Respondent owned and operated an oil refinery which operates a variety of processes to produce petroleum products (e.g., propane, butane, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, furnace oil, etc.) from raw crude oil. On August 11-14, 2014, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility focused on compliance with CAA§ 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The regulated substances that are held above the threshold quantities identified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 are: propane, butane, and hydrogen sulfide.
VIOLATIONS
Count 1. Inaccurate Piping and Instrument Diagram Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii), the owner or operator must maintain a compilation of written process safety
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii), the owner or operator must maintain a compilation of written process safety information, which includes accurate piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs). As of the inspection date, the P&ID for the VPS5 Unit was not completely accurate.
Respondent’s failure to maintain a compilation of written process safety information, including accurate P&IDs, constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii).
Count 2. Management of Change
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a), the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process equipment.
Respondent established and implemented written management of change (MOC) procedures in place that require the MOC team to meet and fill out an MOC form.
MOC# M20132748-001 “VPS5 Heater Outlet Valve Removal” had eleven “Yes/No” checkbox questions that were left blank because they were deemed inapplicable. A subsequent personnel interview with the PSM Specialist confirmed that each box, including inapplicable boxes, should have been checked either “Yes” or “No” before it was approved.
Respondent’s failure to fully complete MOC# M20132748-001 before it was approved constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
Count 3. Emergency Response Program
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2), the owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment, including procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance. The refinery was unable to document that it had adequately implemented its procedure for inspection, testing, and maintenance of emergency response equipment, specifically inspection records for fire extinguishers, hoses, and fire trucks.
The refinery was unable to document that it had adequately implemented its procedure for inspection, testing, and maintenance of emergency response equipment, specifically inspection records for fire extinguishers, hoses, and fire trucks.
Respondent’s failure to adequately document the implementation of its procedures for inspection, testing, and maintenance of emergency response equipment constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2).
Count 4. Required Corrections Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), the owner or operator shall submit a correction within one month of any change in the Emergency Contact information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6).
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), the owner or operator shall submit a correction within one month of any change in the Emergency Contact information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6).
On July 31, 2014, an EPA inspector attempted to contact the Emergency Contact listed on the RMP, identified as Manager Health, Safety, and Emergency Response, at the listed phone number. The number had been reassigned to a fax machine. Further investigation revealed that the former Manager Health, Safety, and Emergency Response had transferred from the facility on December 1, 2013.
Respondent failed to update the emergency contact’s telephone phone number within a month of December 1, 2013. Respondent’s failure to update its RMP within a month of a change in emergency contact information constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b). CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s having taken measures to prevent a
CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s having taken measures to prevent a
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s having taken measures to prevent a recurrence of the above-described incident, and upon consideration of the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, specific facts and equities, litigation risks, and other factors as justice may require, the parties agree that Fifty-Six Thousand Dollars ($56,000) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO