OSHA Inspection: CHALMETTE REFINING LLC

Issued

Dec 14, 2009

Abate by

Dec 26, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1):  Place(s) of employment were not kept clean and
orderly,
or in a sanitary
condition:
This violation was last observed on or about June 2, 2009, and at times
prior thereto, at
the walkway at ground level between the Hydrogen Plant (idle) and the side
of the
Hydrocracker Unit (HCU), where valve operator chains were left hanging
loose in
passageways where a passing employee could become snagged or entangled.
Pursuant to 29 CRF 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation,
the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance with the
standard,
including ensuring that regular walkaround visual inspections are
performed to keep
pathways around process equipment clear of obstruction hazards.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Nov 30, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,875 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1):  Place(s) of employment were not kept clean and
orderly, or in a sanitary
condition:
This violation was last observed on or about June 2, 2009, and at times
prior thereto, at
the walkway at ground level between the Hydrogen Plant (idle) and the side
of the
Hydrocracker Unit (HCU), where valve operator chains were left hanging
loose in
passageways where a passing employee could become snagged or entangled.
Pursuant to 29 CRF 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation,
the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance with the
standard,
including ensuring that regular walkaround visual inspections are
performed to keep
pathways around process equipment clear of obstruction hazards.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Nov 30, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,750 · Current $1,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2):  Drainage is not maintained where wet processes are
in use:
The employer does not ensure that walking/working surfaces around process
equipment are kept drained.  This violation was last observed on or about
August
13, 2009,  and at times prior thereto, at these locations:
a) in the Hydrocracker Unit (HCU), at the third level work deck next to
the K-
2300 compressor, where steam condensate was allowed to accumulate (form
algae), creating a slip hazard.
b) directly across the plant road from the HF Alky Unit operator shelter,
beside
the emergency mitigation water pump (G-7964) station in the diked area,
where
employees walk through for weekly inspection and servicing of the pump
equipment, creating a slip hazard.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that regular and spot walkaround visual
inspections
are performed to keep walking/working surfaces with process areas drained
and
free of standing water.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 21, 2009

Penalty

Initial $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(2):  Ladderway floor opening(s) or platform(s) were not
provided with
swinging gates or were not so offset that a person could not walk directly
into the opening:
The employer does not provide swinging gates where an employee could fall
from
an elevated platform directly through a ladderway access point.  This
violation
was last observed on or about June 2, 2009, and at other times prior
thereto, at
process heaters including but not limited to, the Stabilizer Heater
(F-2303), Hot
Oil Heater (F-2506) and F-2301 heater.  The work platforms were measured at
8 feet or greater above grade.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that work platforms were employees could
directly
fall through the ladderway are provided with a swinging guardrail gate.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Nov 30, 2009

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,875 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.:
The employer does not provide full guardrail protection at elevated deck
platforms.  This violation was last observed on or about August 13, 2009,
at
these locations:
a)at the outer edge of the elevated deck near the 1st Stage Recycle
Compressor posing a fall hazard of greater than 30 feet to grade.
b)south of the condenser E-2301 [38], near D-2302, where a midrail and top
rail (fixed or chain) were not provided, posing a fall hazard toward the
inside exceeding 12 feet to grade.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that full guardrail protection will be
provided for
work platforms greater than four feet.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Nov 30, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(3): Regardless of height, open-sided floors, walkways,
platforms or runways
above or adjacent to dangerous equipment were not guarded by standard
guardrails.
The employer does not guard open sided platforms less than four feet where
employees may step/fall into dangerous equipment or residual chemicals.
This
violation was last observed on or about August 13, 2009, adjacent to the
Hydrocracker Unit (HCU) at the Gasoline Manifold D, where the spaces
between
and around routing valve stems were not guarded by chain guardrails and
stansions or other means.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that work platforms less than four feet high
where
additional hazards exist are provided with guardrail protection.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Jan 13, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.24(b):  Fixed stairs were not provided for access from one
structure level to
another where operations necessitate regular travel between levels.
This violation was last observed on or about September 14, 2009, near the
HF
Alky Unit operator shelter, at the emergency fire water pump (G-7964)
station
where safe access to the upper section of this emergency equipment was not
provided for weekly inspection and servicing, creating a fall hazard of
five to
seven feet to the floor.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that safe access has been provided for
operator
employees at this equipment station.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 21, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.27(b)(1)(iv):  Rungs, cleats, and steps were not free of
splinters, sharp edges,
burrs, or projections which may have been a hazard:
The employer does not maintain fixed ladders to work platforms as to avoid
slipping hazards.  This hazard was last observed on or about August 13,
2009,
at the Caustic Loading Rack adjacent to the HF Alky Unit, where the work
platform access ladders were fashioned from steel rebar.
Or in the alternative:
29 CFR 1910.27(f):  Fixed ladder(s) were not maintained in a safe
condition:
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that fixed ladder rungs do not include
protrusions.n

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 14, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(b)(1):  Each exit route was note adequately lighted so that
an employee with
normal vision could see along the exit route:
The employer does not provide adequate lighting at the higher level
platforms
of
the towers in process units.  This violation was last observed on or about
August
25, 2009, at towers located in the Isom/TDU area.  The lights at the
higher levels
of the towers were non-existent and/or did not work.  This condition
exposed
employees to trip falls at night while employees walked/worked on platforms
located at higher levels of the tower without lighting.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19 within ten (10) days of the calendar date of
this
citation, the employer shall provide documentation that it is in
compliance with
this standard including documentation that describes how it will monitor
the
lighting to ensure that the lights are working at all times after sunset.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Nov 30, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(b)(6): Each exit sign was not illuminated to a surface
value of at least five foot-
candles (54 lux) by a reliable light source and be distinctive in color:
The employer does not maintain the lighting of exit signs. This hazard was
last
observed on or about September 17, 2009, at the Administration Building,
where
nine of the ten mounted lighted signs where either partially or completely
unlit.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19), within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that regular walkaround inspections are
performed
to keep emergency exit signs in good, working order.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Jan 13, 2010

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,250 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 were resolved in a timely manner
and that the
resolution was documented:
The employer does not ensure that process hazard analysis (PHA) findings
are
resolved timely. This violation was last observed on or about Jul 9, 2009,
when
the following nine (9) safety related recommendations determined during
the
PHA
completed for the Hydrocracker Unit dated March 14, 2003, were still not
resolved six years later.  This exposed employees to fire, explosion, and
respiratory hazards.
a)  S-1013 - The possibility of losing containment in a hydrogen line
(#TMP-
0907-2") due to different types of pipe.  Hydrogen is a very explosive and
flammable gas.
b)  S-1034 - The possibility of losing containment in a sour water line
(IPW4-2"-
B19) due to different types of pipe.  Sour water contains hydrogen
sulfide, an
extremely toxic gas.
c)  S-1083 - The possibility of losing containment in the shell side of
heat
exchanger E-2321 due to excessive corrosion mechanism exceeding the
capacity
of RD5.
d)  S-1074 - The possibility of losing containment in a nitrogen purge to
2nd
Stage Recycle flow due to different types of pipe.
e)  S-1100 - There exists the possibility of releasing liquid hydrocarbon
to the
atmosphere through relief valves 23-PSV-2320 and 23-PSV-2326 on the
Stabilizer
Column due to the lack of an independent high level alarm.  Liquid
hydrocarbons
are flammable.
f)  S-1128 - The possibility of an incident involving the Recycle Splitter
Reboiler,
F-2304, escalating due to the lack of an independent fuel gas shut-off
valve and
flame arrester for the oxygen analyzer.
g)  S-1082 - The possibility of losing containment in the shell side of
heat
exchangers E-2314 and E-2321 due to water hammer should rupture discs
RD-108
and RD-005 rupture.
h)  Non-Numbered Item - The possibility of losing containment and exposing
personnel from lack of block valves and bleeders on relief valves
23-PSV-2306,
23-PSV-2315, 23-PSV-2304, 23-PSV-312, 23-PSV-313, 23-PSV-2348, 23-PSV-
2308, 23-PSV-2413, 23-PSV-203, 23-PSV-2301, and on Rupture disc RD-005.
i)  S-1035 - The possibility of exposing personnel at the Stripper Off-gas
Sample
point because the sample point does not comply with current standards.
Thestripper off-gas contains low molecular weight hydrocarbons that could
explode
or ignite if they contacted one of the many ignition sources in a refinery.
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
PHA recommendations and findings are resolved in a timely manner, as well
as
the hazards identified in said findings.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 29, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,125 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:
The employer does not ensure that safe work practices are implemented to
protect
inject chemical storage vessels from vehicle traffic.  The hazard was last
observed
on or about June 9, 2009, between the battery limits of the Hydrocracker/#3
Reformer Units and the plant's Main Street, where practices were not in
place to
protect a vertical chemical injection tote (containing a combustible
corrosive
liquid) from inadvertent collision impact.  Vessel damage and chemical
release
could expose employees to corrosive hazards and fire hazards.
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
tote is protected from adjacent traffic.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Jan 31, 2010

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,250 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, and more frequently if
determined to be
necessary by prior operating experience:
(a) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the thickness of  piping in the Hydrocracker Unit, including 2 of 3
data points
on line 1P111-6"-B1, file 0310, at intervals consistent with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices, such as API Recommended
Practice 570 - Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. This condition exposed the
employees to
fire and explosion hazards.
(b) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did
not
test the thickness of piping in the Hydrocracker Unit, including 1 of 3
data points
on line IP521-10"-C13, file 0488, at intervals consistent with recognized
and
generally accepted good engineering practices, such as API Recommended
Practice 570 - Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. This condition exposed the
employees to
fire and explosion hazards.
(c) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the thickness of  piping in the Hydrocracker Unit, including 1 of 6
data points
on line 1BD51-2"-B12, file 0020, at intervals consistent with recognized
and
generally accepted good engineering practices, such as API Recommended
Practice 570 - Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. This condition exposed the
employees to
fire and explosion hazards.
(d) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the thickness of  piping in the Hydrocracker Unit, including 3 of 4
data points
on line 1BD51-2"-B12, file 0021, at intervals consistent with recognized
and
generally accepted good engineering practices, such as API Recommended
Practice 570 - Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. This condition exposed the
employees to
fire and explosion hazards.
(e) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test relief valve 23-PSV-2326 in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent
with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as
API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
(f) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test relief valve 23-PSV-2370 in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistentwith recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices, such as API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
(g) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test relief valve 23-PSV-2400 in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent
with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as
API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
(h) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test relief valve 23-PSV-304 in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
(i) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test relief valve 23-PSV-700 in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
(j) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the Reactor Chemical Feed Drum, (C-2304) in the Hydrocracker Unit at
intervals consistent with recognized and generally accepted good
engineering
practices, such as API Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel
Inspection
Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This
condition
exposed the employees to fire and explosion hazards.
(k) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the Lube Oil Filter (V-2323) in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent
with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as
API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
(l) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the Lube Oil Filter (V-2324) in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent
with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as
API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.(m) This violation occurred on or about May
27, 2009, when the employer did
not test the Lube Oil Filter (V-2365) in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent with recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices,
such as API Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code:
Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition
exposed
the employees to fire and explosion hazards.
(n) This violation occurred on or about May 27, 2009, when the employer
did not
test the Lube Oil Filter (V-2366) in the Hydrocracker Unit at intervals
consistent
with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, such as
API
Recommended Practice 510 - Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. This condition exposed the
employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
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
piping and relief valve inspections are conducted at intervals consistent
with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices such as API
570
and 510.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 14, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1):  The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and
procedures; and, changes to
facilities that affect a covered process:
This violation occurred on or about August 2007 in the Hydrocracker Unit
(HCU), where the employer failed to initiate an MOC to determine the
impact of
the change, still ongoing, introduced to Pulse bottle/dampener of the
Deareated
Condensate Pump (Condensation Injection Pumps).  The employer allowed the
introduction of water from a water hose to be directed onto the Pulse
Dampener
of Deareated Condensate Pumps (G-2409, G-2410) in an attempt to lower the
temperature of the water going to the Pump in use.  The employer did not
ensure
that an MOC procedure was completed prior to the change to determine how
that
the change would impact the safety and health of employees. This condition
could
result in potential equipment failure and chemical release potentially
leading to
burns.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 days of the calendar date of this
citation, the employer shall submit documentation that Management of Change
procedures were conducted to analyze any potential safety and health
impacts of
the change and if appropriate, documentation that includes the technical
basis for
the change, impact of change on safety and health, modifications to
operating
procedures, necessary time period for the change and, the authorization
requirements for the change. The employer shall also provide documentation
that
employees and contractors are informed of, and trained in, any changes
prior to
start-up of the process or affected part of the process. The employer
shall provide
documentation that describes any changes including any updates to the
process
safety information (PSI), and updated operating procedures or practices.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 14, 2009

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c):  Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive
materials, suitable
facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not
provided within the work
area for immediate emergency use:
This violation was observed on or about August 13, 2009, at the Caustic
Loading
Rack beside the HF Alky Unit, where the employer did not provide an
emergency
eye wash and shower station immediately adjacent to and at the same level
as the
work where 50Caustic Soda Solution was regularly handled.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure that the
installation
of these emergency wash stations is in accordance with recognized and
generally
accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEPs) (e.g. ANSI Z358.1 - 2004,
"American National Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment").

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Jan 13, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,125 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.158(b):  Standpipes were not located or otherwise protected
against mechanical
damage:
The employer does not ensure that all fire monitor stations and associated
supply
standpipes are guarded from vehicle impact protection (mechanical damage)
where necessary and kept in an accessible condition.  The employer last
violated
this standard on or about August 13, 2009, at the below listed locations
where
barrier/bollard protection was damaged or lacking, potentially resulting
in reduced
process unit fire fighting capability:
a) fire monitor No. 23-01, located south of C-2301-A, between the Hydrogen
Plant (idle) and the Hydrocracker Unit.
b) fire monitor No. 78-01, located across the process road from the Caustic
Loading Rack of the HF Alky Unit.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this
citation, the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance
with the
standard, including ensuring that standpipes are guarded from vehicle
impact
damage.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 25, 2009

Penalty

Initial $1,500

General-duty citation text

This violation was last observed on or about June 2, 2009, and at times
prior thereto, at
the walkway at ground level between the Hydrogen Plant (idle) and the side
of the
Hydrocracker Unit (HCU), where valve operator chains were left hanging
loose in
passageways where a passing employee could become snagged or entangled.
Pursuant to 29 CRF 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
this citation,
the employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance with the
standard,
including ensuring that regular walkaround visual inspections are
performed to keep
pathways around process equipment clear of obstruction hazards.