OSHA Inspection: THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 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 was free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to an unstable chemical reaction from improperly stored Organic Peroxide compound Luperox 26 A:  a) On or about August 7, 2023, and times prior thereto, employees were exposed to fire and explosion hazards from unstable chemical reaction due to the improper storage of Luperox 26 A which was not stored in a temperature-controlled environment.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): Relief system design and design basis;  a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, relief valve PSV-5408 was not included in the relief system design or design basis associated with the pressure vessel CAT-5 written process safety information. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process.   (a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the 2021 Process Hazard Analysis did not identify the hazards of self-reactive, thermally sensitive chemicals and potential for high ambient temperatures on vessel CAT-5 charged with organic oxidizers. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(e)(3)(v): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards related to facility siting:   a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did not address process equipment siting near the control room when it evaluated the facility siting in the Process Hazard Analysis. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(f)(1)(ii): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information that addressed operating limits.  a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the normal operating procedure, SQ4736P, did not list the operating limits, including specific upper temperature limits, for Luperox-26 (organic peroxide) used in CAT-5. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that addressed the consequences of deviations from the operating limits in the covered process;  a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not address the consequences of deviation from operating limits. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training was not provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:  a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did not provide operator refresher training at least every three years or more often, if necessary. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Refresher training was not provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:  a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did not provide operator refresher training at least every three years or more often, if necessary. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $16,131 · Current $9,679 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:  (a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not establish written procedures for inspecting pressure vessels.    (b) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not establish written procedures for inspecting piping systems.    (c) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did not develop a mechanical integrity program for corrosion under insulation inspections  These conditions exposed employees to struck-by hazards.

Issued

Feb 5, 2024

Abate by

Mar 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $161,310 · Current $96,786 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspection and tests on process equipment:  (a)  On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility  in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 1/2"-150 psig process piping from vessel CAT-5 to reactor R-5  (b) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 3"-150 psig process piping from reactor R5 to Tank TD-4 (RI-103-CI-3-N).  (c) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 3"-150 psig  process piping from reactor R5 to Tank TD-5 (RI-101-CI-3-N)  (d) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the process piping from vessel WT-5B to reactor R5.  (e) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did inspect the  process piping from the PM Acetate tank to WT-5B  These conditions exposed employees to struck-by hazards.  The Sherwin-Williams Company was previously cited for a Serious violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.119(j)(4)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1572722, Citation Number 1, Item number 5, and was affirmed as a final order on July 7, 2022, with a final abatement date on July 8,  2022, with respect to a workplace located at 301 Plant Road Ennis, Texas 75119.