OSHA issued $290,358 in proposed penalties following an August 2023 explosion at a paint factory in Garland, TX. One employee was injured in the explosion at the factory. OSHA issued one repeat and eight serious citations. The repeat citation was a $161,310 proposed penalty. The proposed penalties for the eight other citations are $16,131 each.
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to an unstable chemical reaction from improperly stored Organic Peroxide compound Luperox 26 A:
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and times prior thereto, employees were exposed to fire and explosion hazards from unstable chemical reaction due to the improper storage of Luperox 26 A which was not stored in a temperature-controlled environment.
Among other methods, feasible and acceptable means to abate the hazard includes but is not limited to enforcing the employer’s guidelines: Safe Storage and Handling of Organic Peroxides, Section 5.2.6 which states “Peroxides shall be stored in a refrigerated room or refrigerator unit.”
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): Relief system design and design basis;
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, relief valve PSV-5408 was not included in the relief system design or design basis associated with the pressure vessel CAT-5 written process safety information. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process.
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the 2021 Process Hazard Analysis did not identify the hazards of self-reactive, thermally sensitive chemicals and potential for high ambient temperatures on vessel CAT-5 charged with organic oxidizers. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards related to facility siting:
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not address process equipment siting near the control room when it evaluated the facility siting in the Process Hazard Analysis. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
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 5a
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information that addressed operating limits.
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the normal operating procedure, SQ4736P, did not list the operating limits, including specific upper temperature limits, for Luperox-26 (organic peroxide) used in CAT-5. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 1 Item 5b
Type of Violation: Serious
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that addressed the consequences of deviations from the operating limits in the covered process;
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not address the consequences of deviation from operating limits. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 1 Item 6
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training was not provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not provide operator refresher training at least every three years or more often, if necessary. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 1 Item 7
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
Refresher training was not provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:
a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not provide operator refresher training at least every three years or more often, if necessary. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 1 Item 8
Type of Violation: Serious; $16,131
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:
(a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not establish written procedures for inspecting pressure vessels.
(b) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not establish written procedures for inspecting piping systems.
(c) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, the employer did not develop a mechanical integrity program for corrosion under insulation inspections.
These conditions exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
Citation 2 Item 1
Type of Violation: Repeat – Serious; $161,310
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspection and tests on process equipment:
(a) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 1/2″-150 psig process piping from vessel CAT-5 to reactor R-5
(b) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 3″-150 psig process piping from reactor R5 to Tank TD-4 (RI-103-CI-3-N).
(c) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 3″-150 psig process piping from reactor R5 to Tank TD-5 (RI-101-CI-3-N)
(d) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the process piping from vessel WT-5B to reactor R5.
(e) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did inspect the process piping from the PM Acetate tank to WT-5B
These conditions exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
The XXXXXXX Company was previously cited for a Serious violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.119(j)(4)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1572722, Citation Number 1, Item number 5, and was affirmed as a final order on July 7, 2022, with a final abatement date on July 8, 2022, with respect to a workplace located at Ennis, Texas.
CLICK HERE for the CItations