OSHA Inspection: VENTURA REFINING AND TRANSMISSION, LLC

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

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 falls from elevation:
The employer does not ensure that ensure that horizontal bands were
fastened to the side rail
of the ladder at the top of the crude T-1 tower.  This violation was
observed on or about
April 8, 2010, at the top of the crude T-1 tower where employees were
exposed to fall
hazards while accessing or working from the T-1 crude tower that was
missing bolts to the
horizontal bands of the ladder cage.
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable means of abatement would
be to by
ensure horizontal bands are fastened to the side rail of the ladder or
directly to the structure,
building, or equipment for individual rung ladders.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1):  In every building or other structure, or part
thereof, used for
mercantile, business, industrial, or storage purposes, the loads approved
by the building
official were not marked on plates of approved design and securely affixed
by the owner of
the building, or his duly authorized agent, in a conspicuous place in each
space to which they
relate.
This violation was most recently observed on or about March 29, 2010,
where the approved
floor load was not known or posted for the storage area above the
manager's office in the
maintenance shop.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,250 · Current $750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(2): Every ladderway floor opening or platform was not
guarded
by a
standard railing with standard toeboard on all exposed sides (except at
entrance to opening),
with the passage through the railing either provided with a swinging gate
or so offset that a
person cannot walk directly into the opening:
This violation was most recently observed on or about March 29, 2010, in
the maintenance
shop where the opening in the standard railing for the ladder used to
access and egress the
mezzanine storage area was not provided with a swinging gate or so offset
to prevent
employees from walking directly into the opening exposing employees to the
hazard of falls.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $750 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(b)(2):  Each exit was not clearly visible or marked by a
sign reading
"EXIT":
This violation was most recently observed on or about March 29, 2010, in
the maintenance
shop an exit in the north corner of shop was not marked with an exit sign
to
identify the
location of egress in the event of an emergency.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,250 · Current $750 Reduced

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
were not in
accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is
incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 1910.6:
This violation was most recently observed on or about March 29, 2010, in
the maintenance
shop an acetylene cylinder was stored without a storage cap to protect the
valve from damage
exposing employees to the hazard of fire/explosion.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(A): The employer did not include the materials of
construction in
the Process Safety Information for pressure vessels:
On or about March 29, 2010, and times prior thereto, at the Ventura
Refining and
Transmission LLC site near Thomas, OK,the employer lacked identification
of materials of
construction in the PSI for pressure vessels D-10 and D-11.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B):  Information pertaining to the equipment in
the process did not
include piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's):
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not keep updated
piping and instrument diagrams concurrent with actual field operation for
the Crude Unit:
a)  P&ID DWG. No. 06-2067-111 representing the Crude Unit piping circuit,
8"-CO-116-
CB-2; the P&ID is not concurrent with actual field operation.
b) P&ID DWG. No. 06-2067-113 representing the Crude Unit piping circuit,
4"-KS-101-
CAH-1 1/2; the P&ID is not concurrent with actual field operation.
c) P&ID DWG. No. No. 06-2067-112A representing the Crude Unit piping
circuit, 2"-LNA-
217-CA; the P&ID is not concurrent with actual field operation.
d) P&ID DWG. No. No. 06-2067-115B representing the Crude Unit piping
circuits, 3"-
HNA-106-CA, 3"-KS-105-CA, 3"-KS-105-CAH-2", and 3"-KS-106-CA; the P&ID is
not
concurrent with actual field operation.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(F): The employer did not include design codes and
standards in
the Process Safety Information for pressure vessels.
On or about March 29, 2010, and times prior thereto, at the Ventura
Refining and
Transmission LLC site near Thomas, OK, the employer had no construction
codes and
standards in the PSI for pressure vessels D-10 and D-11.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 1, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,500 Reduced

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:
On or about March 29, 2010 and times prior thereto:
a) The employer did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good
engineering
practices when it failed to protect employees working inside the Crude
Unit
control room, a
structure not protected by adequate separation or building construction,
that were exposed to
explosion, fire, toxic material, corrosive material, or high pressure
hazards as a result of a
highly hazardous chemical release from process equipment.
b) The employer did not document that piping systems installed in 1979,
containing
hazardous materials complied with recognized and generally accepted good
engineering
practices exposing employees to the hazard of fire, explosion, and
hazardous chemical
release.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v):  The employer did not use one or more of the
appropriate
methodologies as part of the PHA to identify, evaluate, and control the
hazards associated
with facility siting:
On or about March 29, 2010 and times prior thereto, in the crude unit, the
employer did not
use an appropriate methodology as part of the PHA to identify, evaluate,
and
control the
hazards associated with facility siting:

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi):  The employer's PHA did not address the
identification,
evaluation, and control of hazards associated with human factors:
On or about March 29, 2010, and times prior thereto, the employer did not
address human
factors in the process hazard analysis for the refinery.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): For the process hazard analysis the employer did
not establish a
system to promptly address the team's 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:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not assure that the
recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution
was documented;
did not complete actions as soon as possible; did not track action items
for three years; did
not have written schedule of when action would be taken; and did not
communicate
recommendations or actions regarding the process hazard analysis (PHA) to
affected
employees:
a)The employer did not ensure operating procedures included procedure for
emergency
operations.
b)The employer did not conduct emergency response/evacuation drills.
c)The employer did not conduct a human factors assessment.
d)The employer did not ensure the emergency shutdown devices are activated
and
are in
working order.
e)The employer did not implement all building siting improvements for the
Crude Unit
Control Room.
f)The employer did not conduct building evacuation training.
g)The employer did not verify mechanical integrity of all storage tanks.
h)The Emergency Response Plan, Facility Response Plan, and Spill
Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures Plan have not been fully implemented.
i)The employer did not track resolution of evaluating lightning arrestors
and grounding
system for crude oil storage tanks.
j)The employer did not track resolution of car sealing open block valves
for pressure
safety valve, PSV-601, for superheater steam relief on Heater-1.
k)The employer did not track resolution of study of installing remote shut
off on suction
of pumps, P-22A and B.
l)The employer had no action plan or tracking for considering a corrosion
inhibitor
program for E-600A, B, and C, heat exchangers.
m)The employer had no action plan or tracking for converting pump P-210 on
bottom
of
V-206 and D-206 to auto-start from level signal.
n)The employer had no action plan or tracking for investigation of
installing an LEL
detector at the base of the flare.
o)The employer had no action plan or tracking for investigating an
alternative method to
transfer liquids from V-206, D-206 and V-205, knockout drums, to the crude
system.
p)The employer had no action plan or tracking for investigating the
installation of a
molecular seal at the top of the flare stack to prevent air encroachment
through stack.
q)The employer had no action plan or tracking for measuring purge gas rate
at the
DCS.r)The employer had no action plan or tracking for investigating
instrumentation to
indicate pilot/flare flame out.
s)The employer had no action plan or tracking for investigating
alternative ignition
sources to light flares and pilots.
t)The employer had no action plan or tracking for replacing rotameter with
a flow
meter into the DCS for the flare FCV-146 control valve.
u)The employer had no action plan or tracking for considering cathodic
protection for
storage tanks.
v)The employer had no action plan or tracking for considering a corrosion
inhibitor
program for storage tanks.
w)The employer had no action plan or tracking for considering the
installation of a foam
system for storage tanks.
x)The employer did not promptly address process hazard analysis (PHA)
findings and
recommendations of the PHA team, such as but not limited to pressurizing
the control room
and reinforcing structures to improve blast resistance rating.nce

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(B): 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 and did not
address normal
operations:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not have written
normal operating procedures for operators in the Crude Unit.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(D):  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 and did
not address the
assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure
that emergency
shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, in the Crude Unit
the employer did
not address the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified
operators to ensure that
emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(E): 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 and did not
address emergency
operations:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not have written
emergency operating procedures for operators in the Crude Unit.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 13, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(B): The employer did not develop or implement
operating
procedures for the administrative control of car-seals to ensure that
intervening valves remain
open during operations.
On or about April 13, 2010 at the Ventura Refining and Transmission site
near Thomas,
Oklahoma, the car-seal at the intervening valve to PSV-602 on crude heater
H-2 was
missing. Employees were exposed to be struck by debris in case of a steam
overpressure that
would blow the relief valve. The employer did not have a procedure to
inspect car-seals
daily.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Dec 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $750 · Current $500 Reduced

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, and changes to
facilities. The
employer did not certify annually that these operating procedures are
current and accurate:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, in the Crude Unit
operating
procedures were not reviewed as often as necessary to ensure they reflect
current operating
practice. The employer did not certify annually that the operating
procedures were current
and accurate.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4):  The employer did not implement its safe work
practice for
motorized equipment entering or traveling adjacent to operating units that
contain flammable
or combustible materials:
The employer did not implement its safe work practice for motorized
equipment entering
process area where vehicles were driven into the crude unit and process
area, this was most
recently observed on July 8, 2010, exposing employees to fire and
explosion hazards.n

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

Initial $750

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2):  The employer did not consult with the employees
involved in
operating the process to determine the appropriate frequency of refresher
training:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not involve
employees in the determination of the frequency of operator refresher
training.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $750 · Current $450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(i):  The employer, when selecting a contractor, did
not obtain and
evaluate information regarding the contract employer's safety performance
and programs:
On or about March 29, 2010 and times prior thereto, the employer did not
obtain and
evaluate information regarding the contract employer's safety performance
and programs
prior to allowing them to work in or near covered processes in the Crude
Unit.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Sep 27, 2010

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 29 CFR
1910.119(h)(3):
On or about March 29, 2010 and times prior thereto, in the refinery the
employer did not
conduct periodic evaluations of contractors' working performance at the
facility such as, but
not limited to, a lawn service contractor.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

Current $1,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(ii):  Employees who participate, or are expected to
participate, in
emergency response at the first responder operations level, were not given
training in accordance
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(ii)(A-F) as follows:
First responders at the operations level are individuals who respond to
releases or potential
releases of hazardous substances as part of the initial response to the
site for the purpose of
protecting nearby persons, property, or the environment from the effects
of the release. They
are trained to respond in a defensive fashion without actually trying to
stop the release. Their
function is to contain the release from a safe distance, keep it from
spreading,
and prevent
exposures. First responders at the operational level shall have received
at least eight hours of
training or have had sufficient experience to objectively demonstrate
competency in the following
areas in addition to those listed for the awareness level and the employer
shall so certify:
(a)  Knowledge of the basic hazard and risk assessment techniques.
(b)  Know how to select and use proper personal protective equipment
provided to the first
responder operational level.
(c)  An understanding of basic hazardous materials terms.
(d)  Know how to perform basic control, containment and/or confinement
operations within the
capabilities of the resources and personal protective equipment available
with their unit.
(e)  Know how to implement basic decontamination procedures.
(f)  An understanding of the relevant standard operating procedures and
termination procedures.
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not
provide at least
eight hours training for employees who participate, or are expected to
participate, in emergency
response at the first responder operations level.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(v):  Incident commanders, who will assume control of
the incident
scene beyond the first responder awareness level, did not receive at least
24 hours of training
equal to the first responder operations level and in addition have
competency in the following
areas and the employer shall so certify:
(A)  Know and be able to implement the employer's incident command system.
(B)  Know how to implement the employer's emergency response plan.
(C)  Know and understand the hazards and risks associated with employees
working in
chemical protective clothing.
(D)  Know how to implement the local emergency response plan.
(E)  Know of the state emergency response plan and of the Federal Regional
Response
Team.
(F)  Know and understand the importance of decontamination procedures.
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not train managers
and operators expected to act as initial incident commander during
incidents requiring
emergency response.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(ii):  The pre-startup safety review did not confirm
that prior to the
introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to a process safety, operating,
maintenance, and
emergency procedures were in place and were adequate:
On or about March 29, 2010, the employer did not ensure that written
operating procedures
were in place for flare knockout drum, V-205, before introducing highly
hazardous chemicals
into the drum.  V-205 was built for the Hydrotreater and Reformer Units
and was
subsequently tied into the flare header system for the Crude Unit.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(iii): The pre-startup safety review did not confirm
that prior to the
introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to a process that modified
facilities
met the
requirements contained in management of change, 29 CFR 1910.119(l):
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not assure that the
following considerations were addressed prior to introducing highly
hazardous chemicals into
the flare knockout drum, V-205, which had been built for the Hydrotreater
and Reformer
Units and was subsequently tied into the flare header system for the Crude
Unit:
a)  The technical basis for the proposed change;
b)  Impact of change on safety and health;
c)  Modifications to operating procedures;
d)  Necessary time period for the change; and,
e)  Authorization requirements for the proposed change.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Jun 1, 2011

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not establish and
implement written procedures to maintain:
a)  The ongoing integrity for the inspection, testing and preventative
maintenance of piping
systems (including piping components such as valves) for the Crude Unit.
b)  The ongoing integrity for the inspection, testing and preventative
maintenance of
instrumentation, alarms and controls such as, but not limited to, the high
level alarm, LA-
154, the switch for low burner gas pressure for H-3 heater, PALL-118, and
the high-high
temperature alarm for H-2 heater, TAHH-106, employed and designed to
prevent process
safety hazardous situations from occurring.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Jun 1, 2011

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFr 1910.119(j)(4)(ii): The employer did not follow RAGAGEP when it
used an
individual to test pressure vessels who was not qualified and did not
possess the credentials
as required by RAGAGEP.
On or aboutMarch 29, 2010 and times prior, at the Ventura Refining and
Transmission
site near Thomas, Oklahoma, pressure vessels had been inspected by an
individual who was
not certified by the American Petroleum Institute as a pressure vessel
inspector.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Dec 27, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,500 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:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not implement
management of change procedures for:
a)  Connecting knockout drum, V-205, to the Crude Unit flare header.
b)  Installing pump, P-210, and high level alarm, LA-154, for flare
knockout drum, V-206.
c)  Installing dry air receiver, V-361, in the Crude Unit.
d)  Removing knockout drum, D-1450, from service.
e)  Rerating the light naphtha tanks, LNA-19, 20, 21, and 22.
f)  Installing light naphtha stripper reboiler, E-113.
g)  Changing the designed use of the light naphtha stripper reboiler,
E-113.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5):  The employer did not establish a system to
promptly address and
resolve incident report findings and recommendations:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not address an
incident report finding regarding a frozen drain pipe on the flare
knockout drum, V-206,
which was listed as a factor and root cause for a flare fire that occurred
on February 24,
2010.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(i):  The employer did not develop an emergency
response plan for
emergencies which addressed pre-emergency planning and coordination with
outside parties:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not develop an
emergency response plan for emergencies which addresses pre-emergency
planning and
coordination with outside parties.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(ii):  The employer did not develop an emergency
response plan for
emergencies which addresses personnel roles, lines of authority, training,
and
communication:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not develop an
emergency response plan which clearly addresses communication in a manner
that is not
contradictory or in conflict with other emergency procedures on which
employees were
trained.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(iii):  The employer did not develop an emergency
response plan for
emergencies which addressed emergency recognition and prevention:
On or about March 29, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the employer did
not
develop an
emergency response plan for emergencies which addresses recognition of the
difference
between an incidental spill and a spill large enough to require an
emergency response.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Oct 4, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)(iii):  Based on the hazardous substances and/or
conditions present,
the individual in charge of the ICS did not implement appropriate
emergency operations, and
assure that the personal protective equipment worn was appropriate for the
hazards to be
encountered.  Personal protective equipment did not meet, at a minimum,
the criteria
contained in 29 CFR 1910.156(e) when worn while performing fire fighting
operations
beyond the incipient stage for any incident:
On or about February 24, 2010, and at times prior thereto, the individual
in charge of the
ICS did not implement appropriate emergency operations, and assure that
the personal
protective equipment worn was appropriate for the hazards to be
encountered
when the flare
expelled liquid hydrocarbons of an unknown quantity, burning and spilling
down the flare,
and burning on the ground below the flare.  Employees fought the fire
without appropriate
personal protective equipment and were exposed to the hazard of fire and
to the possible
release of more burning liquid hydrocarbon during the incident.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,250 · Current $750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2):  All junction boxes and each outlet box were not
provided with an
approved cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy:
This was most recently observed on or about April 8, 2010, in the crude
unit contol room,
where a duplex outlet was found without covers.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,100 Reduced

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:
On top of the T-1 crude tower, the employer did not ensure that a
intrinsically safe light and
cover was installed in a light fixture, this was most resently observed on
March 29, 2010.

Issued

Aug 19, 2010

Abate by

Aug 24, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,250 · Current $750 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1028(e)(2)(ii): The initial monitoring required under
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section was not completed within 30 days of the introduction of benzene
into the workplace:
On or about March 29, 2010 and days prior thereto, at the Ventura Refining
and
Transmission LLC site near Thomas, Oklahoma, employees in the operations,
maintenance,
and laboratory departments were potentially exposed to benzene present in
Naphtha and light
Naphtha during the conduct of their duties. The employer had not conducted
initial
monitoring to determine if employees were exposed above the action level,
time weighted
average, or the short-term exposure level.

Issued

Mar 30, 2010

Abate by

Apr 2, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2):  Listed or labeled equipment was not used or
installed in accordance
with any instructions included in the listing or labeling:
a) on March 29, 2010, in the maintenance shop, employees were allowed to
use a pendant
box with pre-punched knockout holes that was at the end of a flexible
cord, exposing
employees to the hazard of electrical shock.
b) on or about April 8, 2010, at the refinery, relocatable power taps were
not plugged into
permanent electrical outlets, exposing employees to the hazard of
electrical shock.