Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 003 Hazard: REFINERY

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v) The process hazard analysis shall address: Facility Siting A. The employer did not ensure the Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) addressed facility siting. At the time of the inspection, November 2009 through March 2010, Silver Eagle Refining Inc., 2355 South 110 West, Woods Cross, UT, 84087, review of the #2 Crude Unit 2005 PHA, did not identify facility siting as being reviewed. Documents provided by the employer did not demonstrate facility siting had been addressed in the #2 Crude Unit 2005 PHA. As stated by Management, the employer uses software that guides participants through a checklist style audit. If it was addressed, the checklist could be printed. Requests were made for the facility siting checklists. The employer was not able to provide the completed checklist. In addition, both the employer's 2009 PSM Compliance Audit and the 2008 Facility Siting Study performed by ABS Consulting identified major deficiencies with facility siting, yet facility siting had not been reviewed during PHA's. In November 2009, due to a catastrophic failure in the MDDW Unit, buildings around the unit sustained major damage due to improper design and lack of protection for their location. By not addressing facility siting in PHA's, employees were exposed to hazardous conditions by occupying facilities that may not withstand a blast. Such blasts can expose employees to serious injury or death. This may be a system-wide occurrence that requires evaluation of all PHA's and associated facility siting throughout the facility. B. The employer did not ensure the Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) addressed facility siting. At the time of the inspection, November 2009 through March 2010, Silver Eagle Refining Inc., 2355 South 110 West, Woods Cross, UT, 84087, review of the #5 Naphtha/HDS 2008 PHA, did not identify facility siting as being reviewed. Documents provided by the employer did not demonstrate facility siting had been addressed in the #5 Naphtha/HDS 2008 PHA. As stated by Management, the employer uses software that guides participants through a checklist style audit. If it was addressed, the checklist could be printed. Requests were made for the facility siting checklists. The employer was not able to provide the completed checklist. In addition, both the employer's 2009 PSM Compliance Audit and the 2008 Facility Siting Study performed by ABS Consulting identified major deficiencies with facility siting, yet facility siting had not been reviewed during PHA's. In November 2009, due to a catastrophic failure in the MDDW Unit, buildings around the unit sustained major damage due to improper design and lack of protection for their location. By not addressing facility siting in PHA's, employees were exposed to hazardous conditions by occupying facilities that may not withstand a blast. Such blasts can expose employees to serious injury or death. This may be a system-wide occurrence that requires evaluation of all PHA's and associated facility siting throughout the facility. C. The employer did not ensure the Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) addressed facility siting. At the time of the inspection, November 2009 through March 2010, Silver Eagle Refining Inc., 2355 South 110 West, Woods Cross, UT, 84087, review of the #3 MDDW 2009 PHA, did not identify facility siting as being reviewed. Documents provided by the employer did not demonstrate facility siting had been addressed in the #3 MDDW 2009 PHA. As stated by Management, the employer uses software that guides participants through a checklist style audit. If it was addressed, the checklist could be printed. Requests were made for the facility siting checklists. The employer was not able to provide the completedchecklist. In addition, both the employer's 2009 PSM Compliance Audit and the 2008 Facility Siting Study performed by ABS Consulting identified major deficiencies with facility siting, yet facility siting had not been reviewed during PHA's. In November 2009, due to a catastrophic failure in the MDDW Unit, buildings around the unit sustained major damage due to improper design and lack of protection for their location. By not addressing facility siting in PHA's, employees were exposed to hazardous conditions by occupying facilities that may not withstand a blast. Such blasts can expose employees to serious injury or death. This may be a system-wide occurrence that requires evaluation of all PHA's and associated facility siting throughout the facility.