On May 15, 2013, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. part 68 under section 112(r)(7) of the Act. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing section 112(r)(7) of the Act by failing to comply with the specific requirements outlined in the attached RMP Program Level 3 Process Checklist-Alleged Violations & Penalty Assessment (Checklist and Penalty Assessment). The Checklist and Penalty Assessment is incorporated into this ESA.
SUBPART D: PREVENTION PROGRAM [40 CFR 68.65 – 68.87]
Prevention Program – Safety Information [68.65]
Has the owner or operator ensured that the process safety information contains the following for the equipment in the process:
- Materials of construction? [68.65(d)(1)(i)] No
- The materials of construction were not available for S02 piping inside the main process building.
- Relief system design and design basis? [68.65(d)(1)(iv)] No
- The relief system design and design basis were not available
- Ventilation system design? [68.65(d)(1)(v)] No
- The ventilation system design was not available for the main process building
PENALTY = $600
Has the owner or operator documented that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices? [68.65(d)(2)] No
- The pressure relief system was not in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The pressure relief system vent pipe opening was next to the personnel platform on the S02 storage tank. If a pressure relief valve was to release from over-pressure and a worker was on the platform, the worker could be harmed by the escaping S02 gas. CGA S-1.3-2008 Stationary Storage Containers for Compressed Gases section 5.2 states: “Pressure relief systems shall be arranged to prevent any impingement of escaping gas or liquid upon the container, jacket, control devices, structural parts, or operating personnel.”
- The S02 storage tank was not in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The S02 storage tank did not have a NFP A 704 placard. NFPA 400 Hazardous Materials Code section 6.1.8.2.1 states, “Visible hazard identification signs in accordance with NFPA 704 shall be placed … on stationary aboveground tanks.” In addition, there is the requirement in OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard – 1994 1910.1200(f)(S) which states: ”the employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardouschemical contained therein, and appropriate hazard warnings… “
- The S02 piping was not in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The S02 pipingwas not labeled. ANSI/ASME Standard A13.1-2007 identifies the scheme for labeling processing piping systems.
PENALTY = $1,500
Prevention Program – Process Hazard Analysis [68.67]
Has the owner or operator ensured that the process hazard analysis (PHA) addressed:
- The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences? [68.67(c)(1)] No
- The February 11, 2009 PHA did not address the June 18, 2008 S02 leak incident.
- Consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls? [68.67(c)(2)] No
- The February 11, 2009 PHA did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls.
PENALTY = $600
Has the owner or operator retained process hazards analyses and updates or revalidations for each process covered as well as the resolution of recommendations for the life of the process? [68.67(g)] No
- XXXX could not produce the 2004 PHA.
PENALTY = $600
Prevention Program – Management of Change [68.75]
Has the owner or operator ensured that the impact of change on safety and health is addressed prior to any change? (68.75(b)(2)] No
- XXXX did not address the impact of the lock-out of the factory workers in August 2011 and hiring all new replacement workers. Such extensive staffing changes could impact the safety and health of the ACSH workers and should be included in the MOC review process. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Guidelines for Management of Change for Process Safety section 3.4.2 Types of Changes to Be Managed include organizational and staffing changes.
PENALTY = $300
Prevention Program – Compliance Audits [68.79]
Has the owner or operator promptly determined and documented an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and documented that deficiencies have been corrected? [68.79(d)] No
- The 5/8/08 CA had deficiencies (Questions 2 and 52) that did not have a documented response or correction.
- The 3/24/11 CA had a deficiency (Question 51) that did not have a documented response or correction.
PENALTY = $300
Prevention Program – Incident Investigation [68.81]
Has the owner or operator ensured that all incident investigations were initiated not later than 48 hours following the incident? [68.8l(b)] No
- Three S02 incidents were reviewed: 8/21/2007, 6/18/2008 and 6/27 /2008. There is no documentation that confirms theinvestigations were initiated not later than 48 hours following these three incidents.
- The 6/18/2008 incident resulted in a release of 738 lbs of S02 and injured 21 people on site. Among the records for the 6/18/2008 incident, there were two types of incident forms:
- XXXXXXXXXX Company Evacuation Checklist Hillsboro Factory: This form has instructions that it is to be completed within 24 hours after the event of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials. It was signed and dated by XXXXX XXXXXX on 6/30/08.
- XXXXXXXXXX Company Incident Investigation form: This was incomplete with no times or dates of the investigation.
PENALTY = $600
Prevention Program – Contractors [68.87]
Has the owner or operator periodically evaluated the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations? [68.87(b)(5)] No
- XXXXX does not periodically evaluate the performance of contractor owners or operators.
SUBPART G: RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN [40 CFR 68.160- 68.165]
If the owner or operator experienced an accidental release that met the five-year accident history reporting criteria (as described at 68.42) subsequent to April 9, 2004, did the owner or operator submit the information required with respect to that accident within six months of the release or by the time the RMP was updated, whichever was earlier? [68.195(a)]
- The accidental release that occurred on June 18, 2008 met the five year accident history reporting criteria. XXXX submitted the required data for that accident on June 17, 2009 when the RMP was updated. This was later than six months after the release.
PENALTY = $2,000
CLICK HERE for the EPA ESA