Violation Detail
Standard Cited: 19100119 O01 Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.
This violation item has been deleted.
Inspection Nr: 312412356
Citation: 01014
Citation Type: Willful
Abatement Date: 06/03/2010
Initial Penalty: $56,000.00
Current Penalty: $56,000.00
Issuance Date: 04/28/2010
Nr Instances: 3
Nr Exposed: 24
Related Event Code (REC):
Gravity: 10
Report ID: 0854910
Contest Date: 05/27/2010
Final Order: 10/23/2013
Emphasis:
Type | Latest Event | Event Date | Penalty | Abatement Due Date | Citation Type | Failure to Abate Inspection |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Penalty | F: Formal Settlement | 10/23/2013 | $56,000.00 | 06/03/2010 | Willful | |
Penalty | Z: Issued | 04/28/2010 | $56,000.00 | 06/03/2010 | Willful |
Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 014 Hazard: REFINERY
29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1) Employers shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed. A. The employer did not ensure that compliance audits verified that the procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed. This violation was identified during inspections of the facility from November 2009 to March 2010, Silver Eagle Refining Inc., 2355 South 1100 West, Woods Cross, UT, 84087. During review of the October 2009 Compliance Audit performed by ABS Consulting, Inc., for Silver Eagle and Stoel Rives LLP, the auditors did not find major programmatic mechanical integrity deficiencies such as inadequate written procedures and inadequate inspections of vessels, piping, and pressure safety valves. The audit team claimed: 1.They performed procedural reviews, interviews, field verifications and a representative sampling of records to provide insight into the adequacy of the design and implementation of the PSM Program (MFDDW 1-UOSH23 0056). 2.The scope of the audit included organization, physical conditions, procedures, practices, and records in place at the refinery at the time of the audit (MDDW 1-UOSH23 0056). 3.The audit focused solely on the design and implementation of the management systems that comprise the refinery's PSM Program (MDDW 1-UOSH23 0056). Despite the audit being only a "snapshot", the auditors should have easily recognized that there was a paucity of written policies and procedures to maintain the mechanical integrity of covered processes such as piping systems. For example, including, but not limited to, response to UOSH Document Requests 1-UOSH-22, 1-UOSH-31, 1-UOSH-48, and 1-UOSH- 63, the employer did not supply a single, site specific, policy and procedure based on API 570 Piping Inspection Code. An adequate written MI program would have included Silver Eagle Refinery policies and procedures regarding; (a) Fitness-For-Service and Risk-Based Inspection, (b) Authorized Piping Inspector Qualification and Certification, (c) Inspection, Examination, and Pressure Testing Practices, (d) picking Corrosion Monitoring Locations (CMLs), (e) Pressure Testing of Piping Systems, (f) Material Verification and Traceability, (g) Inspection of Valves, (h) In-service Inspection of Welds, (i) Interval/Frequency and Extent of Inspection, (j) Corrosion under Insulation (CUI) Inspections, (k) Assessment of Inspection Findings, (l) Reporting and Records for Piping System Inspection, etc. Despite the lack of any written policy and procedure for piping inspection, the audit teams claims "Inspectors use checklists procedures that are based on these standards" (MDDW 1-UOSH23 0102). Deficiencies should have been an obvious part of any audit. The employer did not provide any "checklists" related to piping inspections. Such potentially catastrophic oversights can cause critical information, policies, procedures, and inspections to continue in service without proper correction. By not conducting a complete audit, system deficiencies and potential equipment failures may not be identified. In the event of an equipment failure, employees could be exposed to hazardous situations such as fires, explosions, and/or chemical releases which can result in serious injury or death. This may be a system-wideoccurrence that requires immediate revalidation of the deficient 2009 Compliance Audit rather than waiting until the next cycle in 2012. B. The employer did not ensure that compliance audits verified that the procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed. This violation was identified during inspections of the facility from November 2009 to March 2010, Silver Eagle Refining Inc., 2355 South 1100 West, Woods Cross, UT, 84087. During review of the October 2009 Compliance Audit performed by ABS Consulting, Inc., for Silver Eagle and Stoel Rives LLP, the auditors did not find major programmatic mechanical integrity deficiencies such as inadequate written procedures and inadequate inspections of vessels, piping, and pressure safety valves. The audit team claimed: 1.They performed procedural reviews, interviews, field verifications and a representative sampling of records to provide insight into the adequacy of the design and implementation of the PSM Program (MFDDW 1-UOSH23 0056). 2.The scope of the audit included organization, physical conditions, procedures, practices, and records in place at the refinery at the time of the audit (MDDW 1-UOSH23 0056). 3.The audit focused solely on the design and implementation of the management systems that comprise the refinery's PSM Program (MDDW 1-UOSH23 0056). Despite the audit being only a "snapshot", the auditors should have easily recognized that there was no historical documentation to demonstrate that periodic piping inspections were performed. Periodic piping inspections are necessary to maintain the mechanical integrity of piping systems. For example including, but not limited to, UOSH sampled the piping inspection records for the #1 Crude Unit, #2 Crude Unit, the MDDW Unit, and the Reformer/HDS Unit. The piping inspection records surveyed were submitted by Silver Eagle to satisfy UOSH Document request 1-UOSH-42. This review demonstrated that the piping in these units had not been periodically inspected per the intent of the OSHA PSM Standard since inception in 1993. In fact, the only inspection records available for review were performed in the summer of 2009, 16 years after the PSM Standard was promulgated. API 570 Piping Inspection Code requires piping thickness measurements at least every 5 to 10 years based on piping classification. Despite the lack of any historical piping inspection records, the audit teams claims "Pressure vessels, storage tanks, and piping are inspected in accordance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices such as API 510, API 563, and API 570 (MDDW 1-UOSH23 0102). Deficiencies should have been an obvious part of any audit. Such potentially catastrophic oversights can cause critical information, policies, procedures, and inspections to continue in service without proper correction. By not conducting a complete audit, system deficiencies and potential equipment failures may not be identified. In the event of an equipment failure, employees could be exposed to hazardous situations such as fires, explosions, and/or chemical releases which can result in serious injury or death. This may be a system-wide occurrence that requires immediate revalidation of the deficient 2009 Compliance Audit rather than waiting until the next cycle in 2012. C. The employer did not ensure that compliance audits verified that the procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are being followed. This violation was identified during inspections of the facility from November 2009 to March 2010, Silver Eagle Refining Inc., 2355 South 1100 West, Woods Cross, UT, 84087. During review of the 2009 Silver Eagle PSM Compliance Audit, UOSH Compliance Officers found that Silver Eagle Refinery did not evaluate its safe work practices/procedures for opening process equipment/piping, vessel entry, or the control of entrance to a facility or covered process area as part of its compliance audit. As a result, critical policies and procedures were not reviewed to determine if they are adequate and being followed. The employer did not provide documentation demonstrating procedures and practices developed under the standard were adequate and were being followed. Deficiencies should have been an obvious part of any audit. Interviews with management on 3/2/2010 indicated that Silver Eagle Refinery does not perform audits of their employees in safe work practices. By not conducting a complete audit, system deficiencies and potential equipment failures may not be identified. In the event of an equipment failure, employees could be exposed to hazardous situations such as fires, explosions, and/or chemical releases which can result in serious injury or death. This occurrence may be system wide and would require evaluation in all applicable areas of the refinery.