Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that produces olefins, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), ethylene glycols, propylene glycols, ethanolamines, morpholine/Diglycolamine (DGA) surfactants. The facility is divided into nine process areas. The first area contains the propylene glycol unit G2. The second area contains the morpholine/DGA unit E7. The third area contains the ethanolamines unit E4. The fourth area contains the surfactants units E3 and E6. The fifth area are the ethylene oxide units F4, F6 and F8 and ethylene glycol units G 1, G5 and G6. The sixth area is the propylene oxide (PO)/MTBE unit known as F5. The seventh area contains the Receiving and Shipping. The eighth area contains Utilities. The ninth area contains the ethylene unit A3. Each of these processes at the Facility meet the definition of “process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
Respondent failed to resolve PHA recommendation s in a timely manner, document the resolution, and complete actions as soon as possible. Respondent provided documentation of 43 PHA’s completed over a five-year schedule from years 2017 to 2022 and identified 511 recommendations with 201 still open or unresolved (about 39%) at the time of the Inspection.
Respondent’s failure to assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented, document what actions are to be taken, and to complete actions as soon as possible pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Operating Procedures
Respondent failed to develop and implement written startup and shutdown operating procedures, which was identified following an air release at the E-7 Main Splitter Tower Reboiler on February 14, 2021.
Respondent’s failure to develop and implement written startup and shutdown operating procedures pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(l)(i) and (vi), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Operating Procedures
Respondent failed to include consequences of deviation in its operating procedures for the Propylene Oxide (PO) Methyl tert-butylether (MTBE) F5 unit.
Respondent’s failure to address consequences of deviation in all its written operating procedures pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4 – Compliance Audits
Respondent failed to promptly document that the deficiencies had been corrected from its most recent compliance audit completed on June 18, 2021. Respondent provided documentation of its most recent compliance audit action item status and identified 37 action items with 13 still open or unresolved (about 35%) at the time of the Inspection.
Respondent’s failure to document that deficiencies have been corrected for each of the findings of the compliance audit in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 5 – Risk Management Plan
Respondent failed to certify new accident history information in its RMP for incidents that occurred on February 14, 2021, and April 28, 2021, within six months of the release. Both incidents were certified past the six-month release date with the February 14, 2021, incident (ID 1000072978) certification due by August 14, 2021, and the April 28, 2021, incident (ID 1000072980) due by October 28, 2021. Respondent submitted the information for both incidents on July 5, 2021, but did not complete certifications at that time. The RMP Central Data Exchange (CDX) identified that the February 14, 2021, incident and the April 28, 2021, incident were certified in the RMP CDX on November 2, 2021.
Respondent’s failure to certify the data required under§§ 68.168, 68. 1700), and 68.175(1) with respect to the February 14, 2021, and April 28, 2021, incidents within six months of the releases or by the time the RMP is updated under§ 68.190 pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Five ($17,995.00).
Respondent shall implement an emergency planning and preparedness supplemental environmental project (“SEP”), which the parties agree is intended to secure significant environmental or public health protection and improvement. Respondent worked with a local fire department that responds to emergencies in the area of the facility to develop the SEP.
The SEP involves purchasing and donating emergency response equipment to the Port Neches Fire Department (“PNFD”). The equipment to be purchased and Respondent’s costs of performing the SEP are described in more detail in Attachment A to this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The equipment shall be purchased and in possession of PNFD no later than twelve (12) months from the effective date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP)
The respondent will donate emergency response equipment to the Port Neches Fire Department (“PNFD”). PNFD supports the City of Port Neches Department of Emergency Management and is the first responder for fires and other incidents involving public safety. The donated equipment will allow PNFD to be better prepared and respond more effectively to incidents involving chemicals and other hazardous materials. The area covered by the PNFD is the same area where the Respondent’s facility is located.
The donation will include:
1. Rescue equipment for technical rescue, at an estimated cost of $12,000;
2. LUCAS device or other automated CPR device, at an estimated cost of $19,300;
3. Two LUNAR thermal imaging cameras at an estimated cost of $2,225 each, total of $4,450;
4. Water rescue dummy at an estimated cost of $1,000;
5. Two replacement sets of PPE/bunker gear meeting PNFD specifications at an estimated cost of$2,750 each, total of$5,500;
6. Five sets of PPE/bunker gear at an estimated cost of $2,000 each, total of $10,000;
7. Underwater drone sonar for river operations at an estimated cost of $5,000;
8. Five Scott 4500 psi SCBA bottle and valve assemblies at an estimated cost of $1,200 each, total of $6,000;
9. One Scott X3 Pro SCBA 4500 psi at an estimated cost of $6,000;
This donation covers traditional firefighting equipment, cutting-edge technology, and specialized response equipment that will support emergency response coordination and improve life safety during industrial incidents.
The LUNAR device is a multipurpose search and rescue device that will be key equipment in responding to emergencies. LUNAR uses thermal imaging, which can be used to help find separated firefighters and identify hot spots. It also allows tracking and reporting of real-time data to incident command, thereby supporting response coordination.
The LUCAS device is an automated CPR device that will allow first responders to continue active response efforts while still providing CPR to impacted individuals.
The additional bunker gear and SCBAs will allow PNFD personnel to safely enter facilities to fight fires, evacuate impacted individuals, secure the site, and perform other essential emergency response activities during an active incident.
The remaining equipment will support unique rescue situations and training on such situations.
The technical rescue equipment includes specialized tools that can be used in responding to industrial incidents. The water rescue dummy will facilitate water response training, while the underwater drone sonar will allow for more effective water rescues.
The total estimated cost of the donation is between $67,483 and $69,250. The respondent will purchase and donate this equipment to PNFD within twelve months of the effective date of the Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO