OSHA Inspection: EMERY OLEOCHEMICALS LLC

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Abate by

Dec 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 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.    The employer did not document in their Facility Siting Checklist of May 2015 that windows in the Control Room were of rigid construction with sturdy panes that complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practice.

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Abate by

Jun 7, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards related to facility siting:     The process hazard analysis did not adequately address facility siting in that the blast load on the Solvents Process Control Room was not assessed.

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B): 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 and did not address normal operations.    On or about 6/12/2018, in Solvent Separation E, the employer did not ensure that the operating procedures included clear instructions for draining the Low Pressure Receiver's oil pot.

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Abate by

Dec 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $11,641

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer shall 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 and shall address at least the following elements    a) On or about 6/12/2018, in Solvent Separation E, the employer did not ensure the Emergency Operation/Shutdown Procedures (SolE-105) were followed during an unresolved loss of cooling tower water supply which was a contributing factor to an ammonia release.

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Abate by

Dec 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(i): The employer, when selecting a contractor , did not obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract employer's safety performance and program:    Emery Oleochemicals, LLC did not ensure that contractors performing work in covered processes, such as but not limited to St. Bernard Insulation, LLC, had programs in place such as but not limited to hazard communication.

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Abate by

Dec 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(2):     Machine or equipment shutdown. The machine or equipment shall be turned off or shut down using the procedures established for the machine or equipment. An orderly shutdown must be utilized to avoid any additional or increased hazard(s) to employees as a result of the equipment stoppage.    On June 12, 2018 the employer failed to insure the Lockout/Tagout procedure for work to be performed on the primary water source (well water/demin water blend) for Solvent E cooling tower was suitable and effective. As a result, a valve that should have been closed and locked was left open. As a result, water from the backup water supply (city water) flowed backwards through the non-isolated pipeline and did not go to the cooling tower as intended. The loss of make-up water to the cooling water system caused the cooling tower pan to empty and resulted in a loss of cooling water for the condenser of the anhydrous ammonia cooling system which was a contributing factor in an ammonia release.

Issued

Nov 2, 2018

Abate by

Dec 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:    The employer did not ensure that employees who are required to wear tight-fitting face piece respirators were fit-tested at least annually.