OSHA Inspection: ABITEC CORPORATION

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D):  The employer did not maintain an accurate listing of the location, function, and inspection information for all relief system design and design basis within a covered process.  On March 28, 2016, and at times prior to and thereafter, the employer did not maintain an accurate record of rupture disc information, including but not limited to, the rupture discs on the MB-3 and MB-4.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 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.  On March 28, 2016, and at time prior to and thereafter, the employer did not document that the rupture discs on MB-3 and MB-4 complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices in that they did not follow the manufacturer's recommendations for changing out the rupture discs.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process.  On March 28, 2016, and at time prior to and thereafter, the employer's process hazard analysis did not identify and address all scenarios that might result in a fire.  a) The process hazard analysis did not identify the use of ferrous-based/sparking tools on process equipment containing ethylene oxide and isopropyl alcohol.  b) The process hazard analysis did not address the transfer of ethylene oxide during inclement weather that includes the possibility of lightning strikes.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Sep 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(E): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in emergency operations.    On or about March 28, 2016, and at times prior to and thereafter, the employer did not develop procedures to respond to emergency operations and emergency alarms for the following processes:    a) Temperature and pressure alarms on the MB-1, MB-3, and MB-4    b) Pump diaphragm failure alarms or operating outside of normal operating range alarms for Metering Pump 1 and 2.    c) Temperature, pressure and level alarms on the Ethylene Oxide Storage Tank.    d) Temperature alarm on the ethylene oxide seal pot.    e) Temperature and pressure alarms for Reactor No. 1, 3, 4, and 6.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.  On March 28, 2016, and at times prior to and thereafter, the employer did not develop written procedures for the on-going integrity of process equipment, including but not limited to, the following:  a) No written procedures were established for the calibration of the GC8900 OV Monitor.  b) No written procedures were established for testing the VFD fault alarm.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspection and tests on process equipment  On March 28, 2016, and at times prior to and thereafter, the employer did not conduct inspections and test on process equipment, including but not limited to, the following:  a) The VFD fault alarm was not inspected nor tested on Reactors 1, 3 and 4.  b) The "tattle-tale" pressure indicators between the rupture discs and pressure relief valves were not inspected to verify the working condition of the rupture discs on MB3 and MB4.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 11, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,678 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii): The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment was not consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.  On March 28, 2016, and at time prior to and thereafter, the employer did not conduct inspections and tests consistent with applicable manufacturer's recommendations and good engineering practices on the following equipment:  a)  The employer did not conduct bump checks of the hand held ethylene oxide meter, per the manufacturer's recommendations.  b) The employer did not have the torque wrenches calibrated per recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (ASME B107.14 or equivalent).  c) The employer did not change out the rupture disks per the frequency recommended by the manufacturer.