OSHA Inspection: OIL RECOVERY CORPORATION

Issued

2012-09-25 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-07 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4900.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that, employees were exposed to fire, explosion, entrapment and toxic hazards:  Jobsite located at 5 West Main Street, Chicopee, Massachusetts:  On, or about, July 10, 11 and 12, 2012, employees were exposed to hazards created by entering and working in and around three oil storage tanks.  The company had not developed and implemented adequate confined space entry procedures to be followed before and during entries into the spaces, specifically:  A.  The undated Confined Space Entry Protocol provided by the company had inaccurate definitions of "entry" and referred to "special permits".  It discussed the use of outside rescue personnel that was not in line with the company's current policy, lacked specific guidelines for atmospheric testing and instrument maintenance and precautions and methods to be used to ensure the safety of members of the confined space entry team.  Also, the company did not conduct a periodic review of the program to ensure it was current and effective.    B.  The Entry Permit provided for use during confined space entries and filled out for this jobsite did not include the identity of each space entered, the purpose of the entry, any explanation of the hazards to be controlled, what methods were used to control the hazards, specific information regarding rescue equipment, communications and rescue operations.  The "Characterization" section of the permit did not match the capabilities of the test instrument and the permits did not address the discovery of wooden platforms in each tank that introduced additional hazards in the confined space.  In addition to the hazards presented by the tanks themselves, the cleaning operation was conducted during very hot weather that created an additional physical stress on the Entrant.  Also, a total of two permits had been completed for a job that encompassed three tanks with multiple entries into each tank over a period of three days, including re-entries into tanks following rest breaks by the Entrant.  C.  Atmospheric testing was not conducted in accordance with established guidelines for the types of tests needed and was not conducted with properly maintained test equipment.  The testing protocol did not include further testing when either the percent oxygen levels were out of range or a foreign substance was detected in the space (i.e., the presence of a combustible/flammable gas).  The initial testing was done with the ventilation on instead of in accordance with guidelines that require the initial test to be done with the ventilation off and then again with it on to ensure that ventilation equipment is not introducing contaminants into the space(s).  The Sperian multi-gas meter was not function-checked in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations using an appropriate calibration gas.  D.  An Attendant was not stationed outside the point of entry with the ability to constantly communicate with the Entrant(s).  The Attendant left his station to enter one of the tanks to assist the Entrant with the removal of wooden planks as the interior tank platform was dismantled.  A replacement Attendant was not designated.  Also, due to ambient noise levels on the work site and the noise created from the tanker truck, the Attendant could not hear the Entrant at all times.    E.  The company had not developed and implemented procedures to either summon rescue and emergency services or to rescue entrants from permit spaces.

Issued

2012-09-25 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-11-07 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4900.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not initiate and maintain a safety program which provides for frequent and regular inspections of jobsites, materials, and equipment to be made by a competent person:  Jobsite located at 5 West Main Street, Chicopee, Massachusetts:  The company did not provide for frequent and regular inspections of the worksite by a competent person in that:  A.  The hazards presented by the cleaning operations of the oil storage tanks were not identified and evaluated by a competent person.    B.  The Entry Supervisor/Attendant did not properly test and fill out entry permits for each space.    C.  The Entrant was allowed to work in the tanks without proper personal protection equipment such as a harness and respirator.    D.  The Entry Supervisor/Attendant entered a tank to assist with the removal of interior platform planks and left the space unattended.    E.  Provisions were not made for rescue operations.    F.  Tanks were not reevaluated in between entries when the Entrant needed additional rest breaks due to the heat and hazards created by the internal platforms were not evaluated.