The Respondent owns and operates a bleach manufacturing facility, which operates a bleach manufacturing process (the Process) and maintains a maximum chlorine inventory greater than the threshold quantity of 2,500 pounds. The Process is subject to OSHA’s process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, because the Process involves greater than the threshold quantity of 1,500 pounds of chlorine, a chemical listed in Appendix A to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119. The Facility is subject to the requirements of CAPP in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10.
The worst-case release scenario models a distance to end point that has public receptors within its radius, therefore the Facility does not meet the criteria to be classified as Program 1 in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(g). The facility is subject to Program 3 because the process is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i).
On August 10, 2021, EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility, at which time the Facility provided numerous documents for the Inspection. These documents were related to various aspects of its Program 3 RMP, including hazard assessment, the Program 3 prevention program, emergency response, and the RMP.
Hazard Assessment
During the Inspection, facility Personnel informed EPA inspectors that in 2021 the facility started to receive an additional railcar of chlorine to be on standby during the high-demand season, for a total of two (2) railcars of chlorine on-site.
The Facility failed to analyze and report in the RMP an additional worst-case release scenario from the second railcar that potentially affects public receptors different from those potentially affected by the worst-case release scenario that was reported in the Facility’s June 13, 2017 RMP. This is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(a)(2)(iii).
Process Safety Information (PSI)
At the time of the Inspection, the Facility did not have a design plate on the bleach reactor and has not labeled the bleach reactor and bleach make tank, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
At the time of the Inspection, the chlorine pipeline that connects from the railcar to the process pipeline was color-coded but was unlabeled, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
During the Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed PSI documentation compiled as required by chemical accident prevention program (CAPP). The following determinations were made by EPA inspectors.
a. The maximum intended inventory was inaccurately documented as the capacity of one rail car, whereas the Facility stores up to two rail cars during the high- demand season, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii);
b. Safe upper and lower limits for process equipment were not documented, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iv);
c. The consequences of deviation were not evaluated or documented, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v);
d. The materials of construction were not documented, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(i); and
e. The relief system design and design basis and the ventilation system design information did not include design calculations, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv,v).
Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
During the Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed documentation that was submitted to EPA as a PHA. The documentation included a What-if Worksheet with What-if Scenarios.
EPA inspectors identified the following deficiencies in the PHA for the Facility:
a. The PHA did not address the hazards associated with chlorine storage and unloading from the railcar. The facility failed to base the PHA on a rationale which includes the consideration of the extent of the process hazards, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a);
b. The PHA did not consider consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls, stationary source siting, human factors, and a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of the failure of controls. The facility failed to address each of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c), in violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.67(c)(4-7); and
c. The PHA worksheets did not include the name(s) of people involved in preparing the worksheets nor the person who led the analysis. The facility failed to document the names of the individuals involved in conducting the PHA and whether those individuals were qualified to conduct the PHA, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(d).
During the Inspection, The Facility was unable to produce an initial PHA to EPA while records were being reviewed. The Facility failed to maintain all PHAs conducted for the Facility for the life of the process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(g).
Operating Procedures
During the Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed documents associated with the operating procedures compiled by The Facility for its RMP. The Facility failed to develop written operating procedures for unloading chlorine from the railcar that addresses the following phases:
a. Temporary operations, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iii);
b. Emergency shutdown, including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv);
c. Emergency operations, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(v); and
d. Startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(vii).
The Facility failed to develop written operating procedures that address the operating limits and safety and health considerations for unloading chlorine from the railcar(s), in violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a)(2) and (a)(3).
During the inspection, Personnel informed EPA inspectors that operating procedures are only reviewed when changes are made to them. The Facility failed to certify that the operating procedures are current and accurate on an annual basis, in violation of 40 C.F.R.§ 68.69(c).
Training
During the Inspection, EPA inspectors asked Personnel about the training requirements for operators. The Facility stated twice that operators only receive initial training for operating the Process. Further, EPA inspectors obtained evidence that at least one of the operators has been working with the Process for more than three years, which would require refresher training. The Facility failed to provide refresher training at least every three years, and more often, if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process.
The failure to provide refresher training was in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
Documents obtained during the Inspection indicate what training is conducted during the operator’s initial training, but there is no verification that the operators understood the training. The Facility failed to ascertain, verify, and record that each employee involved in operating a process has understood the training, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
Mechanical Integrity
During the Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed documented, written maintenance procedures submitted by The Facility.
During the Inspection, Personnel told EPA inspectors the following information about maintenance on the Process:\
a. No preventive maintenance is performed on the equipment associated with the bleach manufacturing and the chlorine pipeline feeding the process.
b. The bleach manufacturing process is 20 years old. It has been working without any problems.
c. The chlorine hoses are visually inspected every time they are hooked-up to the railcar(s).
d. The chlorine sensors are self-calibrated, and no other calibration or test is performed on these sensors.
e. The expansion chamber is not tested or inspected.
The Facility failed to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment, specifically the bleach manufacturing equipment and the chlorine pipeline of the Process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
The inspections and tests conducted by The Facility on the Process were not performed according to recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d).
Management of Change (MOC)
EPA reviewed the MoC documentation for the maximum inventory increase when the Facility started receiving two railcars of chlorine.
The Facility failed to update accordingly information on a change in the process safety information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65 due to the chlorine inventory increase, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d).
The Facility failed to update accordingly procedures and practices with the resulting changes in the operating procedures and practices required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69 due to the chlorine inventory increase, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(e).
Compliance Audits
During the Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed a Self-Audit Checklist that The Facility used for its compliance audit. The Facility did not develop a report of the findings of the audit, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c).
The Facility did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that any deficiencies have been corrected in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Employee Participation
During the Inspection, Personnel informed EPA inspectors that not every employee was consulted on the development of the PHA and the frequency of refresher training. The Facility failed to consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the other elements of process safety management required by CAPP, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(b).
Emergency Response and Coordination Activities
During the Inspection, Personnel informed EPA inspectors that the Facility is a non-responding stationary source and that The Facility had not performed the annual emergency response coordination activities required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.93.
The Facility failed to coordinate emergency response needs and document the coordination with local emergency planning and response organizations at least annually, and more frequently, if necessary, to address changes: at the stationary source; in the stationary source’s emergency response and/or emergency action plan; and/or in the community emergency response plan, in violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.93(a) and (c).
The Facility failed to provide to the local emergency planning and response organizations:
- the stationary source’s emergency response plan if one exists;
- emergency action plan;
- updated emergency contact information; and
- other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(b).
RMP Registration
The Facility’s RMP registration form reported a maximum quantity that was representative of one rail car of chlorine.
During the Inspection, Personnel informed EPA inspectors that a second chlorine railcar is stored on-site during the high-demand season. This doubled the reported maximum quantity of chlorine. The Facility failed to complete a single registration form and include, for each covered process, the maximum quantity of each regulated substance or mixture in the process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7).
Civil Penalty
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, cooperation, and prompt return to compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $88,383.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO