping boom attachment being moved by a forklift under one of the HPR’s struck the pipe stem located at the bottom of the vessel, causing a rupture in that vessel, spilling the entire contents of the HPR and the ammonia refrigeration system. At the time of the incident, physical barricades or other protective engineering controls were not in place. Proposed penalties total $42,000. The majority of the violations relate to potential fire and explosion hazards, as well as potential toxic effects stemming from the release of anhydrous ammonia used in the refrigeration system at the facility. The serious violations cited under the PSM standard include:
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; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not document that the ventilation system complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) within the Engine Room, when the electrical system for the room does not meet Class I, Group D, Division 2. Failure to verify and document that the system complies with the RAGAGEP in the Engine Room for both normal and emergency mechanical ventilation exposed the workers within to the hazard of anhydrous ammonia liquid or vapor.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v): The Process Hazard Analysis did not address facility siting for the Engine Room.
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer’s Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) did not consider facility siting for the location and protection of the three High Pressure Receiver (HPR) vessels within the Engine Room, exposing personnel working within to the hazard of anhydrous ammonia liquid or vapor. The vessels were located adjacent to a shared area utilized by the Maintenance department, which operated forklift vehicles within the room to move equipment and supplies. At about 1:40 PM on 20 July 2013, approximately 13,800 pounds of anhydrous ammonia was released when a telescoping boom attachment being moved by a forklift under one of the HPR’s struck the pipe stem located at the bottom of the vessel, causing a rupture in that vessel, spilling the entire contents of the HP R’s and the ammonia refrigeration system. At the time of the incident, physical barricades or other protective engineering controls were not in place.
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi): The Process Hazard Analysis did not address human factors for the Engine Room.
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer’s Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) did not consider human factors for the ammonia refrigeration system and the three High Pressure Receiver (HPR) vessels within the Engine Room, exposing the personnel working within to the hazard of anhydrous ammonia liquid or vapor. Multiple personnel conducting various types of work are authorized within the room to include refrigeration techs, maintenance personnel, and contractors. Human factors to be considered include but are not limited to “Danger” signage, yellow tape or markings, and having a spotter while moving items with a forklift in tight areas.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): The employer did not update and revalidate by a team meeting the requirements in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process, at least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis.
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer failed to either revalidate the previous Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) or initiate a new PHA at least every 5 years from the completion of the last analysis. The last PHA performed by the employer with documentation available was dated February and March of 2004, using a What-If methodology.
Citation 1 Item 5
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): Inspections and tests were not performed on process equipment.
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not conduct testing of the ventilation system for the Engine Room to ensure it was still performing at the rated capacity from the original install in 1999. The system was designed to meet the requirements of ANSI/IIAR 2-1992, which has been superseded by ANSI/IIAR 2-1999 and currently with ANSI/IIAR 2-2008, Addendum A. Failure to ensure the ventilation system performs to the rated capacity exposed the workers within the Engine Room to the hazard of anhydrous ammonia liquid or vapor.
Citation 1 Item 6a
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CPR 1910.119(o)(1): The employer did not certify that they had evaluated compliance with provisions of 29 CFR 1910.119 at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under this standard were adequate and are being followed:
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not evaluate compliance with the provisions of Process Safety Management at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed for the program under this standard were adequate and being followed. The employer allowed a time lapse between compliance audits of over 4 years, leading to potential program deficiencies.
Citation 1 Item 6b
Type of Violation: Serious
29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4): The employer did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
On or about 20 July 2013, and at times prior thereto, the employer had open deficiencies pending from compliance audits conducted on 16 April 2003, 15 May 2006 and 1 May 2009, exposing the personnel working with or near the refrigeration system to the hazard of anhydrous ammonia liquid or vapor. Examples of open action items from audit to audit include:
- For the 2003 Audit, it was noted that “previous PHA actions/items need addressing”, and page 11 of the 2006 Audit states “unresolved [PHA] action items have yet to be addressed”.
- The 2006 Audit states under item #6 that “8/18/06 – Bill H to research requirements and to share findings with [PSM] committee next meeting” for documentation to support the relief system design and design basis under Process Safety Information; however, the 2009 Audit states under item 2.4 that “NO – relief system design and design basis” indicating that support documentation was not available.
- The 2009 Audit stated under item #13.5, “the 2006 Compliance Audit has Open Recommendations” with the action as “address and close out the recommendations from the 2006 Compliance Audit.” At least 37 items open items were indicated from the list without resolution.
This facility, which employs about 330 workers, has a long history of OSHA violations. The location has been inspected seven times since 2003. Past inspections have focused on process safety management and machine guarding, energy control and confined space entry requirements. The company has settled each of the previous cases and has paid more than $279,000 in cumulative fines.
CLICK HERE to see the NRC Report
SAFTENG Members may CLICK HERE to download the citations (pdf)