Document VYgkeD8MG3xER8j3gkRmDX34

RECEIVED JAM 1 f '/'SO ft- iv. Laundrle Ashtabula A. i). Jeffrey Jewett January 11, 1980 Diamond Shamrock Diamond Shamrock was fined $52,000 by OSHA over violations at tr.elr Delaware City ?VC facility. TI:e sequence of events were as follows: 1. A female OSHA inspector of child bearing age stopped at Stauffer ?VC plant for a brief inspection and was turned away. 2. She had a complaint over lead dust to investigate at Diamond, so she went there next. They would not let her in. She became upset and said she would get the paperwork (court order?) to get in amdleft. 3. OSHA District Director called Diamond. Diamond said if she'd slg* a release of responsibility, they would let her in. OSHA refused. Finally Diamond agreed to let her in under conditions of constant monitoring and respiratory protection. A. After they entered the plant, the Inspection went on and off for nine (9) months. 5. Three (3) days before OSHA's deadline to cite, she and District Chief came to Diamwid and laid the following citations on them three (3) serious citations and five (5) willful. (1 am not sure which of these are serious and which willful except the first.) a. Employees exposed to +1 ppm end/or +5 ppm for 15 minutes. Workers did wear respirators in all cases except one. (1) ` levels too high - set at 10, 25, & 100 ppm. 1, 5 ppm per OSHA. (Ours are +1 & +5) (V) Monitoring results not adequate to protect workers. (3) Monitor points not located adequately. (A) Alarm system did not prevent an employee from being exposed. GNC 005688 - 2- c. No beard policy and noor control of testing respirator fit. Also training on respirators inadequate. d. Lead dust exposure. e. Gate on work platform not closed to prevent worker from falling, lepeated open after warned by OSHA inspector. f. Breaching air system analysis and air processing (lack of carbon filter?) (We have one.) g. Jot labeling FVC waste containers per Standard. h. Policy of Engineering compliance and getting to lowest possible level was not emphasised and current. Diamond's policy of complying with Standard and not doing Engineering Is a violation of Standard, (This one tends to confuse me) X think really the citation Ml because they did not have a working engineering plan to reduaa levels In work areas. I conclude levels in work areas have Veen increasing at Diamond which is what caused this problem. Ours is decreasing. Our engineering plan needs to be updated. Interesting Sidelines: 1. Bingham told District to "get tough again on VC1." 2. Diamond did get all willful violations except #1 above reduced to serious, and fine reduced to approximately $5,000. 3. Used plant records as proof of her findings. 4. Took word of workers on Company violations of Standard. 5. Obvious vendetta on her part to get Diamond because of thair position. call. a- H. E. Jewett Plant Manager EEJ/ikb cc: R. W. Laundria v''" Staff GENC 005689