OSHA Inspection: WILLIAMS OLEFINS, LLC

Issued

Dec 11, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(5):  The chemical manufacturer, importer or employer preparing the safety data sheets did not ensure that the information provided accurately reflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard classification:    The employer did not ensure that the safety data sheet for Crude Propylene considered the hazards of contact with hot water.

Issued

Dec 11, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

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) The employer does not ensure compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP-ASME BPVC Section 8, Div 1, UG-125 (a)1-3)), specifically operating and maintaining process vessels without overpressure protection.  EA-425B was exposed to process conditions through the introduction of quench water without an open relief path or pressure relief device. This violation was documented on or about July 3, 2013 at the Williams Olefins Geismar, Louisiana Facility.   b) The employer does not ensure compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP-API 521-paragraph 2.3.15) in that EA-425B did not have a pathway to relief in the event of exposure to fire. This violation was documented on July 3, 2013 at the Williams Olefins Geismar, Louisiana Facility.  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within (10) calendar days of the abatement date, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that the hazards of the process are addressed and comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

Issued

Dec 11, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis shall consider the hazards of the process:    The employer did not ensure that the process hazards analysis for the propylene fractionation area addressed the potential for residual Hydrocarbon to be on the shell side of the Reboilers.

Issued

Dec 11, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $3,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3): Training documentation. The employer did not prepare a record which contained the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.    The employer does not prepare a record containing the verification used to determine that the employee understood the training. This violation was documented on or about July 17, 2013 when the process safety training records did not contain a means of verification for three operator technicians.    Pursuent to 29 CFR 1903.19, within 10 calendar days of the abatement date , the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that a means of training verification is utilized with the training program.

Issued

Dec 11, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

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 deficiencies have been corrected:    The employer failed to promptly correct all the recommendations found in its compliance audit.

Issued

Dec 11, 2013

Abate by

Dec 21, 2013

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $7,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 2150P249

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer did not 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.    The employer does not ensure that written operating procedures provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process. This violation occurred on or about June 13, 2013, and at times prior thereto when the employer failed to develop a clear, written procedure to change the service between reboilers EA-425A and EA-425B.      Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the citation, the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the standard including developing a written procedure for switching the service between reboiler EA-425A and EA-425B.