Plant faulted in Danvers blast

US board says agencies failed to inspect

DANVERS -- The plant that exploded in November repeatedly violated safety regulations for the handling of flammable chemicals, and local, state, and federal agencies with oversight of the facility failed to inspect it, federal investigators said yesterday.

A seven-month probe by the US Chemical Safety Board concluded that workers, in part because of residents' complaints about the noise, regularly shut off a required ventilation system designed to prevent the buildup of chemical vapors, which ignited on Nov. 22.

The safety board said that the plant's owner -- CAI Inc., the ink manufacturer based in Georgetown -- lacked the proper permits and licenses to operate and would be fined by the federal government. The company vigorously disputed the agency's preliminary findings and called for a more comprehensive investigation.

The federal probe also exposed confusion about which government agencies should have caught the violations at the plant and which are responsible for enforcing different requirements. Safety board officials told the Globe that the Danvers Fire Department, the state fire marshal's office, and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration all bore some responsibility, though the officials said they are still determining how often or extensive the inspections should have been.

But Danvers Fire Chief James Tutko said his department had no responsibility for inspecting the plant. State Fire Marshal Stephen D. Coan refused to comment. An OSHA spokesman also refused to comment.

The chairwoman of the safety board, Carolyn W. Merritt, said the agencies may not have been aware that they were responsible for monitoring the CAI plant. She said public safety at thousands of plants nationwide relies too heavily on voluntary compliance by plant owners.

"Companies believe they don't have to comply with these rules because they are not going to get caught," Merritt said. "The focus has to be that these aren't voluntary standards. This is the law."

She said the Danvers explosion, which caused more residential damage than any blast the safety board has investigated in its nine-year history, would be used to warn chemical plants around the nation about the importance of complying with safety regulations.

Announcing the findings of their own investigation that also blamed a buildup of chemical vapors, state officials outlined plans Monday to inspect smaller plants like the one in Danvers. Such an inspection probably would have uncovered the violations that produced the chain of events that led to the blast, said a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, which will coordinate the new inspections.

The explosion did not seriously injure anyone, but the safety board said a number of people would have been killed if the explosion had not happened in the middle of the night. The blast did destroy or damage 270 homes and businesses, more than 300 vehicles, and 65 boats. Nearly 50 families are still unable to return to their homes.

The safety board's investigation found a plant rife with problems.

CAI shared the plant with another industrial firm, Arnel Co., a custom paint maker that ceased operations after the blast. The inves tigation focused on CAI and determined that the blast originated in its half of the building.

CAI failed to obtain state fire permits for handling hazardous chemicals. The firm also had not installed a standard, OSHA- required ventilation system that could have prevented the spread of flammable gases, federal investigators said. The floor-level system would have been separate from the one that was turned off the night before the blast.

The plant also lacked vents to the outside, automatic shut-off valves for flammable liquids, and fire-resistant material in certain piping, all required by state fire codes. CAI also did not use checklists or formal written procedures to ensure that workers handled equipment properly. And the plant lacked automatic alarms, shutdown systems, and interlocks to prevent overheating of mixing tanks, the safety board said.

The blast originated in a 3,000-gallon tank storing flammable solvents, according to federal investigators. The plant did not have the license to use the two chemicals in the mixing tank, heptane and propyl alcohol.

Steam heating valves either malfunctioned or were mistakenly left on after workers left for the day Nov. 21. With valves on, the tank was continuously heated, releas ing flammable gas into the air. But workers had shut off the ventilation system for the night, leaving the gas nowhere to flow. It built up in the room and was ignited by some unknown source.

The blast at 2:45 a.m. the next day was felt 25 miles away.

In a statement, CAI said it had run the plant safely throughout its 23 years of operation and called the conclusions "inappropriate."

"It is clear from public statements made by government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the incident that possible causes were ruled out prematurely while speculative theories were adopted well before a proper investigation had begun," the company said. For instance, some residents insist that they believe a natural gas leak helped cause the explosion, though both the safety board and the state fire marshal's office have ruled that out.

Some residents raised the issue last night at a Danvers hotel, where the chemical safety board presented its findings to about 100 residents. Many spoke of the persistent smell of natural gas in the neighborhood.

"What I've heard tonight doesn't go along with what I've observed as a neighbor," said John Joyce, 54, who lived next to the plant for 29 years. "I've never really smelled solvent coming from CAI . Natural gas . . . I have smelled." Stacy Stamm, 38, urged the panel to consider all possible causes. "We don't necessarily need it to be gas," said Stamm who had bought her house at 108 Water St. the day before the explosion and is rebuilding. "We need to know what happened and how to prevent it."

The company said its own investigation is still underway. "This complex incident demands a thorough and objective investigation that employs advanced technology and expertise," CAI said.

Merritt said there may be other plants with significant safety risks. "The reality is that there are many facilities that are not inspected on a regular basis," she said.

Merritt said the local, state, and federal agencies that should have inspected the plant are being determined. Interviews yesterday with local, state, and federal officials did little to clear up which was ultimately responsible or whether the agencies knew of their oversight responsibility.

Tutko said he was certain that ultimate responsibility for making sure the factory was in compliance with state fire codes lay with CAI, not his department.

"It's not our responsibility to go in and hold manufacturers hands on whether they are doing their processing" correctly, he said.

Coan said he would not comment on the safety board's findings because he had not reviewed them.

Ted Fitzgerald, the OSHA spokesman, said he could not comment because the agency was also investigating the blast.

Raja Mishra can be reached at rmishra@globe.com; Ellement at ellement@globe.com.