OSHA Inspection: SLACK CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,925 Reduced

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) Chlorine Storage Area - On or about August 11, 2014, the employer did not document that equipment complied with RAGAGEP such as but not limited to, paragraph 4 (per the edition on-site, which dated to 1969-1979) of the Chlorine Manual by the Chlorine Institute, when it failed to erect a fire wall to separate the chlorine storage area from an adjacent area where flammable materials are stored.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process.    A) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the "What If" format process hazard analysis failed to address process hazards, such as but not limited to: fire in the chlorine storage area.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv): The process hazard analysis did not address the consequences of the failure of engineering and administrative controls.  A) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the "What If" format PHA did not address the consequences of the failure of the engineering and administrative controls, such as but not limited to, an employee not being able to install an A or B kit to a leaking cylinder or container.  Potential causes of not being able to install a kit could include lack of a kit or availability of PPE (e.g. SCBAs).

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi): The process hazard analysis did not address human factors.  A) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the "What If" format PHA did not address human factors that could affect the process, such as but not limited to: "What if a leak was not found upon delivery?", "What if an employee was performing hot work near the cylinders or containers?", or "What if an employee struck a 1-ton container with a forklift?"

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the "What If" format PHA did not address a qualitative evaluation of a range of safety and health effects on employees in the event of the failure of controls.  This normally consists of a risk assessment which compares the severity of the safety and health effects to the probability of those effects occurring.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(7):  The employer did not retain the process hazard analysis (PHA), updates, or renewals for each process covered and documented resolution of the recommendations described in 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5) for the life of the process.    A) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the initial process hazard analysis (PHA) was not retained by the employer since the employer destroyed the previous PHAs.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(1): The employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review for new facilities and for modified facilities when the modification was significant enough to require a change in the process safety information.    A) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review prior to storing 150-lb chlorine cylinders and 1-ton chlorine containers in order to ensure that the storage area of the new addition, which was constructed in 2009, had adequate ventilation and fire resistive construction.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(n): The employer did not implement an emergency response plan for the entire plant in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.120(q):    A) Worksite - On or about August 11, 2014, the employer did not ensure that employees trained to install Chlorine Institute Emergency "A" and "B" Kits to actively stop releases also received the training required for Hazardous Materials Technicians or were equipped with SCBAs.  The pre-emergency planning and coordination procedures specified in the emergency response plan were not implemented in that the local fire department and Saratoga County Hazardous Response team had not drilled with the facility.  The emergency response plan did not specify how control would be transferred in an emergency from Slack to the local fire department.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(1): The employer did not develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations:  (a) On or about August 11, 2014, in the warehouse, the pre-emergency planning and coordination procedures specified in the employer's emergency response plan were not implemented.  Employees at this facility were expected to respond to releases of chlorine gas. The local fire department and Saratoga County Hazardous Materials Response Team were designated as the outside emergency responders but the facility had not drilled with these groups since March 2011.  The plan did not specify how control would be transferred in an emergency from Slack to the local fire department.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)(iv): Employees engaged in emergency response and exposed to hazardous substances presenting an inhalation hazard or potential inhalation hazard, did not wear positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus until such time that the individual in charge of the incident command system determined through the use of air monitoring that a decreased level of respiratory protection would not result in hazardous exposures to employees:  (a) On or about August 11, 2014, in the warehouse, the employer has selected and provided full face respirators with chlorine cartridges for employees to wear while they install a "A" or "B" Chlorine Emergency Kit to stop a chlorine leak in an emergency. The concentration of the amount of chlorine gas in the air in an emergency situation is unknown and this respirator is not approved for immediately dangerous to life or health atmospheres. The Chlorine Institute in their Pamphlet 65, entitled "Personal Protective Equipment for Chlor-Alkali Chemicals" recommends that level B protection which requires a self-contained breathing apparatus be supplied when responding to emergencies.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii): Employees who participated as hazardous materials technicians, or were expected to participate as hazardous materials technicians, had not received at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level, and in addition have competency in the areas outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A) through (q)(6)(iii)(I) and/or the employer did not so certify:  (a) Worksite - On or about August 11, 2014, the employer did not ensure that employees trained to install Chlorine Institute Emergency Kits "A" and "B" on 150 lb and 1 ton chlorine cylinders to actively stop releases also received the training required for Hazardous Materials Technicians.

Issued

Feb 6, 2015

Abate by

Mar 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,925 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:      A) Worksite - On and prior to August 11, 2014, the employer had not performed a compliance audit of the process safety management program to ensure that it was compliant with Occupational Safety and Health Administration Process Safety Management standard (1910.119).