Respondent is the owner or operator of an ingredients facility with greater than 10,000 pounds of ethylene oxide in a covered process and greater than 10,000 pounds of trimethylamine in a covered process at the Facility. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of ethylene oxide and/or trimethylamine in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
EPAs Findings of Violation
Hazard Assessment
The EPA’s inspection revealed that the Respondent had not updated the offsite consequence analyses since October 22, 2004.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Process Safety Information
The EPA’s inspection revealed that the Respondent did not include the required safety information related to the ventilation design system.
The EPA’s inspection revealed that the Respondent did not include the required safety information related to the process safety systems.
The EPA’s inspection revealed that the Respondent did not include the required documentation regarding the consequences of deviation.
Respondent’s failures to comply with requirements for process safety information in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violate Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Process Hazard Analysis
The Facility’s Risk Management Plan lists process 100114872, EO Drum Truck Storage. This process involves the two truck parking spaces where 400-pound containers of ethylene oxide are stored until shipping. This process has a total capacity of 120,000 pounds of ethylene oxide. The Facility RMP lists the date the PHA was completed as March 20, 2019, but there was no documentation of the PHA performed on the EO Drum Truck Storage process. The EPA’s inspection revealed that Respondent did not perform a PHA on process 1000114872, EO Drum Truck Storage. The EPA’s inspection revealed that the Respondent incorrectly identified the technique used to conduct the PHA.
Respondent’s failure to comply with requirements for process hazard analysis in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Operating Procedures
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent’s Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) did not have the required portions that address temporary and emergency operations or emergency shutdown and startup following a turnaround or after an emergency shutdown.
During the inspection, EPA asked to see the SOP detailing the railcar unloading procedures. The SOP required stated that valve lineup and connections should be verified by another qualified employee, and another employee should be present during the hook-up of the railcar until after pumping begins and no problems are observed. The SOP also stated that the unloading must be monitored at all times, either in person or by camera.
During the inspection, Respondent informed EPA that its root cause evaluation of the April 8, 2022, incident determined that the facility failed to fully implement the written operating procedures, which required two employees to be present for the railcar unloading. Only one employee was present during the railcar unloading. Further, the spill on April 8, 2022, was not appropriately monitored in person or by camera.
The Respondent’s root cause evaluation was shared with EPA on May 21, 2022.
Respondent’s failure to comply with requirements for operating procedures in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Mechanical Integrity
During the inspection, Respondent informed EPA that its root cause evaluation of the April 8, 2022, incident, Respondent determined that the audible alarms in the unloading area were damaged by a flood in May 2021 and were not repaired.
The EPA inspection revealed that the Facility did not establish and implement a written mechanical integrity plan that met all requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent’s failure to comply with requirements for mechanical integrity in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Compliance Audit
The EPA inspection revealed that the compliance audits did not contain a certification of compliance and were not completed every three years.
The EPA inspection revealed that the Facility failed to determine or document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that the deficiencies have been corrected.
Respondent’s failure to comply with requirements for compliance audits in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Emergency Response
The EPA inspection revealed that BCP had not conducted emergency response coordination activities in the last year and there was no documentation of any emergency response coordination activities.
The EPA inspection revealed that BCP did not document emergency response coordination activities.
Respondent’s failure to comply with requirements for emergency response coordination activities in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Risk Management Plan
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility submitted the current RMP 28 days late. Respondent’s failure to comply with requirements for risk management plans in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as described above, violates Section 112(r) of the CAA.
Order for Compliance
Based upon EPA’s Findings of Fact and Law, and EPA’s Findings of Violation set forth above, it is hereby ordered and agreed that Respondent shall comply with the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA and the regulations promulgated thereunder and codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
Specifically, EPA and Respondent agree that Respondent shall, as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the Effective Date of this Order:
1) Perform a PHA on the Drum Truck Storage Process and correct the RMP to reflect the correct techniques used for all PHAs.
2) Develop and provide to EPA for review and comment a list of SOPs to be updated or verified, as appropriate, to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a). The list will separate the SOPs into groups and provide prioritized timelines for revising the SOPs in each group. Prioritization shall be based on potential risk and the frequency of use of the applicable SOP. All listed SOPs are to be revised within 180 days of the Effective Date of this Order.
(b) Within 60 days after the Effective Date of this Order:
1) Review and update the Hazard Assessment to include an updated offsite consequences analysis.
2) Develop a formal (written) mechanical integrity program (to satisfy the requirements detailed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.73), including an implementation timeline with inspection and maintenance activities for all applicable equipment. Per 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e), if deficiencies in equipment outside acceptable limits are identified, before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary, means will be taken to assure safe operation. The implementation timeline will set forth a schedule of activities, specifying complete dates within 150 days after the Effective Date of this Order.
(c) Within 90 days after the Effective Date of this Order:
1) Develop and implement a written unit-specific emergency shutdown procedure.
2) Update Process Safety Information to include safety systems and consequences of deviation.
3) Conduct a ventilation study for building V-10, V-25 and the building V-8 control room to ensure design is protective of human health and the environment.
(d) Within 150 days after the Effective Date of this Order:
1) Conduct a ventilation study for buildings V-8 and V-14 to ensure design is protective of human health and the environment.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO