OSHA Inspection: CALUMET MONTANA REFINING, LLC

Issued

Feb 25, 2015

Abate by

Feb 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    a)  On or about September 3, 2014, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 10 feet when they stood on tanker trucks at the sodium hydrosulfide loading station without adequate personal protective equipment that would prevent them from falling.    b)  On or about September 3, 2014, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 10 feet when they stood on railcars at the sodium hydrosulfide loading station without adequate personal protective equipment that would prevent them from falling.    c)  On or about September 3, 2014, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 10 feet when they stood on tanker trucks at the SS1 asphalt loading station without adequate personal protective equipment that would prevent them from falling.      Or, in the alternative:      29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1):  Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards:      a)  On or about September 3, 2014, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 10 feet when they stood on tanker trucks at the sodium hydrosulfide loading station because the platform on the truck was not equipped with standard railings.  A top rail did exist, but the rail system was missing a standard mid rail.      b)  On or about September 3, 2014, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 10 feet when they stood on railcars at the sodium hydrosulfide loading station because the platform on the rail car was not equipped with standard railings.  One rail did exist around most of the platform, but the rail system did not have the standard top and mid rail.      c)  On or about September 3, 2014, and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards of greater than 10 feet when they stood on tanker trucks at the SS1 asphalt loading station because the platform on the truck was not equipped with standard railings.

Issued

Feb 25, 2015

Abate by

Sep 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and provide an appropriate respirator based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:    a.  On or about August 27, 2014, and at times prior, employees loading truck and rail tankers with sodium hydrosulfide were exposed to hydrogen sulfide at greater than the maximum peak (50 parts per million) above the acceptable ceiling concentration of 20 parts per million because the employer did not ensure that respirators appropriate for the hazardous atmosphere were worn by employees:    1.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he loaded a tanker truck with sodium hydrosulfide.       2.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he attempted to rescue an employee that had collapsed while loading a tanker truck with sodium hydrosulfide.      3.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he closed the hatch on a tanker truck which had been loaded with sodium hydrosulfide.  This employee wore a full face air purifying respirator which was not sufficient for the IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and health) atmosphere.  The IDLH for hydrogen sulfide is 100 parts per million.

Issued

Feb 25, 2015

Abate by

Feb 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(b)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of hydrogen sulfide listed in Table Z-2 in excess of the acceptable maximum peak (50 parts per million) above the acceptable ceiling concentration of 20 parts per million:    a.  On or about August 27, 2014, and at times prior, employees loading truck and rail tankers with sodium hydrosulfide were exposed to hydrogen sulfide at greater than the maximum peak (50 parts per million) above the acceptable ceiling concentration of 20 parts per million:    1.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he loaded a tanker truck with sodium hydrosulfide.      2.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he attempted to rescue an employee that had collapsed while loading a tanker truck with sodium hydrosulfide.      3.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he closed the hatch on a tanker truck which had been loaded with sodium hydrosulfide.

Issued

Feb 25, 2015

Abate by

Feb 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):    a.  On or about August 27, 2014, and at times prior, employees loading truck and rail tankers with sodium hydrosulfide were exposed to hydrogen sulfide at greater than the maximum peak (50 parts per million) above the acceptable ceiling concentration of 20 parts per million because the employer had not implemented adequate engineering controls:    1.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he loaded a tanker truck with sodium hydrosulfide.      2.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he attempted to rescue an employee that had collapsed while loading a tanker truck with sodium hydrosulfide.     3.  On or about August 27, 2014, one employee was exposed to 200 parts per million or greater of hydrogen sulfide while he closed the hatch on a tanker truck which had been loaded with sodium hydrosulfide.