Did EPA just issue RMP citations because a facility did not have a Car Seal program? Although they mention Lockout/Tagout in their citation, LOTO is NOT the proper control technique for the “sliding line blind” that was “mistakenly opened by an employee during operation of the unit“. LOTO is purely for servicing and maintenance and is not permitted to be used for other purposes (see 1910.147(c)(5)(ii), so a blind that was opened in error during operation of the unit had NOTHING to do with LOTO and everything to do with a car seal program. Here are the details of the incident and the RMP citations:
A facility that produces, processes, handles, and/or stores regulated substances and other cxtrcn1cly hazardous substances, including, but not limited to ethylene, propylene, and propane. The Facility has many operational components including the Lummus Heater Unit (BA-101). Within the Lummus Heater unit, there is an ethane charge header. Incorporated into the ethane charge header is a 6-inch sliding line blind.
On July 7, 2014, there was a release of regulated substances from the BA-101 Lummus heater charge header deck area. The release included, among other substances, 13,904 pounds of propane, 28,267 pounds of propylene, and 4,045 pounds of ethylene. The flammable substances ignited and seriously injured two employees and caused significant property damage to the unit.
An investigation performed by Respondent revealed that the 6-inch sliding line blind was the source of the release. The sliding blind had been mistakenly opened by an employee during operation of the unit. The sliding blind had not been secured to ensure that it remained closed during unit operations. EPA recognizes that the Respondent has implemented the following corrective actions at the Facility:
- By October I, 2014, removed all sliding line blind devices from Lummus furnace charge decks;
- By October 9, 2014, revised procedures related to Lummus furnace operations to coincide with modifications to charge deck equipment;
- By November 6, 2014, trained all affected employees on revised procedures; and
- By November 26, 2014, modified charge deck piping to include additional valves, instruments, and blinded flanges.
VIOLATIONS
- Respondent failed to implement operating procedures, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 68.69(a), for safely conducting activities at the Facility.
- Respondent failed to implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout and opening process equipment or piping, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d), by not securing the sliding blind to prevent opening during unit operations.
Upon consideration of the entire record herein and upon consideration of the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, specific facts and equities, litigation risks, and other factors as justice may require, the parties agree that $65,000 is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter.