Respondent has a commercial scale distillation process used for research purposes at the Facility, meeting the definition of “process “, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Isobutane is a “regulated substance ” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 with a threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds. Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of isobutane, in a process at the Facility, meeting the definition of “covered process ” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Process Hazard Analysis
Respondent’s February 2017 PHA failed to:
- identify the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls on the Low Pressure (LP) column and the variable frequency drive (VFD) auxiliary cooling equipment;
- identify and apply appropriate detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases at the LP column;
- evaluate the range of possible safety and health effects of the failure of controls on the LP column; and
- consider the location of the VFD cabinet for stationary source siting.
Specifically, the failure of the pressure relief valves (PRVs) to reseat after lifting was not considered as a failure of engineering controls.
This contributed directly to the magnitude of the release incident. The installation of thermocouples to provide early warning of the potential failure of the VFD fan due to overheating was implemented after the incident but should have been recommended as an engineering control for the hazard analysis.
An early warning alarm for the VFD fan may have prevented or significantly mitigated the release incident. The location of the VFD cabinet in an area next to boilers and subject to seasonal high-temperature conditions was not included in the facility siting review.
Respondent’s failure to address engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases; consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls; stationary source siting; and a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(7), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Mechanical Integrity
Respondent failed to rebuild the LP column PRVs on a frequency consistent with good engineering practice and prior operating experience. The PRVs are recertified annually but had not been rebuilt since 2016. The PRVs were due for a full five-year inspection and rebuilding under American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 510 in 2021. In June 2021, the PRVs on the LP column received only a pressure check, just prior to the release incident. After the release incident, the PRVs were inspected and rebuilt, which revealed internal corrosion and other damage which caused them to not properly reseat after lifting during the release incident.
If the PRVs had received a complete inspection and rebuilding in June 2021, the valves would likely have reseated properly, thereby significantly reducing the magnitude of the August 2021 release incident.
The facility failed to inspect and maintain the VFD and the air conditioning (AC) cooling unit on the VFD cabinet at a frequency determined to be necessary based on prior operating experience and good engineering practices. Specifically, Respondent failed to ensure that the AC unit for the VFD cabinet had adequate cooling capacity for ensuring the consistent, reliable operation of the VFD. Subsequent to the release incident, the VFD manufacturer recommended a replacement unit with a higher operating temperature range for the conditions that the VFD would operate.
Respondent’s failure to perform inspections and tests on process equipment at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(3), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Respondent’s failure to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means were taken to assure safe operation, as well as Respondent’s failure to perform appropriate checks and inspections to assure that equipment, is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer’s instructions pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.7 3(e) and (f)(2), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of fifty-four thousand four hundred eighty-eight dollars ($54,488).
CLICK HERE for CAFO