Respondent operates a chemical manufacturing plant that has one RMProgram level 3 covered chemical manufacturing process, which stores or otherwise uses 1,3-Butadiene in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. On November 9, 2015, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements.
- At the time of the inspection, a comparison of piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) No. MB-85-X-002-D-14 with actual field installed equipment found that a local pressure indicator (PI-01) had been removed and replaced with a blinded flange on the top of 1,3-butadiene storage sphere. The P&ID had not been updated with this change.
- Additionally, a comparison of P&ID No. MB-86-X-004-00-D-16 with actual field installed equipment found that piping labeled BD-1 W’-P29 used to transfer 1,3-butadiene to 321R reactor had been disconnected and a blind added at the valve flange. The P&ID had not been updated with this change.
- In addition, the valve on the disconnected pipe BD-1 Yz”-P29 was also not included on the P&ID.
- At the time of the inspection, inspectors observed a broken electrical conduit adjacent to the piping header carrying 1,3-butadiene was repaired by electrical tape and a cover plate was removed from electrical conduit exposing live electrical wiring in an area above the piping header carrying 1,3-butadiene. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFP A) 70 Section 344.42, couplings and connectors used with electrical conduit shall be made tight. Electrical tape used to bind two sections of electrical conduit together does not provide a tight connection. NFP A 70 Section 314.17 states that openings in conduit bodies should remain closed. The missing cover plate on the electrical conduit provides an opening that could expose flammable gasses to live electrical wiring.
- At the time of inspection, changes that include blinding off or disconnecting a section of process piping that was previously used in the process which inherently change that process were observed. The Respondent has developed and established a written procedure for management of change (MOC) that describes how permanent and temporary changes are proposed, evaluated, and approved before being implemented to prevent inadvertent or unintended changes. The Respondent did not implement any of the written procedures for an MOC regarding this particular change.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on EPA’ s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F .R. Part 68 when it:
- Failed to include complete piping and instrument diagrams pertaining to the equipment in the process in its process safety information as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii);
- Failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in § 68.65) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.73(e); and
- Failed to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures that affect a covered process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of TWENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-THREE DOLLARS ($20,153)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO