OSHA Inspection: AMERICAN REFINING GROUP, INC.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Sep 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $4,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1):  Open sided floor(s) or platform(s) 4 feet or more
above the adjacent
floor or ground level were not guarded by standard railings (or the
equivalent as specified in 29
CFR 1910.23(e)(3)(i) through (v)), on all open sides:
a) Barrel House Loading Rack - On or about December 17, 2008 an ARG
employee was
walking on top of a semi-truck tanker trailer approximately twelve foot
six inches (12'6")
above the ground without proper fall protection. A single steel bar
railing was positioned
at shoulder level to prevent employees from falling off during the loading
process.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Mar 19, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,800 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B):  The employer did not ensure that the process
safety information
depicted on the P&ID was up-to-date and accurate:
(a) MEK Unit - The P&ID for Slack Wax and Keytone Recovery was not
accurate in that
the drawing depicted there was a gate valve in the line going from the
E-21 MEK heater
condenser to the cooling water return but a butterfly valve was found in
its place, on or
about December 10, 2008.
(b) MEK Unit - The P&ID for Slack Wax and Keytone Recovery was not
accurate in that
the drawing depicted there was no valve in the 1 inch vent line from the
side of the T-5
Keytone Stripper but a gate valve was in place, on or about December 10,
2008.
(c) MEK Unit - The P&ID for Slack Wax and Keytone Recovery was not
accurate in that
the drawing depicted there were safety relief valves on the outlet process
lines of both
the E-31D and E-31C heat exchangers but the safety relief valves were on
the inlet lines
of both heat exchangers, on or about December 10, 2008.
(d) MEK Unit - The P&ID for Slack Wax and Keytone Recovery was not
accurate in that
the drawing depicted that the process flowed through the tube side of the
E-31D and E-
31C heat exchangers when in fact, water flowed through the tube side and
the process
flowed through the shell side, on or about December 10, 2008.ber

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

May 1, 2009

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D):  Process safety information pertaining to the
equipment in the
process did not include the relief system design and design basis:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 27, 2009 the employer did not have the
design basis
process safety information (PSI) for a relief device (PSV-53) servicing
the WFO Product
Cooler (E-31C, Shell Side).

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 1, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):  The employer did not document that the
equipment in the process
complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 8, 2009 the Company did not comply with
Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP)
when it
failed to protect employees inside the MEK Control Room which was
inadequately
protected from exposure to explosion, fire, toxic material, or high
pressure hazards as
a result of a highly hazardous chemical release from process equipment.
RAGAGEP
include but are not limited to API 752 Management of Hazards Associated
with Location
of Process Plant Buildings, CCPS Guidelines for Evaluating Process Plant
Buildings for
External Explosions and Fires, AIChE Dow's Fire & Explosion Index Hazard
Classification Guide, and CCPS Guidelines for Facility Siting and Layout.
b) American Refining Group, Inc., 77 North Kendall Avenue, Bradford, PA
16701 - On
or about January 8, 2009 the Company did not comply with RAGAGEP when it
failed
to develop mitigation plans for the inadequately protected occupied
structures identified
in the Company's Facility Siting Report, completed by Unwin Company.  These
structures were exposed to explosion, fire, toxic material, and / or high
pressure hazards
in the event of a highly hazardous chemical release from process equipment.
c) MEK Unit - On or about December 10, 2008 the Company did not comply with
Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP)
when it
failed to provide emergency lighting in the MEK Unit Filter house.
d) American Refining Group, Inc., 77 North Kendall Avenue, Bradford, PA
16701 - On
or about November 19, 2008 the Company did not comply with Recognized and
Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP) when it failed to
develop
an owner / user quality assurance manual for piping inspection systems and
procedures.
ABATEMENT NOTE:
a) RAGAGEP for facility siting describes Inadequately Protected Structures
as those
occupied structures which are not protected by adequate separation or
building
construction. Use the referenced RAGAGEP to ensure that the safety
improvements made
to the MEK Control Room comply with the requirements set forth in the
documents, and
to ensure all appropriate safety features from the RAGAGEP were
incorporated into the
safety improvement project.
b) Use the referenced RAGAGEP to develop mitigation plans that include,
but are not
limited to:
1.) Prioritizing the order in which the occupied structures will be
brought into
compliance with RAGAGEP;
2.) Identifying the required construction reinforcements for the occupied
structures; and
3.) A timeline for completion of improvements / reinforcements
c) NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, Chapter 40: Industrial Occupancies, requires
emergency
lighting in building such as the filter house.  The emergency lighting
shall be installed
and maintained in accordance with Section 7.9 of NFPA 101 Life Safety Code.
d) API 570 Piping Inspection Code, Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-
Service Piping Systems, Section 4.3.1, subparagraphs a. through o.
outlines the
information required in an owner / user piping inspection quality
assurance manual.ce

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Sep 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $3,150 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5):  The employer did not establish a system to assure
that the process
hazard analysis team's recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and
that the resolution
is documented:
a) MEK Unit - On or about November 20, 2008 the Company did not ensure
that the
recommendations from the 2005 MEK Hazop were resolved in a timely manner.
Thirteen (13) of the original seventy-one (71) recommendations were
unresolved, on or
about 11/3/2008.  The unresolved recommendations included:
Node 3, Item 28Node 30, Item 2
Node 12, Item 12Node 37, Item 10
Node 17, Item 11Node 47, Item 17
Node 17, Item 14Node 49, Item 30
Node 19, Item 6Node 54, Item 33
Node 19, Item 9Node 54, Item 134
Node 24, Item 1
b) American Refining Group, Inc., 77 North Kendall Avenue, Bradford, PA
16701 - On
or about November 20, 2008 the system developed by the company for
tracking the
completion of Hazop recommendations did not have a person designated by
management
to administer the system from September 2008 through November 2008.ber

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Jul 31, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii):  The employer's written operating procedures
did not address the
requirements for the operating limits listed in 29 CFR
191.119(f)(1)(ii)(A) and (B):
(a) MEK Unit - On or about November 19, 2008 the normal operating
procedure for
"Opening of Filters for Maintenance" did not list the operating limits
(exit points from
NOP to EOP) to identify when the normal operating procedure is
applicable/required.
(b) MEK Unit - On or about November 19, 2008 the normal operating
procedure for
"Unloading Propane Tank" did not list the operating limits (exit points
from NOP to
EOP) to identify when the normal operating procedure is
applicable/required.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Jun 15, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4):  The employer did not develop and implement safe
work practices for
employees and contractor employees to provide for the control of hazards
during operations such
as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or
piping; and control over
entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other
support personnel:
a) ARG Refinery - On or about November 18, 2008 the employer failed to
provide
complete entry/exit control and security of the covered units including
the perimeter gates
when the watch block station was unmanned.
b) MEK Unit - On or about November 18, 2008 two (2) ARG employees walked
from
an adjacent parking lot crossing the covered unit and into the control
room without
appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE). PPE required for this
covered unit
included the following; fire resistant clothing, safety footwear, head
protection, and
safety glasses.
c) ARG Refinery - On or about November 18, 2008 employees were wearing
winter
clothing (Carhartt coveralls) over flame-resistant (FR) personal
protective equipment
(PPE). Although contrary to industry recognized standard NFPA 2113 the ARG
FR
policy states this is an acceptable practice.
d) MEK Unit - On or about November 18, 2008 ARG employees entered the
south gate
with their privately owned vehicles (POV) at shift change and parked
inside the perimeter
fence of the refinery adjacent to a covered unit. No parking permit was
issued for these
vehicles.
e) ARG Refinery - On or about January 28, 2009 the employer had not
established or
developed a safe work practice to re-calibrate torque wrenches according to
manufacturers specifications including, Snap-tite, Cooper, and Hytorc.
ABATEMENT NOTE:
c) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) - 2113 Standard on
Selection, Care,
Use, and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of
Industrial
Personnel against Flash Fire; Chapter 5 Use, Section 5.1.8on

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2):  The employer did not provide refresher training at
least every three
years to the each employee involved in operating a process to assure that
the employee
understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:
a) MEK Unit - On or about November 19, 2008 refresher training only
consisted of the
operator reading the standard operating procedures.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2):  The employer did not consult with employees in
determining the
appropriate frequency interval for refresher training:
a) MEK Unit - On or about November 19, 2008 the employer has not consulted
with
operators to determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Sep 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2):  The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 9 ,2009 the employer's written
mechanical integrity
(MI) program procedure for inspecting, testing, maintaining and repairing
relief devices
was not completely developed.
b) MEK Unit - On or about January 9 ,2009 the employer did not develop its
written
mechanical integrity (MI) program procedure for pressure-relieving devices
to include
the frequency of inspections or tests.
c) MEK Unit - On or about January 9 ,2009 the employer did not fully
develop its
written mechanical integrity (MI) program procedures for pressure-relief
devices to
include who or what group is authorized by the employer to conduct relief
device
inspection, testing and repair, including the qualifications and
credentials required for
those conducting the inspection, testing and repair.
d) MEK Unit - On or about January 15, 2009 the employer did not have a
written
mechanical integrity (MI) program procedure for calibrating, inspecting,
testing, and
maintaining the Blowdown Drum high-level alarm.
e) MEK Unit - On or about January 29, 2009 the employer's written
mechanical integrity
(MI) program procedure for establishing thickness measurement locations
(TML) was not
fully developed and did not specify how the employer would establish the
specific
number and locations of TML for each of their pressure vessels.
f) MEK Unit - On or about January 29, 2009 the employer's written
mechanical integrity
(MI) procedure for inspecting pressure vessels for
corrosion-under-insulation (CUI) was
not fully developed and did not describe the inspection procedures for CUI.
g) MEK Unit - On or about January 29, 2009 the employer did not fully
develop written
mechanical integrity (MI) program procedures that clearly describe how the
in-service
inspection, repair, alteration and rerating of pressure vessels will be
conducted.
h) MEK Unit - On or about January 29, 2009 the employer did not fully
develop written
mechanical integrity (MI) program procedures that clearly describe how
pressure vessel
testing and repair will be conducted and which personnel are authorized by
the employer
to do the testing and repair, including what credentials are required of
employees
conducting testing and repair.
i) MEK Unit - On or about January 29, 2009 the employer did not implement
pressure
vessel inspections per the required inspection frequencies listed in the
mechanical
integrity (MI) program procedures for E-1, E-2, E-3A, E-3B, E-4A, E-4B,
E-4C, E-26,
E-28, E-29, E-30, and D-3.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

May 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii):  The frequency of inspections and tests of
process equipment to
maintain its mechanical integrity, was not consistent with applicable
manufacturers'
recommendations and good engineering practices, or more frequently
determined to be necessary
by prior operating experience:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 7, 2009 the company did not comply with
Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP)
when it
failed to inspect piping circuits at intervals prescribed by the RAGAGEP.
The piping
circuits included but were not limited to:
1) 3" V-2019-A150-NI (p&id MEKEF7, 30-111893; T-417 feed line to T-419) -
no inspection history was available;
2) 6" PO-611-A (p&id MEKEF10, MEKEF9, 30-112393, 30-112293; E-14 to D-
3) - only three inspection data sheets were available, dated 5/7/80,
8/10/88, and
10/24/08;
3) 8" RO-624-A (p&id MEKEF10, MEKEF11, 30-112393, 30-112493; T-1B to
D-25) - no inspection history was available;
4) 1" P-2007-A150-NI (p&id MEKEF14, 30-120193, P-51 to T-50) - no
inspection history was available.
ABATEMENT NOTE:
RAGAGEP for piping inspection frequency include, but are not limited to:
API 570 Piping Inspection Code, Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-
Service Piping Systems, Section 6, Frequency and Extent of Inspection;
API 574 Inspection Practices for Piping System Components, Section 7.1;
CCPS Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems, Table 8-2, Examples of
Acceptance
Criteria for Common Types of Equipment; Table 9-3, RAGAGEPs for Process
Piping;
and Table 9-14 Mechanical Integrity Activities for Piping Systems.es

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

May 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5):  The employer did not correct deficiencies in
equipment that were
outside acceptable limits (as defined by process information in 29 CFR
1910.119(d) before
further use or in a safe and timely manner:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 9, 2009 the employer did not correct
deficiencies
in equipment that was outside of acceptable limits, in that eighteen
pressure-relieving
devices were evaluated to be undersized in regards to the external pool
fire scenario.
b) MEK Unit - On or about December 17, 2008 a six inch (6") metal C-clamp
was used
in lieu of a bolt and nut to secure a flange on the G-1 inert gas
generator igniter tube
flange.
c) MEK Unit - On or about December 17, 2008 a pressure gauge for the G-1
inert
gas
generator pressure differential regulator valve was broken.or

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(4):  A change covered by 29 CFR 1910.119(l) resulted in
a change in the
process safety information required by 29 CFR 1910.119(d) and the process
information was not
updated:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 14, 2009 the documentation requirements
set forth
in part 5 & 6 of the MOC/work order #30-8120 for P-2A moist solvent drive
turbine
(pump) had not been completed prior to start-up and operation. The P-2A
pump had an
air fin cooler installed without fully completing the documentation as
required by the
company MOC program.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(6)(ii):  Appropriate checks and inspections were not
performed to assure
that equipment was installed properly and consistent with design
specifications and the
manufacturer's instructions:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 14, 2009 the documentation requirements
set forth
in part 5 & 6 of the MOC/work order #30-8120 for P-2A moist solvent drive
turbine
(pump) had not been completed prior to start-up and operation. The P-2A
pump had an
air fin cooler installed without fully completing the documentation as
required by the
company MOC program.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(1):  The employer did not investigate each incident
which resulted in, or
could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic release of a highly
hazardous chemical in the
workplace:
a) MEK Unit - Incidents which occurred in the MEK Unit that could
reasonably have
resulted in catastrophic releases of highly hazardous chemical in the
workplace were not
investigated.  These incidents included, but were not limited to, the
following:
1) MEK Unit Log Book reference: P-4D leaking (page 180, date 12/08/08,
shift
12:00 am to 8:00 am);
2) MEK Unit Log Book reference: valve on D-18 leaking propane (page 172,
date 12/04/08, shift 4:00 pm to 12:00 am);
3) MEK Unit Log Book reference: outdoor alarm doesn't sound (page 168, date
12/02/08, shift 4:00 pm to 12:00 am);
4) MEK Unit Log Book reference: leak on propane flare line D-15 (page 160,
date 11/28/08, shift 8:00 am to 4:00 pm);
5) MEK Unit Log Book reference: cracked thread in piping above shut off
valve
on A Boot Pump, hot solvent (page 156, date 11/26/08, shift 4:00 pm to
12:00
am;
6) MEK Unit Log Book reference: leaking seal in P-11 (page 102, date
10/30/08,
shift 8:00 am to 4:00 pm);
7) Deficiency Management Form reference: form date 5/01/08 - The water
spray
in the Blowdown Drum only puts out 23.8 gpm.  The original design called
for
384 gpm.  The reduced water flow decreases the effectiveness of condensing
vapors if PSV-153 relieves;
8) Deficiency Management Form reference: form date 3/07/08 - various pieces
of process equipment were found to be lacking proper electrical grounding.
Equipment included, but was not limited to, D-10, E-31C and E-31D, E-4C, P-
5C, and P-6A.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(n):  The employer did not establish and implement an
emergency plan for the
entire plant in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.38(a):
a) American Refining Group, Inc., 77 North Kendall Avenue, Bradford, PA
16701 - On
or about November 19, 2008 the company did not include a procedure in their
Emergency Response Plan that instructs employees how to distinguish
between small
releases or spills and large releases or spills and what actions are
required by employees
in both instances.h

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Sep 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1):  The employer did not certify that they had
evaluated compliance with
the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.119 at least every three years to verify
that the procedures and
practices developed under this standard were adequate and are being
followed:
a) MEK Unit - On or about December 17, 2008 the employer did not audit
their
administrative procedures and practices (e.g., Locking/Chaining Valves
into Position) at
least every three years to ensure they are adequate and are being followed.
b) MEK Unit - On or about January 15, 2009 the employer failed to conduct
compliance
audits of pressure vessel inspection records as required verifying that
the vessel
inspection procedures are adequate and are being followed.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Jun 1, 2009

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4):  The employer did not determine and document an
appropriate response
to each of the findings of the compliance audit required by 29 CFR
1910.119(o)(1), and
document that the deficiencies had been corrected:
a) American Refining Group, Inc., 77 North Kendall Avenue, Bradford, PA
16701 - The
company did not promptly document an appropriate response to each audit
finding from
the 2007 PSM Compliance Audit.  Three (3) of the original fourteen (14)
deficiencies
identified in the 2007 PSM Audit were not corrected, on or about
11/3/2008.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,250 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic
inspection of the energy
control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the
requirement of this
standard were being followed:
a) ARG Refinery - On or about January 15, 2009 the employer had not
performed the
required annual audits for CY 2008 of authorized and affected employees
relative to the
LOTO procedures set forth in the company LOTO policy.
ABATEMENT NOTE:
(a)The periodic inspection shall be performed by an authorized employee
other than
the one(s) utilizing the energy control procedure being inspected.
(b)The periodic inspection shall be designed to correct any deviations or
inadequacies observed.
(c)Where lockout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall
include a
review, between the inspector and each authorized employee, of that
employee's
responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected.
(d)Where tagout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall
include a
review, between the inspector and each authorized and affected employee,
of that
employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being
inspected,
and the elements set forth in paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section.i)

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Apr 20, 2009

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4):  The employer did not develop and implement safe
work practices for
employees and contractor employees to provide for the control of hazards
during operations such
as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or
piping; and control over
entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other
support personnel:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 14, 2009 the lock/tagout (LOTO)
procedures for
equipment and machinery at the MEK Unit were incomplete. Numerous LOTO
checklists
on file at the control room had not been signed and approved prior to
conducting
maintenance or servicing of equipment.

Issued

Mar 16, 2009

Abate by

Mar 19, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,147 · Current $500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(C):  Unless specifically permitted otherwise in
paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
of this section, flexible cords and cables may not be used where run
through doorways,
windows, or similar openings:
a) MEK Unit - On or about January 14, 2009 an energized 110 volt orange
flexible cord
connected to an outside generator was run through a doorway.