OSHA Inspection: LOY-LANGE BOX COMPANY

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2018-02-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $8873.00 · Current $5918.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to recognized hazards of burn or struck by injuries relating to the catastrophic corrosion failure and subsequent explosion of a pressure vessel containing high temperature water and steam that was part of the employers steam generation system:         On and before April 3, 2017, at the Loy-Lange Box Company facility located at 222 Russel Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, the employer exposed employees to the recognized hazard of burn and struck by injuries relating to the catastrophic corrosion failure of a pressure vessel called a Semi-Closed Receiver (SCR), which, contained steam and boiling water, under pressure.  On April 3, the employer allowed the steam generation system to be started for normal operations with the SCR leaking as a result of corrosion without having performed an adequate inspection to determine the extent of corrosion damage in the SCR, either upon discovery of the leak or at other times before discovery of the leak.  As the pressure in the steam generator system built, the bottom of the SCR suffered a catastrophic corrosion failure that resulted in a steam explosion which killed one employee and critically injured another.  On Friday, March 31, three days before the explosion, the employer learned of an actual leak in the bottom portion of the SCR, but allowed the SCR to remain in service on Monday, April 3, when the steam generation system was restarted after being idle over the weekend, without conducting further inspection or investigation.         Among other methods, feasible and acceptable means of hazard abatement include:        Developing and implementing measures to effectively monitor, control, discover, maintain and repair corrosion damage in the steam generation system, including the SCR, by (i) responding when leaks in pressure vessels are discovered, including removing leaking pressure vessels from service pending a thorough investigation of the extent of and reasons for the leak, (ii) establishing an appropriate corrosion inspection and control program for monitoring corrosion in all components of the steam generation system, including the SCR,  (iii) maintaining and repairing the steam generation system, including the SCR, to prevent catastrophic leaks from occurring, and (iv) training supervisors and employees in the hazards of corrosion failure and the proper practices for corrosion inspection, monitoring, control, maintenance, and repair.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2018-02-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $8873.00 · Current $5918.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):  The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employee(s) in that employees were exposed to recognized hazards including, but not limited to, burn or struck by injuries from the over-pressurization of a pressure vessel:       The employer is failing to protect employees from impact and thermal hazards as a result of pressure vessel rupture due to over pressurization.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri where the employer is failing to ensure pressure relief valves are set at or below the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessels in which they are installed.  Incorrectly sized safety relief valves will fail to prevent a vessel overpressure situation due to the set point being above the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel it is supposed to protect.  In this instance, the  Semi-Closed Receiver, National Board Number 8367 and serial number 979076, contained approximately 510 gallons of hot water at a temperature of approximately 330�Fahrenheit and steam at a pressure of approximately 100 pounds per square inch grade and a maximum allowable working pressure of 150 pounds per square inch was equipped with a Watts Figure 31 safety relief valve, model number 31HGA and serial number 99011089-1, with a 200 pounds per square inch set pressure for release.  The installed safety relief valve exceeded the maximum allowable pressure of the vessel by 50 pounds per square inch.         Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this hazard is to assure pressure vessels are equipped with an appropriately designed relief valves with a set point at or below the maximum allowable working pressure of the respective vessel.  The installation should conform to nationally recognized standards or codes such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section VIII  Division 1, Pressure Vessels - 1968 edition, Subsection A  General Requirements, Part UG-133(a).

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $5070.00 · Current $3381.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):     The employer is failing to protect employees from chemical hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri when the employer is failing to adequately assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present for all job functions which necessitates the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as, but not limited to, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect against chemical burns (frostbite) as a result of contact with liquid propane.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:  The employer is failing to protect employees from chemical burn hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri where the employer is failing to require employees to use appropriate hand protection when changing propane fuel cylinders on power industrial trucks to prevent skin burns (frostbite) as a result of contact with liquid propane.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6338.00 · Current $4227.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.332(b)(1): Employees were not trained in and familiar with the safety-related work practices required by 1910.331 through 1910.335 that pertained to their respective job assignments:    The employer is failing to protect employees from electrical hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri as the employer is failing to train and familiarize maintenance workers on safety related work practices pertaining to their respective job assignments.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(a): Safety-related work practices were not employed to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either direct or indirect electrical contacts, when work was performed near or on equipment or circuits which were or could be energized:  The employer is failing to protect employees from electrical hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri where the employer is failing to develop and implement safety related work practices for maintenance employees performing work on or near energized equipment.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.333(c)(2): The employer did not ensure that only qualified persons were working on energized circuits and that qualified persons were familiar with the proper use of special precautionary techniques, personal protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials, and insulated tools:  The employer is failing to protect employees from electrical hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri where the employer is failing to ensure maintenance workers are familiar with the proper use of precautionary techniques and personal protective equipment while working on energized equipment to protect against contact with energized circuits.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6338.00 · Current $4227.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.335(a)(1)(i): Employees working in areas where there are potential electrical hazards shall be provided with, and shall use, electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed:    The employer is failing to protect employees from electrical hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri where the employer is failing to provide electrical protective equipment to maintenance workers exposed to energized electrical components during equipment troubleshooting tasks.

Issued

2017-09-29 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-11-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $12676.00 · Current $8409.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed:    The employer is failing to protect employees from crush, laceration, amputation, and fracture hazards.  The condition was most recently observed at 222 Russell Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri where the employer is failing to conduct periodic inspections of the energy control procedures at least annually.      Loy-Lange Box Company was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 958460, citation number 1, item number 1a and was affirmed as a final order on 03/27/2014, with respect to a workplace located at 222 Russell Boulevard, Saint Louis, Missouri.