This is the first time, in a VERY LONG time that I have seen EPA take issue with and issue citations against actual errors in the RMP Submittal data and errors made in the Off-Site Consequences Analysis (OCA). Unfortunately, EPA does not list the monetary fine with each violation and this inspection apprears to be part of a larger inspection at the refinery so we may never know exactly how much these violations cost.
Violations of Management System Requirements
- 68.15 – failed to identify and document the names or positions responsible for individual requirements and define the lines of authority through an organizational chart or similar document
Violations of Hazard Assessment Requirements
- 68.25(a)(2)(I), 68.22(c) – failed to utilize OCA guidance tables and did not use the actual average humidity data when completing the toxic worst case scenario analysis
- 68.22(a), 68.33(a) – failed to indicate that environmental receptors were located within the toxic worst case scenario analysis in the OCA
- 68.36(a) – failed to review, document, and update its toxic worst case scenario analysis in its OCA at least once every five years
- 68.39 – did not maintain records for the toxic worst case scenario
Violations of Prevention Program Requirements
- 68.65 – did not adequately compile and update written process safety information pertaining to the technology of each process including safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows, or compositions known as Safe Operating Control Limits (“SOCLs”) and piping and instrument diagrams (“P&ID”) and document that its equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices
- 68.67(a), (c)(4)-(5) – failed to conduct a PHA that is appropriate to the complexity of the process, and did not adequately address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls, and siting factors
- 68.67(e) – PHA did not adequately and promptly address the findings and recommendations of the review team (assuring that action items were put on a schedule and resolved timely, and that the resolutions were documented
- 68.69(a) – did not adequately develop and implement written operating procedures that contain complete instructions for emergency shutdown and adequately address consequences of deviations and steps to correct deviations
- 68.71(b) – did not provide refresher training for every employee involved in operating a process at least every three years to assure that every employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process
- 68.73(d)(3) & (4) – did not adequately perform and document inspections and tests on certain process equipment at the frequencies established in the applicable manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering practices
- 68.79(d) – did not complete a set of written responses or follow-up actions for each of the 2005 compliance audit recommendations, nor did it consistently document that the deficiencies had been corrected
- 68.81 – did not investigate each incident which resulted in, or could have resulted in, a catastrophic release, prepare a report and establish a system to promptly address and resolve the findings, and share information with all affected personnel
Risk Management Plan Violations
- 68.155(f) – did not include in its RMP executive summary a brief description of planned changes to improve safety
- 68.168 and 68.42 – did not include in the RMP a complete five year accident history that includes accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in specified on or off-site consequences
CLICK HERE (pdf) to see the entire settlement agreement