Respondent operates a gas plant where flammable mixtures and propane were present above their thresholds. The Respondent lists one process in its Risk Management Plan (RMP) with the process number 1000054282. The covered process is subject to the “Program 3” requirements of the RMP regulations and must, among other things, comply with the Program 3 Prevention Program of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D.
Count One – Failure to timely address findings from the Process Hazard Analysis
During the inspection and the review of the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA), the EPA inspector identified that some of the due dates assigned in the Action Items list were outside of the two-year resolution timeframe set in the PHA Procedure.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) by failing to timely address the Action items according to the timeframe set in Respondent’s PHA Procedure.
Count Two – Failure to fully develop operating procedures
During the inspection and the review of the Process Safety Management (PSM) Operating Procedure’s Introduction, the EPA inspector identified that the operating procedures for emergency shutdown and startup following a turnaround or emergency shutdown did not make clear in the PSM Operating Procedure’s Introduction what steps need to be taken to conduct those activities.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a) by failing to fully develop the operating procedures for emergency shutdown and startup following a turnaround or emergency shutdown.
Count Three – Failure to timely conduct refresher training
During the inspection and the review of the employee training recertifications, the EPA inspector identified that of the nine employee recertifications reviewed, five employee recertifications were longer than three years.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b) by failing to conduct refresher training for certain employees within three years.
Count Four – Failure to document corrections of equipment deficiencies
During the inspection and the review of the mechanical integrity inspections, the EPA inspector noted that corrections of equipment deficiencies were not always documented with a work order.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) by failing to document equipment deficiencies identified from mechanical integrity inspections.
Count Five – Failure to properly conduct Management of Change (MOC)
During the inspection and the review of the MOC documentation, the EPA inspector noted that, in one instance, a change in the type of relief valve from pressure relief valve to pilot control valve on two tanks at the facility did not have a MOC, nor was it shown with the updated type of valve on the Piping & Instrumentation Diagram.
In another instance, documentation of the changes in operating procedures was not included in the MOC and documentation showing that the employees involved in the operation of the process was not signed by all employees listed.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75 by failing to conduct MOCs properly on two occasions.
Count Six – Failure to document requirements of Hot Work Permits
During the inspection and the review of the Hot Work Permits, the EPA inspector identified two instances that the hot work permits did not include the atmospheric testing for the fire prevention and protection requirements.
Therefore, the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b) by failing to document all the requirements of Hot Work Permits on two occasions.
CIVIL PENALTY
For the reasons set forth above, the Respondent has agreed to pay a civil penalty of Seventy-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($74,750.00).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO