Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a Refinery that uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of Flammable Mixture and Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid, which are regulated substances, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68.130. From August 15 to August 18, 2016, authorized representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to assess compliance with section 112(r)(7) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. part 68. During that inspection, the EPA representatives observed alleged violations of 40 C.F.R. part 68. The alleged violations identified by authorized representatives of the EPA during the inspection are described below.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(ii) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of 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 shall 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. Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID’s).
Respondent’s piping and instrument diagrams P&ID G-600-PID-0011 Rev. 0, P&ID G-0700-PID-1010 Rev. 0, and P&ID G-600-PID-0013 Rev. 0 were found to not accurately reflect the equipment in the process at the Facility.
By failing to include accurate piping and instrument diagrams for the equipment in the process in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of 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 shall 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. Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include design codes and standards employed.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include nameplates, national board numbers, or U1 forms for vessels D-614, D-616, D-627, and E-619A at the Facility.
By failing to include nameplates, national board numbers, or U1 forms for the four vessels, Respondent failed to include design codes and standards employed for the equipment in the process at the Facility in the process safety information and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi).
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) provides that the owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions.
Respondent did not document the resolution of recommendations from their 2012 Reformer PHA.
By not assuring that the PHA recommendation resolutions were documented, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3) provides that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address safety and health considerations including
(i) properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process; and
(iii) control measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs.
Respondent’s operating procedure, HF Alky Normal Operations – Unload HF Acid Truck procedure (ALKY-OP-08-05; Revision O; February 18, 2013; “#4 ALKY-OP-08-05 Normal Operations – Unload HF Acid Truck (1)”), did not provide explicit safety and health considerations or control measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs.
By not addressing safety and health considerations, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3).
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 to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process.
Respondent did not provide refresher training for two operators between August 2012 and December 2016.
By not providing refresher training at least every three years, Respondent violated 40 C.F .R. § 68. 71 (b ).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) provides that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
Respondent did not have process piping appropriately classified per Section 5 of the written procedure, EP-15-4-2, In-Plant Inspection of Existing Piping Systems, which calls for the classification of piping systems for the purposes of inspection and monitoring.
By not having process piping appropriately classified at the Facility in accordance with written procedure EP-15-4-2, Respondent did not implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1) provides that inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment.
Respondent failed to inspect process piping at established Condition Measurement Locations where piping was insulated or required a man lift or harness.
Respondent failed to conduct a visual external inspection on process piping circuit 8″-HC-400-600-9170-BAAA1-HC.
Respondent failed to conduct a non-destructive examination on process piping circuit 6″-HC-400-9919-AAAA 1-PP.
Respondent failed to conduct a visual external inspection and an internal inspection on vessel D-460A.
Respondent failed to conduct an internal inspection on vessel D-914. Respondent failed to conduct an internal inspection on vessel D-1001.
Respondent failed to conduct a non-destructive examination and an internal inspection on vessel D-1395.
Respondent failed to conduct a non-destructive examination and an internal inspection on vessel E-616D.
By failing to perform inspections and tests on process equipment at the Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2) provides that inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent did not evaluate, analyze, and record next inspection dates, corrosion rate determinations, remain life calculations, and required thickness determinations for data collected from inspection and testing performed on process piping in accordance with API 570 -Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems.
By not evaluating, analyzing, and recording data collected from inspection and testing performed on process piping at the Facility in accordance with API 570, Respondent did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for inspection and testing of process equipment at the Facility and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2) provides that inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent did not evaluate, analyze, and record next inspection dates, corrosion rate determinations, remain life calculations, and required thickness determinations for data collected from inspection and testing performed on pressure vessels in accordance with API 510 -Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration.
By not evaluating, analyzing, and recording data collected from inspection and testing performed on pressure vessels at the Facility in accordance with API 510, Respondent did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for inspection and testing of process equipment at the Facility and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b)(5) provides that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process. The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to any change:
(5) Authorization requirements for the proposed change.
Respondent authorized Management of Change (MOC) 1016 with no dates documented for the Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR).
By not implementing written procedures to assure that authorization requirements for proposed changes are addressed prior to changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b)(5).
40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d) provides that a report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
Respondent did not prepare a report at the conclusion of the investigation for incidents which occurred at the Reformer on 2/21/2014, the Naphtha Hydrotreater on 2/22/2014, the Crude Unit on 3/25/2014, the Crude Unit on 12/11/2015, and the Alkylation Unit on 2/20/2016.
By not preparing a report at the conclusion of the investigation for incidents at the Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d).
40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(4) provides that the owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. Such program shall include the following elements: (4) Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes. The owner or operator shall review and update the plan as appropriate based on changes at the stationary source or new information obtained from coordination activities, emergency response exercises, incident investigations, or other available information, and ensure that employees are informed of the changes.
Respondent did not review and update the emergency response plan after 2011 to reflect changes of key critical personnel such as Refinery Manager, Fire Chief, and two Captains who were no longer present at the Facility.
By not implementing procedures to review and update the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(4).
40 C.F.R. § 68.175 provides that for each Program 3 process, the owner or operator shall provide the information indicated in paragraphs (b) through (p) of this section. If the same information applies to more than one covered process, the owner or operator may provide the information only once, but shall indicate to which processes the information applies.
Respondent did not provide information for the MSCC (catalytic cracker) unit in their June 13, 2014 Risk Management Plan re-submission. Respondent calculated the MSCC unit inventory totals of Flammable Mixture to be 82,972 lbs which exceeds the 10,000 lbs threshold for a covered process.
By not providing the information indicated in paragraphs (b) through (p) of 40 C.F.R. § 68.175 for the MSCC unit at the Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.175.
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Based on the Alleged Violations of Law, and after consideration of the statutory factors above, EPA has determined a civil penalty of three hundred forty-four thousand, three hundred and sixty-four dollars ($344,364) is appropriate to settle this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO