Four workers died from exposure to methyl mercaptan during a leak at DuPont's LaPorte, Texas, plant in November 2014. Credit: AP
The Department of Labor announced yesterday that the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has placed DuPont in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program, following a 2014 methyl mercaptan leak that killed four workers and injured a fifth at a DuPont plant in La Porte, Texas.
In May, 2015, OSHA cited DuPont for 14 safety violations and proposed fines totaling $99,000. The citations were for:
- 29 CPR 191 0.119(d)(3)(i)(B): Process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include the piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs) [Serious]
- 29 CFR 191 0.119(e)(1): The process hazard analysis was not appropriate to the complexity of the process and did not identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iii): The process hazards analysis did not address Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B): The employers written operating procedures covering operating limits did not address the steps required to correct deviations [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4): The employer did not develop and implement safe work practices 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 [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5): Equipment deficiencies [Serious]
- 29 CPR 1910.119(1)(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 [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(1)( 4): Process safety information required by paragraph (d) of this section was not updated when a change covered by this paragraph resulted in a change in the process safety information [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(vii) The employer failed to train employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine situations [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.165(b)(1): The employee alarm system did not provide warning for reaction time for safe escape of employees from the workplace or the immediate work area, or both [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of Methyl Mercaptan listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the ceiling concentration of 10 ppm [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Administrative or engineering controls were not used and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d) [Serious]
- 29 CFR 191 0.119(g)(1 )(i): Each employee presently involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, was not trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified in paragraph (f) of this section [Repeat]
- 29 CPR 1910.119(h)(2)(vi): The employer shall maintain a contract employee injury and illness log related to the contractor's work in process areas [Other-than-serious]
At the time, OSHA noted in a press release that, "The repeat violation was assessed for not training employees on using the building's ventilation system and other safety procedures, such as how to respond if the fans stopped working. In July 2010, DuPont was cited for a similar violation." Dow contested the fines.
But after the initial investigation, OSHA "found hazards that prompted the inspection at the facility to be expanded under the National Emphasis Program for chemical facilities," according to a Department of Labor press release from July 9. That expanded investigation led to citations for additional violations and fines of $273,000:
- 29 CFR 1910.119(d): The employer did not complete a compilation ofwritten process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process [Serious]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The Process Hazard Analysis did not address the hazards of the process [Serious]
- 29 CPR 191 0.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) [Serious]
- 29 CPR 191 0.119(f)(1): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures [Serious]
- 29 CPR 1910.119(j)(2): Written procedures. The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment [Serious]
- 29 CPR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): Inspections and tests was not performed on process equipment [Willful]
- 29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii): Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices [Willful]
- 29 CFR 191 0.119(j)(4)(iii): The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment was not consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience [Willful]
- 29 CFR 191 0.119U)(4)(i): Inspections and tests were not performed on process equipment [Repeat]
OSHA has also placed DuPont in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which "concentrates resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference towards creating a safe and healthy workplace by committing willful or repeated violations, and/or failing to abate known hazards. It also mandates follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law," OSHA said in the press release.