IBJNews

State proposes fines over Indy pool that sent 71 to hospital

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state has proposed $14,250 in fines against Indianapolis after inspectors found six violations at a city-run pool where chemical exposure and fumes sent dozens of people to the hospital in June.

In a Nov. 1 noticed released publicly Thursday, the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration lists six “serious” violations against Indy Parks and Recreation, which manages the Garfield Family Aquatic Center.

On June 21, an estimated 71 pool visitors and employees went to the hospital after over-exposure to toxic chemicals.

A separate investigation that Indy Parks conducted revealed that a chlorine-based chemical was continuously pumped for more than four hours into the two pools’ water system. Toward the end of the chlorination spree, the chemicals mixed with acid that was injected into the system.

A chemical reaction created a gas that leaked from pipes and harmed employees in the enclosed mechanical area.

The hazardous mixture then worked its way into the swimmer-filled pools, according to Indy Parks.

"The safety of guests at Indy Parks is always our top priority," said Indy Parks Deputy Director Jen Pittman in a prepared statement. "Indy Parks and Recreation is working with IOSHA to fully remedy these issues and is confident the fines will be eliminated once that process is complete. In addition to addressing the orders at Garfield Park, Indy Parks and Recreation also plans to evaluate all of the city’s aquatic centers and take corrective action as necessary before the facilities reopen next spring.”

IOSHA classified each of the six violations against the city department as “serious” after inspections ended in August.

The steepest individual fines that IOSHA has proposed are for $4,500.

Documents state the pools’ mechanical room did not have proper safety devices to keep chemicals safely balanced. The pool’s circulation system also had inadequate tubing that leaked and sprayed chemicals, which exposed employees to the hazard.

IOSHA proposed another $4,500 after finding electrical pumps in wet areas that were not properly grounded.

The remaining $5,250 in violations included:

— out-of-shape chemical-handling gloves with an unknown residue on them;

— inadequate emergency chemical-wash equipment for pool staff;

— an exposed electrical junction box;

— a broken cover for an electrical outlet marked “Acid Pumps Only."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BS FINES
    GREAT! So the state, one tax funded government entity, is going to fine another tax funded government entity for an accident at a partially taxpayer funded pool where many underprivelaged children spend their summer and stay out of trouble. Sounds like the taxpayer is going to be taxed again! OUR GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL!!!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT