Respondent owns and operates a liquefied petroleum gas plant which handled and handles a maximum of approximately 3,548,000 pounds of propane and 761,400 pounds of butane at the Facility. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on October 17, 2018 to determine Respondent’s compliance with CAA Section 112(r)(l) and (7) and the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent submitted an initial RMP for the Facility in 2003. According to Respondent’s RMP for the Facility, propane and butane have been present at the Facility in amounts greater than 10,000 pounds each since at least 2003. Based on information collected by EPA during the Inspection, EPA determined that Respondent did not comply with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions as set forth in the following paragraphs:
Process Safety Information
The Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions require the owner or operator of a stationary source to compile written process safety information relevant to the equipment in the process , including process safety information pertaining to design codes and standards, 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a), § 68.65(d)(l)(vi). The purpose of compiling written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information must include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process , and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(b)-(d). During the EPA Inspection , Respondent presented safety data sheets, oral inventory information , safety system information in the fire safety analysis, and generic guidance from the Propane Education and Research Council. Respondent was missing substantial amounts of the required process safety information.
The owner or operator must also document that its equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2). The term “recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices” includes the following industry standards: National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) 58, Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gas Code (2011) (“NFPA 58-2011 “); and international Fire Code, 2015 (“IFC”).
EPA Inspectors observed conditions at the Facility indicating that the stationary source equipment did not meet the safety standards of recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, including the following:
a. Piping in contact with the ground was not protected from corrosion, in accordance with NFPA 58-2011, § 6.9.3.11, which requires the portion of aboveground piping in contact with a support or a corrosion-causing substance shall be protected against corrosion. EPA Inspectors observed piping in the area of the southeastern-most railcar unloading station that was not protected as it entered the ground and as it entered railroad ballast. EPA Inspectors also observed piping in the propane transfer pump area that was not wrapped and may not have cathodic protection.
b. Containers constructed in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (” ASME”) code were not marked in accordance with NFPA 58-2011, § 5.2.8.3, which requires nameplates with specified information. EPA Inspectors observed ASME tanks with missing or illegible nameplates in the propane aboveground storage tank area.
c. Tanks with hazardous materials were not labeled in accordance with the IFC, § 5003.5, which requires hazard identification signs. EPA inspectors observed three tanks in the propane aboveground storage tank area that were full of propane and did not have proper labeling.
d. Facilities with flammable gases in ASME containers must conduct a fire safety analysis to specify the modes of fire protection. NFPA 58-2011, 6.25.3. NFPA and the National Propane Gas Association developed the Fire Safety Analysis (“FSA”) Manual for LP-Gas Storage Facilities for this purpose. Facility personnel provided two FSAs to EPA. EPA Inspectors reviewed the most recent FSA, dated 2017, and identified possible nonconformance with NFPA 58 requirements, no certification, and several factual errors, including the failure to list all tanks in all of the forms and the computation of the total fire water requirement needed for the Facility.
e. Based on information submitted by Respondent to EPA, Respondent has addressed the piping issues, the signage issues, and is in the process of addressing the tank marking issues discussed discussed above.
Process Hazard Analysis
The owner or operator must perform an initial process hazard analysis on the covered processes, 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a), and update the process hazard analysis every five years, 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f). The· owner or operator must retain process hazard analyses and updates or revalidation, as well as documented resolution of recommendations made during the process hazard analysis, 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(g). Respondent did not provide any process hazard analyses to EPA during the inspection. The June 14, 2018 RMP lists April 13, 2013 as its most recent process hazard analysis and does not indicate that a five-year update or revalidation was done in April 2018.
Operating Procedures
The owner or operator must develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process and shall address the steps of each operating phase (including phases related to an emergency), operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems and their functions. 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a). The owner or operator must annually certify that the procedures are current and accurate. 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c). Respondent provided operating procedures for loading and unloading , and generic operating procedures for startup, operation, shutdown. But Respondent did not provide operating procedures that addressed emergency shutdown, emergency operations, and startup after an emergency. In addition, Respondent did not provide annual certification of operating procedures. Based on information provided by Respondent to EPA, Respondent has revised its operating procedures to address the identified issues.
Mechanical Integrity
The owners or operator must establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of the process equipment, 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b), train each employee involved in maintenance, 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c), and conduct inspections and tests on process equipment and maintain records of such inspections and tests, 40 C.F .R. § 68. 73(d). Respondent provided to EPA only generic maintenance procedures and checklists that did not specify frequency of inspections for all Facility equipment, including pressure relief valves, and did not include procedures for lock-out/tag-out, line-breaking, and confined space entry.
Respondent did not provide any documentation of maintenance training for employees. Respondent provided inspection records for 2006 through 20 11 but not afterwards, and the records did not address the frequency of the inspections.
Management of Change/Pre-Startup Safety Review
The owner or operator must establish written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, techno logy, equipment and procedures and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process. 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a). The procedures must address the technical basis for the proposed change , the impact of the change on safety and health, modifications to operating procedures, necessary time period, and authorization requirements. 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b). Employees must be informed and trained, and if necessary, process safety information and operating procedures must be updated. 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c)-(e) . The owner or operator must perform a pre-startup safety review for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information. 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(a). This pre-startup safety review must confirm that construction and equipment is in conformance with design specifications , that procedures are in place and are adequate, and that employee training has been completed. 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b). Respondent experienced a railcar fire at the Facility in July 2013, after which vent lines were added to the liquid pots for the compressors between the railcars to prevent venting near the compressors in the loading area. The modification would have required a change to the process safety information , namely a calculation of the proper size of the piping vents and a change to the piping and instrumentation design. Yet, there is no documentation that Respondent ever performed piping calculations , revised its piping and instrumentation drawings or its operating procedures , or trained its personnel in repair or replacement to address this equipment change as part of management of change procedures, or that Respondent conducted a pre-startup safety review.
Compliance Audit
The owner or operator must certify that it has evaluated compliance with Subpart D of the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, the Program 3 Prevention Program, every three years to verify that procedures and practices are adequate and are being followed. 40 C.F.R. § 68.79. Respondent has not provided to EPA any documentation that it has complied with the compliance audit requirements.
Employee Participation Plan
The owner or operator must develop a written plan of action to consult with and provide information to employees on the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and other elements of process safety management. 40 C.F.R. § 68.83. Respondent has not
provided to EPA any documentation that it has an employee participation plan.
Contractor Safety
The owner or operator using contractors for maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovations or specialty work must ensure that the contractor ‘s safety performance and programs are adequate , provide information regarding process safety hazards to the contractor, develop safe work practices for entries and exits, and periodically evaluate performance of the contract owner. 40 C.F.R. § 68.87. Respondent has not provided to EPA any documentation of a contractor safety program at the Facility.
Based on information available to EPA, including information gathered during the Inspection performed by EPA at the Facility, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, EPA has determined that Respondent violated Section 112(r)(7), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, with respect its storage and handling of propane and butane at the Facility, as detailed above.
Respondent shall undertake the following requirements (“Work”):
a. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order , identify a person, subject to acceptance by EPA, competent to undertake the implementation of improvements to the Facility to address the conditions described above. The Work shall also include submission of an updated RMP in accordance with 40 C.F.R § 68.190. The Work shall be consistent with the safety protection provided by the industry standards NFPA 58, the IFC and other applicable industry codes or standards;
b. Within forty -five (45) days of receipt ofEPA’s written acceptance of the person competent to undertake the Work, Respondent shall submit to EPA for approval a work plan and schedule (“Work plan and Schedule”) for the Work;
c. EPA will review the Work plan and Schedule submitted and will either accept it or direct Respondent to make changes and resubmit the document within twenty (20) days;
d. Within seven (7) days of receipt of EPA ‘s written acceptance of the Work plan and Schedule, Respondent shall initiate implementation of the EPA-accepted Work plan and complete the Work plan in accordance with the EPA-accepted Schedule;
e. On the one-month anniversary of the Effective Date of this Order, and each thirty (30) days thereafter, Respondent shall submit a written monthly progress report to EPA detailing steps taken during the preceding month to implement the EPA-accepted Work plan in accordance with the EPA-accepted Schedule;
f. Within thirty (30) days after completing the work in accordance with the EPA-accepted Work plan and Schedule at the Facility, Respondent shall submit to EPA, for EPA’s approval, a written report verifying that Respondent has complied with these requirements at the Facility (“Completion Report”) . The Completion Report, with the following certification, shall be signed by a responsible official of Respondent.
Respondent shall preserve all documents and information relating to the activities carried out pursuant to this Order for six (6) years after completion of the Work required by this Order. Upon request, Respondent shall provide EPA with copies of such documents and information. All documents submitted by Respondent to EPA in the course of implementing this Order shall be available to the public unless identified as confidential by the Respondent pursuant to 40 C.F .R. Part 2, Subpart B, and determined by EPA to require treatment as confidential business information in accordance with applicable law.
CLICK HERE for the agreement