OSHA Inspection: OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC

Issued

Mar 27, 2012

Abate by

Apr 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $2,975 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(1):     The process hazard analysis was not appropriate to the complexity of the process and did not identify, evaluate, and address the control of the hazards involved in the process:    a)  The hazards from toxic or flammable chemicals, which could collect in the floor trench, in the event of a spill, and be directed to the sewer pit, were not addressed in the process hazard analysis.     b)  The process hazard analysis did not address the possibility of leaks from the ammonia cooling coils into the reactors or the possibility of leaks from the reactors into the ammonia cooling coils.    c)  The possibility of leaks from the ammonia system into the machine room, resulting in fires or explosions, was not addressed in the process hazard analysis.    c)  The process hazard analysis did not address the location of the control room adjacent to the reactor building where an incident could impact the ability to control the process.

Issued

Mar 27, 2012

Abate by

Apr 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1):     The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safety conducting activities in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and which addressed the elements listed in 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(v):    No written procedures were developed for shift changes to assure that reactor operators, maintenance staff and other employees were advised on the current operating conditions in the process.

Issued

Mar 27, 2012

Abate by

Apr 26, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,900 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii):     The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment to maintain its mechanical integrity, was not consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, or more frequently determined to be necessary by prior operating experience:    Inspection scheduling for some portions of the ammonia system did not meet the intervals delineated in the applicable RAGAGEP, International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Guidelines for: Start-up, Inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, Bulletin No.110.      a)  No annual inspections were conducted of ammonia heat exchangers located adjacent to the machinery building.    b)  No independent 5 year inspections were conducted of the ammonia shell and tube heat exchangers located adjacent to the machinery building.    c)   No inspections were conducted every six months for the pressure relief valves, PRV-8051 and PRV-8050, on the ammonia heat exchangers located adjacent to the machinery building.    d)  No annual pipe inspections were done on the AML-101-2 pipe located outside the machinery building.

Issued

Mar 27, 2012

Abate by

Apr 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,250 · Current $4,250

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(f):     The entry permit that documents compliance with this  section and authorizes entry to a permit space include the elements listed in 29 CFR 1910.146(f) (1) through (15):    The entry permit for an entry made to a reactor on 10/4/2011 did not have the purpose of the entry, the attendant, the hazards of the space, acceptable entry conditions,  results of air sampling for chemicals, rescue and emergency services, communication procedures and equipment required for the entry.

Issued

Mar 27, 2012

Abate by

Apr 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,400 · Current $2,380 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5):     Fan blade guards, where the periphery of the blades was less than seven feet above the floor or working level, had openings larger than one half inch:    The low level exhaust fan installed in building 1211 had no guard.