OSHA Inspection: MURPHY OIL U.S.A.,INC.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $2,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(c)(2): Emergency action plan must include at a minimum
procedures for
emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route
assignments.
This violation was observed on or about July 30, 2009,where the employer
failed to ensure that the emergency exit routes were clearly defined.  The
exit
routes defined in the emergency action plan require the use of wind socks
to
determine the safe (upwind) route of egress.
a)  The wind sock located on the Crude Unit, was torn and deteriorated to
the point it
no longer showed wind direction.  This condition exposed employees to a
fire hazard.
b)  The wind sock located on #3 Sulphur Unit, was torn and deteriorated to
the point
it no longer showed wind direction.  This condition exposed employees to a
fire
hazard.
c) The wind sock on the Lab, had deteriorated to the point where they no
longer
showed wind direction.  This condition exposed employees to a fire hazard.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), 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 an abatement plan describing the action it is taking to ensure
that all wind socks in
the facility function at all times.on

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

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:
This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
failed to include the relief system design and design basis for the Hydro
Cracker unit. The employer did not have documents that illustrate the
design
from the process vessels' relief valves to either release to atmosphere or
flare.
This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), 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 action it is taking to ensure the process safety
information is
collected and maintained for the relief system design for the Hydrocraker
Unit and the Flare
System.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):  The employer did not document that the
equipment in the
process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices:
(a) This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the
employer
did not ensure that the Morgan and Blue ISO portable building intended for
occupancy, located 75 feet from the Hydrocracker Unit was located in Zone 3
as is required by API 753.  This condition exposed employees to fire and
explosion hazards.
(b) This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009,where the employer
did not ensure that the laboratory building intended for occupancy, located
within 100 feet of the Hydrocracker Unit, was located in a 3 PSI (pounds
per
square inch) overpressure zone, was relocated to an area not within the
blast
zone; or implemented a risk reduction strategy, including the installation
of
interim measures, which would make the building safe for employee
occupancy; as required by recognized and generally accepted good
engineering
practices, such as but not limited to API 752.  The building at its present
location exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
(c) This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the
employer
did not ensure that the Laboratory building included equipment such as
detection and isolation systems, positive pressure control ventilation
systems,
engineering controls, fire protection systems, emergency shutdown systems,
etc., which would make the building safer for employee occupancy; as is
required by recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices,
such as but not limited to API 753,  The condition exposed employees to
fire
and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), 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 of
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices such as API
753, including the
action it is taking by describing the steps that will ensure all Facility
Siting hazards of the
site are addressed.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1919.119(e)(1): The employer did not identify, evaluate or control
the hazard of the
process.
a) This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
failed to address in its PHA the hazard posed by intervening valves on the
upstream and downstream lines to/from relief devices that could be closed
during operation rendering the relief device(s) inoperable. This condition
exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is compliance with the standard,
including
describing steps it has taken to ensure that the PHA for the Hydro Cracker
addresses the safe
operation of relief system devices.
b) This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
failed to address in its PHA the hazard posed when the flare system is not
in
service and there is potential for the relief system to release flammable
vapors
into both the atmosphere and the employee occupied areas.  This condition
exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is compliance with the standard,
including
describing steps it has taken to ensure that the PHA for the Hydro Cracker
addresses the
potential release to atmosphere.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iii):  The process hazard analysis did not address
the engineering and
administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their
interrelationship, such as,
appropriate of detection methodologies to provide early warning of
releases.
This violation observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
failed to
address the administrative controls; the checklist for all valves known as
the "Locked
Out Valves Checklist" that are locked, chained, or car sealed as
safeguards in the
2001, 2004, and 2007 PHAs for the Hydrocracker Unit. This condition exposed
employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation,
the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is compliance with the standard,
including
describing steps it has taken to ensure that the PHA for the Hydro Cracker
addresses and/or
includes the safeguards of administrative controls such as the "Lock Out
Valves Checklist".

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv):  The process hazard analysis did not address
the consequences of
failure of engineering and administrative controls:
This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
failed to
address in the 2004 & 2007 Revalidation PHA, the consequences of failure
of the
administrative controls; the checklist for all valves known as the "Locked
Out Valves
Checklist" for the Hydrocracker Unit. This condition exposed employees to
fire and
explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation,
the employer
must submit documentation showing that it is compliance with the standard,
including
describing steps it has taken to ensure that the PHA for the Hydro Cracker
addresses the
failure of administrative controls.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v):  The process hazard analysis did not address
facility siting:
This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
failed to evaluate Facility Siting in its 2007 Revalidation PHAs for the
Hydrocracker Unit.  This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the citation,
the employer must
submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard,
including describing the
steps it is taking to ensure that all Process Hazard Analysis of the site
are updated to include
Facility Siting.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

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 was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
placed portable buildings; light wood Morgan Structure and a Blue Metal ISO
building within 100 feet of the Hydrocracker Unit without implementing a
Management of Change(MOC) procedure.  This condition exposed employees
to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all portable
building placements have
complied with the MOC procedure.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi):  The process hazard analysis did not address
human factors:
This violation was observed on or about August 20, 2009, where the
employer failed
to evaluate Human Factors such as but not limited to an evaluation of
emergency
routes and markings, control room operators' ability to follow procedures
in an upset
condition and potential isolation valve operation in an event of an
emergency.  This
condition exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all Process
Hazard Analysis of the
site are updated to include Human Factors.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $2,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(C):  The employer's written operating procedures
covering the
steps for each operating phase did not address temporary operations:
This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2009, where the employer
did
not develop or implement a temporary procedure to ensure the safe operation
of the relief system (north flare) for the Hydrocracker Unit when the
flare is
inoperative.  This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 for times when
the flare does not
have a flame all workers are protected from hazards of operating process
equipment with
potential releases exiting the flares without burning.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000

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:
This violation was observed on or about July 8, 2008, where the employer
failed to safely control access for motorized equipment entering or
traveling on
roadways adjacent to the Hydrocracker Unit that contain flammable
materials.
This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing steps it is taking to ensure that motorized vehicle
entrance into process
units is controlled.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2):  The employer did not provide refresher training at
least every three
years to the each employee involved in operating a process to assure that
the
employee
understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process:
This violation was observed on or about August 18, 2009, at the
Hydrocracker
Unit where the employer failed to provide operator refresher training at
least
every three years. This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to complete required training.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2):  The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment:
a)  This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009, where the
employer did not have a written mechanical integrity procedure that
addresses
resolving anomalous inspection data for piping; Meraux Refining Policies
and
Procedures ESS-0023, dated 1.06.03 does not address anomalous data as it
relates to piping.  This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure its Mechanical
Integrity Procedures
addresses anomalous data related to piping.
b)  This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009, where the
employer did not ensure its mechanical integrity program included
procedures
for establishing thickness measurement locations (TMLs) for the pressure
vessels. This exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all required
mechanical integrity
procedures for pressure vessel thickness measurements have been developed.
c)  This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009, where the
employer did not establish mechanical integrity procedures for corrosion
under
insulation of the pressure vessels.  This condition exposed employees to
fire
and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all required
mechanical integrity
procedures for corrosion under insulation have been developed.
d) This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009, where the
employer did not implement its mechanical integrity procedures for piping
as it
relates to welds;  the procedure establishes that all piping systems that
are
inspected contain the welders' qualifications.  The employer fails to
provide
documentation of the welders' qualifications.  This condition exposed
employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all required
mechanical integrity
procedures for documentation of welders qualifications have been
implemented.ns

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i):  Inspections and tests were not performed on
process equipment to
maintain its mechanical integrity:
This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009, where the employer
failed to ensure that thickness measurements were accomplished on the
piping
circuits in the Hydro Cracker Unit, Hydrocarbon lines (3/4"-2500-Q7-HC693,
16"-2500-Q7-HC120,16"-2500-Q7-HC098, 12"-2500-Q7-HC073, and 16"-
2500-Q7-HC073) as per the Company's timeframe policy and that of
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices such as those
recommended by API 570.  This condition exposed employees to fire and
explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
standard and good
engineering practices such as API 570, including describing the steps it
is taking to ensure
that all required piping thickness measurements have been completed within
the appropriate
time frame.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii):  Inspections and testing procedures performed
on process
equipment to maintain its mechanical integrity, did not follow recognized
and generally
accepted good engineering practices:
This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009, where the employer
failed to calculate corrosion rates and/or determine thickness
measurements in
the Hydrocracker Unit for piping circuits HC-V-002 (effluent piping), HC-V-
014 (effluent), HC-V-022 (kerosene and diesel effluent).  This condition
exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all required
piping thickness
measurements have been completed to calculate corrosion rates.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5):  The employer did not correct deficiencies in
equipment that were
outside acceptable limits (as defined by process information in 29 CFR
1910.119(d) before
further use or in a safe and timely manner:
This violation was observed on or about August 27, 2009,when the employer
continued to operate piping circuit H044 in which Thickness Measurement
Locations (TMLs) at 10.02, 18.01, and 18.02 actual numerical thickness
values were less than the numerical retirement thickness values
established by
the employer.  This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all required
piping actual thickness
values are greater than the numerical retirement thickness values.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5):  The employer did not establish a system to
promptly address and
resolve the incident investigation report findings and recommendations:
This violation was observed on or about July 29, 2009, at Hydrocracker
reactor where incident investigations were reviewed and it was determined
that
the employer failed to promptly address and resolve the incident
investigation
report findings and recommendations.  Report findings and recommendations
were not resolved for the following:
a)  07-HC-0016
b)  07-HC-0020
c)  08-HC-0029
d)  08-HC-0045
e)  08-HC-0048
This condition exposed employees to fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including the resolution of the above listed findings and recommendation.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4):  The employer did not determine and document an
appropriate
response to each of the findings of the compliance audit required by 29
CFR 1910.119(o)(1),
and document that the deficiencies had been corrected:
This violation was observed on or about July 29,2009, where 2007 MOUSA
Audit Report was reviewed and it was determined that the employer failed to
promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the
findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies had been
corrected.  Forty-three percent  (26 of 61) of the findings of the
compliance
audit had not been responded to with deficiencies corrected.  This
condition
exposed employees to a fire and explosion hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation that it is in compliance with the
standard, illustrating
how the remaining findings/deficiencies will be corrected.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $971 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):  Protective eye equipment was not required where
there was a
reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment:
This violation was observed on or about August 19, 2009, at Hydrocracker
reactor effluent sample station HC-D-032, where the employer failed to
ensure
that the operator opening valves and collecting sample of effluent from a
high
temperature, high pressure source wears appropriate face protection. This
condition exposed employees to stuck by hazards involving chemicals, acids,
caustic, and flying particles.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
citation, the
employer must submit documentation showing that it is in compliance with
the standard,
including describing the steps it is taking to ensure employees are
wearing the appropriated
personal protective equipment.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii)(B): Energy control procedures did not include
specific procedural
steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing machine or
equipment to control
hazardous energy.
This violation was observed on or about September 16, 2009, where the
employer failed to ensure that Specific Procedures were developed to
protect
employees from unexpected energization, start up, or release of stored
energy.
This is limited to equipment identified in SSP-001-Control of Hazardous
Energy such as electrically driven equipment, steam driven equipment,
pneumatically driven equipment, and hydraulically operated equipment.  This
condition exposed employees to struck by, caught in between, electrical
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 a specific
procedures is developed for
all equipment falling under the scope of 29 CFR 1910.147.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $2,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i) (A): The periodic inspection of the energy
control procedure was
not performed by an authorized employee other than the one utilizing the
energy control
procedure being inspected:
This violation was observed on or about September 16, 2009, where the
employer failed to ensure that the periodic review of specific procedures
for
the control of hazardous energy included two authorized employees.
Currently, the review is conducted by the area supervisor and annotated
electronically. This condition exposed employees to struck by and
electrical
hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 all of the
specific procedures are
reviewed in the manner outlined in the standard.

Issued

Dec 29, 2009

Abate by

Jan 19, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(ii): The periodic inspection certification of energy
control procedures
did not identify  the machine or equipment, inspection date, employees
included in the
inspection, and the person performing the inspection:
This violation was observed on or about September 16, 2009, where the
employer failed to ensure that the periodic review of specific procedures
were
certified as required under the standard (i.e. identifying the machine or
equipment, inspection date,etc).  The employer uses a computer based system
that only tracks the date the procedures was recertified. This condition
exposed
employees to struck by and electrical hazards.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1903.19(d), within 10 calendar days of the date of the
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 periodic
inspection certification
documentation contains the identity of the machine or equipment,
inspection date, employees
included, and person performing the inspection.