The refinery has ten covered process units each utilizing a threshold amount of a regulated substance. It operated a boiler at the Facility, which combusted natural gas or refinery fuel gas as fuel. On September 28, 2012, natural gas was introduced into the boiler during an attempted start-up. During the attempted startup, the natural gas combusted, which resulted in an unintended flash detonation that killed one worker immediately and led to the death of a second worker on October 18, 2012. Pursuant to section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, an owner/operator of a stationary source producing, processing, handling or storing substances listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of the CAA, or any other extremely hazardous substance, has a general duty to:
- identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
- design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and
- minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
The refinery produces, processes, handles, or stores substances listed in, or pursuant to, CAA § 112(r)(3) or other extremely hazardous substances identified as such due to toxicity, reactivity, flammability, volatility, or corrosivity.
Respondent failed to identify hazards that may result from accidental releases.
Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility.
Respondent’s two failures each constitute a violation of the general duty clause in section 112(r)(l) of the CAA
The April 6, 2011, risk management plan submittal lists the Safety & Security Manager, as the person responsible for Part 68 implementation. The document titled “Refining RMP Management System”, provided by the refinery states that “The Vice President and General Manager Refining” maintains overall responsibility for the implementation of the risk management program. The inconsistency between the two documents constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R.§ 68.15(b), which states that: “the owner or operator shall assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements.”
The Respondent performed an audit, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79, that was completed November 29, 2010. Two of the audit (11/29/2010) findings, related to emergency response activities, remained unaddressed at the time of the inspection. 40 C.F .R. § 68.79 requires that an “owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.” At the time of the inspection, the Respondent had failed to determine and document an appropriate response to two of the audit findings for the compliance audit conducted in 2010. Respondent is therefore subject to the assessment of penalties pursuant to sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA for at least one day of violation of the general duty clause of section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
VIOLATIONS
Count I – Complainant alleges a violation of the General Duty Clause lasting at least one day for failing to identify hazards associated with the start-up of the Boiler.
Count 2 – Complainant alleges a violation of the General Duty Clause lasting at least one day for failing to design and maintain a safe facility.
Count 3 – Complainant alleges a violation of the Risk Management Program for failing to identify a single qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements. Count 4 – Complainant alleges a violation of the Risk Management Program for failing to determine and document an appropriate response to two of the audit findings for the compliance audit conducted in 2010.
Pursuant to the authority granted in sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, and taking into consideration the size of the Respondent’s business, the economic impact of the penalty on the Respondent’s business, the Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violations, payment by Respondent of’ penalties previously assessed for the same violation (if any), the economic benefit of noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation, as well as other factors which justice may require, EPA and Respondent agree that an appropriate penalty to settle this matter is $86,000 dollars.
CLICK HERE for the agreement