This is a topic I have written about several times before and EPA has made their position fairly clear in their RMP Q&A’s. SAFTENG members can CLICK HERE to read the summary of the EPA Q&A’s regarding railcars that are NOT attached to a mode of transport (i.e. locomotive). These railcars that sit out on a spur that is SEPARATE from the “process” are actually their own “process” (e.g. they are not connected to the process and they are not located close enough that they could impact a process – but they exceed the TQ for a covered process). So when we have this type of arrangement on site, we would have to report the railcars as a “process” just like our regular type process. As we will see in this inspection, EPA took issue that these groups of railcars that were on site were not reported as a “process” in the facility’s RMP, the facility had not done a PHA on the railcar groupings (e.g. covered process) and no audit had been done. If you are wondering why there were not other elements cited, these situations are unique in that the facility most often does NOT own the rail cars so it is not like we have PSI on them. But if they are on site and NOT attached to their mode of transport we have to claim them as a process. If we have enough cars linked together or even in close proximity to one another then we have to examine this arrangement as a “process” and determine if we exceed the TQ for the materials stored in them. Here is the case:
The facility can store up to 2,800,000 lbs. of sulfur trioxide on site. The sulfur trioxide is stored and utilized in the sulfonation processes and in railcars on the southwest corner of the Facility. The facility can store up to 1,100,000 lbs. of ethylene oxide on site and utilizes it in the alkoxylation process. A portion of the ethylene oxide is stored in railcars on the southwest corner of the Facility. The facility can store up to 1,100,000 lbs. of propylene oxide on site and utilizes it in the alkoxylation process. A portion of the propylene oxide is stored in railcars within the Facility.
In its RMPs submitted in June 2009 and December 2011, the Respondent reported in its RMP the storage of sulfur trioxide, ethylene oxide, and propylene oxide in the railcars as part of other covered processes but not as a separate process. The sulfur trioxide in the railcars is above the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds. The ethylene oxide in the railcars is above the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds. The propylene oxide in the railcars is above the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds.
The railcars are a “process,” as that term is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The railcar storage process is subject to the “Program 3” eligibility requirements because the process:
(a) does not meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(b), because the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release assessment conducted under
Subpart B and 40 C.F.R. §68.25 is greater than the distance to any public receptor; and
(b) is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119 and 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(d) because the process involves sulfur trioxide, ethylene oxide, and propylene oxide above their respective threshold quantities.
On September 24, 2009, EPA conducted an inspection at the Facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the Respondent was complying at the Facility with Section 112(r) of the Act and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the inspection conducted by EPA, the Facility failed to comply with the Risk Management Program regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 for Program 3 requirements as set forth below in Paragraphs 42 through 44. Respondent failed to submit a Risk Management Plan, as provided in 40 C.F.R. 68.150 to 68.185, that reflects all covered processes at the Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12.
Respondent had not conducted a process hazard analysis on the process described in paragraph 34 as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67 on the date of EPA’s inspection. In October 2009, Respondent performed a process hazard analysis on the process Railcar submitted a copy to EPA. Respondent failed to conduct a compliance audit on the process described in paragraph 34 as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.79.
Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $21,788. In determining the penalty amount, Complainant has considered the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts and circumstances of this case, and other factors such as cooperation, a prompt return to compliance, and Respondent’s agreement to perform a supplemental environmental project as described below.
Under the SEP, Respondent must install remotely operated isolation valves (ROIVs) on both the ethylene oxide and propylene oxide liquid and vapor return lines at the railcar station, arranged to isolate the hose in the event of a hose rupture. The ROTV s will be designed to close by ethylene oxide/propylene oxide gas monitoring and deluge system activation, and also to close manually. Respondent must also install a railcar motion detecting system that will activate the closure of the ROTVs. Respondent must spend at least $200,000 for the engineering design, project management, purchase and installation of the SEP.
Respondent will complete the SEP as follows:
a. By February 28, 2015, Respondent must complete the bid process and select a contractor to complete the installation work for the SEP.
b. By November 30, 2015, Respondent must (I) complete the installation for the
Respondent must submit status reports providing information as to the progress it has made in completing the SEP.
CLICK HERE to see the agreement.