Prudential Overall Supply: OSHA inspections and violations

Incident on Jun 26, 2012: Worker is scalded by hot water

At approximately 11:45 a.m. on June 26, 2012, Employee #1 was working as a fullt ime maintenance supervisor for a firm that provided uniforms and textiles for ot her firms. The firm operated service programs, including uniform rental, uniform lease, uniform purchase for industrial uniform programs, and related services. On the day of the incident, Employee #1 had been assigned to this site location from another facility to assist with various maintenance projects. His first tas k was to install a pump motor at a hot water butterfly valve in the site's waste water area. Employee #1 was at the location where the pump was to be installed. He was there to prepare the vicinity and to take measurements to ensure that the pump would fit. Employee #1 stated that he observed that the butterfly valve fo r the hot motor pump was in the 'closed' position. Employee #1 reached down with his left hand to balance himself using the motor pump head that was installed i n the housing. With his right hand, he started to take the measurement. At that moment, hot water began spraying from the north edge of the housing, between the housing and the plug head. The water temperature was approximately 160 degrees Fahrenheit (71 degrees Celsius). Employee #1 received second-degree burns on his legs, arm, and chest. Employee #1 was hospitalized for about 18 days. Employee #1 was working alone, and there were no eye witnesses to the event. At approxima tely 1:00 p.m. that day, the San Diego district office of DOSH was notified.

Incident on May 11, 2007: Twenty one employees are injured in chemical spill

On May 11, 2007, an employee was changing out a pallet of drums in the hazardous materials storage area which contained chemicals that feed the lines to the ind ustrial washing machines. The chemical normally used in the industrial washing m achines was sodium hypochlorite (12 in. solution, which was stored in labeled bl ue drums in the hazardous materials storage area). Also located in the hazardous materials storage area were drums containing Sulfuric Acid, 93 in. solution, st ored in labeled black drums and utilized in a separate area of the facility to l ower the pH of wastewater prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. When the drums of sodium hypochlorite were empty, they were typically changed out wit h another pallet of drums. According to witnesses, the sulfuric acid drums were moved into place to feed the industrial wash lines instead of sodium hypochlorit e, and the solution was then used to launder garments on May 10. The garments la undered had a distinct odor, and the mistake was noticed at about 6:00 p.m. on M ay 10. The employer stopped laundering garments until the following morning. On the morning of May 11, the chemical supplier was contacted regarding the proper way to flush the industrial wash lines and reintroduce the sodium hypochlorite t o continue laundry operations. The employee was in charge of changing out the pa llet of sulfuric acid drums, replacing them with sodium hypochlorite drums, and restarting the laundry process using the methods described by the chemical suppl ier. The chemical supplier advised the employee and managers to flush the sulfur ic acid out of the feed lines using water, and then reintroduce the sodium hypoc hlorite solution. When the sodium hypochlorite was reintroduced to the feed line s, it reacted with approximately one quart of residual sulfuric acid which was s till in the floor drain area near the industrial washing machines and produced c hlorine gas which was vented to the main wash room. The chlorine gas was noticea ble by the effect it had on nearby employees, who had respiratory distress, prob lems with their eyes, and caused workers to feel dizzy and nauseous. No alarms w ere sounded and the facility evacuation relied on word of mouth communication be tween workers. The facility was evacuated; however, some workers remained inside longer because they were uninformed of the evacuation and of the nature of the chlorine gas inside the building. At approximately 8:45 a.m., emergency services were notified and responded to the site. Twenty one employees were transported to local hospitals for evaluation and treatment; however, all employees were rel eased the same day. Three employees were asked to return to the clinic the follo wing week due to continuing symptoms that may have been associated with the chem ical exposure.