Respondent is the owner and/or operator of the Facility, which operates an aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing plant. Respondent has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its Facility and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the Facility.
At its Facility:
a. Respondent operates an aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing plant.
b. Respondent has on-site for use, 13,306 pounds of propane.
c. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses propane in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds.
On February 26, 2020, the EPA conducted an on-site inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered process at its Facility.
At the time of the inspection, EPA observed the following:
a. The Respondent did not document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. During a walk-through of the Facility, the EPA inspectors made the following observations.
1) Unsupported propane piping was present between the two propane storage tanks. Section 6.11.3.10 of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58 (2017) states aboveground piping shall be supported and protected against physical damage by vehicles.
2) One of the propane tanks did not have NFPA diamonds and labeling to indicate the contents and hazards of propane. NFPA 704 requires placard utilizing the 2-4-0 designation for the propane storage tank outside to reflect the health hazard, flammability, reactivity, and special hazards. 3) The nameplate on one of the propane tanks was corroded to the level that no information could be read. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) requires the nameplate to be legible and permanently attached to the tank. The following must be displayed on the manufacturer’s nameplate for the propane tank.
– Container designed for service type (above or underground)
– Tank manufacturers name and address – Tank water capacity in gallons or pounds
– Design pressure (working pressure) in PSI
– Words “This container shall not contain a product that has a vapor pressure in excess of __ PSIG at 100°F”
– The outside surface area in square feet
– Year of manufacture
– Tank shell and head thickness
– OL (overall length), OD (outside diameter) and HD (head design)
– Tank manufacturers serial number
– ASME code symbol
4) There was a shut-off valve in a propane piping accessible near the building and opening the valve would release propane. NFPA 58 (2017) section 15.2.1.4 requires the piping to the process area be free from any openings to minimize the release of flammable gas to the atmosphere.
5) Extension cords were used to power permanent equipment instead of permanent electrical wiring in accordance with the electrical code. NFPA 58 (2017) Section 6.25.2.1 requires that electrical equipment and wiring installed in unclassified areas shall be in accordance with NFPA 70. NFPA 70 requires permanent wiring to be used instead of temporary wiring to power equipment.
6) There were no vehicle barriers around the propane tanks to prevent vehicle impacts. Pursuant to NFPA 58 (2017) Section 8.4.2.2, protection against vehicle impact should be provided in accordance with good engineering practice where vehicle traffic normally is expected at the location. Containers and appurtenances should be located or protected by suitable barriers to avoid damage by trucks or other vehicles.
7) Above-ground propane piping larger than 1-inch diameter had surface corrosion in numerous locations. Propane piping was in contact with the soil at numerous locations and the soil was causing the surface corrosion. Section 6.11.3.14 (B) of NFPA 58 (2017) states metallic piping shall be protected against corrosion in accordance with Section 6.19.1. Section 6.11.3.11 of NFPA 58 (2017) states the portion of aboveground piping in contact with a support or a corrosion-causing substance shall be protected against corrosion.
8) Buried propane piping from the propane tank to the process area did not have cathodic protection. Section 6.11.3.14 (C) of NFPA 58 (2017) states piping installed underground shall have a cathodic protection system in accordance with 6.19.2(C), unless technical justification is approved by the authority having jurisdiction.
9) Propane piping was not labeled with the contents, physical state, or direction of flow in numerous locations. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASME A13.1 (2015) requires piping mains, headers, and branches to be identified with the contents as well as labeling that includes the physical state and direction of flow.
10) The fence enclosing the two propane tanks did not extend to grade and would allow unauthorized personnel to enter the facility. Section 6.21.4.2 of NFPA 58 (2017) requires areas that include container appurtenances, pumping equipment, loading, and unloading facilities, and container filling facilities be enclosed with a minimum of 6 ft (1.8 m) high industrial type fence, chain-link fence, or equivalent protection.
b. The Respondent did not perform a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) that addresses all the hazards of the process. The Respondent provided a PHA that was performed in December 2016 by Shield Environmental Associates, Inc. The PHA does not address all the hazards, the consequences of the failure of engineering and administrative controls, stationary source siting, and human factors. For example, the two-page What-If Checklist intended to serve as a PHA did not consider issues such as consequences of a release of propane through the pressure relief valves on the propane storage tanks during filling of the tanks from the truck, employees failing to close the emergency shut valve at the exit-ways as
they evacuate the building during a propane release, the potential for vehicles to impact the propane storage tanks adjacent to the roadway, etc.
c. The Respondent had not performed required inspections and testing on the two propane tanks and emergency shutoff valves.
d. The Respondent had not developed the report of the findings of the compliance audit as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c). During the inspection, EPA inspectors requested documentation of the two most recent compliance audits. The facility provided a one-page document that had dates when the compliance audit was performed. The compliance audit documentation was incomplete as it did not address procedures and practices developed under the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions- Program 3 Prevention Program. The report of the findings of the compliance audit was not available for EPA inspector’s review.
e. The Respondent had not updated emergency contact information within one month of a change in the emergency contact information contained in the RMPlan. The facility’s RMPlan at the time of the inspection listed an employee that had retired on December 31, 2019, as the emergency contact and the new emergency contact was not updated in the RMPlan.
f. The Respondent had not maintained records supporting the implementation of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at the stationary source for five years unless otherwise provided in subpart D as required. During the inspection, EPA inspectors requested the records pertaining to the compliance audit conducted on September 9, 2017, PHA recommendations/action items tracking documentation, offsite consequence documentation and chemical inventory records. The facility representatives were not able to provide such records for review.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Based on EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), when it:
a. Failed to document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
b. Failed to perform PHA as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c);
c. Failed to perform inspections and tests on process equipment and to use inspection and testing procedures following RAGAGEP as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2);
d. Failed to develop a report of findings of the compliance audit as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c);
e. Failed to update the emergency contact information within one month of any change in the emergency contact information contained in the RMPlan submitted as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b); and,
f. Failed to maintain the records supporting the implementation of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at the stationary source for five years, unless otherwise provided in subpart D as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.200.
Respondent consents to the payment of a civil penalty, which was calculated in accordance with the Act, in the amount of SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($66,344.00), which is to be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date of this CAFO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO