Respondent owns and operates a chemical manufacturing facility that has a chlorine (Cl2) process at the stationary source in excess of the applicable threshold quantity. The chlorine-covered process is subject to the “Program 3” requirements of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations and must, among other things, to comply with the Program 3 Prevention Program of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D.
On or about August 13 – 15, 2018, representatives of EPA conducted an inspection of the facility and found the following:
- PHA did not consider Hurricanes and Flooding (the facility is 25 miles west of New Orleans)
- SOPs referenced a plant-wide PPE HAZARD ASSESSMENT document that was not specific to the SOP chlorine task(s)
- SOPs annual certification(s) done 2 months and 8 months past their due dates
- Piping inspections were not evaluated and accepted by the authorized API 570 inspector (my guess is these were annual inspections done in-house)
Count One – Inadequate Process Hazard Analysis
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a) and (f) provides the following:
(a) The owner or operator shall perform an initial process hazard analysis (hazard evaluation) on processes covered by 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The process hazard analysis shall be appropriate to the complexity of the process and shall identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process.
…
(f) At least every five (5) years after completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the process hazard analysis must be updated and revalidated by a team meeting the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(d).
On or about April 8, 2018, the Complainant requested that the Respondent submit a complete copy of its latest process hazard analysis (PHA) for the chlorine process.
On or about April 24, 2018, the Respondent submitted two PHAs to EPA for the chlorine process.
The PHAs provided by Respondent did not address the hazards associated with natural disasters such as flooding and hurricanes.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67 by failing to address all hazards associated with the chlorine process.
SPECIAL SAFTENG Note: The facility is located approximately 25 miles west of New Orleans, LA. A facility in Ohio would not need to consider Hurricanes, but one on the gulf coast should.
Count Two – Inadequate Operating Procedures
40 C.F .R. § 68.69(a) provides 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 process safety information and shall address at least the following elements:
(1). Steps for each operating phase:
i. Initial startup;
ii. Normal operations;
iii. Temporary operations;
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 timely manner;
v. Emergency operations;
vi. Nonnal shutdown; and,
vii. Startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown
…
(3) Safety systems and their function.
(i) Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process; and,
(ii) Precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE).
The Respondent has implemented standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the chlorine process. Ten (10) of the SOPs utilized in the chlorine process directed operators to a personal protective equipment hazard assessment document which summarized PPE requirements, but the specific SOPs were not summarized in the hazard assessment document.
The SOPs referenced above did not address the appropriate PPE to be worn while performing the corresponding SOP.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F .R. § 68.69(a)(3)(ii) by failing to develop and implement certain SOPs that provide clear instructions that addressed the appropriate PPE to be used to prevent exposure.
Count Three – Failure to Timely Certify Operating Procedures
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) provides that the operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. The owner or operator shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
The 2015 certification for the operating procedure for the cell renewal area was required to be certified on or about April 30, 2015 but was not certified until June 25, 2015.
The 2016 certification for the operating procedures for plant 3 for the year 2016 was required to be certified on or about February 2, 2016 but was not certified until October 4, 2016.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) by failing to timely certify certain operating procedures.
Count Four – Failure to Have Authorized Inspector Evaluate and Accepts Results of Mechanical Integrity Inspection
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(a) provides that the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) applies to the following process equipment:
(1) Pressure vessels and storage tanks;
(2) Piping systems (including piping components and valves);
(3) Relief and vent systems and devices;
(4) Emergency shutdown systems;
(5) Controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks); and,
(6) Pumps.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) provides that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) provides the following:
(1) Inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment.
(2) Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally acceptable good engineering practices.
(3) 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.
(4) The owner or operator shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test.
On or about October 27, 2016, an API 570 external visual piping inspection was conducted on a chlorine piping circuit. Section 4.3.4 of API 570 requires that… (emphasis by me – NOT EPA or API)
|
“when inspections, repairs, or alterations are being conducted on piping systems, an authorized piping inspector shall be responsible to the owner/user for determining that the requirements of API 570 on inspection, examination, quality assurance and testing are met. The inspector shall be directly involved in the inspection activities which in most cases will require field activities to ensure that procedures are followed. The inspector is also responsible for extending the scope of the inspection (with appropriate consultation with engineers/specialists), where justified depending upon the findings of the inspection. Where nonconformances are discovered, the inspector is responsible for notifying the owner-user in a timely manner and making appropriate repair or other mitigative recommendations. The authorized piping inspector may be assisted in performing visual inspections by other properly trained and qualified individuals, who may or may not be certified piping inspectors (e.g. examiners and operating personnel). Personnel performing Nondestructive Examinations (NDE) shall meet the qualifications identified in 4.3.5, but need not be authorized piping inspectors. However, all examination results shall be evaluated and accepted by the authorized piping inspector.” An “authorized piping inspector” is an “employee of an authorized inspection agency who is qualified and certified to perform the function specified in API 570.” |
The Respondent failed to document that an authorized piping inspector evaluated and accepted the results of the inspection.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2) by failing to follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices by failing to have an authorized piping inspector evaluate and accept the results of the inspection.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
The Respondent has agreed to pay a civil penalty of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO