Respondent owned and operated a refinery. On March 31-April3, 2014, EPA Region 6 conducted an unannounced, onsite CAA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) Partial Compliance Evaluation of the Facility. The refinery submitted a single RMP with covered processes that are subject to Program 3 requirements. The regulated flammable substances that are above the threshold quantities identified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 are:butene, propane, propylene, butane, isobutane, methane, hydrogen, flammable mixture (components are butane, isopentane, pentane, 1, 3 butadiene, propylene and ethyl mercaptan), and 1-pentene. The regulated toxic substances that are above the threshold quantities identified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 are hydrochloric acid and hydrogen sulfide.
Violation 1
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(c), an owner or operator may use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected.
The latest update to the Facility’s RMP was submitted in 2013 and used Landview 6 population estimator, which used 2000 Census data rather than the most recent 2010 Census data.
Through its failure to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, Respondent has violated 40 C.F.R. 68.30(c).
Violation 2
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii), the owner operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information, which includes the maximum intended inventory, before conducting any process hazard analysis as required by the rule.
The Facility’s maximum intended inventory was not updated to reflect chemicals no longer held above threshold levels.
Through its failure to update the maximum intended inventory, Respondent is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii).
Violation 3
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3), the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information, which includes documenting that existing piping is designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use. The owner operator shall determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
Prior to March 25, 2013, the refinery did not determine and document that certain piping system equipment was designed, maintained, and operating in a safe manner.
Through its failure to complete a compilation of written process safety information assessing the piping was designed, maintained, and operating in a safe manner, Respondent is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3).
Violation 4
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a), requires that the owner or operator develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions, consistent with the process safety information, for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process.
Respondent deviated from the procedure for inventorying RGHT for use in the start-up of the Refinery Catalytic Converter Unit (RCCU) /RGHT procedure.
Through its failure to implement written operating procedures for inventorying the RGHT for use during the start-up procedure of the RCCU/RGHT, Respondent is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
Violation 5
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), requires, in relevant part, that the operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. The owner or operator shall also certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
Respondent failed to review all operating procedures according to their own three (3) year policy and failed to certify the operating procedures for 2013. Through its failure to review all operating procedures and its failure to certify its 2013 operating procedures, Respondent is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
Violation 6
40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (b), requires, in relevant part that refresher training be provided 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 in the process.
The training records reviewed from the onsite inspection showed three (3) operators received refresher training two (2) months late.
Through its failure to provide refresher training within three years, Respondent is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
Violation 7
40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b)(4), requires, in relevant part, that the pre-startup safety review (“PSSR”) shall confirm that, prior to the introduction of regulated substances to a process, training of each employee involved in operating a process has been completed.
One (1) PSSR did not document training that had been completed prior to the introduction of regulated substances into the process. By not documenting training that training had been completed prior to the introduction of a regulated substance to a process. Respondent is in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b)(4).
CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s having taken measures to prevent a recurrence or the above described incident, 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 or 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 one hundred and sixty-five thousand and seven hundred and fifty dollars ($165,750) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this manner.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO