OSHA Inspection: SINCLAIR TULSA REFINING COMPANY

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2250.00 · Current $2250.00

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to the hazard of falls and/or being struck-by or
caught-by moving
equipment where access to an elevator hoistway was not restricted:
The employer does not ensure that elevators are installed, inspected, and
maintained to
ensure access to the hoistway is restricted to authorized personnel only.
As a result,
employees have access to the top of the elevator cars where they are
exposed to falls in the
elevator hoistway and/or being struck-by moving parts.  This violation was
observed on or
about February 4, 2009, for the FCCU elevator car operating without a
cover over the top
emergency hatch.
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable means of abatement would
be
to ensure
elevator equipment is installed, inspected and maintained in accordance
with Safety Code for
Elevators and Escalators, ASME A17.1, 1996 and current editions.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure compliance
with ASME A17.1 such as required inspections and maintaining restricted
and safe access to
elevator hoistways.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees exposed to
fall hazards when walking/working on the tops of tractor trailer tankers:
The employer does not ensure that each employee working from the top of
tractor trailer
tankers with unprotected sides and edges is protected from falling by a
personal fall arrest
system (PFAS) or an appropriate custom-fit guardrail system.  This
violation was observed
on or about February 10, 2009, for the Asphalt Loading Rack area where
process operators
and contract truck operators were not protected from the hazard of a fall
of 10 feet to the
concrete surface below.
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable means of abatement would
be to ensure
that employees performing work from the top of a tractor trailer tanker
are protected from
falls by a PFAS utilizing anchorages attached to existing overhead
structure, or an equivalent
means of fall protection.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that
employees working from the tops of tractor trailer tankers are protected
from falls.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3150.00 · Current $3150.00

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The
employer does not
furnish employment and a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that
are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees
who were exposed
to the hazard of burns from contact with hot equipment surfaces:
The employer does not ensure that each employee is protected from contact
with hot surfaces
on process equipment.  This violation was observed on or about March 19,
2009, along the
north and east decks of the regenerator column on the 5th floor of the
FCCU Complex where
employees were exposed to skin burns from contact with equipment with
surface
temperatures of 325-335 degrees F, and which were not insulated or
otherwise guarded to
prevent bodily contact.
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable means of abatement would
be to extend
the external guardrails, as had been done similar area to prevent bodily
contact with hot
surfaces.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that
employees working around equipment with hot surfaces are protected from
contact with the
surfaces.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-12 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3150.00 · Current $3150.00

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to tripping hazards when walking/working on
multiple levels of the
FCCU structure where grating was detached and not level:
The employer does not ensure that walking/working surfaces are level and
free from tripping
hazards.  This violation was observed on or about March 13, 2009, on
multiple levels of the
FCCU structure where employees were exposed to tripping hazards where
grating and metal
decking was detached, not level, and contained holes.
Among other methods, feasible and acceptable means of abatement includes
repairing the
floor levels with patches and welding techniques.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure all
walking/working surfaces are free from tripping hazards.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(2): Every ladderway floor opening or platform was not
guarded by a
standard railing, or swinging gate, or so offset that a person cannot walk
directly into the
opening:
The employer does not ensure that ladderway floor openings are guarded by
a standard
railing, or equilavent means, to prevent employees from falling through
the openings.  This
violation was observed on or about April 24, 2009, on multiple levels of
the FCCU structure
where employees walking/working in the vicinity of unguarded ladderway
openings were
exposed to fall hazards up to approximately 80 feet to the concrete and
equipment surfaces
below.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure all
ladderway openings are guarded.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1):  Open-sided floors or platforms four feet or more
above adjacent
floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or
equivalent) on all open
sides; and toeboards where hazard exposures exist below:
The employer does not ensure that open-sided floors and platforms are
provided with
standard railing or equivalent means of guarding:
a) This violation was observed on or about March 19, 2009, in the FCCU
where employees
walking/working on a platform without guardrails around the regenerator
were exposed to a
fall hazard of approximately 18 to 20 feet to the grated surface below.
b) This violation was observed on or about April 15, 2009, in the FCCU
where
employees
walking/working on a platform without guardrails around the B-2 charge
heater and blow-
down crows nest were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 25 feet to
the concrete
surface below.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit an abatement plan describing the steps it is taking
to ensure guardrails
are erected along all open-sided floors and platforms.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(2):  Runways four feet or more above floor or ground
level were not
guarded by standard railings (or the equivalent):
The employer does not ensure that open-sided platforms and walkways are
provided with
standard railings or equivalent means of guarding.  This violation was
observed
on or about
February 10, 2009, at the Asphalt Loading Rack where employees
walking/working on a
runway leading from the loading rack to the top of trailers, and not
equipped with handrails
or equivalent on an open side, were exposed to a fall hazard of
approximately 10 feet to the
concrete surface below.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure all open-
sided runways are guarded with standard railing or the equivalent.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(e)(1):  Standard railing(s) consisting of a top rail,
intermediate rail and
posts did not have a vertical height of 42 inches (106.7 cm) nominal from
upper surface of
top rail to floor, platform, runway, or ramp level:
The employer does not ensure that top rails of standard guardrail systems
are at least 42
inches in height. This violation was observed on or about February 10,
2009, for the Asphalt
Loading Rack where the platform's guardrail system has a top rail height
of 30.5 inches.
Employees walking/working on the loading are exposed to a fall hazard of
10 feet to the
concrete surface below.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure all
standard railings are 42 inches in height.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.101(a):  The employer did not determine that compressed gas
cylinders under
his control were in a safe condition to the extent that could be
determined by visual or other
inspections:
The employer does not ensure that compressed gas cylinders are maintained
in a safe
condition. This violation was observed on or about March 19, 2009, in the
FCCU
where
employees were exposed to fire and/or explosion hazards while
walking/working in and
around the oxygen analyzer room where stored compressed gas cylinders
lacked protective
valve caps and were severely rusted on the bottom.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure all
compressed gas cylinders are stored and maintained in a safe condition.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.101(b): The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all
compressed gases
in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks
was not in
accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is
incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 1910.6:
The employer does not ensure that stored, compressed gas cylinders are
properly secured to
prevent tipping, placed so as not to become part of an electrical circuit,
and labeled to
identify the gases.  This violation was observed on or about March 19,
2009, in the FCCU
where employees were exposed to fire, explosion and struck-by hazards while
walking/working in and around the oxygen analyzer room where stored,
compressed gas
cylinders were not secured to prevent tipping, were placed near open
electrical boxes and
were not labeled to identify the type of compressed gas.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure all
compressed gas cylinders are properly stored, marked and handled.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(D): Process-safety information pertaining to the
technology of the
process did not include the safe upper and lower limits for such items as
temperatures,
pressures, flows or compositions:
The employer does not develop process-safety information pertaining to the
technology of the
process.  The FCCU Operating Manual does not specify the safe upper and
lower limits for
items such as temperatures, pressure, flows and/or compositions pertaining
to the technology
of the unit process; this violation was observed on or about February 4,
2009.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps it is taking to
ensure the operating
manual specifies process safety information (PSI) pertaining to the
technology of the process
to include the safe upper and lower limits for items such as temperatures,
pressures, flows
and/or compositions; the PSI shall be clear and easily referred to, such
as tabular format.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(ii): Where the original technical information no
longer exists,
process safety information pertaining to the technology of the process was
not developed in
conjunction with the process hazard analysis in sufficient detail to
support the analysis:
The employer does not develop process safety information pertaining to the
technology of the
process in conjunction with the process hazard analysis where the original
technical
information no longer exists.  This violation was observed on or about
February 4, 2009 in
the Crude Unit, where the employer operates FA-24, an atmospheric blowdown
drum, when
there is incomplete original design and design basis information.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to develop process safety
information pertaining to
the technology of the process for FA-24, the Crude Unit atmospheric
blowdown drum.own

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

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:
The employer operates an atmospheric blowdown drum when there is
incomplete original and
updated design and design basis information.  This violation was observed
on or about
February 4, 2009 in the Crude Unit, where the employer operates FA-24, an
atmospheric
blowdown drum, without complete original and updated design and design
basis information.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to document original and
updated design and design
basis process safety information pertaining to FA-24, the Crude Unit
atmospheric blowdown
drum.  Process safety information on the FA-24 blowdown drum must include
design
and
design basis information such as, but not limited to, the physical and
chemical properties of
materials relieved to the blowdown drum, a definition of the loadings to
be handled, the exit
velocity of gasses/vapors released from the vent stack, design basis/worst
case scenario for
maximum liquid-vapor releases to the blowdown, the geographic locations of
the devices and
valves releasing to the blowdown, the design residence time of the vapor
and liquid in the
drum, the design basis for the vapor - liquid separation for the drum, the
design basis for the
exit velocities for the vent stack, and the nature of other, lesser
hazards related to smaller
releases not related to the design "worst-case" scenario such as the
release of toxic (e.g.,
H2S) and corrosive chemicals.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(F):  The employer did not ensure written process
safety
information includes design codes and standards employed:
The employer does not have written process safety information for design
codes and
standards employed for equipment such as, but not limited to, the
instances provided below.
The conditions were observed on or about February 4, 2009, and at times
prior to and
thereafter, at the Sinclair Tulsa Refinery.
a)In the CDU: No design codes and standards used to construct and modify
the FA-24
knockout (blowdown) drum.
b)In the FCCU: No design codes and standards used to construct and operate
positive
pressure control system for the FCCU/Scanfiner/Alky Control Room.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps it is taking to
ensure that the
written process safety information is completed.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B): Process safety information pertaining to the
equipment in the
process did not include the piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's):
The employer does not ensure that the piping and instrument diagrams
associated
with
process equipment are updated or validated to reflect current field design
conditions.  This
violation was observed on or about February 4, 2009 in the FCCU in that:
a)  P&ID DWG. No. 11949-0-D representing FCC-015 piping circuit; the P&ID
is not
concurrent with actual field operation.
b)  P&ID DWG. No. 11950-0-D representing FCC-014 piping circuit; the P&ID
is not
concurrent with actual field operation.
c)  P&ID DWG. No. 11958-0-D, 11960-0-D, and 12280-0-D representing FCC-070
piping
circuit; the P&ID is not concurrent with actual field operation.
d) P&ID DWG. No. 11969-0-D representing FCC-112 piping circuit; the P&ID
is not
concurrent with actual field operation.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure the P&IDs are
accurate,
up-to-date and
reflect actual field conditions.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

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 safety
information was not updated:
The employer does not ensure process safety information (PSI) is updated
as required by
paragraph (d) of the PSM standard when the process is modified/changed.
This violation
was most recently discovered on or about February 4, 2009, and at times
prior thereto and
thereafter, when the employer did not update FCCU process flow diagrams
(PFDs) or piping
and instrument diagrams (P&IDs).  The employer is deficient on PSI, such
as, but not
limited to, the following:
a)  PFD drawing 13326-D, Rev. A, current on February, 4, 2009; "7J-15A,
15C, 50" are
depicted on the flow diagram as the wet gas compressors in service in the
FCCU; 7J-15A
and C are not in service.
b)  PFD drawing 13326-D, Rev. A, current on February, 4, 2009; equipment
information on
the PFD lists 7J-15A, 15C, 7J-42 and 7J-42M as wet gas compressors in
service in the
FCCU; wet gas compressors 7J-15A, 7J-15C, 7J-42 and 7J-42M are not in
service.
c) PFD drawing 13326-D, Rev. A., current on February, 4, 2009: a
compressor dry drum,
7F-8, is depicted on the flow diagram upstream of the wet gas compressors
in service in the
FCCU; the compressor dry drum, 7F-8 is not in service.
d) PFD drawing 13326-D, Rev. 0., updated on February, 19, 2009: equipment
information
on the PFD lists 7F-8 as the compressor dry drum in service in the FCCU;
the compressor
dry drum, 7F-8 is not in service.
e) P&ID 11947-O-D, Rev. 3: P&ID depicts 7G-4, a catalyst removal cyclone,
which was
removed from the Unit, and does not depict the Donaldson Torit Baghouse
added to the Unit
after the cyclone was removed from service.
f) The Plot Plan in the FCCU Operating Procedures Manual shows the
locations
of the J-
15A, J-15C, and J-42; this equipment is no longer on the Unit.
g) The Plot Plan in the FCCU Operating Procedures Manual does not show the
location of J-
50.
h) In the FCCU Operating Procedures Manual, Section 307, the equipment
description for
catalyst recovery equipment in the FCCU Operating Manual has information
on 7G-4, the
Catalyst Disposal Cyclone, which was taken out of service in 2008.  There
is no description
of the Baghouse that was installed on the Unit when the cyclone was taken
out of service.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit an documentation showing that it is in compliance
with the standard;
in addition, an abatement plan must be submitted describing the steps it
is taking to ensure
all PFDs and P&IDs are accurate, up-to-date and depict all equipment
existing in the field, as
well as steps it is taking to ensure that PSI remains up-to-date and
accurate.
Every 30 days
thereafter, the employer shall submit a progress report stating how many
PFDs and P&IDs
have been updated, how many still need to be updated, whether it is
meeting the schedule set
forth in its abatement plan, and if not why not; and whether it is
maintaining the PFDs and
P&IDs that have been updated.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):  The employer did not document that equipment
complies with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP):
The employer does not ensure that process safety information pertaining to
the equipment in
the process contains documentation that all equipment complies with
RAGAGEP. The
conditions were observed, as noted in (a) through (c) below, on or about
February 4, 2009,
and at times prior to and thereafter, at the Sinclair Tulsa Refinery.
a)  In the CDU: The employer does not document that the FA-24 knockout
drum vent stack
complies with RAGAGEP where it does not determine vent stack height is
appropriate
according to radiant heat levels; does not determine mitigation measures
for hazards other
than vapor cloud explosion such as exposure to H2S; and does not ensure
prevention of
flashback by using a purging media other than steam.  The FA-24 vent stack
is not compliant
with RAGAGEP such as API 521, Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems.
b)  In the FCCU: The new control building housing multiple refinery units
(Scanfiner/FCCU/Alky) was designed for blast overpressures; however, the
employer has not
documented its compliance regarding the control room's role as a safe
haven during
emergency releases of flammable or toxic materials.  The positive pressure
control system
lacks system equipment such as hydrocarbon or toxic (hydrogen sulfide)
detectors to shut
down the intake of contaminated air. The control room is not compliant
with RAGAGEP
such as API 752 Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process
Plant
Buildings.
c) In the FCCU: The employer does not document that atmospheric releases
from relief
system equipment, such as, relief valves on the E-1 Fractionator (309,
312, 358, 359, 2077,
2078, 2079, 2281, 2283, 2861), E-5 Splitter (2763, 2764), F-4 Fractionator
Reflux Drum
(2781, 2782), F-11 Debutanizer Reflux Drum (2765, 2766), F-12 Splitter
Reflux Drum
(2768, 2769) are discharged to safe locations in compliance with RAGAGEP
such as API
521.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit an abatement plan describing the actions it is taking
to ensure
equipment in the process is compliant with RAGAGEP.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(iii):  For existing equipment designed and
constructed in accordance
with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, the
employer
does not
determine and document that equipment is designed, maintained, inspected,
tested and
operating in a safe manner:
The employer does not have written process safety information for design,
maintenance,
inspection, testing and operations that determines and documents the safe
use and operation
of the Crude Unit control room.  The control room conditions do not
prevent infiltration of
hydrocarbons or toxics, do not prevent struck-by hazards, do not prevent
fire spread, and do
not provide a safe location from blast overpressure conditions. The
conditions were observed
on or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior to and thereafter, at the
Sinclair Tulsa
Refinery.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the actions it is taking to
ensure that the
Crude Unit control room is designed, maintained, inspected, tested and
operating in a safe
manner.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(1):  The process hazard analysis was not appropriate to
the complexity
of the process and did not identify, evaluate, and control the hazards of
the process:
The employer does not evaluate and control discharges of hydrocarbons to
the atmosphere.
This violation was observed on or about February 4, 2009, in the CDU where
the employer
fails to comprehensively evaluate the discharge of hot, heavier-than-air
hydrocarbons from
the vent stack of the FA-24 blowdown drum by means such as conducting a
plume study.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure that the
discharge of hydrocarbons from the vent stack of the FA-24 blowdown drum
is to a safe
location.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v):  The process hazard analysis (PHA) did not
address facility
siting:
The employer does not address facility siting during PHA's regarding
relief system
equipment that discharges to atmosphere. This violation was observed on or
about February
4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, for the 1995 Crude Unit PHA (and
subsequent PHA
revalidations) the employer does not consider the siting of its employees
or facilities in
relation to hydrocarbon releases from relief system equipment that
discharges to the
atmosphere.
a) In the CDU: Work platforms within 50 feet of the discharge from the
vent stack from FA-
24, blowdown drum, expose employees to fire and explosion from
hydrocarbons and
inhalation of toxic hydrogen sulfide. Heavier than air hydrocarbons can be
released from the
vent stack, collect at ground level, and cause vapor cloud explosions.
b) In the CDU: Work platforms within 50 feet of the FA-1, atmospheric
tower, relief valves
expose employees to possible fire and explosion from hydrocarbon releases.
c) In the CDU: FA-18, stabilizer tower, relieves to atmosphere near the
crude unit heaters
exposing employees to possible fire and explosion from hydrocarbon
releases.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure that the
discharge of hydrocarbons from FA-24 blowdown drum, FA-1 atmospheric tower
and FA-18
stabilizer tower is to a safe location.r

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi):  The process hazard analysis did not address
human factors:
At the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU):  The employer does not
identify or evaluate
the possibility of human error in its PHA due to confusion when equipment
described in a
written procedure is not labeled/marked with an identifier in the field.
This condition was
specifically identified for operators accessing equipment in instances
described below as (a),
(b) and (c), but is not limited to equipment in these procedures. The
conditions were present
on or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior to and thereafter, at the
Sinclair Tulsa
Refinery.
a) For procedure 1210 - Transfer of Catalyst from F-2 Used Catalyst Drum
into Trucks.
b) For procedure 1302 - Loss of Feed.
c) For procedure 1305 - 250# Steam Failure.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard
including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that the human
factors hazard
analysis is effectively applied for PHA conducted at the refinery.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5):  The employer did not establish a system to
promptly address
process hazard analysis (PHA) team findings and recommendations; assure
that the
recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is
documented;
document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as
possible; develop a
written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate
the actions to
operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in
the process and
who may be affected by the recommendations or actions:
The employer does not establish a system to promptly address action items
from the process
hazard analysis.  The employer violated this standard for multiple PHA's
and PHA
revalidations covering approximately 16 years.  The employer violated this
standard on or
about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, where the employer
does not resolve
action items from process hazard analysis in a timely manner.
a) In the CDU:  A PHA recommendation was made to install a high level
alarm on the FA-
24 knockout drum in the initial 1995 PHA and subsequent PHA revalidations
and was not
installed until June 2008 (13 years).
b) In the CDU:  A PHA recommendation was made to investigate moving the
vent line from
the FA-24 knockout drum away from the atmospheric tower in the initial
1995 PHA and
subsequent PHA revalidations; however, the vent line remains in the same
condition.
c) In the FCCU:  The employer did not install H2S monitors to address the
hazard of
hydrogen sulfide identified in the 1995 PHA and subsequent PHA
revalidations.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that it is taking
to ensure the
findings, recommendations, and resolutions for process hazard analysis are
promptly
addressed. The employer must document what actions are to be taken,
develop a written
schedule of when the actions are to be completed, and communicate the
actions to affected
employees.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i): The employer did not develop and implement
written operating
procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting
activities involved in each
covered process consistent with process safety information:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, the employer
does not develop
detailed written operating procedures.  These procedures, among others,
are deficient:
a) In the FCC Unit for Emergency Operating Procedure, Section 1314, D-2
Regenerator
Low Temperature.
b) In the FCC Unit for Emergency Operating Procedure, Section 1304,
Cooling
Water
Failure.
c) In the FCC Unit for Section 1301, General Emergency Shutdown Procedure.
d) In the FCC Unit for Section 1303, Loss of Level in F-7 Condensate Tank.
e) In the FCC Unit for Section 1302, Loss of Feed.
f) In the FCC Unit for Section 1305, 250# Steam Failure.
g) In the FCC Unit for Section 1310, Loss of Vacuum on C-11 Surface
Condenser.
h) In the FCC Unit for Section 1311, Leak in C-01 Flue Gas Cooler Tubes.
i) In the FCC Unit for Section 1312, Leak in C-02 Slurry Cooler Tubes.
j) In the FCC Unit for Section 1002, Normal Operations, Routine Activities.
k) In the CDU, procedures for operations of the blowdown FA-24
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation,
the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that operating procedures
have sufficient detail
and specificity to provide clear operating steps.ing

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(A):  The employer's written operating procedures
did not contain
detailed operating limits, consequences of deviation, and steps required
to correct or avoid
deviation:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, the employer
does not develop
detailed written operating procedures containing operating limits,
consequences of deviation,
and steps required to correct or avoid deviation.  These procedures, among
others, are
deficient:
a) In the FCC Unit for Emergency Operating Procedure, Section 1314, D-2
Regenerator
Low Temperature.
b) In the FCC Unit for Emergency Operating Procedure, Section 1304,
Cooling Water
Failure.
c) In the FCC Unit for Section 1301, General Emergency Shutdown Procedure.
d) In the FCC Unit for Section 1303, Loss of Level in F-7 Condensate Tank.
e) In the FCC Unit for Section 1302, Loss of Feed.
f) In the FCC Unit for Section 1305, 250# Steam Failure.
g) In the FCC Unit for Section 1310, Loss of Vacuum on C-11 Surface
Condenser.
h) In the FCC Unit for Section 1311, Leak in C-01 Flue Gas Cooler Tubes.
i) In the FCC Unit for Section 1312, Leak in C-02 Slurry Cooler Tubes.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure the development of
detailed written operating
procedures containing operating limits, consequences of deviation, and
steps required to
correct or avoid deviation.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(3): The operating procedures were not reviewed as often
as necessary to
assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes
that result from changes
in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, or changes to facilities
and the employer
did not certify annually that the operating procedures are current and
accurate:
The employer does not review operating procedures as often as necessary to
assure they are
current, and does not certify annually that the operating procedures are
current and accurate.
The FCCU Operating Manual was last certified as current and accurate on
January 23, 2008.
After the certification in 2008, the Catalyst Disposal Cyclone, 7G-4, was
taken out of service
and a baghouse was installed on the Unit; Special Operating Procedure
Section 1210 -
Transfer of Catalyst from F-2 into Trucks was not updated to reflect
changes in equipment,
and the procedure did not reflect current operating practice with regard
to the lineup of the
discharge blowers to the catalyst truck.  This violation was observed on
or about February 4,
2009.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure operating procedures
are maintained to
reflect current operating practices, as well as current process chemicals,
technology,
equipment and facilities, as well as the steps it is taking to ensure
operating procedures are
certified current and accurate on an annual basis.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4):  The employer did not develop and implement safe
work practices
for opening process equipment:
The employer does not ensure that safe work practices are used when
opening process
equipment.  This violation occurred on or about February 4, 2009, and
times thereafter, in
the refinery where employees were potentially exposed to the hazard of
burns from contact
with hot product/steam, chemical inhalation and/or physical contact with
chemicals while
opening and working on process equipment such as, pump repair, replacement
of packing,
installation of piping, and repair of float columns.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure specific procedures
for draining, purging
and steaming of process equipment and piping are developed and
implemented, as well as
describing the steps it is taking to ensure energy isolation procedures
are developed and
implemented which specifically detail and identify all equipment (valves,
blinds,
piping, etc.)
affected/involved in the procedure (for example, through the use of unique
identifiers and
P&ID's).

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(iv):  The employer did not ensure that contract
employees follow the
host employer's safe work practices when entering, exiting, or working in
the covered
process areas:
The employer does not ensure contractors are properly signed in/out of the
FCCU to allow
effective personnel accounting and emergency evacuation/rescue procedures.
This violation
was observed on or about March 19, 2009, in the FCCU where employees and
contractors
were exposed to the hazards of fire, explosion and toxic releases while
working in the
FCCU.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that
contractors are signing in and out of process units.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(v): The employer did not periodically evaluate the
performance of
contract employers in fulfilling their obligations as specified in
paragraph 1910.119(h)(3):
The employer does not ensure that the equipment used by contractors is
evaluated for safe
use, such as Bond Painting's use of bares wires and a 12 volt battery to
power fuel pumps.
This violation was observed on or about April 15, 2009, in the refinery,
where employees
and contractors were exposed to the hazard of flash fire and explosions
due to a contractor's
use of spark producing equipment in the process units.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that an
evaluation of contractor equipment is conducted.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

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:
The employer does not have written procedures or implemented actions for
the on-going
mechanical integrity of equipment such as the instances provided below.
The conditions were
observed on or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior to and
thereafter, at the Sinclair
Tulsa Refinery.
a) In the CDU: High level alarm installed on the FA-24 blowdown drum is
not included in
the inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
b) At the refinery: The employer's Mechanical Integrity Procedure does not
address
anomalous inspection data, such as the unresolved anomalous inspection
data for FCCU
piping circuits FCC-070 and FCC-112.
c) In the FCCU: At the FCCU/Scanfiner/Alky Control Room, the differential
pressure gauge
and alarm for the positive pressure control system is not in the
inspection, testing and
maintenance program.
d) In the FCCU:  The employer does not develop and implement written
procedures for the
inspection and testing and preventative maintenance of equipment,
instrumentation, alarms
and controls employed and designed to prevent process safety hazardous
situations from
occurring such as, SLV-0057, SLV-0058, SLV-0059, SLV-0060, SLV-0074,
SLV-0075,
Emergency Feed Valves V-2 and V-3 in feed lines 2A and 2B, valves V-4 and
V-5 in
blowdown lines from feed heater outlet, HC-0212, HC-0209, FC-0135,
PDI-0076, PDI-
0053, PDI-0055, PI-006, PC-0230, and PC-0155.
e) At the refinery: The employer does not develop and implement a work
order
system to
maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment.  The lack
of a work order
system has allowed deficiencies in relief and vent systems and devices
when the line
supplying steam to the Crude Unit FA-24 atmospheric blowdown vent line
froze and broke,
and was not repaired for an undetermined period of time, at least greater
than one year.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure that the written
mechanical integrity
program is complete and implemented and includes loop and function testing
of critical
equipment.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iv): The employer did not document each inspection
and test that had
been performed on process equipment to maintain its mechanical integrity:
The employer does not document inspections and tests of process equipment
such as FCCU
slide valves.  This violation was most recently observed on or about
February 4, 2009, when
the employer did not document testing of safety critical equipment listed
in Section 902, of
the FCCU Operating Manual.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure inspection and
testing is documented as
required by this paragraph.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5):  The employer did not correct deficiencies in
equipment that are
outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in
paragraph (d) of this
section) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary
means are taken to
assure safe operation:
The employer does not ensure employees are protected from falling chunks
of fireproofing
and fire/explosion/toxic hazards where fireproofing material is not
maintained in good repair.
This violation was observed on or about February 4, 2009 throughout the
battery limits of
the Crude Unit (CDU) and Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU),
fireproofing for structural
steel supporting process equipment was found to be cracked, falling apart,
missing,
deteriorating and generally in a state of disrepair for areas such as the
pipe rack vertical
support members (CDU), vertical structure supports at debutanizer
structure (CDU), base
shoe type supports at EA-23 (CDU), and various portions of the steel
structure supporting
the FCCU regenerator (multiple stories high).  The fire control and
disaster mitigation design
purpose of the fireproofing is not effective due to its state of
disrepair.  Further, the
condition presents avenues for corrosive elements to impart deteriorating
action on
underlying structural steel and presents overhead falling object hazards
from
falling chunks
of fireproofing.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the actions it is taking to
ensure fireproofing
material is maintained and structural steel supporting process equipment
is properly protected
from fire and corrosion.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE:
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees exposed to
the hazard of struck-by, fire, explosion and toxic inhalation associated
with the deterioration
of fireproofing material on structural supporting steel in refinery
process units.
Among other methods, feasible and acceptable abatement of this hazard
includes the
installation, maintenance, repair and inspection of fireproofing materials
for structural steel
in accordance with standards such as UL 1709, API 2218, NFPA, manufacturer
of
fireproofing material, equipment engineering standards and common industry
practice.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(k)(1):  The employer did not issue a hot work permit for
hot work
operations conducted on or near a covered process:
a) March 19, 2009, in the FCCU, where employees are exposed to the hazard
of flash fires
while using spark producing, or non-intrinsically safe, equipment such as
cameras without
conducting atmospheric testing and issuing a hot work permit.
b) April 20, 2009, in the refinery, where a contractor's use of spark
producing equipment,
such as Bond Painting's use of bare wires connected to a 12-volt battery
to supply power for
fuel pumps,  exposing employees and contractors to the hazard of flash
fire and explosions.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure the issuance
of hot work permits for all hot work operations conducted in the refinery
units.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1):  The employer does not implement written procedures
to manage
changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures:
a)  For the Crude Distillation Unit:  On or about February 4, 2009, and at
times prior
thereto, the employer does not implement management of change procedures
for increasing
the charge to the unit.
b) On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, the employer
does not
implement management of change procedures for the application of cooling
steam to hot
spots on the FCCU D-2 Regenerator shell.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure written management
of change procedures
are implemented to manage changes to process chemicals, technology,
equipment, procedures
and changes to facilities that affect a covered process.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(2)(i): The written procedures to manage changes did not
assure that the
technical basis for the proposed change was addressed prior to any change:
The employer does not assure written MOC procedures address the technical
basis for
proposed changes prior to implementation of the change; MOC 96-034,
"Install New Wet
Gas Compressor" does not detail and address the technical basis for the
change for the J-50
Wet Gas Compressor installed in the FCCU in 1997.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, the employer must submit an abatement plan
within ten (10)
calendar days describing the steps it is taking to ensure MOC specify and
address the
technical basis for changes, ensuring the procedure details and addresses
items such as, but
not limited to, what is to be changed, what is to be achieved by the
change, and why the
change is safe to make.  The employer must also review all MOC procedures
that must be
retained for the life of the process due to their incorporation into part
of the Process Safety
Information (those MOC's addressing chemicals and equipment that will/have
become part of
the Process Safety Information (PSI) , thus giving the employer a
documented record of the
original design and design intent of the covered process and also
providing a record of all
changes to the process that are of importance to those responsible for
safe operation and
maintenance and to those that may need to consider future changes to the
process).  Every 30
days thereafter, the employer shall submit a progress report stating how
many
MOC have
been updated, how many still need to be updated, whether it is meeting the
schedule set forth
in its abatement plan, and if not why not; and whether it is ensuring all
subsequent MOCs
address the technical basis for the change prior to making the change.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(2)(ii): The written procedures to manage changes did
not assure that the
impact of the change on safety and health was addressed prior to any
change:
The employer did not address the impact of change on safety and health
prior to
implementing the change; the employer failed to address the impact of
installing a new wet
gas compressor (J-50) in the FCCU prior to the equipment's installation.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement
date listed in
this citation, the employer must submit an abatement plan describing the
actions it is taking
to ensure that the impact of change on safety and health is being
addressed and that
recommendations are resolved.  The employer must also review all MOC
procedures and
assure that the impact of the change on safety and health has been
addressed.  Within twenty-
five (25) calendar days of the abatement date listed in this citation, the
employer shall submit
a progress report stating how many MOC procedures do not address the
safety and health
impact of changes.  Every 30 days thereafter, the employer shall submit a
progress report
stating how many have been updated and how many still need to be updated;
of those that
have been updated, the employer must also report on how many
recommendations have been
resolved, how many resolutions require corrective action, and how many
corrective actions
have been completed, and how the employer is assuring that the impact of
change on safety
and health is addressed prior to the implementation of any changes.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(3): Employees involved in operating a process and
maintenance and
contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the
process were not
informed of, and trained in, the change prior to start-up of the process
or affected part of the
process:
The employer does not inform and train contract employees whose job tasks
will be affected
by a change in process prior to the start-up of a process or affected part
of the process.  This
violation most recently occurred on or about February 5, 2009 when
contract employees
were not informed and trained on the installation of LEL monitors on the
road way designed
to notify vehicles of the potential hazard of a flammable atmosphere near
the perimeter of the
Wet Gas Compressor and to prevent the introduction of ignition sources to
a flammable
atmosphere.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date
listed of this citation,
the employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance
with the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure that the management
of
change equipment
instructions and procedures are communicated to all affected personnel.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5):  The employer did not establish a system to
promptly address and
resolve the incident report findings and recommendations.  Recommendations
and corrective
actions were not documented:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, the employer
does not have a
system to track incident resolution and recommendations.  The
recommendations and
corrective actions are not always documented or completed in a timely
manner.
a) In the FCCU:  Incident 04-006 - No confirmation or documentation that
recommendation
#3 was completed.
b) In the FCCU:  Incident 06-003 - Recommendation #1 was not completed for
over seven
months.  No confirmation or documentation that recommendation #2 was
completed.
c) In the FCCU:  Incident 07-014 -No documentation on recommendations
#2-5.  It is not
clear from the documentation provided that recommendation #6 was resolved
in a timely
manner.  Recommendation #7 was not instituted for 21 months.
d) In the FCCU:  Incident 07-025 - Recommendations #1-3 were not resolved
for seven
months.
e) In the FCCU:  Incident 07-004 - Recommendations not completed for over
11 months.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that incident report
findings and
recommendations are promptly addressed and resolved and ensure that
recommendations and
corrective actions are documented.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

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) The windsock by the main entrance was torn and not in proper operating
condition,
exposing employees to possible smoke or chemical inhalation, explosions
and fires.  This
violation was observed on or about February 10, 2009, at the Sinclair
Tulsa Refinery.
b) The windsock by the main entrance was not illuminated at night,
exposing night shift
employees to possible smoke or chemical inhalation, explosions and fires.
This violation was
observed on or about April 2, 2009, at the Sinclair Tulsa Refinery.
c) Windsocks could not be seen from all points within the Crude Unit,
exposing employees
to possible smoke or chemical inhalation, explosions and fires.  This
violation was observed
on or about April 1, 2009 at the Sinclair Tulsa Refinery.
d) Emergency procedures do not evaluate and provide for use of control
rooms at the FCCU
and CDU as safe havens or shelter in place locations where operators are
required
to stay in
the control rooms to take mitigating actions during emergency upset
conditions; employees
are exposed to smoke or chemical inhalation, explosions and fires where
control rooms are
not equipped with toxic or hydrocarbon detection systems, life support
systems such as
supplied air, and self-contained breathing apparatus are not maintained in
sufficient quantity
for the personnel exposed.
e) The employer does not include a procedure in its emergency action
plan/emergency
response plan that instructs employees on how to distinguish between small
releases and
spills versus large releases or spills; and what employee actions are
required in both
instances.  This violation was observed on or about February 4, 2009,
where refinery
personnel and the employer's emergency plans could not provide procedures
for handling
small releases.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure that windsocks are
maintained in proper
operation condition, windsocks are illuminated at night, and are in plain
sight from all points
within the refinery, and emergency actions for all personnel are properly
determined with
provisions for emergency equipment.  In addition, the employer must
describe the steps it is
taking to ensure the emergency action plan/emergency response plan
describes the various
hazardous substances on site that have the potential to cause an
emergency; defines the types
of releases that could potentially require an emergency response and
defines what types of
releases would not be an emergency; instructs employees on how to
distinguish between
small releases and spills versus large releases and spills; instructs
employees on required
actions in both instances; and ensures employees are trained on the
actions
they are to take.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $6300.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4):  The employer did not promptly determine and
document an
appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and
document that
deficiencies have been corrected:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, compliance audit
items are not
corrected and documented.  These items were carried over from the 2003
compliance audit
to the 2006 compliance audit.
a) P&Ids need updating.
b) Lack of evaluation of contract employer's safety performance and
programs.
c) Pre-startup safety reviews have not been documented for all
modifications.
d) Lack of written maintenance procedures.
e) Some of the MOCs do not include evidence to indicate that the impact of
the change on
safety and health was adequately evaluated.
f) Not all training completed for MOCs.
g) Incident investigations not initiated within 48 hours.
h) Lack of documentation that incident investigation recommendations have
been resolved.
i) A formal training program for maintenance and inspection.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that recommendations of
compliance audits are
resolved and that defiencies identified are corrected.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(4):  Portable fire extinguishers were not maintained in
a fully charged
and operable condition:
The employer does not ensure that fire extinguishers are maintained in
good operating
condition.  This violation was observed on or about February 10, 2009, at
the asphalt loading
rack where a fire extinguisher was covered in asphalt, exposing employees
to the hazard of
burns and smoke inhalation.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that fire
extinguishers are inspected and maintained in proper operating condition.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $3150.00 · Current $3150.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.165(b)(3):  The employer did not have an employee alarm system
that was
distinctive and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area or to
perform actions
designated under the emergency action plan:
The employer does not ensure that a distinctive alarm system is in place
to warn of leaks,
spills, or severe weather. This violation was observed on or about March
6, 2009, where the
lack of a distinctive alarm exposes employees to the hazards of fire,
explosion, toxic
inhalation, flying debris and hazardous chemicals during refinery
emergency events.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that
distinctive and recognizable alarms are in place that distinguish between
chemical leaks,
spills, fires or inclement weather.t

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.165(d)(2): The employer did not test the reliability and
adequacy of non-
supervised employee alarm systems every two months:
The employer does not ensure that unit alarms are operating properly by
conducting
a test at
least once every two months.  This violation was observed on or about
March 18, 2009, in
the FCCU at the Sinclair Tulsa Refinery, where a test/sounding of the unit
alarm last
occurred around October of 2007.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure unit alarms are
tested at least once
every two months.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.176(c): Storage areas were not kept free from accumulation of
materials that
constituted hazards from tripping, fire, explosion or pest harborage:
The employer does not ensure that hazardous chemicals are properly stored.
This violation
was observed on or about May 5, 2009, in the Bechtel Building, where
organic peroxides
were not stored in a climate-controlled area at temperatures recommended
by the chemical
manufacturer, exposing employees to the hazard of fire and explosion.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps that it is taking to ensure proper storage
of hazardous
chemicals.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1800.00 · Current $1800.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1): Electric equipment was not free from recognized
hazards likely to
cause death or serious physical harm to employees:
The employer does not ensure that electrical equipment is free from
recognized hazards. This
violation was observed on or about April 24, 2009, for instances such as:
a) In the Bechtel Building: Electrical outlet near the entrance door was
cracked and broken.
b) In the FCCU Regenerator structure analyzer room: Electrical boxes left
open exposing
equipment with lack of electrical insulation.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that
electrical installations are maintained free from recognized hazards.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c): Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of
equipment in
hazardous (classified) locations were not intrinsically safe, approved for
the hazardous
(classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location:
The employer does not ensure that hazardous (classified) locations contain
only equipment
that is intrinsically safe or otherwise safe for the location.
a) Violation was observed in the FCCU on or about March 19, 2009, in the
oxygen analyzer
room where live electrical wiring in an electrical panel was not
maintained in a enclosed
intrinsically safe electrical panel.
b) Violation was observed in the CDU on or about February 4, 2009, in the
Crude Unit
Control Room where standard household appliances (stove, coffee maker,
refrigerator) and
standard electrical installations were used in a Class 1, Division II
hazardous location.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation, the
employer must submit documentation describing the steps that is taking to
ensure that
hazardous locations are equipped with safe electrical equipment and
installations.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2250.00 · Current $2250.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(v):  When periodic monitoring indicated that
employee exposures
were below the action level, the result was not confirmed by the result of
another monitoring
taken at least seven days later:
In the weld shop: On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior
thereto, the employer
does not conduct the required follow up monitoring after personal
monitoring on August 28,
2007, for employees welding, cutting, grinding, and pipe fitting
chromium-containing alloy
steel revealed an exposure to hexavalent chromium over the PEL of 5
micrograms per cubic
meter of air, calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average.  After
followup monitoring on
October 1 and 2, 2007, for two employees, the employer does not confirm
the
result by
subsequent monitoring at least seven days later.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that periodic monitoring
for hexavalent
chromium is conducted as required.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(m)(1)(i):  The employer did not maintain an accurate
record of all air
monitoring conducted to comply with the requirements of this section:
In the weld shop: On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior
thereto, the employer did
not maintain personal sampling records for employees engaged in welding,
cutting, grinding,
and pipe fitting chromium-containing alloy steel.  Six employees were
sampled and only
three monitoring records were provided.
Records that were provided in response to the OSHA subpoena did not
contain social security
numbers or duration of sampling.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that employees with
possible exposure to
hexavalent chromium are trained.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1028(e)(2)(i):  The employer who has a place of employment
covered under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section did not monitor each of these workplaces
and work
operations to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of benzene
to which
employees may be exposed:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto,
a) In all refinery units: for operating employees engaged in draining,
purging and steaming to
eliminate hydrocarbons from process vessels, equipment and related piping
in preparation for
maintenance.
b) In all refinery units: for maintenance employees repairing process
vessels, equipment and
related piping.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that employees with
possible exposure to
benzene are monitored for that exposure.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1028(e)(3)(ii): When the monitoring required by paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this
section reveals employee overexposure above the permissible exposure
level, the employer
did not repeat such monitoring for each such employee at least every six
(6) months:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto,
a) In all refinery units: for operating employees engaged in draining,
purging and steaming to
eliminate hydrocarbons from process vessels, equipment and related piping
in
preparation for
maintenance.
b) In all refinery units: for maintenance employees repairing process
vessels, equipment and
related piping.
c) On or about October 2007, multiple employees at the OIF unit and Crude
Unit were
exposed to over 0.66 ppm as calculated for a 12-hour TWA.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that periodic monitoring
for benzene is
conducted as required.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1028(k)(1):  The employer did not establish and maintain an
accurate record of
all measurements required by paragraph (e) of this section, in accordance
with 29 CFR
1910.1020:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto,
a) In the crude distillation unit: for employees engaged during a process
unit shutdown in
draining, purging and steaming to eliminate hydrocarbons from process
vessels, equipment
and related piping.  Twelve employees were sampled and only four
monitoring records were
provided.
b) In the OIF unit: for employees engaged during a process unit shutdown
in draining,
purging and steaming to eliminate hydrocarbons from process vessels,
equipment and related
piping.  Thirty-one employees were sampled and only thirteen monitoring
records were
provided.
c) In the Alky/Poly/Penex unit: for employees engaged during a process
unit shutdown in
draining, purging and steaming to eliminate hydrocarbons from process
vessels, equipment
and related piping. Twenty-six employees were sampled and no monitoring
records
were
provided.
Records that were provided in response to the OSHA subpoena did not
contain social security
numbers, type of respiratory protection, or duration of sampling.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) days of the date of this
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with the
standard, including
describing the steps that it is taking to ensure that employee monitoring
records for benzene
are complete and maintained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4500.00 · Current $4500.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not ensure that material safety
data sheets
(MSDS) were readily accessible during each work shift to employees when
they are in their
work areas:
On or about February 4, 2009, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not make
material safety data sheets available to employees.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, the employer must submit an abatement plan
within ten (10)
calendar days of the date of this citation, the employer must submit
documentation describing
the steps that it is taking to ensure that material safety data sheets are
readily accessible
during each work shift to employees when they are in their work areas.

Issued

2009-08-04 00:00:00

Abate by

2009-08-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $63000.00 · Current $63000.00

General-duty citation text

SINCLAIR TULSA REFINING COMPANY WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR
VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS
EQUIVALENT STANDARD, 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN
OSHA INSPECTION NUMBER 308062280, CITATION 1, ITEM 2, ISSUED ON
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 FOR THE WORKSITE LOCATED AT 902 W. 25TH STREET,
TULSA, OKLAHOMA.
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5):  The employer does not promptly address process
hazard analysis
(PHA) findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are
resolved in a
timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions
are to be taken;
complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when
these actions are to
be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other
employees
whose
work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the
recommendations or
actions:
At the Crude Unit: The employer does not promptly address PHA
recommendations intended
to protect employees from fire, flammable hydrocarbon releases with
ignition sources and
toxic hydrogen sulfide releases. PHA recommendations the employer fails to
resolve include,
but are not limited to, the instances provided below.  The conditions were
present on or
about February 4, 2009, and at times prior to and thereafter, at the
Sinclair Tulsa Refinery.
a)In the 1995 CDU PHA Electrical Analysis: Electrical classification
system exists to
prevent electrical equipment from creating fires.  Division 2 areas
include the control room.
To declassify the control room, several steps will have to be takenthe
control room would
need to be pressurized with fresh air or at least given a positive purge
of
fresh air.
b)In the 1995 CDU PHA Safety Analysis: Investigate adding combustible gas
and H2S
monitors with alarms to the pumps rooms and around the control room.
Investigate
pressurizing the control room and adding a loss of pressure alarm.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within 10 calendar days of the abatement date
listed in this
citation, the employer must submit an abatement plan describing the
actions it is taking to
ensure that the Crude Unit PHA recommendations are resolved and documented
fully. The
violations must be abated no later than 90 days from receipt of this
citation.