OSHA Inspection: HERITAGE-WTI, INC.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(E):     The employer's information concerning the technology of the process did not include an evaluation of the consequences of deviations, including those affecting the safety and health of employees:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employers process safety information did not include an evaluation of the kiln for the consequences of deviations, including those affecting the safety and health of employees.  Deviations may include but are not limited to temperature, flow, chemical composition and pressure.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):     The employer did not document that equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employer did not supply documentation that the kiln complied with RAGAGEP.  Examples of common RAGAGEP include but are not limited to American Petroleum Institute (API) 520, API 570, API 579, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 30, and NFPA 86.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(1):     The employer did not perform an initial process hazard analysis (PHA) on processes covered by 29 CFR 1910.119:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employer did not perform an initial process hazard analysis (PHA) for the kiln.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29CFR1910.119(e)(3)(ii): The process hazard analysis did not address the identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace:      On and before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to assure that process hazard analyses (PHAs) and revalidations, including the most recent PHA revalidations dated between 2006 and 2008, addressed previous incidents, such as but not limited to:   a)	2006.0149 Near Miss involving the kiln    b)	2006.0132 Reactive Chemical in the tank farm  Instance b is vacated in the formal settlement agreement.    c)	2006.0119 Leak in pneumatic control valve, direct to kiln

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iii):     The process hazard analysis did not address engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases:    On and before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to assure that the process hazard analyses (PHAs) and revalidations, including the most recent PHA revalidations dated between 2006 and 2008, addressed engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships.  Examples include, but are not limited to,:  a.	VOC sensors (pits/sumps)  b.	fire detection sensors   c.	methods of area monitoring  d.	emergency stops

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v):     The process hazard analysis did not address facility siting:    On and before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to assure that process hazard analyses (PHAs) and revalidations, including the most recent PHA revalidations dated between 2006 and 2008, addressed facility siting.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5):     The employer did not establish a system to promptly address the team's findings and recommendations; did not assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented; did not document what actions were to be taken; did not complete actions as soon as possible; did not develop a written schedule of when these actions were to be completed; did not communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments were in the process and who may have been affected by the recommendations or actions:    On or about February 7, 2012, findings and recommendations from process hazard analyses (PHAs) and their updates/revalidations, such as but not limited to the list below, were not documented as having been addressed and resolved:    a)	PHA Revalidation 2.1 Tanker Unloading/Tank Farm/Pumpout Tanks/Fuels Blending  June 19, 2007.   b)	PHA Revalidation 7.1 Direct Feed from Drum  November 30, 2006.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D):     The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for 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 is executed in a safe and timely manner:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employers operating procedures for the kiln did not include instructions for emergency shutdown.  These procedures include, but are not limited to:    "	OP-4000-100 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Pre-startup After Turnaround, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-110 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Restart Following VFD TRIP, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-200 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Operation, Revision 2, dated 7/31/2008

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A):     The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for operating limits and the consequences of deviation in the covered process:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employers operating procedures for the kiln did not include operating limits and the consequences of deviations from those limits.  These procedures include, but are not limited to:    "	OP-4000-100 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Pre-startup After Turnaround, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-110 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Restart Following VFD TRIP, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-200 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Operation, Revision 2, dated 7/31/2008

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B):     The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide instructions for steps required to correct or avoid deviation from the operating limits in the covered process:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employers operating procedures for the kiln did not include operating limits and the steps required to correct or avoid deviation.  These procedures include, but are not limited to:    "	OP-4000-100 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Pre-startup After Turnaround, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-110 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Restart Following VFD TRIP, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-200 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Operation, Revision 2, dated 7/31/2008

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(B):     The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information that addressed health and safety considerations, such as precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employers operating procedures for the kiln did not include safety and health considerations that addressed precautions necessary to prevent exposure.  These procedures include, but are not limited to:    "	OP-4000-100 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Pre-startup After Turnaround, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-110 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Restart Following VFD TRIP, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-200 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Operation, Revision 2, dated 7/31/2008

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(E):     The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safety and health considerations including any special and unique hazards in the covered processes:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employers operating procedures for the kiln did not include safety and health considerations that addressed special or unique hazards.  These procedures include, but are not limited to:    "	OP-4000-100 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Pre-startup After Turnaround, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-110 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Restart Following VFD TRIP, Revision 1, dated 11/20/2002  "	OP-4000-200 Rotary Kiln Unit 4000 Operation, Revision 2, dated 7/31/2008

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(6)(iii):     The employer did not assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment were suitable for the process application for which they will be used:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employer did not have a suitable procedure or process for controlling and assuring suitability of parts, materials and equipment related to PSM covered processes.  The materials, parts, and equipment stored in the warehouse were disorganized and there were no procedures to assure component suitability for process applications.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(6)    Incident investigation reports were not reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks were relevant to the incident findings including contract employees were applicable:    On or before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to ensure incident investigation reports were reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to the incident findings including contract employees where applicable.  Incidents include, but are not limited to, incidents numbered, #2007.0522, #2011.1535, #2011.1400, #2010.1265, #2010.1254, and #2009.1080.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1):     The employer did not certify that they had evaluated compliance with the provisions of 1910.119 at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the standard were adequate and were being followed:    a) On and before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to assure that the most recent compliance audit (dated June 14, 2011) addressed the kiln.     b) On and before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to assure that the most recent compliance audit (dated June 14, 2011) was conducted and finalized before May 26, 2010.  This item was vacated in the Formal settlement Agreement.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

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 before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audits, and document that deficiencies had been corrected.  This includes, but is not limited to, the most recent compliance audit dated June 14, 2011 and the compliance audit dated February 28, 2007.      Examples from the audit dated June 14, 2011 include, but are not limited to:   " Revise or delete SS-160, due date indicated as 6/30/11;   " Develop an auditing program for contractors as required by reg., due date indicated as   8/30/2011; and   " Develop an MOC flowchart, due date indicated as 6/30/2011.      Examples from the audit dated February 28, 2007 include, but are not limited to:    " PHAs have been recently updated (5 year review)  update PHAs maintained on the ISO database, no due date identified;   " SOPs to include instructions that specify responses to process deviations, no due date identified;  " Operating Procedures  reviewed every 3 years  add to EHS reporting schedule/audit frequency matrix, no due date identified.

Issued

Aug 6, 2012

Abate by

Sep 5, 2012

Penalty

Initial $63,000 · Current $7,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(3):     The employer failed to review, failed to adequately review, and/or failed to certify annually that the operating procedures were current and accurate:    On and before February 7, 2012, the employer failed to review, failed to adequately review, and/or failed to certify annually that the operating procedures such as, but not limited to, those listed below were current and accurate:    WT-110, WT-120, WT-121, WT-130, WT-131, ST-140, WT-141, WT-142, WT-143, WT-300, WBC-100, WBC-110, WBC-120, WBC-140, WPM-100, WPM-200, WPM-201, WPM-210, WPM-300, WPM-400, WPM-410, WPM-500, WPM-501, WPM-600