OSHA Inspection: SNF FLOMIN

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2550.00 · Current $2550.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(b)(2)(vi)(b): Where vent pipe outlets for tanks storing Category 1 or 2 flammable liquids, or Category 3 flammable liquids with a flashpoint below 100 F (37.8 C), are adjacent to buildings or public ways, they were not located so that the vapors are released at a safe point outside of buildings and not less than 12 feet above the adjacent ground level:      This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to ensure that relief valve/vent piping discharge is released upward or horizontally, to facilitate dispersion away from ground level and public ways.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4250.00 · Current $4250.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(A): The employer did not complete a compilation of process safety information pertaining to the material of construction of  equipment in the process:       This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to complete a compilation of the material of construction for a relief valve that supplies relief to the Allyl Chloride storage/charge tank

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:      (a) This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to comply with RAGAGEP when a discharge line from a relief valve located on the Allyl Chloride storage/charge tank had potential to relieve to an unsafe location when a pressure vessel was the source of potential source of the potential relieving event. (An example of a RAGAGEP for discharging pressure vessels to safe locations is the BPVC, Section UG-135(f))       (b) This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to comply with RAGAGEP when a relief valve located on the Allyl Chloride storage/charge tank was not designed to handle two phase flow and was properly sized. (An example of a RAGAGEP for sizing pressure relief devices is API RP 520)

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The Process Hazard Analysis did not address the hazards of the process:        This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to identify and evaluate the hazards associated with operating powered industrial trucks in close proximity to process equipment.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $5000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer did not assure that PHA recommendations were resolved in a timely manner:    This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to correct facility citing hazards identified in the 2005-2006 Process Hazard Analysis revalidation

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-04-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): At least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the process hazard analysis was not updated and revalidated by a team meeting the requirements in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process:                                                                    -In the Alternative-    29 CFR 1910.119(e)(7): Employer did not retain process hazards analyses and updates or revalidations for each process covered by this section, as well as the documented resolution of recommendations described in paragraph (e)(5) of this section for the life of the process:      This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to provide the process hazards analysis revalidation for 2011.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-04-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training. Refresher training was not provided at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:      This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to ensure that operators received refresher training at least every 3 years after their initial training.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-04-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3): Training documentation. The employer did not ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this paragraph. The employer did not prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training:     This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to maintain and document that operators received and understood initial training and verify  that the employee understood the training.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-04-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $7000.00 · Current $5000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): Inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment:                                                                - In The Alternative -     29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii): Inspection and testing procedures did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:     (a) This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to inspect, test and maintain the safety relief valve on the Allyl Chloride storage\charge tank.      (b) This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to inspect, test and maintain Rupture disk throughout the facility.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4250.00 · Current $4250.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4): The employer did not develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to employees and contractor employees:     This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer developed, but failed to implement the safe work practice for motorized equipment entering operating units that contain flammable or combustible materials.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c)(2)(i): Equipment in hazardous (classified) location(s) was not approved for the ignitable or combustible properties of the specific gas, vapor, dust, or fiber that was or could be present:      (a) This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed ensure that a fan installed next to RX1 was approved for the class of location.      (b) This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to ensure that a Brother fax/copy machine was approved for the class of location.     (c) ) This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to ensure that a power strip used to supply power to a brother fax/copy machine was approved for the class of location.      (d) This hazard was most recently observed on or about October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to ensure that an electrical expansion pigtail used to supply power to an industrial fan was approved for the class of location.     (e) This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to ensure that powered industrial trucks being operated in the process unit were approved for the class of location.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3400.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(k)(1): The employer did not issue a hot work permit for hot work operations conducted on or near a covered process:     This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed to issue a hot work permit for non-intrinsically safe powered industrial trucks operating in close proximity to process equipment.

Issued

2013-02-28 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process:     This hazard was most recently observed on October 9, 2012 at the SNF Flomin facility located in Baytown, TX, where the employer failed implement written procedures to manage changes to RX1, when it was determined that the glass lining was damaged.