NOTE: this case has some very interesting citations and used RAGAGEPs that may not be the best fit, but when a facility does not adopt a RAGAGEP, EPA (and OSHA) will be more than happy to “suggest” one in their citations!
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a natural gas processing facility. The Facility uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of a flammable mixture and anhydrous ammonia, both regulated substances, listed under 40 C.F .R. § 68.130. Respondent is required to prepare and implement a RMP to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases of such substances. Respondent meets the Program 3 eligibility requirements. ‘
On April 27, 2016, an authorized representative of the EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility, with the consent of Respondent, to determine compliance with the CAA section 112(r)(7). During the inspection, the EPA representative observed alleged violations of the CAA section 112(r)(7). The alleged violations are described below:
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
40 C.F.R. §68.65(c)(1)(iii) provides that the process safety information shall include information pertaining to the technology of the process including the maximum intended inventory.
Respondent did not include regulated substances within process piping in the maximum intended inventory. By not including regulated substances within the process piping in the maximum intended inventory, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(l)(iii).
40 C.F.R. §68.65(d)(1)(iv) provides that the process safety information shall include information pertaining to the equipment in the process including relief system design and design basis.
Respondent did not provide relief system design and design basis for the ammonia system. By failing to include relief system design and design basis for the ammonia system in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(iv).
40 C.F.R. §68.65(d)(1)(vi) provides that the process safety information shall include information pertaining to the equipment in the process including design codes and standards employed. The process safety information did not contain applicable design codes and standards employed for the ammonia system.
By failing to include design codes and standards employed for the ammonia system in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65( d)(1)(vi).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. Ammonia pressure-relief-valve extensions above machine-room roof did not meet the height and direction of termination of discharge requirements in accordance with Section 15.5.1.3 and Section 15.5.1.5 of IIAR 2 2014, American National Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems.
By not meeting the height and direction of termination of discharge requirements for ammonia pressure-relief-valve extensions in accordance with RAGAGEP, Respondent was unable to document that equipment complied with RAGAGEP and therefore violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2). ‘
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. Ammonia piping was not labeled in accordance with Section 5.14.5 of IIAR 2 2014 or per Section 4.0 of Bulletin 114-Guidelines for: Identification of Ammonia Refrigeration Piping and System Components (Date: 2014).
By not labeling the ammonia piping in accordance with RAGAGEP, Respondent was unable to document that equipment complied with RAGAGEP and therefore violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. Safety showers and eyewash stations within the ammonia machine room did not have a continuous water supply and there were no safety showers and eyewash stations outside of the ammonia machine room in accordance with Section 6.7 of IIAR 2 2014.
By not having a continuous water supply to safety showers and eyewash stations in the ammonia machine room and not having safety showers and eyewash stations outside the ammonia machine room in accordance with RAGAGEP, Respondent was unable to document that equipment complied with RAGAGEP and therefore violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. During the EPA inspection it was observed that the entry/exit doors in the ammonia machine room were propped open impeding the ability of the doors to be self-closing and tight fitting in accordance with Section 6.10.2 of IlAR 2 2014.
By impeding the ability of entry/exit doors in the ammonia machine room to be self-closing and tight fitting in accordance with RAGAGEP, Respondent was unable to document that equipment complied with RAGAGEP and therefore violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. Ammonia signage at ammonia machine room entry/exit doors did not have the required National Fire Protection Association 704 placards and restricted access signage in accordance with Section 6.15 of IIAR 2 2014.
By failing to have required placards and signage at ammonia machine room entry/exit doors in accordance with RAGAGEP, Respondent was unable to document that equipment complied with RAGAGEP and therefore violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3) provides that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that shall address the safety and health considerations specified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3). Respondent did not provide written operating procedures that address the safety and health considerations specified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3).
By failing to provide written procedures addressing safety and health consideration, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(b) provides that operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or maintain a process. Ammonia loading procedures were not readily accessible for the ammonia storage tank.
By not having ammonia loading procedures readily accessible to employees at or nearby the ammonia storage tank, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69( c) provides that the owner or operator shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate. For 2015, Respondent did not certify that the operating procedures were current and accurate.
By not certifying that operating procedures were current and accurate for 2015, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (b) provides that refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process. The owner or operator, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.
According to the Facility’s training spreadsheet (entitled “Online Training Record, XXXXXXX, 2014 & 2015”):
- Maintenance Foreman did not complete “NORM Awareness Training for Upstream Oil and Gas Operations” by the due date of October 7, 2015;
- Maintenance Foreman did not complete “Personal Protective Equipment Training for Oil and Gas Personnel” by the due date of October 7, 2015;
- Operations Manager did not complete “Fire Safety Training” by the due date of February 29, 2016;
- Lease Operator did not complete “Fire Safety Training” by the due date of February 29, 2016;
- Lease Operator did not complete “Hazard Communication Training for the Oil and Gas Industry” by the due date of February 29, 2016;
- Senior Maintenance Mechanic did not complete “Fire Safety Training” by the due date of February 29, 2016;
- Plant Operator did not complete “Fire Safety Training” by the due date of February 29, 2016; and
- Foreman did not complete “Fire Safety Training” by the due date of March 31, 2016.
By not providing the refresher training by the due dates referenced above, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (b). 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1) provides that inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment. External inspections, including corrosion under insulation (CUI) inspections, had not been performed on the process piping at the Facility according to Section 6.4 of API 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of in-service Piping Systems.
By not inspecting and testing the process piping, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3) provides that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices. Internal inspections had not been performed at least every 10 years on the fractional distillation tower, the propane pressure vessels, the natural gas liquids (NGL) pressure vessels, the amine unit, and the scrubbers. Inspections on these pressure vessels had not been performed in accordance with Section 6.4 and Section 6.5 of API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration.
By not meeting the inspection frequencies consistent with good engineering practices for inspecting and testing process equipment, as outlined above, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3) provides that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices. Respondent did not document hose inspection and replacement dates for the NGL loadout stations.
By not documenting hose inspection and replacement dates, Respondent was unable to demonstrate that the frequency of inspections was consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices and therefore violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) provides that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process. A management of change (MOC) was not completed before the Facility increased capacity in October of 2015 (Compressor #6 was changed from standby status to full-time status in order to realize the increased capacity).
By not completing a MOC prior to increasing capacity in October of 2015, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d) provides that if a MOC results in a change in the process safety information, such information shall be updated accordingly. Process safety information includes electrical classification documentation. Respondent provided electrical classification documentation which did not accurately reflected the current state of the Facility.
By not updating the electrical classification documentation when changes to the covered processes were previously made at the Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d).
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) provides that the owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed. Respondent completed compliance audits on November 13, 2009, and on October 29, 2013. This exceeds the three-year requirement.
By not evaluating compliance at least every three years with 40 C.F.R part 68, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program which shall include procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance. Inspections had not been performed on the Facility’s Type A suits per RAGAGEP.
By not inspecting the emergency response Type A suits, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(5) provides that the owner or operator of a stationary source shall revise and update the Risk Management Plan (RMP) submitted within six months of a change that requires a revised Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) or hazard review. When the Facility increased capacity in 2015, a PHA was conducted by Respondent. However, the online RMP at the time of the EPA inspection was not updated and contained incorrect information including owner/operator, parent company, points of contact, and potentially offsite consequence analysis information.
By not updating the RMP within six months of the 2015 capacity increase at the Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(6)(5).
CIVIL PENALTY
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of one hundred and eighty-eight thousand, and ninety-one dollars ($188,091) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO