Respondent is the owner and operator of the petroleum refinery. Respondent has filed RMPs with EPA since June 21, 1999, with its most recent filings on April 22, 2015, April 23, 2020, and September 2, 2020. The Facility has 14 Program 3 covered processes at the Facility. Each of these 14 covered processes has greater than the 10,000-pound threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia and/or greater than the 10,000-pound threshold quantity of a flammable mixture of one percent or greater by weight. Each of these 14 covered processes is classified as a Program 3 covered process under 40 C.F .R. § 68.10(i)4 because these processes do not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1 and these processes are subject to the OSHA PSM requirements in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Violation of Hazard Assessment Requirements
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.20, the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68 is required to, among other things, prepare a worst-case release scenario analysis as provided in 40 C.F .R. § 68.25. In addition, the owner or operator of a Program 2 or 3 covered process must comply with 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 to 68.42 for all such covered processes.
The owner or operator of a Program 2 or Program 3 covered process must analyze and report in its RMP specified worst-case release scenarios resulting from an accidental release of the regulated toxic substances under worst-case conditions identified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22 and must also identify and analyze at least one alternative release scenario for each regulated toxic substance and at least one alternative release scenario to represent all flammable substances held in covered processes as specified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.28, all in the manner specified in 40 C.F.R.
§§ 68.20 to 68.42.
40 C.F.R. § 68.30(a) requires the owner or operator to estimate in the RMP the population within a circle with its center at the end point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to end-point defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.30(b) requires that the presence of institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons), parks and recreation areas, and major commercial, office, and industrial buildings shall be noted in the RMP.
There are at least two neighboring industrial facilities that are within the 0.43-mile radius from the butane storage spheres at the Facility that Respondent used as the point of release in the alternative release scenario for flammables in Respondent’s April 22, 2015 RMP.
From at least April 2015 to April 2020, the RMP for the Facility did not note any major commercial, office, or industrial areas as receptors in its RMP in describing the alternative release scenario for flammables. Respondent’s updated RMP submitted on April 2020, included a revised alternative release scenario with a 0.26-mile radius, and identified major commercial, office, and industrial buildings within the zone of potential impact.
Respondent’s failure to identify all major industrial areas in describing the alternative release scenario for flammables in its RMP violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(b), as well as Section 502(a) of the CAA, and Condition 2.7.10 of the Title V Permit.
Violation of Process Safety Information Requirements
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65, the owner or operator of a Program 3 covered process is required to complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by Part 68. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by the regulated processes involving the regulated substances.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65 (b), (c), and (d), this process safety information must include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substance in the process; information pertaining to the technology of the process; and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. These provisions specify for each category the specific information required to be compiled.
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(ii) requires that process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process include piping and instrumentation diagrams (“P&IDs”).
During an August 2015 inspection, EPA identified at least seven instances in which P&IDs for covered processes at the Facility did not accurately reflect the design of covered process equipment as installed.
Respondent revised its P&IDs in approximately January 2020 to address the deficiencies identified by EPA.
Respondent’s failure to have P&IDs that accurately depicted the equipment in the process violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii), as well as Section 502(a) of the CAA, and Condition 2.7.10 of the Title V Permit.
Violation of Operating Procedure and Management of Change Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) requires the owner or operator to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with process safety information and that address specified elements, including normal shutdowns.
These operating procedures are required to address, among other things, normal shutdown. 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(l)(vi).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) requires the owner or operator to establish written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process. The procedures must assure that certain considerations, such as the impact on safety and health and necessary modifications to operating procedures, are addressed prior to making any change. 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b).
On February 20, 2015, operators at the Facility did not properly complete one or more steps in an operating procedure when shutting down the East Flare during a partial shutdown/turnaround operation at the Facility.
Respondent also failed to follow its management of change procedures when operators decided to deviate from the applicable standard operating procedures. As a result of these failures, un-combusted vapors containing hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, mercaptans, pyrophoric iron, benzene, and other hazardous substances were released from the East Flare, resulting in strong odors that reached the XXXXXXXXX Reservation, the City of XXXXXXX, and surrounding areas.
More than 550 people on the Reservation, the City, and surrounding areas were impacted by this release, some of whom sought medical attention.
Respondent’s failure to implement its operating procedures and/or management of change procedures when shutting down the East Flare on February 20, 2015 violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a)(l)(vi) and 68.75(a) and (b), as well as Section 502(a) of the CAA, and Condition 2.7.10 of the Title V Permit.
Violation of Mechanical Integrity Requirements
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(a) and (b), the owner or operator of a Program 3 covered process is required to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of pressure vessels and storage tanks, piping systems, relief, and vent systems and devices, emergency shutdown systems, controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks), and pumps (collectively, “subject process equipment”).
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(l) through (3), the owner or operator of a Program 3 covered process is required to perform inspections and tests on subject process equipment using procedures that follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering practices, more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
During an August 2015 EPA inspection of the Facility and in documents provided in follow-up to that inspection, Respondent was unable to produce written maintenance procedures for the inspection and testing of underground piping at the Facility that follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturer’s recommendations, good engineering practices, and prior operating experience.
Respondent subsequently provided information to EPA showing that Respondent had established written procedures for maintaining the on-going integrity of underground piping consistent with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) and (d)(l), (2), and (3) in February 2018.
Respondent’s failure to establish and implement written procedures for maintaining the on-going integrity of underground piping through inspection and testing procedures that followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturer’s recommendations, good engineering practices and prior operating experience violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) and (d)(1), (2), and (3), as well as Section 502(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7661(a), and Condition 2.7.10 of the Title V Permit.
Violation of Five-Year Accident Reporting Requirement
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.168, the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68 is required to submit as part of its Risk Management Plan the information provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(b) on each accident covered by 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(a) regarding its five-year accident history.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(a), the owner or operator of a stationary source for which a Risk Management Plan was submitted shall correct its plan for any accidental release meeting the five-year accident history reporting criteria of 40 C.F.R. § 68.42 and occurring after April 9, 2004, within six months of the release or by the time the Risk Management Plan is updated under 40 C.F .R. § 68.190, whichever is earlier.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(a), the owner or operator is required to include in the five-year accident history all accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries or significant property damage on site, or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage or environmental damage.
40 C.F.R. § 68.42(b) specifies the information required to be included in the Risk Management Plan for each accidental release covered by 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(a).
The February 2015 release is subject to reporting under 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(a).
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(l), Respondent was required to submit an update to its Risk Management Plan on April 22, 2015. The Risk Management Plan submitted by Respondent on April 22, 2015 did not report any of the information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(b) for the February 2015 Release.
Respondent’s failure to include in its five-year accident history in its Risk Management Plan submitted on April 22, 2015 the information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(b) violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.42, 68.168, and 68.190(b)(l), as well as Section 502(a) of the CAA, and Condition 2.7.10 of the Title V Permit.
In determining the amount of penalty to be assessed, EPA has taken into account the factors specified in Section 113(e)(l) of the CAA. After considering these factors, EPA has determined and Respondent agrees that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $191,514.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO