Respondent is the owner and operator of an oil refinery. On September 9-13, 2019, the EPA inspected the Facility to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. part 68. Based on the observations of the EPA inspectors at the inspection, the EPA has determined that Respondent uses, handles, and/or stores more than the threshold quantity of Flammable Mixture, Hydrogen flouride/Hydrofluoric acid, Butane, Isobutane, and Propane. Respondent’s Facility is subject to the RMP Regulations applicable to “Program 3” facilities within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.10(d) and 68.12(d).
EPA FINDINGS OF 40 C.F.R. Part 68 VIOLATIONS
40 C.F.R. § 68.10(a) requires that except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, an owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, as determined under §68.115, shall comply with the requirements of this part.
Respondent did not include their flare system as part of an RMP-covered process. A process flow diagram for the flare system identified connections and co-location to other RMP-covered processes and the ability to contain regulated substances. The flare was observed to be operating at the time of the inspection.
Respondent’s failure to include their flare system as part of an RMP-covered process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.22(a) requires that for analyses of offsite consequences, the following endpoints shall be used:
(1) The toxic endpoints provided in Appendix A of this part. Respondent did not use the appropriate endpoints provided in Appendix A for their toxics worst-case scenario for a release of hydrogen fluoride.
Respondent’s failure to appropriately apply the endpoints in Appendix A is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.22(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.25(b) requires that the worst-case release quantity shall be the greater of the following:
(1) For substances in a vessel, the greatest amount held in a single vessel, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity.
Respondent did not determine the greatest amount held in a single vessel to be their worst-case release quantity for their toxics worst-case scenario of hydrogen fluoride.
Respondent’s failure to use the greatest amount held in a single vessel as the worst-case release quantity is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.33(a) requires that the owner or operator shall list in the RMP environmental receptors within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in §68.22(a) of this part.
Respondent did not list in their RMP submission that Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge was an environmental receptor within the circle of their toxics worst-case scenario of a release of hydrogen fluoride.
Respondent’s failure to identify environmental receptors is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.33(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iv) requires that information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include:
(iv) Safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows, or compositions.
Respondent failed to compile accurate, safe limits for pressures in the facility’s process safety information specific to vessel D-2816A.
Respondent’s failure to compile accurate safe limits in the facility’s process safety information is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §68.65(c)(1)(iv).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(viii) requires that information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include:
(viii) Safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection or suppression systems).
Respondent failed to include alarms and alarm set points pertaining to safety system LI-15507 in the facility’s process safety information.
Respondent’s failure to include information pertaining to safety systems in the facility’s process safety information is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(viii).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent would not have been able to document that equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices due to the presence of class 1, division 2-rated equipment installed in an environment identified as class 1, division 1.
Respondent’s inability to have been able to document that equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent would not have been able to document that equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices due to a length of piping in the HTU that was being supported by a temporary support stand.
Respondent’s inability to have been able to document that equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3) requires that the process hazard analysis shall address:
(3) Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships, such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases.
Respondent failed to address engineering controls applicable to the hazards in the Alkylation Unit. The facility siting checklist in the Alkylation Unit process hazard analysis indicated that there was impact protection in high-traffic areas.
It was observed though, that impact protection around the Alkylation Unit was limited, which is adjacent to the main refinery road.
Respondent’s failure to address engineering controls applicable to the hazards in the Alkylation Unit is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1) requires that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(I) Steps for each operating phase.
Respondent failed to develop operating procedures that provide clear instructions by not tagging or labeling valves and equipment in the units that corresponded to the steps in the associated operating procedures.
Respondent’s failure to develop operating procedures that provide clear instructions is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(l ).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iii) requires that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(1) Steps for each operating phase:
(iii) Temporary operations.
Respondent failed to develop a written operating procedure for the sampling and transport of hydrofluoric acid samples for analysis, which is a reoccurring activity in the process.
Respondent’s failure to develop operating procedures for conducting activities involved in the covered process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(l)(iii).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv) requires that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(I) Steps for each operating phase:
(iv) Emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner.
Respondent failed to address the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner in SOP-015-201, SOP-015-209, or SOP-015-309.
Respondent’s failure to address the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(2) Operating limits. Respondent failed to address operating limits for operating procedures in a manner consistent with their process safety information.
Respondent’s failure to address operating limits for operating procedures in a manner consistent with their process safety information is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(i) requires that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(3) Safety and health considerations:
(i) Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process.
Respondent failed to indicate which MSDS’s should be reviewed or what chemicals are associated with the operating procedures SOP-017-103, SOP-015-309, SOP-015-201, SOP-015-209, and SOP-015-310.
Respondent’s failure to develop operating procedures that addressed safety and health considerations related to the chemicals used in the process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a)(3)(i).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4) requires that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.
(4) Safety systems and their functions. Respondent failed to properly address safety systems such as alarms and interlocks in their operating procedures.
Respondent’s failure to properly address safety systems such as alarms and interlocks in their operating procedures is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a)(4).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(b) requires that operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or maintain a process.
Respondent failed to maintain operating procedures related to loss of power or control room console that were readily accessible to employees in the event of those events occurring.
Respondent’s failure to properly maintain operating procedures that are readily accessible to employees who work in or maintain a process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) requires that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
Respondent failed to establish and implement procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of non-safety integrity level (SIL)-rated instruments.
Respondent’s failure to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(l) requires that inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment.
Respondent failed to perform inspections and tests on D-1715.
Respondent’s failure to perform inspections and tests on process equipment is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(l).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3) requires that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
Respondent failed to conduct a 5-year external inspection of E-1505 after September 2013 as required under API 510.
Respondent’s failure to inspect and test process equipment at frequencies consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices is a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) requires that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process.
Respondent failed to implement procedures to manage changes in the process by not completing an MOC when taking heat exchanger E-031 0A out of service.
Respondent’s failure to implement procedures to manage changes in the process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(e) requires that if a change covered by this paragraph results in a change in the operating procedures or practices required by §68.69, such procedures or practices shall be updated accordingly.
Respondent failed to update procedures covered by a change in the process when the facility physically removed heat exchanger E-0310A and did not update the operating procedures associated with the operation of the cat stabilizer accumulator located in the FCCU with this change.
Respondent’s failure to update procedures covered by a change in the process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(e).
40 C.F.R. § 68.77(a) requires that the owner or operator shall perform a pre-startup safety review for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information.
Respondent failed to perform a pre-startup safety review prior to the startup of D-1501 located in the Alkylation Unit as part of MOC #886887.
Respondent’s failure to perform a pre-startup safety review prior to startup is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) requires that the owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed.
Respondent failed to certify that the audits conducted in 2014 and 2017 served as an evaluation of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of subpart D.
Respondent’s failure to certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of subpart D is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(b) requires that the compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process.
Respondent failed to ensure that the 2017 audit was conducted by at least one person from the facility to serve as someone knowledgeable in the process.
Respondent’s failure to ensure that the 2017 audit was conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.81(b) requires that an incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible but not later than 48 hours following the incident.
Respondent failed to initiate an incident investigation within the 48 hours following an incident in 2018.
Respondent’s failure to initiate an incident investigation within the 48 hours following an incident is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.Sl(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b) requires that the hot work permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations.
Respondent failed to document on their hot work permit that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) had been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations for permit 38949 as the “Potential Hazards” section did not have the hazards “LEL” or “H2S” marked from the list in that section although signage in the immediate working area indicated that those hazards where present.
Respondent’s failure to document on their hot work permit that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) had been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(ii) requires that an emergency response plan which shall be maintained at the stationary source and contain at least the following elements:
(ii) Documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures.
Respondent failed to fully document proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures to hydrofluoric acid exposure in their emergency response plan.
Respondent’s failure to document proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(ii).
40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b) requires that the registration shall include the following data:
(6) The name, title, telephone number, 24-hour telephone number, and, as of June 21, 2004, the e-mail address (if an e-mail address exists) of the emergency contact.
Respondent failed to provide a 24-hour telephone number for their emergency contact. The number in the RMP was an office number with no forwarding, so it appears to only be a business-hours telephone number.
Respondent’s failure to provide a 24-hour telephone number for their emergency contact is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b).
CAA SECTION 112(r) PENALTY LIABILITY
In settlement of EPA’s claims for civil penalties for the violations alleged in this Consent Agreement, Respondent consents to the assessment of a total civil penalty in the amount of three hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($385,000) for alleged violations of section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO