OSHA Inspection: THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY

Issued

Jun 8, 2022

Abate by

Jul 8, 2022

Penalty

Initial $10,360 · Current $6,734 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(f)(3): The operating procedures were not reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to facilities:  (a) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the standard operating procedure (General Duties for Mixing Personnel) did not reflect the employer's current operating practice.   (b) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the standard operating procedure (Moving of a grind from Mill to Tank) did not reflect the employer's current operating practice.   (c) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the standard operating procedure (Color change over) did not reflect the employer's current operating practice.   (d) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the standard operating procedure (Transferring a Batch from tank to tank) did not reflect the employer's current operating practice.

Issued

Jun 8, 2022

Abate by

Jul 29, 2022

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $9,426 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 programs:  (a) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not obtain and evaluate an onsite contractor's safety information and programs before allowing the contractor to work on or near a covered process. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Jun 8, 2022

Abate by

Jul 29, 2022

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $9,426 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 is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information:  (a) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review after a wash ring and a new tie-in piping for mixing tank T1 were installed on 12/1/2021.   (b) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review after a wash ring and a new tie-in piping for Mixing tank T5 were installed on 12/20/2021..  (c) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review after a wash ring and a new tie-in piping for Mixing tank T6 were installed on 12/2/2021.   (d) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review after a wash ring and a new tie-in piping for Mixing tank T2 were installed on 12/16/2021.   (e) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform a pre-startup safety review after a wash ring and a new tie-in piping for Mixing tank T3 were installed on 1/4/2022.

Issued

Jun 8, 2022

Abate by

Jul 29, 2022

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $9,426 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment  a ) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: The employer did not develop a written mechanical integrity program procedure that required piping inspections to be based on a classification system that prioritizes piping inspections based on consequences of failure. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Jun 8, 2022

Abate by

Jul 29, 2022

Penalty

Initial $14,502 · Current $9,426 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspection and tests on process equipment  (a) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-RI-150-N-CSTL-MAN-RI-020   (b) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-RI-150-N-CSTL-MAN-RI-024    c) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-SOL-150-N-CSTL-MAN-SOL-024  d) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-SOL-150-N-CSTL-MT-50200-002  e) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-RI-150-N-CSTL-MAN-RI-027   f) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-RI-150-N-CSTL-MAN-RI-013    g) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-SOL-150-N-CSTL-MAN-SOL-009   h) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 200 psig process piping 2"-SOL-150-N-CSTL-MT-50600-001  i) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 2-1/2" relief valve PSV-30100 with a set pressure of 250 psig.  j) Sherwin Williams - Ennis, TX: On January 11, 2022, and at times prior, the employer did not perform an inspection on the 2-1/2" relief valve PSV-30300 with a set pressure of 250 psig.