OSHA Inspection: ALLCOAT TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): Information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include a relief system design and design basis:    (a) Location - Building 6, Reactors 31-36:    On or about 12/6/2012, the information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include a relief system design and design basis.  An example would be the case of reactors 31-36 where the only emergency relief could be through an open hatch cover that vented directly into the process area.  No design information is referenced to assure that this type of relief is acceptable. This type of relief is not acceptable under RAGAGEP.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vii): The process hazard analysis did not address a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls on employees in the workplace.    (a) Location - Building 6, Reactor Tanks 31-36:  On or about 12/6/2012, the company's process hazard analysis listed rupture disk blowout as a potential failure that could occur when the oxidizer exhaust valve is closed.  There are no rupture disks on any of the reactor tanks 31-36 in Building 6.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide 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.    (a) Location - building 6, reactors 31-36:   On or about 12/6/2012, the operating procedure, PSOP-003, did not address all of the emergency shutdown for specific products.  An example would be the production of Vitel PE1135DS.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii): 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii):  The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information that addressed operating limits.     (a) Location - Facility:   On or about 12/6/2012, the operating procedure, PSOP-003, did not address all of the specific operating limits for specific products.  An example would be the production of Vitel PE1135DS.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for steps required to correct or avoid deviation from the operating limits in the covered process.     (a) Location - building 6, reactors 31-36:   On or about 12/6/2012, the operating procedure, PSOP-003, did not address all of the specific steps necessary to correct and avoid deviation from safe operating limits for specific products.  An example would be the production of Vitel PE1135DS..

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-08-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii): The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment was not consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequent if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.     (a) Location - Building 6, Reactor Tanks 31-36:   On or about 12/6/2012, the inspection and testing procedures for the reactor tanks did not include a frequency for inspection of the thickness of the vessel walls in order to determine the amount of corrosion.       (b) Location - Facility:   On or about 12/6/2012, the manual for the thermal oxidizer and the standard operating procedure  called for a minimum of quarterly calibration (zero and span tests) of the LEL detector that measures the flammable vapor load that is being carried to the thermal oxidizer.  The company's preventative maintenance program does not reflect this.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-12-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer did not implement procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to facilities that affect a covered process.    (a) Location - Facility:  On or about 12/6/2012, management of change procedures were not implemented during the addition of a check valve to the steam system boiler in response to a corrective action after a release of Vitel PE1135DS.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-07-23 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5390.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(11): Approved industrial trucks were not used in hazardous locations.    (a) Location - Facility:  On or about 12/6/2012, employees were not prohibited from using an electric pallet jack with an appropriate rating in a class I division 1 area

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-10-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $10780.00 · Current $5000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(h)(4)(iii)(a): The transfer of large quantities of flammable liquids was not through piping, by means of pumps, or by water displacement.    (a) Location: Building 6:  On or about 12/6/2012, employees were hand tipping drums of high viscosity flammable liquids in order to transfer them into mixers.  This was done without the benefit of any equipment to control the flow in order to prevent leakage or accidental discharge.    Allcoat Technologies, Inc., was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CRF 1910.119(h)(4)(iii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312333883, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on March 17, 2009, with respect to a workplace located at 100 Eames St., Wilmington, MA.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2013-10-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $10780.00 · Current $5000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(E): The employer did not have a compilation of written process safety information pertaining to the ventilation system design.     (a) Location - building 6, reactor tanks 31-36:   On or about 12/6/2012, the ventilation system design did not account for the potential presence of combustible dust in the duct work.    Allcoat Technology, Inc., was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(E), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312589393, citation number 1, item number 4b and was affirmed as a final order on March 17, 2009, with respect to a workplace located at 100 Eames St., Wilmington, MA.

Issued

2013-06-05 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-03-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $10780.00 · Current $3000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A): Written operating procedures did not address the consequences of deviations.     (a) Location - building 6, reactor tanks 31-36:   On or about 12/6/2012, the operating procedure, PSOP-003, did not address all of the specific steps necessary to correct and avoid deviation from safe operating limits for specific products.  An example would be the production of Vitel PE1135DS.     Allcoat Technology, Inc., was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 312589393, citation number 1, item number 7a and was affirmed as a final order on March 17, 2009, with respect to a workplace located at 100 Eames St., Wilmington, MA.