OSHA Inspection: AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(C):  Information concerning the technology of the process shall include at least the following:  Maximum intended inventory:    a. The employer's process safety information (PSI) did not include the maximum intended inventory for the Cast Booster Manufacturing process/unit.        b. The employer's PSI did not include the maximum intended inventory for the Detonating Cord Manufacturing process/unit.      c. The employer's PSI did not include the maximum intended inventory for the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B):  Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include:  Piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's):    a. The P&ID (Drawing #00070PID) Red Diamond Emulsion Process Flow Oil Based Products, dated on or about March 8, 2001, did not include a P&ID legend and was not accurate in that it identified the wax module/operation which was removed from the process on or about the end of 2011 and/or beginning of 2012.      b. The P&ID (Drawing #00070PID) Red Diamond Emulsion Process Flow Oil Based Products, dated on or about March 8, 2001, was not accurate in that it identified the gassing process/operation which was removed from the process around 2004 or after.      c. The P&ID (Drawing #00070PID) Red Diamond Emulsion Process Flow Oil Based Products, dated on or about March 8, 2001, was not accurate in that the product recycle tank T-OIL05, valve at the bottom of the recycle tank, Wilden pump P-129 (Model M-8), and piping were not identified.      d. The P&ID (Drawing #00070PID) Red Diamond Emulsion Process Flow Oil Based Products, dated on or about March 8, 2001, was not accurate in that the premix tank was not identified with its name.      e. The P&ID (Drawing #EMULSIONPROCESSFLOW) Red Diamond Emulsion Process Flow Diagram, revised on or about January 5, 2005, did not include a P&ID legend and was not accurate in that it identified the wax module/operation which was removed from the process on or about the end of 2011 and/or beginning of 2012.      f. The P&ID (Drawing #EMULSIONPROCESSFLOW) Red Diamond Emulsion Process Flow Diagram, revised on or about January 5, 2005, was not accurate in that it identified the gassing process/operation which was removed from the process around 2004 or after.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i):  The process hazard analysis shall address:  The hazards of the process:    a.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing did not include an analysis of utility systems such as electric and its effect on the process.      b.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing did not address preventative or corrective measures for a "PETN spill" under #6 of "Balloon Filling" operations.      c.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing did not include an analysis of utility systems such as electric and water and their effects on the process.      d.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing did not address preventative or corrective measures for "Fugitive PETN Impact/Friction Explosion" under #11 of "Extruder Operation" and #6 of "Cord Sizer" operations.      e.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing inaccurately identified various operations as "PETN Dryer Operation" on pages 8 through 49.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(ii):  The process hazard analysis shall address:  The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace:    a.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing did not include the identification of any previous incidents including, but not limited to, the following:  an explosion in the overspin operation on or about April 14, 1986, and an explosion in the first spin operation in or about 1977.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv):  The process hazard analysis shall address:  Consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls:     a.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing did not include consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls including, but not limited to, the following:  metal detection system for screening recycled explosive raw materials; safety relief valves for each kettle and the building; pressure reducing valves for each kettle and the building; locking collars on each kettle agitator; sweep arm to kettle clearances; and belt drives on agitators set to slip with agitator jam.        b.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing did not include consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls including, but not limited to, the following:  speed switches and diameter gauging devices on first spin machines to stop the machine in case of a jam; mechanical trip for the measuring machine; speed switches on over spin machines to stop the machine when there was a cord jam; cord cut-off devices to prevent spool detonations in the sizing operation; regulated steam pressure for the PETN dryer; and high temperature safety shutoff switches on the PETN dryer.      c.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Emulsion Manufacturing did not include consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls including, but not limited to, the following:  high pressure and low pressure sensor, alarm, and shutdown for emulsion pumps; no flow sensor, alarm, and shutdown for emulsion pumps; 200 psi rupture disk for emulsion pumps; programmable logic controller (PLC) to detect and resolve problems during emulsion pumping process; high level alarms for blender and oxidizer bin 2; and hydraulic pressure switch.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v):  The process hazard analysis shall address:  Facility siting:     a.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing did not adequately address facility siting including, but not limited to, the following:  perimeter fencing and gates as related to facility security, willful sabotage, location of magazines in relation to the process, impact from an accident involving the vehicle transportation of explosives, tornados and high winds, building occupancy and construction, and hazards posed during egress for emergency escape.          b.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing did not address facility siting including, but not limited to, the following:  perimeter fencing and gates as related to facility security, willful sabotage, location of magazines in relation to the process, impact from an accident involving the vehicle transportation of explosives, internal/external fires or explosion, lightning, tornados and high winds, building occupancy and construction, and hazards posed during egress for emergency escape.      c.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Emulsion Manufacturing did not adequately address facility siting including, but not limited to, the following:  perimeter fencing and gates as related to facility security, location of magazines in relation to the process, impact from an accident involving the vehicle transportation of explosives, tornados, building occupancy and construction, and hazards posed during egress for emergency escape.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi):  The process hazard analysis shall address:  Human factors:     a.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing did not adequately address human factors including, but not limited to, the following:  housekeeping and general work environment, accessibility and availability of controls and equipment, component labeling, feedback and displays, controls, workload and stress factors, procedures, training, and general issues.      b.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing did not address human factors including, but not limited to, the following:  housekeeping and general work environment, accessibility and availability of controls and equipment, component labeling, feedback and displays, controls, workload and stress factors, procedures, training, and general issues.      c.  The employer's 2004 PHA-Emulsion Manufacturing did not adequately address human factors including, but not limited to, the following:  housekeeping and general work environment, accessibility and availability of controls and equipment, component labeling, feedback and displays, controls, workload and stress factors, procedures, training, and general issues.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vii):  The process hazard analysis shall address:  A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls on employees in the workplace:     a. On the 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing, the employer did not develop and use a risk matrix involving a qualitative evaluation of the consequences, likelihood, and risk of the hazards.        b. On the 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing, the employer did not develop and use a risk matrix involving a qualitative evaluation of the consequences, likelihood, and risk of the hazards.      c. On the 2004 PHA-Emulsion Manufacturing, the employer did not develop and use a risk matrix involving a qualitative evaluation of the consequences, likelihood, and risk of the hazards.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer shall establish a system to promptly address the team's findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions:    a. On the 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing, the employer did not address action reference number 3 on the Hazard Study III Action Review; did not develop a written schedule of when the actions were to be completed; and did not assure that recommendations (actions) were resolved and that the resolutions were documented.      b. On the 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing, the employer did not develop a written schedule of when the actions were to be completed; and did not assure that recommendations (actions) were resolved and that the resolutions were documented.      c. On the 2004 PHA-Emulsion Manufacturing, the employer did not address six actions not identified with action reference numbers and action reference numbers 1 and 2 on Hazard Study 2; did not address three actions not identified with action reference numbers on the Hazard Study III Action Review; did not develop a written schedule of when the actions were to be completed; and did not assure that recommendations (actions) were resolved and that the resolutions were documented.      d. On the 2010 PHA-New Cast Booster Manufacturing, the employer did not develop a written schedule of when the actions were to be completed; did not assure that recommendations (actions) were resolved in a timely manner for action reference numbers 7 and 10; and did not assure that the resolutions were documented.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

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 shall be 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:    a. The employer did not update and revalidate the initial 2004 PHA-Cast Booster Manufacturing, dated on or about September 7 and 8, 2004.       b. The employer did not update and revalidate the 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing, dated on or about November 16, 17, and 18, 2004.      c. The employer did not update and revalidate the 2004 PHA-Emulsion Manufacturing, dated on or about July 7 and 8, 2004.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(7): Employers shall 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:    a. The employer did not retain Hazard Study 1 and 2 for the 2004 PHA-Detonating Cord Manufacturing, dated on or about November 16, 17, and 18, 2004.      b. The employer did not retain Hazard Study III for the 2010 PHA-New Cast Booster Manufacturing, dated on or about March 17-19, 2010.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D): The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.  Steps for each operating phase.  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:    In the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not implement and identify emergency shutdown conditions, steps required for shutdown, and the responsible qualified operators in the operating procedures.     The following operating procedures associated with PSM were found to be deficient:         a. LP-EM-007, Large Diameter (oil) Module Operation      b. LP-EM-012, Emulsion Kartridge Pak Machine      c. LP-EM-040, KP Pump Operation

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(G): The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.  Steps for each operating phase.  Startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown:    a. In the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not address start up following a turnaround (including shut down for maintenance, repair, or the replacement of a component or equipment) or after an emergency shutdown in the operating procedures.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A):  The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.  Operating Limits.  Consequences of deviation:    a. In the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit, the company did not produce consequences of deviation and incorporate those consequences into the operating procedures.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B): The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.  Operating Limits.  Steps required to correct or avoid deviation:    a. In the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not identify steps required to correct or avoid deviations and incorporate that material in the written operating procedures.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(3):  The operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to facilities.  The employer shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate:    a. In the Detonating Cord Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not review the Overspin/Waxer Operation procedure, LP-DC-020 as often as necessary to assure that the operating procedure was updated with the maximum number of spools of yarn that could be changed at one time in the overspin operation to reflect the current operating practice.      b. In the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not review the Emulsion Kartridge Pak Machine procedure, LP-EM-012 as often as necessary to assure that the operating procedure reflected the current work practices as it pertained to change over prior to running a different product.      c. In the Detonating Cord Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not review the East Building 2 Inch Extruder Operation procedure, LP-DC-017 as often as necessary to assure that the operating procedure reflected the current operating practice of making adjustments and checks to ensure that the detonating cord was centered in the pass through tube in the extruder operation.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2):  Written procedures.  The employer shall establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:     a. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of storage tanks/process tanks such as the premix tank, off-spec premix tank, paddle blender, intermediate product tanks 1/2 and 1A/2A, recycle tank/hopper, and raw material storage tanks in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.      b. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of piping systems including piping components such as valves in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.      c. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of piping systems including piping components such as filter baskets in the PETN Dryer Building #1.      d. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of emergency shutdown systems in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.      e. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of relief and vent systems and devices such as safety relief valves and pressure reducing valves on the steam piping for the kettles in Booster Pour Buildings #1, 2, and 3.      f. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of controls such as high pressure sensors, alarms, and shutdown for emulsion pumps; programmable logic controller (PLC) to detect and resolve problems during emulsion pumping process; high level alarms for blender and oxidizer bin 2; and high temperature safety steam valve shut down on fuel tanks in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.      g. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of controls such as speed switches and diameter gauging devices on first spin machines to stop the machine in case of a jam; laser safety sensor detection devices for detecting over and under sized cord and shutting down the measuring, sizer, overspin, and rewind machines; extruder safety sensor detection device with warning light and buzzer; speed switches on over spin machines to stop the machine when there was a cord jam; cord cut-off devices to prevent spool detonations in the sizing operation; regulated steam pressure for the PETN dryer; and high temperature safety shutoff switch on the PETN dryer in the Detonating Cord Manufacturing process/unit.      h. The written procedure LP-ENG-605, Testing Allweiler Stator, and procedure Allweiler Pumps: 3 or 6 - Month Inspection and Maintenance, which addressed testing the Allweiler pump stator monthly and semi-annually, respectively, were not updated to reflect the actual practice of not performing pump stator testing due to the annual Allweiler pump rebuild schedule in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.      i. The employer did not establish and implement written quality assurance procedures to assure that equipment, maintenance materials, and spare parts were suitable for the process application for which they would be used in the following covered processes/units:  Cast Booster Manufacturing, Detonating Cord Manufacturing, and Emulsion Manufacturing.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): Inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment:     a. The employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were being performed on storage tanks/process tanks such as the premix tank, off-spec premix tank, paddle blender, intermediate product tanks 1/2 and 1A/2A, recycle tank/hopper, and raw material storage tanks in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.      b. The employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were being performed on piping systems including piping components such as valves in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.      c. The employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were being performed on piping systems including piping components such as filter baskets to verify proper grounding in the PETN Dryer Building #1.      d. The employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were being performed on emergency shutdown systems in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.       e. The employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were being performed on relief and vent systems and devices such as all of the safety relief valves and pressure reducing valves on the steam piping for the kettles in Booster Pour Buildings #1, 2, and 3.       f. The employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were being performed on controls such as high pressure sensors, alarms, and shutdown for emulsion pumps; programmable logic controller (PLC) to detect and resolve problems during emulsion pumping process; high level alarms for blender and oxidizer bin 2; and high temperature safety steam valve shut down on fuel tanks in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.       g. The employer did not ensure that quarterly internal inspections and maintenance on the Wilden pumps as identified in the Emulsion Pumps and Emulsion Pump Inspection & Maintenance procedures were being performed in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.      h. The employer did not ensure that gear box oil and bearing grease were changed every six months on the Waukesha pump as identified in the Waukesha Pump procedure in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.      i. The employer did not ensure that the monthly mechanical seal gap check and the semi-annual internal inspections and tests of the stator, rotor, suction housing, mechanical seals, ETA flow switch, high pressure switch, and low pressure switch on the Allweiler pumps as identified in the Emulsion Pumps and Emulsion Pump Inspection & Maintenance procedures were being performed in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii):  Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:    a. The employer did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) when flange bolts were not being torqued to manufacturer's specifications during the installation of rupture disks adjacent to the Allweiler pumps in the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1):  The employer shall 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:     a. A management of change was not implemented and documented for a change involving the removal of the wax module/operation on or about the end of 2011 and/or beginning of 2012 in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.      b. A management of change was not implemented and documented for a change in the monthly testing of the stators in the Allweiler pumps to the annual removal, rebuild and replacement of the Allweiler pumps in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.      c. A management of change was not implemented and documented for a change in the maximum number of spools of yarn that could be changed at one time in the overspin operation of the Detonating Cord Manufacturing process/unit.      d. A management of change was not implemented and documented for a change in removing the safety relief valves at each kettle every six months to removing them as needed in the Cast Booster Manufacturing process/unit.      e. A management of change was not implemented and documented for a change involving the installation of the gassing process/operation in or about 2003 in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.      f. A management of change was not implemented and documented for a change involving the removal of the gassing process/operation around 2004 or after in the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(3):  An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved, including a contract employee if the incident involved work of the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident:    a.  For the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 31, 2011, and involved cord breaking at the take-up spool on overspin machine number 23 in the overspin operation, an incident investigation team was not established.      b.  For the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, and involved detonating cord being pulled back due to being off center and rubbing the side of the extruder in the extrusion operation, an incident investigation team was not established.      c.  For the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 9:00 AM, and involved loose yarns/threads on cord to jam on waxer dies causing detonating cord to break in the overspin operation, an incident investigation team was not established.      d.  For the incident which occurred in the FAR Production Building on or about July 28, 2009, and involved the detonation of oversized detonating cord in the sizing operation, the employers incident investigation report did not identify the members of the investigation team.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(4)(iv):  A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum:  The factors that contributed to the incident:      a.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 9:00 AM, did not include the factors that contributed to the incident such as the lack of training and specific procedures pertaining to the maximum number of spools of yarn that could be changed at one time in the overspin operation.      b. The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, did not include the factors that contributed to the incident such as the lack of training and specific procedures pertaining to the centering of the detonating cord in the pass through tube by checking or making the appropriate adjustments in the extruder operation.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(4)(v):  A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum:  Any recommendations resulting from the investigation:       a.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 9:00 AM, did not include the recommendation of updating the written Overspin/Waxer Operation procedure, LP-DC-020 with the maximum number of spools of yarn that could be changed at one time in the overspin operation.      b. The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, did not include the recommendation of updating the written East Building 2 Inch Extruder Operation procedure, LP-DC-017 with the adjustments and checks to ensure that the detonating cord was centered in the pass through tube in the extruder operation.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5): The employer shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report findings and recommendations.  Resolutions and corrective actions shall be documented:    a.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 31, 2011, did not document the resolutions and corrective actions as to when the actions were completed and the date of completion.      b.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, did not document the resolutions and corrective actions as to when the actions were completed and the date of completion.       c.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 9:00 AM, did not document the resolutions and corrective actions as to when the actions were completed and the date of completion.      d.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in the FAR Production Building on or about July 28, 2009, did not document the resolutions and corrective actions as to the schedule of when the actions were to be completed, when the actions were completed, and the date of completion.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1):  Employers shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed:     a.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Employee Participation elements under section 1910.119(c).        b.   At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the  Process Safety Information elements under section 1910.119(d).        c.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Process Hazard Analysis elements under section 1910.119(e).        d.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an adequate evaluation of the Operating Procedures elements under section 1910.119(f) which included, but is not limited to, the following:  an evaluation of steps for each operating phase, operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems and their functions.        e.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Contractors elements under section 1910.119(h).        f.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Pre-startup Safety Review elements under section 1910.119(i).        g.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an adequate evaluation of the Mechanical Integrity elements under section 1910.119(j) which included, but is not limited to, the following:  an evaluation of specific written procedures, inspections and testing, and quality assurance.     h.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Hot Work Permit elements under section 1910.119(k).        i.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Management of Change elements under section 1910.119(l).        j.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Incident Investigation elements under section 1910.119(m).        k.  At the workplace, the employer's 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Emergency Planning and Response elements under section 1910.119(n).        l.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Employee Participation elements under section 1910.119(c).        m.   At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the  Process Safety Information elements under section 1910.119(d).        n.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Process Hazard Analysis elements under section 1910.119(e).        o.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an adequate evaluation of the Operating Procedures elements under section 1910.119(f) which included, but is not limited to, the following:  an evaluation of steps for each operating phase, operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems and their functions.        p.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Contractors elements under section 1910.119(h).        q.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Pre-startup Safety Review elements under section 1910.119(i).        r.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an adequate evaluation of the Mechanical Integrity elements under section 1910.119(j) which included, but is not limited to, the following:  an evaluation of specific written procedures, inspections and testing, and quality assurance.        s.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Hot Work Permit elements under section 1910.119(k).        t.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Management of Change elements under section 1910.119(l).        u.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Incident Investigation elements under section 1910.119(m).        v.  At the workplace, the employer's 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011 for emulsion production, booster manufacturing, and detonating cord, did not include an evaluation of the Emergency Planning and Response elements under section 1910.119(n).

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $4,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4):  The employer shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected:    a.  On the 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012, the employer did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response for the following open action items:  item 1 in packaged emulsion manufacturing and item 6 in the booster manufacturing facility.      b.  On the 2012 compliance audit dated on or about March 2012, the employer did not establish and document that the deficiencies had been corrected for item 1 in the detonating cord production line and items 5 and 7 in the booster manufacturing facility.      c.  On the 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011, the employer did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response for the following open action items:  items 3, 6, and 8 in packaged emulsion manufacturing.      d.  On the 2011 compliance audit dated on or about February 2011, the employer did not establish and document that the deficiencies had been corrected for item 10 in packaged emulsion manufacturing and items 2, 5, and 7 in the booster manufacturing facility.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $3,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(b):  Selection.  Employers shall base the selection of the appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified:    a. In the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1, the employer did not provide the employee with adequate hand protection to prevent exposure to heated chemicals exceeding 200 degrees Fahrenheit.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $3,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i):  Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(6) and (f)(7) of this section, the employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with the following information:  Identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:    a.  In the outside tank farm at the Bulk Emulsion Production Building #2, tank 1 containing liquid ammonium nitrate was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazardous chemical identity.    b.  In the outside tank farm at the Bulk Emulsion Production Building #2, tank 2 containing liquid ammonium nitrate was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazardous chemical identity.    c.  In the outside tank farm at the Bulk Emulsion Production Building #2, tank 3 containing RDT 8 fuel with an emulsifier was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazardous chemical identity.    d.  In the Mix Plant Production building, the emulsion tank containing Hydromite was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazardous chemical identity.    e.  Outside on the West side of the Garage, two 500 gallon tanks containing propane were not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazardous chemical identity.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Mar 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii):  Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(6) and (f)(7) of this section, the employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with the following information:  Appropriate hazard warnings, or alternatively, words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals, and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, will provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:    a.  In the outside tank farm at the Bulk Emulsion Production Building #2, tank 1 containing liquid ammonium nitrate was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.    b.  In the outside tank farm at the Bulk Emulsion Production Building #2, tank 2 containing liquid ammonium nitrate was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.    c.  In the outside tank farm at the Bulk Emulsion Production Building #2, tank 3 containing RDT 8 fuel with an emulsifier was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.    d.  In the Mix Plant Production building, the emulsion tank containing Hydromite was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.    e.  Outside on the West side of the Garage, two 500 gallon tanks containing propane were not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.    f.  Outside the Packaged Emulsion Production Building #1, bin 1 containing ammonium nitrate was not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.    g.  Outside the Mix Plant Production building, the two bins containing ammonium nitrate were not labeled, tagged or marked with the hazard warnings.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jan 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(A):  The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.  Safety and health considerations:  Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process:    a. In the Emulsion Manufacturing process/unit, the employer did not include the properties and hazards presented by process chemicals and did not identify the location of these elements in the written operating procedures.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jan 1, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(4)(ii):  A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum:  Date investigation began:    a.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 31, 2011, did not include the date the investigation began.      b.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, did not include the date the investigation began.       c.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in S.P.A. Production Building #1 on or about January 6, 2011, at 9:00 AM, did not include the date the investigation began.      d.  The incident investigation report for the incident which occurred in the FAR Production Building on or about July 28, 2009, did not include the date the investigation began.