OSHA has cited a chemical company for 47 violations following a chemical release and proposes $545,000 in fines AND the company was also placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP). The 47 violations include four willful – violations after an unexpected release of hazardous materials led to the temporary shutdown of the plant and an adjacent highway in May. Although no injuries were reported as a result of the incident, OSHA opened a PSM NEP investigation. The release of materials resulted from a breach of a polyvinyl chloride piping system.
NOTE: This inspection was done in Region V Columbus, OH Area Office and all I have to say is OSHA is learning quick in Region V! Although some of the citations are hard to understand without knowing the process, the level of detail and the levels that OSHA dug down to in the inspection are evident that OSHA is no longer behind the 8-ball! Pay close attention to the Willfuls and notice they came from LACK OF ACTION to address IDENTIFIED ISSUES either by a PHA team, Audit Team or MI Inspections!
Here is a break down of the citations:
Process Safety Management
PSI
- 1910.119(d) five (5) instances where PSI was not updated for some significant changes and one instance where there was no PSI (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(1)(iv) twelve (12) instances where the PSI did not contain “reactivity data” (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(1)(vii) thirteen (13)instances where the PSI did not contain “effects of inadvertent mixing” (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(A) ten (10) processes did not have block flow or simplified flow diagrams (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(B) four (4) processes did not have process chemistry documented (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(C) six (5) processes did not have maximum intended inventories established (Serious; $5,500)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(G) two (2) processes put into service in 2001 and 2009 had no material and energy balances and one (1) process had significant changes to its MEB and this was not reflected in the MEB (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(D) eight (8) processes did not have safe upper and lower limits established for critical parameters (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(E) twelve (12) processes did not have documented consequences of deviations for the establishment of the safe upper and lower limits (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(A) three (3) processes did not have established materials of construction for reactor, pump, filters, instrumentations, gauges, meters, pump seals, and gaskets (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(A) no piping specifications for the facility, no systematic approach for identifying circuitry and material of construction for each piping circuit (WILLFUL; $70,000)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B) numerous inaccuracies found on P&ID’s, missing data from P&ID’s, the wrong P&ID in the wrong folder/binder, P&IDs not being updated and still showing equipment that is no longer in place, etc. (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D) relief system design and design basis was not available for 15 process vessels (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(E) no data on the ventilation system in a process building, MCC rooms, and control room (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(F) twelve (12) processes did not have the design codes/standards used listed (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(H) information regarding safety systems were not compiled for five (5) processes (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) no documentation that fourteen (14) pieces of equipment met a RAGAGEP (Serious; $7K)
PHA
- 1910.119(e)(3)(i) the following process hazards were not addressed: polymerization reactions, reactivity of chemicals, deemed boiling xylene in a pump as “no hazard”, did not consider Nitrogen as a hazard from O2 deficiency or over pressuring a vessel, high temperature with vigorous boiling within reactor (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(e)(3)(iv) PHAs did not address the consequences of engineering and administrative controls such as: an engineering control was listed as a safeguard to remedy the same failed control (I have no idea about this one!!!); stating that pressure events, high temperature events, and safety device releases were of no consequence; stating that preventive or predictive maintenance programs were production and quality concerns (Serious; $7K)
- NOTE: these are very subjective findings and without seeing the actual PHA I am lost at how the PHAs were done.
- 1910.119(e)(3)(v) PHAs did not address facility siting in relation to releases from the process (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(e)(3)(vi) PHAs did not address human factors in the manner that there was no formal shift change over procedure (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(e)(5) sixty four (64) PHA recommendations from a 2008 PHA and seventy nine (79) PHA recommendations from a 2007 PHA not addressed in a timely manner (WILLFUL; $70,000)
Operating Procedures
- 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(A) three (3) start up procedures had issues such as did not cover the actual actions taken, one SOP still mentioned two tanks that were no longer in service, and one SOP “lacked specificity”. (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B) one (1) SOP did not match the activities by operators, four (4) processes did not have “normal operations” SOPs, two (2) SOPs still included vessels that had been removed, one (1) SOP lacked specificity for proper temperature to begin a task (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(G) a number of SOPs failed to address “start up after emergency shutdown” (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D) three (3) Emergency Shutdown SOPs failed to include shutdown conditions and assignment of shutdown duties and one (1) process had duplicate emergency shutdown procedures with conflicting instructions (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(E) three (3) processes did not have emergency operation procedures (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(F) one (1) normal shutdown SOP included equipment no longer in service (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A) seventy two (72) SOPs did not include consequences of deviation (WILLFUL; $70,000)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B) seventy two (72) SOPs did not include steps to correct/avoid consequences of deviation (WILLFUL; $0)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(A) SOPs in three (3) processes failed to address chemical properties and the hazards (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(B) sixteen (16) SOPs were not specific in the PPE required and did not accurately reflect the information ascertained from the PPE Hazard Assessment, five (5) did not address PPE required for leaks, and seven (7) did not address PPE at all (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(f)(1)(iv) nine (9) SOPs did not include safety systems like rupture disc, PSVs, interlocks and DCS controls (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(f)(3) nineteen (19) SOPs were not annually certified (Serious; $7K)
Training
- 1910.119(g)(1)(i) employees in two (2) departments did not receive adequate training because the training program consisted of a review of inadequate procedures and an on-the-job training program without any guidance documents for training content (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(g)(2) employees in two (2) departments did not receive refresher training (Serious; $0)
- PSSR
- 1910.119(i)(2)(ii) five (5) SOPs did not address a new piping circuit for delivery of HHC to reactors and there were no maintenance/inspection procedures for the new piping circuits, valves and pumps (Serious; $5,500)
- 1910.119(i)(2)(iii) six (6) recommendations from a PHA were not resolved before the start-up of the new piping circuit (Serious; $7K)
MI
- 1910.119(j)(2) no MI procedures for the installation of new and used vessels; no inspection plan for relief devices, pumps, vessels; no valve and pipe inspection program; no preventive maintenance program for pumps; no vessel repair procedures for glass lining; no installation/repair procedures for insulation; no inspection/testing program for relief valves, no documentation of weekly inspection of downstream isolation valves, etc.; flexible hoses were not in the MI program; no written program for the inspection, maintenance and calibration for controls, instrumentation and safety systems; no procedures for resolving inspection findings (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(j)(3) no mechanical integrity training program (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(j)(4)(i) seven (7) vessels had no inspections, nine (9) vessels had no internal inspections, four (4) circuits of piping had no inspections (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(j)(4)(ii) inspection and testing procedures did not follow RAGAGEP, ten (10) inspection reports had some or all of the following issues: no certification of the inspector, TML reading locations not documented, corrosion rates not calculated from the inspection data, inspection data was not compared to minimum thickness limits, thickness testing done on jacket only and nothing on the shell, inspection did not include TML for the vessel nozzles, inspection did not include spark testing for the glass lining, vessel thickness was found to be less than the manufacturer’s minimums, piping inspector was not API certified or otherwise qualified (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(j)(4)(iii) two (2) vessels were past due for their MI inspection and nine (9) relief devices were past due (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(j)(4)(iv) inspection reports had the following issues: no inspection/thickness methodology documented, specific testing data was not maintained, no date the testing was done, no equipment/serial number, no U-1 information available, due to lack of equipment identifier data from one inspection was erroneously applied to another vessel that was no longer in service, no nameplate data recorded, data tables in reports left blank, no inspection report for a vessel that is referenced in another vessel inspection report, no documentation for relief valve testing, inspection and recertification (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(j)(5) equipment deficiencies and repairs of deficiencies were not documented, vessels with TML beyond minimums were not addressed, rupture disc replacements not documented (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(j)(6)(i) two rupture disc with wrong set points were found to have been installed during the 2012 turnaround (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(j)(6)(i) no quality assurance program (Serious; $0)
MOC
- 1910.119(l)(1) NO MOC on the following changes: 20 reactor UV light removal, 400T vessel when it was returned to service for a different process chemical, new piping circuit installation, two relief devices on two different tanks discharge tie-in to two different scrubbers (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(l)(2)(ii) impact of safety and health not addressed in four MOCs (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(l)(2)(iii) modifications to five (5) SOPs did not go through MOC (Serious; $0)
- 1910.119(l)(4) two (2) instances of PSI not being updated (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.119(l)(5) six (6) SOPs were not updated before changes (Serious; $0)
- II
- 1910.119(m)(5) no management system to track thirty-five (35) II recommendations to closure that were still open at time of inspection (Serious; $7K)
Safe Work Practices
- 1910.147(c)(4)(ii) no LOTO procedures for equipment (Serious; $7K)
Audits
- 1910.119(O)(4) findings from a 2011 audit regarding: corrosivity data and materials of construction; hazardous affects of inadvertent mixing; updating PSI related to technology of the process; PSI related to electrical classification; PSI data in alarms, interlocks and permissives; equipment complies with RAGAGEP; SOPs not being compliant; SOPs not being annually certified; PSSR items not being closed; identifying critical equipment for the MI program; implementing an MI program; MI inspections not done, past due and equipment operating with know deficiencies; PSI and SOP not being updated from changes; no system to track II recommendations; not having closed out items from the 2007 audit; and this list just goes on and on. Heck the 2011 audit report had findings that were not addressed from the 2007 audit and then OSHA cites these again! (Willful; $70,000)
Forklifts
- 1910.178(c)(2)(iv) a non-rated forklift was being used in a HAZLOC to move pallets (Serious; $7K)
- 1910.178(l)(6) observed to unsafe conditions/acts involving a tow motor and yard dog resulting in damage (Other-than-serious; $0)
Guarding
- 1910.219(c)(2)(i) horizontal shaft not completely enclosed on reactor circulation pump (Serious; $5,500)
Electrical
- 1910.303(b)(2) extension cord found cut and hardwired into wall mounted electrical box (Serious; $5,500)
- 1910.305(g)(1(iv)(A) no strain relief on a conductor in the control room (Serious; $0)
- 1910.305(g)(5) two (2) power cords found missing their ground prong (Serious; $5,500)
- 1910.305(b)(1)(i) wiring entering box not protected from abrasion and damaged conduit (Serious; $5,500)
- 1910.305(b)(1)(ii) unused openings in electrical boxes (Serious; $5,500)
PPE
- 1910.132(d)(2) failed to identify, assess, and certify PPE Hazard Assessments in one process for two specific chemicals (Other-than-Serious; $0)
Walking and Working Surfaces
- 1910.23(a)(5) partially covered pit with workers walking over and driving over with PIT (Serious; $3,300)
- 1910.23(a)(8)(i) unguarded floor holes (Serious; $0)
- 1910.23(b)(1)(i) unguarded wall opening (Serious; $5,500)
- 1910.24(e) riser of stairs was too steep (Serious; $4,400)
- 1910.67(c)(2)(i) employee failed to complete inspection of a boom lift before use (Serious; $3,300)
- 1910.67(c)(2)(ii) employees were not trained to use the boom lift
CLICK HERE for the full citations.