Respondent owns and operates a refinery which produces, processes, handles, or stores, over the threshold amount, hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, butane, iso-butane, pentane, pentene, and iso-pentane. All are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 as regulated substances based on their flammability. At the Facility, the Respondent also produces, processes, handles, or stores, over the threshold amount, hydrofluoric acid, which is listed at 40 C.F .R. § 68.130 as a regulated substance based on its toxicity. Based on the quantity of regulated substances present at the facility, the facility’s NAICS code, and an evaluation of off-site receptors, the covered processes at Respondent’s facility are subject to Program 3 of the RMP regulations. On March 25-28, 2013, EPA conducted an on-site CAA 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 inspection at the Facility.
Respondent submitted a Risk Management Plan on March 14, 2006. The Facility’s next plan was submitted on October 29, 2012. This later plan was in effect at the time of the inspection. Based on the on-site inspection, EPA identified five areas of concern, including:
- an inaccurate five-year accident history,
- operating procedures that were not annually certified,
- a required RMP audit that was more than three years apart,
- risk management plan that was submitted more than five years apart, and
- the offsite consequence analyses were reviewed and updated more than five years apart.
VIOLATIONS:
The following violations were identified as a result of the inspection and post-inspection submittals by Respondent:
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.168 requires owners or operators to update the RMP to reflect an accurate accident history. Respondent’s accident history did not accurately reflect accidents, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.42, at the time of the inspection.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) requires owners or operators to review and update as necessary operating procedures for covered process units. Respondent failed to ensure that this process occurred on procedures for operating units subject to RMP regulation.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(l) mandates that owners or operators shall update their RMPs at least once every five years. Respondent did not revise and update its RMP within five years and failed to ensure it complied with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.175 – 68.195.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a) identifies that the owner or operator shall review and update the off-site consequence analyses at least once every five years. Respondent failed to update the off-site consequence analysis within five years of the prior consequence analysis.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) requires owners or operators to undertake an audit once every three years to evaluate compliance with RMP requirements. Respondent failed to perform an audit within three years of the prior audit, failed to verify that procedures and practices developed under Part 68 are adequate and being followed.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) additionally requires the owner or operator to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit. Respondent failed to determine and document an appropriate response to audit deficiencies. The audit deficiencies constitute violations of Part 68. Respondent also failed to promptly address process hazard analysis findings and recommendations, per 40 C.P.R. § 68.67(e).
CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including 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, p ayment 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, including the Respondent’s agreement to perform the Supplemental Environmental Projects set forth below and the Respondent’s agreement to undertake certain injunctive projects as described in an associated Administrative Compliance Order, the Parties have agreed that a penalty in the amount of one hundred and eighty-seven thousand and five
hundred dollars ($187,500) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter. However, the Respondent has agreed to undertake a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) to mitigate $140,625 of the penalty. The Region has determined that Respondent should perform a SEP valued at $168,750 to mitigate the $140,625 in penalty. Thus, Respondent shall perform a SEP, spending no less than $168,750 to implement the SEP described below. Additionally, the Respondent shall pay $46,875 to the United States Treasury as the required minimum penalty payment as required by U.S. EPA’s March 10; 2015, SEP Policy.
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT (SEP)
Respondent shall undertake the following SEP to enhance the fire-fighting capacity of local and Facility first responders. In the event of a major incident at the Facility, Respondent will provide the primary response to on-site needs; however, two local fire departments will support Respondent on-site and have primacy off-site. Both fire departments were strongly supportive of this project as it will increase their ability to adequately train first responders in multi-story structure fires and emergency response activities. This ability to train first responders on a multi-story prop- was deemed very beneficial to area first responders who would otherwise not have the capacity to undertake such training.
Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent shall supply to U.S. EPA a plan and schedule for upgrading the fire training facility located at Respondent’s Facility. These upgrades shall include, but not be limited to, the construction of a multi-story prop structure to be used in fire training exercises. Respondent shall spend no less than $168,750 to enhance and upgrade the fire training facilities at their Facility. Respondent shall complete the upgrades within 365 days of the effective date of this CAFO. Respondent shall make this training area available to the fire departments for no less than two training events every month. The cost of fuel and other associated expenses for the two days a month that the training area is available to local fire departments shall be subsumed by Respondent during the five-year term of this requirement. Although Respondent is required only to make the training events available to the two departments listed, Respondent will seek input on the training event schedule from both fire departments prior to applying for its TCEQ-issued outdoor burning authorizations. Respondent may make additional training events available to the fire departments in accordance with its TCEQ-issued outdoor burning authorizations; however; Respondent is only required to make this training area available for two training events each month. Respondent shall make the above-described training events available to the fire departments for five (5) years. Respondent will make its best effort to accommodate any future requests by the fire department(s) for access to the training grounds.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO