Department of Labor Seal photos representing the workforce - digital imagery© copyright 2001 photodisc, inc.
Department of Labor Seal www.osha.gov   [skip navigational links] Search    Advanced Search | A-Z Index
Safety and Health Topics > Ammonia Refrigeration > Armour Swift-Eckrich Presentation > Citation and Notification...
Link to Printing Instructions Printing Instructions
 
U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Suite 105
8600 Farley
Overland Park, KS 66212
Phone: (913)236-3220 FAX: (913)236-3224		 Official U.S. Department of Labor Seal

Citation and Notification of Penalty
 
To:
Armour Swift - Eckrich, Inc.
and its successors
4612 Speaker Rd.
Kansas City, KS 66110		 Inspection Number:  301340220
Inspection Date(s):   04/09/97 - 09/26/97
Issuance Date:         10/09/97
Inspection Site:
4612 Speaker Rd.
Kansas City, KS 66110		 The violation(s) described in this Citation and Notification of Penalty is (are) alleged to have occurred on or about the day(s) the inspection was made unless otherwise indicated within the description given below.

This Citation and Notification of Penalty (this Citation) describes violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The penalty(ies) listed herein is (are) based on these violations. You must abate the violations referred to in this Citation by the dates listed and pay the penalties proposed, unless within 15 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays) from your receipt of this Citation and Notification of Penalty you mail a notice of contest to the U.S. Department of Labor District Office at the address shown above. Please refer to the enclosed booklet (OSHA 3000) which outlines your rights and responsibilities and which should be read in conjunction with this form. Issuance of this Citation does not constitute a finding that a violation of the Act has occurred unless there is a failure to contest as provided for in the Act or, if contested, unless this Citation is affirmed by the Review Commission or a court.

Posting - The law requires that a copy of this Citation and Notification of Penalty be posted immediately in a prominent place at or near the location of the violation(s) cited herein, or , if it is not practicable because of the nature of the employer's operations, where it will be readily observable by all affected employees. This Citation must remain posted until the violation(s) cited herein has (have) been abated, or for 3 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays), whichever is longer. The penalty dollar amounts need not be posted and may be marked out or covered up prior to posting.

Informal Conference - An informal conference is not required. However, if you wish to have such a conference you may request one with the District Director during the 15 working day contest period. During such an informal conference you may present any evidence or views which you believe would support an adjustment to the citation(s) and/or penalty(ies),

If you are considering a request for an informal conference to discuss any issues related to this Citation and Notification of Penalty, you must take care to schedule it early enough to allow time to contest after the informal conference, should you decide to do so. Please keep in mind that a written letter of intent to contest must be submitted to the District Director within 15 working days of your receipt of this Citation. The running of this contest period is not interrupted by an informal conference.

If you decide to request an informal conference, please complete, remove and post the page 3 Notice to Employees next to this Citation and Notification of Penalty as soon as the time, date, and place of the informal conference have been determined. Be sure to bring to the conference any and all supporting documentation of existing conditions as well as any abatement steps taken thus far. If conditions warrant, we can enter into an informal settlement agreement which amicably resolves this matter without litigation or contest.

Right to Contest - You have the right to contest this Citation and Notification of Penalty. You may contest all citation items or only individual items. You may also contest proposed penalties and/or abatement dates without contesting the underlying violations. Unless you inform the District Director in writing that you intend to contest the citation(s) and/or proposed penalty(ies) within 15 working days after receipt, the citation(s) and the proposed penalty(ies) will become a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and may not be reviewed by any court or agency.

Penalty Payment - Penalties are due within 15 working days of receipt of this notification unless contested. (See the enclosed booklet and the additional information provided related to the Debt Collection Act of 1982.) Make your check or money order payable to "DOL-OSHA". Please indicate the Inspection Number on the remittance.

OSHA does not agree to any restrictions or conditions or endorsements put on any check or money order for less than the full amount due, and will cash the check or money order as if these restrictions, conditions, or endorsements do not exist.

Notification of Corrective Action - For violations which you do not contest, you should notify the U.S. Department of Labor District Office promptly by letter that you have taken appropriate corrective action within the time frame set forth on this Citation. Please inform the District Office in writing of the abatement steps you have taken and of their dates, together with adequate supporting documentation, e.g., drawings or photographs of corrected conditions, purchase/work orders related to abatement actions, air sampling results, etc.

Employer Discrimination Unlawful - The law prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee for filing a complaint or for exercising any rights under this Act. An employee who believes that he/she has been discriminated against may file a complaint no later than 30 days after the discrimination occurred with the U.S. Department of Labor District Office at the address shown above.

Employer Rights and Responsibilities - The enclosed booklet (OSHA 3000) outlines additional employer rights and responsibilities and should be read in conjunction with this notification.

Notice to Employees - The law gives an employee or his/her representative the opportunity to object to any abatement date set for a violation if he/she believes the date to be unreasonable. The contest must be mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor District Office at the address shown above and postmarked within 15 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays) of the receipt by the employer of this Citation and Notification of Penalty.

Citation 1 Item 1 Type of Violation: Serious

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: 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 falling blast doors:
  1. At the establishment employee(s) moving carts of product into or out of the freezers or ovens were exposed to physical injuries caused by blast doors falling on employee(s). Employee(s) were raising the blast doors using the chain hoist mechanism, then latching the chain to a pvc clamp screw where the chain would slip off allowing the blast doors to fall.

  2. Blast doors raised by employee(s) without the chain mechanisms were exposing employee(s) to physical injuries created by placing a pole under the blast doors. The pole would be inadvertently hit by the cart causing the blast doors to fall hitting the employee(s).
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this hazard is to conduct periodic inspections of the blast doors and correct deficiencies when noted.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 11/08/97
Proposed Penalty: $3150.00

Citation 1 Item 2 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.38(a)(5)(ii)(C): The employer did not review the Emergency Action Plan with each employee covered by the plan whenever the plan was changed:
  1. At the facility, the Emergency Action Plan had undergone revisions between April 16, 1992 and March 14, 1997, which changed the method of notification for a hazardous chemical leak from using the fire alarm, to using an announcement over the intercom by the most senior official on duty, without employee(s) being trained on the change in alarm procedures.

  2. At the facility, the Emergency Action Plan had undergone revision on February 15, 1997 which changed the means of egress route near the cafeteria area, without changes being immediately made to the escape route maps and without training employee(s) in the change in the means of egress routes.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 12/08/97
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 3 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(c)(1): The employer did not develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by 29 CFR 1910.119:
  1. At the facility , the Employee Participation Guidelines did not address how employee(s) and their representatives would be consulted in the development of the following elements of process safety management:

    1. Employee Participation
    2. Contractor Programs and Evaluations
    3. Hot Work
    4. Management of Change
  2. At the facility, the Employee Participation Guidelines did not assign responsibility and authority for implementing the various elements of the PSM standard nor did it explain how plant personnel would interface with corporate personnel designing and specifying new systems.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 4 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(c)(2): The employer did not consult with employees and their representative on the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and on the development of the other elements of process safety management:
  1. The employer did not consult with employee(s) and their representatives on the following elements of process safety management:

    1. How to obtain and verify the process safety information pertaining to the hazardous chemicals, technology, and equipment in the process.
       
    2. The methodology appropriate to determine and evaluate hazards of the process including facility siting and human factors.
       
    3. The establishment of a system to promptly address the teams findings and recommendations and to communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employee(s) whose work assignments are in the process.
       
    4. Who should assist in developing operating procedures, which operating procedures should be developed, what format should be used, and how to certify annually that the operating procedures were current and accurate.
       
    5. What training was required for operators before they could operate the process alone. What the content and frequency of refresher training should be. How could the employer ascertain operators received and understood the training.
       
    6. How contractor safety performance and programs should be evaluated both prior to selection and periodically while on site. How work practices to control entrance, presence, and exit or contract employers and contract employee(s) should be developed and implemented.
       
    7. How should a pre-startup safety review be performed, who should perform it.
       
    8. Which equipment should be included in the mechanical integrity program. What written procedures are needed to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment and test and inspection equipment. What training employee involved in maintaining the equipment should have, and what special certifications are necessary. What procedures including reporting and assignment of responsibility are necessary to assure deficiencies are corrected in a timely manner. What procedures are necessary to assure equipment is fabricated and installed consistent with design specifications and that spare parts are suitable for the process.
       
    9. How should the hot work permit be implemented.
       
    10. What is a change, and how should management of change be implemented.
       
    11. Which incidents and near misses should be reported and investigated. Who should be on the team, what technique should be used to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident. What system should be implemented to promptly resolve report findings and recommendations. How should results be reviewed with employee(s).
       
    12. Who should be involved with the compliance audit, how should findings be addressed and deficiencies corrected.
  2. Neither the Contractor Safety Program nor the Employee Participation Guidelines, established a method to inform all contractor employee(s) and their representatives that their process safety concerns and suggestions are welcome, and did not solicit the advice and suggestion of contractor employee(s) working in the process about specific aspects of process safety.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 5 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i): The employer did not develop a written compilation of process safety information pertaining to the technology of the process, which included those elements specified in 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(A),(C),(D)and(E):
  1. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old ammonia refrigeration units did not include information pertaining to the technology of the process including a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram.

  2. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information pertaining to the technology of the process including the maximum inventory of vessels including the 75 pound accumulator, the 35 accumulator, and ammonia surge drums and receivers.

  3. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information pertaining to the technology of the process including safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressure, flow, or levels.

  4. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information pertaining to the technology of the process including deviation from safe upper and lower limits such items as temperatures, pressure, flow, or levels.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 6 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3): The employer did not develop a written compilation of process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process, which included those elements specified in 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(A),(B),(C),(D),(E) and (H):
  1. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information which included design codes and standards used; materials of construction, anticipated corrosion rates, specified minimum wall thickness for equipment such as pressure vessels and piping including, but not limited to, the hot gas return lines, high temperature liquid lines, hot gas lines, relief valve headers, and pressure relief valves. For the new ammonia refrigeration unit the compilation of process safety information did not include materials of construction for equipment such as but not limited to compressor, compressor oil pumps, surge drums, ammonia pumps, and pressure relief valves.

  2. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information which included piping and instrument diagrams (PI&Ds).

  3. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information concerning electrical classifications of machine rooms.

  4. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information on relief system design and design basis.

  5. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information on ventilation system design and it relationship to the classification of electrical wiring.

  6. At the facility, the compilation of process safety information for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not include information on safety systems (e.g. interlocks, cutouts, detection and suppression systems).
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 7 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that the equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:
  1. At the facility, the employer did not "walk the line" to determine that the equipment in the refrigeration systems met good engineering design including:

    1. the location for the discharge of pressure relief valves for the new system
    2. the size of the common vent header that pressure relief valves are manifolded into
    3. pipe and vessels insulation materials and coatings were suitable for the application
    4. The 25# and 3# accumulators were not equipped with pressure relief devices
    5. In the old unit, king valves which stop the flow of liquid ammonia were not operable from the floor nor was a fixed platform for access provided.
  2. At the facility, the employer did not verify that the old and new machine room complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices in that the need for Class 1, Division 2 electrical classification was not addressed, nor was the need to provide and locate emergency remote controls, to stop the action of the refrigeration compressors and to activate the emergency ventilation system, immediately outside the machinery room addressed.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 8 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(1): The employer did not perform an initial process analysis appropriate to the complexity of the process to identify, evaluate, and control hazards involved in the process:
  1. The process hazard analysis conducted on the old system in 1994 was not of appropriate complexity to identify the following hazards:

    1. Over tightening of the valve causing bonnet to lift
    2. The effect of water hammer or slugging in an ammonia pipe/valve
    3. Leaving hand-valve open or close without periodic cycling
    4. An automatic valve opening/closing with excessive force
    5. Ammonia leak from corrosion or ammonia piping in an enclosed area
    6. Isolation of line full of ammonia
    7. Gasket or flanges failures
    8. Inadequate preventive maintenance on instrumentation/controls
    9. Critical instrumentation being taken out of service
    10. SRV capacity is too low or venting to an unsafe area
    11. Stress corrosion cracking in vessels including accumulators and receivers
  2. The process hazard analysis conducted on the old system in 1994 was not of appropriate complexity to evaluate and control the following hazards:

    1. Ammonia leak from accumulator, piping, or level indicator in an enclosed area or on roof.
    2. Failure of solenoid valve to cycle from low side dumps with resulting vibration and possible leaking from hydraulic hammer in liquid line to the receiver.
    3. Ammonia leak from stems on valves in an enclosed area.
    4. Ammonia leak from corrosion of ammonia piping in an enclosed area.
    5. Isolation of line full of ammonia.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 9a Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(ii): The process hazard analysis did not address previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace:

The process hazard analysis for the old system did not include an evaluation of the following incidences which occurred prior to the completion of the process hazard analysis such as, but not limited to:
  
1-25-92 Lost low side because liquid level alarm didn't work
1-25-92 #1 dump valve doesn't reseat all the times
2-03-92 Need 3000A valve for #1 dump high side, hang ups
2-09-92 Repaired ammonia leaks row #5, liquid line
2-23-92 Repaired hot gas coil in manufacturing for row #6
3-10-92 Transfer tank went on the fritzs
3-18-92 Valve seems to be stuck for hot gas solenoid for row #6
3-31-92 Lost engine room for no apparent reason
4-05-92 #2 temp cooler suction valve is hung
4-05-92 Bad low temperature probe in oil separator for #7 FES compressor
4-11-92 TRM cooler #2 using 30 amp fuse instead of 15 amp fuse
4-13-92 Hi temp liquid line valve is stuck, burning up coils very quickly
4-19-92 Shut down #6 FES because of oil leak from pump
4-22-92 Row #4 slicing valve jacked open manually, hand valve on main side closed
4-28-92 Must operate #6 FES manually , no auto controls
5-06-92 #2 vilter kicked out breaker and low oil pressure
5-12-92 Lost #5 FES on motor overload
5-15-92 #5 FES kicked out, low oil pressure
5-22-92 #3 Blast removed 10 amp fuse and installed 25 amp fuse to make fan run
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 9b Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iii): The process hazard analysis did not address the engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationship, such as, appropriate of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases:
  1. At the facility the process hazard analysis (PHA) for the ammonia refrigeration unit, including the engine room did not address application of detection methodologies for ammonia nor did it address requirements for emergency ventilation in the absence of class 1, division II classification.

  2. At the facility, the PHA for the ammonia refrigeration unit, did not address the pressure relief valves and their vent header.

  3. At the facility, the PHA for the ammonia refrigeration unit, did not address the emergency isolation valves such as the King Valves, emergency compressor shutoff switches including their location and access.

  4. At the facility, the PHA for ammonia refrigeration unit, did not address the mechanical integrity procedures for equipment including but not limited to pressure vessels, piping, and shutoff valves, and interlocks to determine their effectiveness, the integrity of the equipment, the adequacy of the Armour-flex insulation, and appropriate inspection frequencies and content.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/01/98

Citation 1 Item 9 c Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv): "The process hazard analysis did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls:

At the facility, the PHA did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls such as the continuously operated mechanical ventilation system, compressor cutouts, PRVs, ammonia detection system, mechanical integrity program, and contractor program.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/01/98

Citation 1 Item 9d Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v): The process hazard analysis did not address facility siting:
  1. The process hazard analysis did not address facility siting issues such as but not limited to the location of PRV discharge, ignition sources, location of machine room and control rooms, sufficiency of access or egress for maintenance or emergencies, location of nearby equipment, and drainage or diking for containing ammonia spills in the machine room or on the roof.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/01/98

Citation 1 Item 9e Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi): The process hazard analysis did not address human factors:

The process hazard analysis did not address human factors issues including but not limited to operator/process interface, workplace/working environment, organization/policies, task design/job organization, training/education, unusual work schedules, location of isolation valves, clarity and simplicity of displays, clarity of signs and codes, and written procedures.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/01/98

Citation 1 Item 10 Type of Violation: Serious
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer did not establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team's findings and recommendations and to communicate the actions to be taken, as a result of the process hazard analysis team's recommendations, to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who could be affected by the recommendations actions:
  1. At the facility, the recommendations resulting from the 1994 process hazard analysis (PHA) for the ammonia refrigeration plant were not resolved in a timely manner in that, on or about April 9, 1997 the following recommendations, were still not completed.
    A remote switch was not installed.

    Instruction to contractors working on compressors not followed or enforced.

    SOP's are not reviewed since they have not been completed.

    Plant wide inspection of pipe hangers has not been completed.

    Piping that has had an ammonia leak is not properly evaluated and corrections made.
  2. Recommendations from PHAs were not discussed with operators.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 04/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 11 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safety conducting activities in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and which addressed the elements listed in 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(v):

At the facility, the written operating procedures for the old unit were in the process of being rewritten but had only been completed for the compressors. Operating procedures for operations involving receivers, accumulators, condensers, and evaporators had not been completed. Presently three sets of procedures are available, each in different format and level of detail.

Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation I Item 12a Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B): The employer's written operating procedures covering the steps for each operating phase did not address normal operations:

At the facility, the written operating procedures for the old and new ammonia refrigeration units did not have normal operating procedures including data to be collected during normal walk around such as liquid levels in surge drums and receivers, inspections on equipment and tasks to be performed such as defrosting evaporators, instrument readings data to be collected, operating conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure, flow, etc.), when to perform ammonia transfer operations, and responding to routine alarms and hammering or other unusual noises.

Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 12b Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(C): The employer's written operating procedures covering the steps for each operating phase did not address temporary operations:

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(E): The employer's written operating procedures covering the steps for each operating phase did not address emergency operations:

At the facility, for both the old and new units, there were not temporary or emergency operating procedures listed for system upsets including operating outside normal operating limits, operating without safety systems, online maintenance of instruments, interlocks, and alarms, partial loss of utilities or loss of backup power, extreme weather not requiring shutdown, operation when the computer system goes down or locks up in an unknown condition.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98

Citation 1 Item 12cType of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D): The employer's written operating procedures covering the steps for each operating phase did not address emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown in a safe and timely manner:
  1. At the facility, the written operating procedures did not have adequate emergency shutdown procedures for abnormal or emergency conditions in that they did not define all conditions in which shut down is required and evacuation is necessary, such as failure of components (pipes, compressors, vessels) to contain ammonia, fire, critical safety system failure such as compressor cutouts, or exceeding safe operating limits.

  2. The operating procedures did not explain how to determine when it is safe to enter the engine room or what personal protective equipment to wear before entering to isolate and purge leaking equipment.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98

Citation 1 Item 13 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii): The employer's written operating procedures did not address the requirements for the operating limits listed in 29 CFR 191.119(f)(1)(ii)(A) and (B):

At the facility, the following written operating procedures did not address operating limits such as flow rates, pressure limits, temperature ranges, and levels operating procedures also consequences of deviating from operating limits, and steps required to correct or avoid deviations from those limits, and the consequences of those deviations for startup, normal, and shutdown operations.
FRICK/IMECO AMMONIA EVAPORATIVE CONDENSERS
FRICK/IMECO AMMONIA EVAPORATORS
FRICK/IMECO AMMONIA COMPRESSORS
HANSEN AND YORK AMMONIA PUMPS
FRICK LOW PRESSURE ACCUMULATOR
FRICK THERMOSYPHON RECEIVER
KLEEN-AIR AMMONIA MAKE-UP AIR UNIT RMAU-1
FRICK SCREW COMPRESSORS
HANSEN AMMONIA PURGER
FES SCREW COMPRESSORS
SOP's #101-121
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 14 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(A): The employer's written operating procedures covering safety and health considerations did not address the properties of, and hazards presented by the chemicals used in the process:

At the facility, the following written operating procedures and safe work practices such as line breaking did not address the hazards such as thermal expansion of trapped liquids, sudden deceleration of liquid line flow, liquid propelled by high velocity vapor, water contamination, liquid spills while cleaning suction strainers and demisters, and draining oil pots.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 15 Type of Violation: Serious
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iv): The employer's written operating procedures did not address requirements for the safety systems and their functions:

At the facility, the written operating procedures did not address the function of safety systems such as: emergency stop buttons, isolation devices (King Valves), level cutouts, water spray systems, and emergency backup power.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 16 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(3): The employer did not certify annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate:

At the facility, the employer did not conduct an annual review of the written operating procedures and certify that they were current and accurate.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 17 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4): The employer did not develop and implement safe work practices for employees and contractor employees to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel:
  1. At the facility, the employer failed to implement safe work practices for the control over entrance into the facility by contractors maintenance personnel working on the ammonia refrigeration units including providing operator escorts, assuring equipment is prepared for work, and assuring contractor employee(s) are following safety and health rules.

  2. At the facility, the employer failed to develop and implement safe work practices for opening process equipment or piping. The employer had developed a line break permit, but no procedure was available which assigned responsibility for approvals, evacuation, and purging requirements, auditing for compliance, training, and personnel protection equipment requirements.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 18 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): The employer did not provide refresher training at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process and did not consult with employees in determining the appropriate frequency interval for refresher training:
  1. At the facility, the employer did not provide refresher training at least every three years, and more often if necessary, for employee(s) operating the old refrigeration unit.

  2. At the facility, the employer did not consult with employee(s) concerning the frequency of their need for refresher training.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 19 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3): The employer did not prepare a record which contained the identity of the employee and the date that training was completed and did not verify that the employee had received and understood the training required by 29 CFR 1910.119(g):
  1. At the facility, there was no documentation of training on specific in-plant operating procedures, operating limits, safety systems, emergency procedures, and safe work practices and no documentation of the mean that the employer used to verify that the employees' understood the training that they received including startup, shutdown, and operation of the new computerized system.

  2. The employer did not ascertain that each employee involved in operating the refrigeration unit received and understood the training in that the employer had not specified knowledge requirements for qualified operators including job skills demonstration on in-plant equipment and SOP's.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/28/98
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 20 Type of Violation: Serious

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:
  1. At the facility, the employer did not obtain and evaluate information regarding the following contract employers' safety performance and programs:
    American Systems, Inc.
    Dual-Temp Illinois, Inc.
    Wachter Electric
    Preston Refrigeration
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 21 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(v): The employer did not periodically evaluate the performance of contract employers in fulfilling their obligations as specified in 29 CFR 191.119(h)(3):
  1. At the facility, the employer did not develop and implement a program to periodically evaluate the performance of contract employers in fulfilling their obligations as specified in 29 CFR 1910.119(h)(3) in that, the Armour Swift-Eckrich Contractor Safety Program did not indicate: (1) who could perform the audits and what their training or experience requirements were; (2) what guidelines would be used to qualify contractors and how they would be graded prior to awarding contracts; (3) require all deficiencies found in the contractor safety evaluation and periodic audits have a full explanation, that findings and any corrective actions be reviewed with the contractor, that follow-up be performed to ensure corrective actions are completed, and that results are documented; and (4) what actions would be taken with contractors who had high injury rates and how resolution would be documented.

  2. At the facility, the employer did not develop and implement procedures to periodically evaluate whether contract employee(s) had been trained in safe work practices, know potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards, and applicable provisions of the emergency action plan. The employer did not develop and implement procedures to ensure that training and the means to verify contract employees understood training were documented, and that the training for contractor employees maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment was equivalent to that required for direct hire employees.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 22 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(i): The pre-startup safety review did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to the process, construction, and equipment was in accordance with design specifications:
  1. At the facility, the pre-startup safety review did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to a process, construction, and equipment was in accordance with design specifications in that process safety information such as P&ID's wee not compiled and verified as complete, current, and accurate.

  2. At the facility, the pre-startup safety review did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to a process, construction, and equipment was in accordance with design specifications in that a pre-startup acceptance test was not performed which included: testing of computer hardware and software; functional testing of protection devices including alarms, interlocks, cutouts, and level controls.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $70000.00

Citation 1 Item 23 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(ii): The pre-startup safety review did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to the process, the safety, operating, maintenance, and emergency procedures were in place and were adequate:

At the facility, the operating procedures for the initial startup of the new unit were inadequate in that they did not explain the initial startup sequence for the complete unit including: cleaning equipment; closing all drain valves; evacuation, dehydration, leak checking; charging ammonia; the interrelationships between startup of equipment such as but not limited to liquid ammonia pumps and main screw compressors; safety interlock bypasses during startup, operating the computer system, and switching from manual to computer operation.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 24 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(iii): The pre-startup safety review did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to a process, for new facilities, a process hazards  analysis a process hazards analysis had been performed and recommendations had been resolved or implemented before startup; and modified facilities meet the requirements contained in management of change, paragraph (1):

The employer did not perform a process hazards analysis of the new ammonia refrigeration unit prior to startup in July 1996 which met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(1) through (e)(7) including an evaluation of safety systems and interlocks, failure modes of safety systems and the computer system, adequacy of written operating procedures.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 25 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(iv): The pre-startup safety review did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to the process, training of each employee involved in operating a process had been completed.

For the new unit, the employer did not train employees in operating procedures including initial startup, operating, safety, emergency, and maintenance procedures and document the training and means to verify that employees understood the training prior to start up.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation I Item 26 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment:
  1. At the facility, the employer had not developed written procedures for the repair of process equipment to maintain the ongoing integrity of equipment including the following pressure vessels and storage tanks, piping, valves, controls, pumps, and compressors. These procedures shall include materials and spare parts control, authorizations and approval for repairs, steps to accomplish for repairing or replacing equipment, frequency of replacement employee training and qualifications, welding and heat treating requirements, inspection and testing after repair, and documentation requirements.

    Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks Repair, Rerating and Replacement
    35# Accumulator
    75# Receiver
    Transfer Tank
    Surge Drums
    Heat Exchangers
    Piping Repair, Rerating and Replacement
    Hot Gas Return Lines
    High Temperature Liquid Lines
    Hot Gas Lines
    Relief Valve Headers
    Instruments and Controls Calibration, Repair and Replacement
    Level Indicators
    Compressor Cutouts
    Level Cutouts
    Relief Devices Replacement

    Refrigeration Valves Repair and Replacement
    King Valves
    Pump Out Valves
    Check Valves
    Float Valves
    Solenoid Valves
    Pump and Compressor Repair and Replacement
    Ammonia Pumps
    FES #1 through #8 Compressors
  2. At the facility, the employer had not developed and implemented written procedures for the replacement or pressure relief valves as evidenced by the fact that the pressure relief valves for the following equipment had never been replaced:
    Innercooler
    75# Receiver
    35# Receiver
    #1 Lowside Dump
    #2 Lowside Dump
    #3 Lowside Dump
    Ice Maker
    Transfer Tank
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 27 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(4)(i): Inspections and tests were not performed on process equipment:
    a. At the facility, independent five year inspections and tests were not performed on the following vessels:
    Pilot Receiver
    Pump Out Accumulator
    25# Accumulator
    3# Accumulator
    Intercooler
    35# Receiver
    75# Receiver
    #1 Dump Trap/3# Low Side
    #2 Dump Trap/3# Low Side
    #3 Dump Trap/3# Low Side
    #1 Dump Trap/25# High Side
    #2 Dump Trap/25# High Side
    #3 Dump Trap/25# High Side
    Transfer Tank
    b. At the facility, inspection and testing was not performed for the following section of piping and components:
    Hot Gas Return Lines
    High Temperature Liquid Ammonia Lines
    Hot Gas Lines
    Relief Valve Headers
    Valves on hot gas line, hot gas return line, high temperature liquid lines, and suction line to #2 cooler
    c. At the facility, inspection and testing was not performed for the following pressure relief valves:

    #1 FES COMP
    #4 FES COMP 
    #7 FES COMP
    #2 high side dump
    75# receiver
    oil accumulator
    transfer tank    		 #2 FES COMP
    #5 FES COMP
    #8 FES COMP
    #3 high side dump
    35# receiver
    #1 lowside dump
    oilpots    		 #3 FES COMP
    #6 FES COMP
    #1 high side dump
    innercooler
    pumpout accumulator
    #2 lowside dump
    ice maker
    d. At the facility, inspection and testing was not performed for emergency shutdown systems including but not limited to:
    Compressor cutouts including discharge temperature, discharge pressure, oil temperature (upper and lower), oil sump temperature maximum.

    King Valves

    Frick Low Pressure Accumulator high and low liquid level cutouts

    25# intercooler high liquid level cutout
    e. At the facility, inspection and testing was not performed for controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) such as, but not limited to, the following:
    Ammonia detection system
    Compressor liquid level control sensors
    Compressor thermostats
    Compressor liquid level controls
    Pump out system level alarms
    25# intercooler liquid level alarms
    25# intercooler liquid level control
    f. At the facility, inspection and testing was not performed for pumps and compressors, including but not limited to:
    FES #1 through #8 Screw Compressors
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 28 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(4)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement written testing and inspection procedures that followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:
  1. At the facility, the Mechanical integrity Program, as implemented, did not follow good engineering practice. Good engineering practices for testing and inspection programs include:

    The identification and characterization of equipment

    The establishment and implementation of testing and inspection procedures for process equipment that describe the rationale for performing inspections, calibration of equipment, and the methodology for performing the inspection.

    The definition of appropriate frequencies for testing and inspection of process equipment.

    The qualification and training requirements for inspecting and testing personnel.

    Criteria for acceptable test results

    The establishment of methods to analyze inspection and testing results to assure that equipment deficiencies are corrected when outside acceptable limits.
  2. At the facility, the Mechanical Integrity Program did not include procedures for the inspection and testing of vessels and heat exchangers that followed good engineering practice. Good engineering practices for the inspection and testing of vessels and heat exchangers include:

    Annual external visual inspections of the condition of insulation and inspection of nozzles, sight glasses, supports and associated equipment for vibration and corrosion.

    Additional testing and inspection including inspection of the underlying vessel or heat exchanger when insulation is unsound or damaged.

    The need of an independent full inspection every five years including evaluation of the potential for stress corrosion cracking.

    When non-destructive testing such as hydraulic or ultrasonic tests are necessary, including when sections of insulation on vessels and heat exchangers which are obviously in poor condition and the insulation must be removed to determine the integrity of the vessels or heat exchangers.
  3. At the facility, the Mechanical Integrity Program did not include procedures for the inspection and testing of piping and components that followed good engineering practice. Good engineering practices for the testing and inspection of piping and components include:

    The establishment and implementation of testing and inspection procedures and frequencies that describe the external inspections of piping, valves, and pressure relief valve headers including, but not limited to inspection for leaks in the process lines, proper bolting at flanges, inspection for misalignment and vibration, inspection of supports for hanger distortion or breakage, loose brackets, support corrosion, shoes off support, corrosion, and damaged insulation.

    When non-destructive testing such as hydraulic or ultrasonic tests are necessary, including when sections of insulation on piping which are obviously in poor condition and the insulation must be removed to determine the integrity of the piping.
  4. At the facility, the Mechanical Integrity Program did not include procedures for the inspection and testing of pressure relief valves and vent systems that followed good engineering practices. Good engineering practices for the testing and inspection of pressure relief valves and vent systems include:

    Testing and inspection procedures and frequencies and describe visual onstream inspections and inspection of valves upon removal from service.

    The external/onstream inspection of relief devices shall include, but is not limited to ensuring the correct relief device is installed, the established test or replacement interval is not exceeded; there are no gags, blinds, closed valves or piping obstructions; the relief device does not leak; upstream and downstream block valves are sealed or chained and locked in the proper position; vent stacks and discharge piping are properly supported; valve body drains and vent stack drains are open; and inspection for vibration damage.

    The employer did not develop and implement inspection and testing procedures that verified replacement every five years is an adequate interval. To assure pressure relief valves are still operational when replaced, they must be visually inspected for corrosion of fouling when removed from service, pop tested in the "as received" condition by an authorized testing laboratory, and the testing and inspection or replacement interval reduced, if necessary.
  5. At the facility, the Mechanical Integrity Program did not include procedures for the inspection and testing of emergency shutdown systems that followed good engineering practices. Good engineering practices for the testing and inspection of emergency. shutdown systems include:

    The identification and characterization of equipment including but not limited to, compressor cutouts, level cutouts, and King valves.

    The establishment and implementation of testing and inspection procedures and frequencies, proper functioning complete instrument loops for cutouts, King valves, and safety interlocks.
  6. At the facility, the Mechanical Integrity Program did not include procedures for the inspection and testing of controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) that followed good engineering practices. Good engineering practices for the testing and inspection of controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) include:

    The identification and characterization of equipment including flow, level, temperature, and pressure instruments; automatic controls and control valves, transmission systems for measurement and control, electrical power systems for instruments, instrument panels, analyzers and sampling systems.

    The establishment and implementation of testing and inspection procedures and frequencies; functional testing of protection device including alarms, interlocks, and control valves; calibration of pressure, temperature, and level gauges; proper support of valves and solenoids; corrosion of equipment and wiring or mechanical deterioration of equipment; and testing and calibration that is required.
  7. At the facility, the Mechanical Integrity Program did not include procedures for the inspection and testing of pumps, compressors, and their drivers that followed good engineering practices. Good engineering practices for the testing and inspection of pumps, compressors, and their drivers include:

    The identification and characterization of equipment

    The establishment and implementation of testing and inspection procedures and frequencies including but not limited to: (1) external inspections of pumps and compressors for external visible defects such as unusual noise and vibration, leaks, misalignment; belts or coupling tension; lubricating oil temperatures and cooling water temperatures and pressure; pressure gauges and flow meters for proper performance; cavitation, piping stresses, foundation deterioration, improper operation (excess speed, lack of lubricant, excess temperature or pressure); and (2) internal inspections for erosion, corrosion, cracking, etc.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 29 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(4)(iv): The employer did not document each inspection and test that had been performed on process equipment including the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test:
  1. At the facility, the employer did not document the name of the inspector who performed the test or inspection on the following process equipment:

    Evaporators UC 1 thru UC 11, UC 12 thru UC35, UC38 thru UC39, UC40 thru UC45, UC48 thru UC69, UC79 thru UC82, UC89 thru UC91, 387378-2, 387379-2, 387381-2, 387380-2, 2560-82D.
  2. At the facility, the employer did not document the name of the inspector who performed the test or inspection nor the date it was performed on the following process vessels:

    Pilot Receiver
    Pump Out Accumulator
    25# Accumulator
    3# Accumulator
    Intercooler
    35# Receiver
    75# Receiver
    #1 Dump Trap/3# Low Side
    #2 Dump Trap/3# Low Side
    #3 Dump Trap/3# Low Side
    #1 Dump/25# High Side
    #2 Dump/25# High Side
    #3 Dump/25# High Side
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 30 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(5): The employer did not correct deficiencies in equipment in a safe and timely manner:
At the facility, the employer did not correct deficiencies in the following equipment in a safe and timely manner:

Armour-flex insulation on piping was not replaced when it was known for sixteen years that it was inadequate in high moisture operations.

Sections of pipe were corroded away up to 90% of original thickness.

Pump out valve stems had corroded to one third the original size and handles were breaking when employee(s) tried to use them.

Failure to repair/replace the inoperable ammonia sensor/alarm located on the control panel in the old engine room.

Pressure gauges on the Ammonia T-2 H.T. Pump Receiver vessel were not operational.

In the manufacturing room- hand valves were not readily accessible due to being covered with insulation.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 31 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(6)(ii): In the construction of new plants and equipment, the employer did not performed appropriate checks and inspections to assure that equipment was installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's instructions:

At the facility, the employer did not develop and implement written procedures to assure that appropriate checks and inspections were performed and documented for equipment in the new refrigeration plant to assure that the installation was consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's instructions. Appropriate checks and inspections include:
Evaluation of the construction contractor Quality Control Plan
Review/Approval of drawings "For Construction"
Incoming material inspection
Verification of appropriately qualified craftsmen including welder qualifications and procedures
Pressure testing
Resolution of nonconformities
Identification of baseline inspection data such as thickness readings
Receipt of equipment data sheets and documentation of tests and inspections
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 32 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(6)(iii): The employer did not assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment were suitable for the process application for which they were used:

At the facility, the employer did not assure that the following maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment were suitable for the process application or which they were used:
The replacement pressure relief devices for several of the Frick compressors in the old machine room were not suitable in that they leaked to the engine room workplace atmosphere when the relief device activated.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 33 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(1): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process:

  1. At the facility, the employer did not establish and implement written procedures to include the following:

    A definition of roles and responsibilities of key personnel including senior management, management of change reviewers, and levels of authorization required.

    Documentation requirements including the technical basis of the change (i.e., reasons for performing the work, desired results, technical design, and appropriate implementation instructions), the type of safety and health hazards evaluation to perform, requirements to update P&ID's and SOP's.

    A definition of the scope of the management of change system to include personnel changes, organizational changes, and titles and roles of key personnel on all shifts.

    Did not specify training requirements for personnel initiating and implementing changes and methods of communicating changes to operators, maintenance technicians, engineers and managers prior to operating the unit.

    Did not specify guidelines for special situations such as bypasses of safety or electrical equipment, operating outside of safe operating limits.
  2. A management of change was not performed for the following changes, on or about April 28, 1997:

    1. The ammonia alarm sensor in the new engine room was disabled on May 25, 1997 and August 22, 1997.
    2. The 25# intercooler liquid level alarm set point was altered on or about June 12, 1997.
    3. Use of #3 and #4 blast for storage of ammonia on or about June 14, 1997.
    4. Change in type of insulation being installed on ammonia piping and valves since February 1997.
    5. Changes to the make-up air intakes in the new engine room along the west wall.
    6. Relocation of the relief vent manifold pipe on the new engine roof away from exit way.
    7. Changes in facilities including evacuation routes.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 34a Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(2)(i): The written procedures to manage changes did not assure that the technical basis for the proposed change were addressed prior to any change:

At the facility, the company did not adequately address the technical basis for the proposed changes such as but not necessarily limited to, the reasons for performing the work, desired results, technical design, and appropriate implementation instructions, for the following changes:
  1. The Blast Freezer relay logic control replacement with a Programmable Logic Control on or about April 14, 1996.
     
  2. The addition of valves during the replacement of a transfer tank in the engine room on or about October 4, 1996.
     
  3. The addition of valves in the pump-out line for row #6 on or about November 2, 1996.
     
  4. For the addition of 2 six inch isolation valves in the compressor discharge mainline on or about May 24, 1997.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 34b Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(2)(ii): The procedures to manage changes did not assure that the impact on safety and health for the proposed change was addressed prior to any change:

At the facility, the company did not adequately address the impact on safety and health for the proposed changes, in that the Safety Review Checklists were not completed in full detail, such as but not necessarily limited to:
  1. For the Blast Freezer relay logic control replacement with a Programmable Logic Control on or about April 14, 1996, a PHA was not performed and the "Safety Review Checklist" and "Pre-Startup Safety Review Verifications" were not completed.
     
  2. The addition of valves during the replacement of a transfer tank in the engine room on or about October 4, 1996, the Pre-Startup Safety Review Verification sheet was blank.
     
  3. The addition of valves in the pump-out line for row 36 on or about November 2, 1996 did not address impact on safety and health in that the Pre-Startup Safety Review Verification was not completed, and LO/TO was not performed.
     
  4. The May 24, 1997 replacement of ammonia mains" and installation of two 6 inch valves did not address the impact on safety and health of changes in procedures while burning off air/ammo gas after evacuating ammo header.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98

Citation 1 Item 34c Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(2)(iii): The procedures to manage changes did not assure that modifications to operating procedures or proposed change was addressed prior to any change:

At the facility, the company did not adequately address the modifications to operating procedures for the proposed changes, such as but not necessarily limited to:
  1. Addition of the new FES screw compressor #8 and IMECO condenser on or about October 21, 1994.
     
  2. The Blast Freezer relay logic control replacement with a Programmable Logic Control on or about April 14, 1996.
     
  3. The addition of valves during the replacement of a transfer tank in the engine room on or about October 4, 1996.
     
  4. The addition of valves in the pump-out line for row #6 on or about November 2, 1996.
     
  5. For the addition of two 6 inch isolation valves in the compressor discharge main line on or about May 24, 1997.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98

Citation 1 Item 35 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(4): When a change covered by this paragraph resulted in a change in the process information, such information was not updated accordingly:

At the facility the process safety information was not updated when changes, such as but not necessary limited to the following, were made:
  1. Addition of the new FES screw compressor #8 and IMECO condenser on or about October 21, 1994.
     
  2. The Blast Freezer relay logic control replacement with a Programmable Logic Control on or about April 14, 1996.
     
  3. The addition of valves during the replacement of a transfer tank in the engine room on or about October 4, 1996.
     
  4. The addition of valves in the pump-out line for row #6 on or about November 2, 1996.
     
  5. For the addition of two 6 inch isolation valves in the compressor discharge main line on or about May 24, 1997.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 36 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1190)(5): When a change covered by this paragraph resulted in a change in the operating procedures or practices required by paragraph (f) of this section, such procedures or practices were not updated accordingly:

At the facility, the company did not implement either the modifications to existing or additions of new operating procedures or practices for the changes such as but not necessarily limited to:
  1. The ammonia alarm sensor in the new engine room was disabled on May 25, 1997 and August 22, 1997.
     
  2. The 25# intercooler liquid level alarm set point was altered on or about June 12, 1997.
     
  3. Use of #3 and #4 blast for storage of ammonia on or about June 14, 1997.
     
  4. Change in type of insulation being installed on ammonia piping and valves since February 1997.
     
  5. Failure to repair/replace the inoperable ammonia sensor/alarm located on the control panel in the old engine room.
     
  6. Changes to the make-up air intakes in the new engine room along the west wall.
     
  7. Addition of the new FES screw compressor #8 and IMECO condenser on or about October 21, 1994.
     
  8. The Blast Freezer relay logic control replacement with a Programmable Logic Control on or about April 14, 1996.
     
  9. The addition of valves during the replacement of a transfer Link in the engine room on or about October 4, 1996.
     
  10. The addition of valves in the pump-out line for row #6 on or about November 2, 1996.
     
  11. For the addition of two 6 inch isolation valves in the compressor discharge main line on or about May 24, 1997.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 02/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 37 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(1): The employer did not investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic release of a highly hazardous chemical in the workplace:
  1. The employer did not develop an incident investigation procedure that spelled out requirements for investigating each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a highly hazardous chemical in the workplace, and which describe the following:

    Requirements to initiate the incident investigation within 48 hours following the incident.

    Requirements to investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of highly hazardous chemical in the workplace including, but not limited to:

    Fatalities

    Incidents involving injury to employees

    Incidents involving property damage

    Fires or explosions and hazardous material releases

    Other near-misses such as excursion of process parameters beyond pre-established "critical" control points, activations of emergency shutdowns, releases of material that are classified as environmentally reportable events, and activation of hazards control systems such as safety protective systems (e.g., relief valves, fixed sprinkler systems).
    The makeup of the incident investigation team

    The inclusion of contractor employees when they are involved in the incident

    The methodology of the incident investigation to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident

    Training requirements for the team leader and members

    Report requirements and retention

    The system established to promptly address and resolve incident report findings and recommendations, and document resolutions and corrective actions taken

    The methods used to review incident findings with employees whose job tasks are relevant to the findings including contract employees where applicable
  2. At the facility, the following incidents were not investigated:

    5-02-97 Pinhole leaks in #4 condenser
    5-05-97 Leak in pump out valve
    5-09-97 Leak in pump line above box room & in-valve for #2 Blast
    5-11-97 FES #7 sight glass leaking
    5-14-97 Leak on 25# intercooler
    5-18-97 Liquid ammonia leak on transfer pump on new system
    5-20-97 Pump out valves leaking at #1 and #4 FEP
    5-25-97 NH3 Team venting ammonia vapor outside engine room, vapors coming back in
    5-25-97 Leak at pilot receiver sight glass coupling
    5-28-98 Hot gas leak at NW hot dog pack
    6-04-97 Pump out valve #2 Blast hi-temp liquid line leaking
    6-19-97 Leak from low liquid pump
    6-21-97 Leak on #1 cooler
    6-25-97 leak on unit #1 Receiving Dock(above scales)
    6-27-97 Leak at #1 temp cooler, Hot gas valve
    7-10-97 Leak in #1 cooler
    8-12-97 Leak at transfer tank float
    8-15-97 Bad leak at #1 Frick compressor at unloader blocker out line
    8-20-97 Contractor turned off the ammonia sensor detection system
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 38 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(3): The incident investigation team did not consist of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved, including a contract employee if the incident involved work of the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident:
  1. At the facility, the employer did not have personnel with training or experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the following incidents to determine appropriate recommendations to prevent the incidents from reoccurring:
    6/19/95 ammonia vapor pipe leak due to corrosion in the engine room did not evaluate the need to implement a mechanical integrity testing and inspection on other sections of piping or to remove other piping areas with poor insulation.

    9/15/96 liquid ammonia pipe leak due to corrosion did not evaluate the need to implement a mechanical integrity testing and inspection on other sections of piping or to remove other areas with corrosion.

    2/4/97 evaporator leak due to corrosion did not evaluate the need to implement a mechanical integrity testing and inspection on other evaporators or replace other evaporators installed at approximately the same time.

    2/13/97 evaporator gauge leak due to corrosion did not evaluate the need to implement a mechanical integrity testing and inspection on other control valve or replace other controls valves if corroded badly.

    6/27/97 ammonia pipe leak due to corrosion on the slicing floor did not evaluate the need to implement a mechanical integrity testing and inspection on other sections of piping or to remove other piping area with poor insulation.
  2. At the facility, no team member had adequate training, knowledge, or experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 01/01/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 39 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5): The employer did not establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident investigation report findings and recommendations:

At the facility, the following incident investigation item was not resolved on or about April 9, 1997.
Incident Date Recommendation
9/15/96 Recommended piping evaluation

Date By Which Violation Must be Abated:
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 40 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1): The employer did not verify that the procedures and practices developed under the standard were adequate and were being followed:

At the facility, the employer did not verify that the procedures and practices developed under the standard were adequate and were being followed as evidenced by the following violations of the PSM standard that were not addressed by the 1995 and 1996 compliance audits.
PSI was not completed
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 41 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(2): The compliance audit was not conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process:

At the facility, the 1995 and 1996 compliance audits were performed without at least one person with appropriate knowledge, experience, or training to perform a Process Safety Management program evaluation including evaluating program requirements and documentation, performing employee interviews, and evaluating of on-site conditions.

Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 42 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4): The employer did not determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit required by 29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1), and document that the deficiencies had been corrected:
  1. The following audit findings were not resolved in a timely manner or adequately explained on or about 4/9/97:

    Audit Date
    		 Ref. #
    		 Deficiency
    5/10/96 PSI A1 & C1 PSI not done before PHA
    10/25/95  PSI A3 No Block Flow Diagram
    10/25/96 PSI A5,B2,C3 For old system, no documentation equipment complies
    with good engineering practices.
    5/10/96 PHA A5 PHA does not address previous incidents.
    10/25/95  PHA A7,A9,Bl,B2,C5 PHA recommendation resolution not documented.
    10/25/95 SOP A1-A9,B4,C1-C4 None of the SOP's deficiencies wee corrected.
    10/25/95 TRA A5,C2 Consult with employees, refresher training.
    5/10/96  TRA C1 No documentation of training.
    10/25/95 CON A2,A5,C6-C7 None of the contractor deficiencies were
    corrected.
    5/10/96 CON A3,A4,A6,A8-Al3, B1-B2,C1-C5 None of the contractor deficiencies were corrected.
    5/10/96  NU A3 No documentation of NU training
    12/17/96 MI C1,C2,C7,C8 Inspection and Test Procedures follow food
    engineering practice.
    12/17/96 MOC Al
    MOC A9    		 Review of MOC written procedures
    SOP's not valid
    5/10/95 MOC A8 PSI not updated
    5/10/96 IN IV A5
    IN IV A6    		 No system to resolve findings
    No documentation of resolution
    10/25/95 EAP C2 No first responder training
    5/10/96 EAP A5
    EAP A7
    EAP B4    		 Review to determine if it covers small releases.
    Determine if it meets requirements of 1910.120.
    Review exit lights
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 06/26/98
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 43 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2): The employer did not develop an emergency response plan for emergencies which adequately addressed emergency recognition and safe distances and places or refuge:
  1. For ammonia releases, the facility's Hazmat Emergency Response procedures contains inadequate emergency recognition procedures in that it specifies that three conditions be simultaneously met before any release of ammonia is considered a Hazmat response. Utilizing the criteria that the release of ammonia needs to exceed the EPA's reportable quantity is not protective of employee health and safety.

  2. For Carbon Dioxide or Sulfuric Acid releases, the facility's Hazmat Emergency Response procedure contains no emergency recognition procedures or protocol.

  3. For all chemical releases, the facility's Hazmat Emergency Response and Emergency Action Plan procedures contain inadequate detail and methods to determine and define safe distances and places of refuge.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 12/08/97
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 44 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present or were likely to he present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment:

At the facility a written workplace hazard assessment was not developed to assess the hazards presented by potential exposure to liquid or vapor ammonia exposures to operating engineers during operations such as but not necessary limited to line breaking, valve replacement, spill response, pipe and equipment leak repair.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 12/01/97
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 45 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.134(b)(1): Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators were not developed:
  1. At the facility, the current written respirator program stated that the only type of respiratory protection being used were self-contained breathing apparatus, when canister gas masks were also being used for protection against ammonia.

  2. At the facility, the current written respiratory program did not address procedures for the selection and use of respiratory protection when performing emergency response operations to chemicals present on site including but not necessarily limited to Carbon Dioxide and Sulfuric Acid.
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 12/01/97
Proposed Penalty: $2250.00

Citation 1 Item 46 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.134(b)(8): Appropriate surveillance of work area conditions and degree of employee exposure was not maintained:

Ammonia system operators routinely respond to leaks of ammonia from piping, valves and related refrigeration equipment, by approaching the area of the leak without air sampling to determine airborne exposure levels. Canister gas masks, or no respiratory protection at all, are being utilized for protection against unknown concentrations of airborne ammonia, due to the lack of air monitoring being performed, thereby negating the approval of the gas mask.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 12/01/97
Proposed Penalty: $4500.00

Citation 1 Item 47 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(3)(i): When a tagout device was used on an energy isolating device, which was capable of being locked out, the employer did not demonstrate that the tagout program provided a level of safety equivalent to that obtained by using a lockout program:

In the TRM stuffing department, the Shiramatic machine which has a pneumatic isolation valve that is capable of being locked-out was observed to be tagged out when the employee removed the plexiglass guards at the point of operation and reached into the machine to cut bologna casing material, exposing him to crushing and laceration hazards. The tagout did not provide equivalent protection in that: 1) The attachment for the tag did not pass through the locking hole in the isolation valve to provide a physical barrier to closing the valve and also did not assure that it was in the full off position; 2) Additional safety measures such as opening or providing of an additional means of isolating the pneumatic pressure, which could be accomplished by disconnecting the Hansen quick disconnect in the air line supplying pressure to the Shiramatic machine or by providing an additional isolation valve, were not utilized.
 
Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 10/15/97
Proposed Penalty: $7000.00

Citation 1 Item 48 Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): The employer did not develop, document and utilize procedures for potentially hazardous energy which clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of