This case is not final orders of the Review Commission as it is pending Commission Review!
This decision can have HUGE impacts throughout the PSM/RMP community, as many covered processes are “interconnected” to a boiler and many may also be “co-located” such that a boiler explosion could impact the covered process. This case involved a boiler that used “refinery fuel gas” as its main fuel source; the RFG was a collection of unusable fuels from the refining processes (e.g. PSM covered processes) that were dumped into a header and sent to the boiler as a fuel. The refinery argued against all three of OSHA’s positions: 1) interconnectivity, 2) not used SOLELY as a fuel, and 3) co-location in an attempt to say the boiler was not part of a PSM-covered process and the court disagreed with every aspect of their argument(s). Both OSHA and ALJ both viewed the steam this boiler generated as a “critical utility” (my term) used in “safety systems” such as inerting, fire extinguishment, snuffing, etc. So in the end, the ALJ agreed with OSHA that the boiler was “connected” to a PSM-covered process AND it was “co-located”and was NOT exempted under the “used solely as a fuel”, making this boiler part of the PSM-covered process.
On September 28, 2012, a boiler exploded during a turnaround at a Refinery killing two employees. In response, OSHA initiated an inspection of the Refinery on September 29, 2012. On October 29, 2012, OSHA initiated a second, simultaneous inspection of the worksite in response to complaints about the conditions in the refinery warehouse. As a result of the inspections, OSHA issued two separate Citations and Notifications of Penalty (“Citations”) to Respondent. The Citation for Inspection No. 663538 alleges one other-than-serious, eleven serious, and five repeat violations of the Act, with a total proposed penalty of $234,500.00. The Citation for Inspection No. 778042 alleges one repeat, one other-than-serious, and eleven serious violations of the Act, with a total proposed penalty of $46,600.00.
NOTE: this article will focus on Inspection No. 663538 which involved a boiler explosion and the PSM-covered process.