SPARTA, NJ —
OSHA Inspection: DIVERSIFIED CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Planned inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned health inspection of DIVERSIFIED CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC. in 189 HOUSES CORNER ROAD, SPARTA, NJ 07871 (NAICS 339999). OSHA activity number 339363541.
What this inspection record means
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Watch Diversified CPC International, INC. — free
Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Diversified CPC International, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- DIVERSIFIED CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
- Site address
- 189 HOUSES CORNER ROAD
- City
- SPARTA
- State
- NJ
- ZIP
- 07871
- Mailing
- 189 HOUSES CORNER ROAD, SPARTA, NJ 07871
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 339999
- Employees
- 4
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
15 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.119 D03 I B
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $7,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B): Written process safety information pertaining to equipment in the process did not include piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs): a) Establishment - plant The employer did not ensure that the written process safety information included all the necessary information pertaining to the equipment in the process when the fail safe position of emergency shutoff valves was not identified on P&ID sheets 07, 101 and 102. b) Establishment - tank 7 The employer did not ensure that written process safety information accurately reflected existing equipment in the process in that an internal air actuated excess flow valve on the vapor line and three pressure relief valves without stacks on tank 7 were indicated on P&ID 07 but were not present in the installation. c) Establishment - L/C meters The employer did not ensure that the written process safety information included all the necessary information pertaining to the equipment in the process when an existing hydrostatic relief valve installed in the L/C Meter for difluoroethane was not represented on P&ID 07. d) Establishment - Tank 4 The employer did not ensure that written process safety information accurately reflected existing equipment in the process in that PID 101 indicated a vapor line leading to an air actuated internal excess flow valve second from the end and a fill line leading to an excess flow valve third from the end when in the installation the vapor line goes to the third valve from the end and the fill line the second valve from the end. Violations observed on or about 10/10/2013.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $7000
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 D03 II
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP): a) Tanks 1-5 and 7. The employer failed to comply with RAGAGEP such as, but not limited to, NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code section 5.7.4.4 when it did not provide a fixed maximum liquid level gauge for its 30,000 gallon ASME storage tanks. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. b) Tanks 1-4 The employer failed to comply with RAGAGEP such as, but not limited to, manufacturer's recommendations for installation of Corken B166 bypass valves when it ran discharge piping from the bypass valves to check valves on each tank. The manufacturer requires that the discharge piping from the bypass valves go into the tank through an excess flow valve. Violation occurred on or about 1/9/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 D03 I D
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): Information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include relief system design and design basis: a) Molecular sieve tanks 1 and 2 The employer's relief system design and design basis for the molecular sieve columns containing normal butane and isobutane at up to approximately 110 psig did not specify the fire conditions, such as but not limited to, anticipated temperatures or pressures, nor were the basis for the relief design calculations identified. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. b) Tanks 1-5 The employer's relief system design and design basis for 30,000 gallon storage tanks containing propane, normal butane, isobutane and difluoroethane up to approximately 110 psig did not specify the fire conditions, such as but not limited to, anticipated temperatures or pressures, nor were the basis for the relief design calculations identified. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. c) Tank 7 The employer did not provide relief system design and design basis for a 30,000 gallon storage tank containing difluoroethane. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 E03 III
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $6,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iii): The process hazard analysis did not address engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases: a) Establishment - plant The employer's 1999 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) and 2004 and 2009 PHA revalidations did not address gas detection as an engineering control to limit employee exposures to deodorized liquefied petroleum gases released from pressure vessels in case of upset conditions, equipment malfunction or other events. Violation occurred on or about 10/10/13. b) Establishment - plant The employer's 1999 PHA and PHA revalidations in 2004 and 2009 did not consider whether relief devices on process equipment to include pressure vessels and piping relieve to safe locations. Violation occurred on or about 10/10/13.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $6000
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 E03 V
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $6,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v): The process safety hazard analysis did not address facility siting: a) Establishment The facility siting analysis was not properly documented in the PHA performed in 1999 and revalidated in 2004 and 2008. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $6000
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 E03 VI
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi): The process hazard analysis did not address human factors: a) The 1999 PHA and 2004 and 2009 revalidations did not address the hazard of operators failing to ensure all valves were in proper position during transfer operations due to absence of individual valve identification and lack of explicit operating instructions. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. b) The 1999 PHA and 2004 and 2009 revalidations did not consider the hazard of damaging full trailers by backing into the loading racks during blending as drivers pulled back and forth to mix loads before sampling. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. c) The 1999 PHA and 2004 and 2009 revalidations did not consider the hazard of overfilling containers while conducting multiple loading/unloading operations at the same time. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. d) The 1999 initial PHA and subsequent revalidations in 2004 and 2009 did not consider the hazard of operators responding to alarms by activating emergency shut-off buttons which may be located in areas where odorless flammable gas can accumulate. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 E05
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer did not establish a system to promptly address the team's findings and recommendations; did not assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented: a) Establishment The employer's documentation on completion of recommendations from the 1999 PHA did not identify whether corrective actions were taken, when individual items were completed and what the schedule was for completion. Recommendations consisted of verifying tank, piping and relief valve design, equipment, operating and maintenance procedures. Deficiences in the operating procedures "Tank Car Unloading", "Final Inspection" and "Preparing, Loading and Shipping Tank Cars, Tank Trucks and Portable Tanks" indicated verfication of these procedures was incomplete. Absence of written maintenance procedures for pressure relief valves, internal tank inspections, hydrostatic relief valves and Corken B166 bypass valves indicated verification of these procedures was also incomplete. Violation occurred on or about 1/24/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 F01
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $6,000
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: c) Procedure "Tank Car Unloading", ver. 2, rev. 4, 8/9/12 The employer's written operating procedures did not provide clear instructions on how to transfer substances into tanks including passage of normal butane and iso butane through molecular sieve before storing it in tanks. Violation occurred on or about 1/24/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $6000
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 F03
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(3): The employer did not annually certify that operating procedures were current and accurate: a) Diversified CPC - facility wide Standard operating procedures specific to the Sparta facility such as, but not limited to "Start Up/Shutdown Tank Farm" were not certified on an annual basis. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. b) Diversified CPC - facility wide Company standard operating procedures applicable to the Sparta facility such as, but not limited to, "Final Inspections" ver. 1, rev. 9 dated 11/24/2010, were not certified by anyone at the Sparta facility. The procedure was deficient in providing clear instruction on how to mix loads and how to adjust off-specification loads. Violation occurred on or about 1/24/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 J02
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $7,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment: b) Tank17 The employer did not establish and implement written procedures for inspecting ASME tank pressure vessels to include, but not limited, to internal and on-stream inspections. Violation occurred on or about 1/29/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $7000
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 J04 I
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspection and tests on process equipment a) Molecular sieve columns 1 and 2 The employer failed to conduct thickness testing of two molecular sieve tanks used for isobutane and normal butane. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 J04 II
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii): Inspection and testing procedures did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP): a) Diversified CPC - Tank 7 and molecular sieves. The employer did not follow RAGAGEP such as, but not limited to, API 510 sec. 4.2.4, when it used an individual to perform and review vessel thickness measurments who was not qualified and did not possess the required credentials. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. b) Diversified CPC - Tank 7 and molecular sieves The employer failed to comply with RAGAGEP such as, but not limited to API 510 sec. 5.6 when it obtained thickness readings at random locations without marking each thickness measurement location for future comparison of thickness. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13. d) Piping - facility wide The employer did not comply with RAGAGEP such as but not limited to API 570 section 5.6 when it obtained thickness readings at random locations without marking each thickness measurement location for future comparison of thickness. Violation occurred on or about 12/17/13.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 L02 II
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $6,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(l)(2)(ii): The management of change procedures did not assure that the impact of changes on safety and health were addressed prior to any change. a) Establishment - plant Management of Change (MOC) 01-2002 Gas Detection in Tank Farm and 02-2008 Change LEL Sensor from Catalytic to IR Sensor did not consider the impact to health and safety of alarm setpoints, 20% and 40% of the Lower Explosive Level (LEL) of pentane. These alarm setpoints are above the level at which liquefied petroleum gases are Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health, 10% of the LEL. Violation occurred on or about 1/29/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $6000
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 N
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(n): The emergency action plan did not include procedures for handling small releases. a) Establishment The employer's Emergency Response Procedure did not include procedures that employees could follow to distinguish between small releases and large releases and what employees were expected to do in event of small releases. Violation occurred on or about 9/30/13.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
1910.119 O01
- Issued
- Feb 28, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1): The employer did not 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 this standard were adequate and were being followed: a) Diversified CPC - facility wide The compliance audit process was designed to satisfy NJ TCPA requirements and did not meet OSHA compliance audit specifications. The following inconsistencies were noted with the employer's compliance audit: 1. Accuracy of P&ID's was not adequately addressed during the compliance audit with deficiencies noted to include but not limited to omission of the fail safe position of emergency shutoff valves, indication of equipment on PID 07 not present in the installation, omission of a hydrostatic relief valve on an L/C meter for difluoroethane and incorrect drawing of vapor and fill lines for Tank 4. 2. The audit did not adequately cover operating procedures with omissions noted in the SOP's Tank Car Unloading, Final Inspection and Preparing, Loading and Shipping Tanks Cars, Tank Trucks and Portable Tanks. 3. The audit did not identify noncompliance with RAGAGEP in the case of missing maximum level gauges on storage tanks and connection of discharge piping from bypass valves to tanks 1-4. 4. The audit did not identify the failure of the PHA to address facility siting, human factors and gas detection as an engineering control. 5. The audit did not address instances where inspection and testing did not follow RAGAGEP for tank inspections. Violation occurred on or about 1/29/14.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $4900
- — Z (S) $4900
More inspections at Diversified CPC International, INC.
Sep 25, 2018
CHANNAHON, IL
Sep 25, 2018
CHANNAHON, IL
Dec 1, 2009
ANAHEIM, CA
Dec 12, 2002
ANAHEIM, CA
Sep 11, 1990
CHANNAHON, IL
View Diversified CPC International, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 339999)
Jul 16, 2026
111614 - Boveda INC · MINNETONKA, MN
Jul 14, 2026
69324 - Conco INC · OKOLONA, KY
Jul 8, 2026
Tigre USA INC. · CELINA, TN
Jul 6, 2026
Nightjar Sauna LLC · GRAND RAPIDS, MI
Jun 30, 2026
Araymond USA DBA Araymond Fluid Handling North America INC · ROCHESTER HILLS, MI
More inspections in NJ
Jul 17, 2026
East Orange Community Charter School · EAST ORANGE, NJ
Jul 17, 2026
East Orange Community Charter School · EAST ORANGE, NJ
Jul 17, 2026
East Orange Community Charter School · EAST ORANGE, NJ
Jul 17, 2026
John Caruso Builders LLC · MOUNTAIN LAKES, NJ
Jul 16, 2026
Borough of Pennington Department of Public Works · PENNINGTON, NJ
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 339363541.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.