Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY in 3460 HWY 44, DARROW, LA 70725 (NAICS 325180). OSHA activity number 340067727.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 E. I. DU Pont DE Nemours and Company — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for E. I. DU Pont DE Nemours and Company is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
3460 HWY 44
City
DARROW
State
LA
ZIP
70725
Mailing
3460 HWY 44, DARROW, LA 70725
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
325180
Employees
30
Ownership type
A

3 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.119 D03 II

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 20 exposed
Issued
Apr 28, 2015
Abate by
May 22, 2015
Penalty
Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):  The employer did not document that the equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.     The employer does not ensure that equipment in the process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).     The violation occurred in the Burnside Acid Plant on or about November 5, 2014, and at times prior thereto. Employees were exposed to inhalation, fire and explosion hazards from Sulfur Trioxide liquids and/or gases when the employer failed to ensure process equipment complied with recognized and generally excepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) such as ANSI/ISA-84 (IEC 61511) for safety-instrumented systems such as, but not limited to:     a.     SIF 6  Monplex Hot Exchanger High Inlet Pressure (SIL 3)  b.     SIF 15  SO3 Loading Fault (SIL 2).     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (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 it is taking to ensure that equipment in the process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $0
  • — C (S) $7000
  • — Z (S) $7000

1910.119 E05

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 20 exposed
Issued
Apr 28, 2015
Abate by
May 22, 2015
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5):  The employer did not establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team's findings and recommendations.       A.     The violation occurred in the Burnside Acid Plant on or about November 5, 2014, and at times prior thereto. Employees were exposed to inhalation, fire and explosion hazards from releases of Sulfur Trioxide liquids and/or gases when the employer failed to ensure the recommendation to install water deluge system capable of mitigating the vapors/plume of an entire SO3 railcar was completed in a timely manner and/or a schedule for completion developed.       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 a system is established to promptly address the process hazard analysis teams finding and recommendations.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $3500
  • — C (S) $5000
  • — Z (S) $5000

1910.119 J04 IV

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 20 exposed
Issued
Apr 28, 2015
Abate by
May 22, 2015
Penalty
Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iv): The employer did not document the date of inspection or test, the name of the person performing the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment tested, the description of the inspection or test, and the results of the inspection or test for each inspection and test that has been done on process equipment.      On November 5, 2014, the employer's documentation of tests performed on SIF 6 Monplex Hot Exchanger High Inlet Pressure and SIF 15 SO3 Loading Fault did not include the name of the person performing the inspection or the results of the inspection.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $7000
  • — C (S) $7000
  • — Z (S) $7000

View E. I. DU Pont DE Nemours and Company's full OSHA safety record →

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 340067727.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.