Respondent has a crude fractionation process at the Facility. EPA inspected the Facility on February 14 – 17, 2022, to determine the Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Butane, isopentane, ethane, propane, and pentane are “regulated substances” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for butane, isopentane, ethane, propane, isobutane, and pentane, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68. 130 is 10,000 pounds.
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – Mechanical Integrity
The Respondent failed to document the elate of the inspection or test and the name of the person who performed the inspection or test. Specifically, the facility had several instrument calibration sheets that had missing dates and did not identify the name of the person conducting the inspection or test.
Respondent’s failure to document the date of the inspection or test and the name of the person who performed the inspection or test pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 68.73(d)(4).
Count 2 – Management of Change
Respondent failed to train employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job will be affected by a change in the process when they should havee been informed of, and trained in, the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c).
Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change were trained; however, not necessarily prior to start up, according to the following MOCs: MOC-2020-002, MOC-2021-003, MOC-2019-0 11.
Respondent’s failure to train employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job would be affected by a change in the process when these employees should have been informed of, and trained in, the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation.
Count 3 – Management of Change (MOC)
Respondent failed to provide the updated operating procedure for the nitrogen and low point drain reference<l in “MOC 2020-002” as required by the regulation.
Respondent’s failure to provide the updated operating procedure for the nitrogen and low point drain referenced in “MOC 2020-002” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(e), as required by 40 C.F. R. § 68. 12(d)(3) is a violation.
Count 4 – Compliance Audits
Respondent foiled to certify that it evaluated compliance at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. s 68.79(a).
In addition, the facility failed to retain the two (2) most recent compliance audit reports, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(e).
Although the facility has a compliance audit scheduled for every 3 years, EPA noted that the compliance audit and certification should have been completed within three years of the previous audit certification date of September 2018.
Respondent’s failure to certify that it has evaluated compliance at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and is being followed pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) and its failure to retain the two (2) most recent compliance audit reports pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. §68.12(d)(3) are violations.
Count 5 – Compliance Audits
Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 6S.79(d). Respondent failed to document deficiencies were corrected in its 2018 compliance audit findings tracking list.
Respondent’s failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected pursuant to 40 C.F.R. ~ 68.79(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.12(d)(3) is a violation.
Count 6 – Hot Work Permit
Respondent failed to properly indicate the Date for the authorized hot work in its hot work permits.
In addition, it was noted on several other hot work permits that the fire watch did not sign his/her name on the permit to indicate that a fire watch was present for the following hot work permits: 15752, 15883, 15896, 15972, 16015, 14620, 14646, 16050, and 15066.
Respondent’s failure to properly indicate the dates for the authorized hot work in its hot work permits pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(6) is a violation.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of eighty-five thousand one hundred sixty-three dollars ($85,163}, as set forth below.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO