Respondent owns and operates a Refinery and on August 26-28, 2014 EPA Region 6 conducted an unannounced, onsite CAA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) Partial Compliance Evaluation of the Facility. The facility’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) lists covered processes subject to Program 3 requirements with flammable substances that are held above the threshold quantities identified in 40 C.F.R. §68.130 are: flammable mixtures components, which include propylene, 2-butene, isobutane, isopentane, 2-butene-trans, butene, 1-butene, hydrogen, propane, ethylene, ethane, methane, butane, 2-butene-cis, pentane, 1-pentene, 2-pentene. At the time of the inspection, Respondent held hydrofluoric acid (HF), a regulated toxic substance, above the threshold quantity identified in 40 C.F.R. §68.130.
Count 1 – Inconsistent Documentation on Safe Work Permits
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d) and§ 68.85, the owner or operator shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to employees and contractor employees.
The owner or operator shall issue a hot work permit for hot work operations conducted on or near a covered process. The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 C.F.R. § 191 0.252(a) have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations; it shall indicate the date(s) authorized for hot work; and identifY the object on which hot work is to be performed. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the hot work operations.
Respondent was not consistent in documenting a thorough description of the work performed and/or equipment name and number on safe work permits.
Respondent’s failure to consistently document the required information on safe work permits, constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(d) and 68.85.
Count 2 – Late Refresher Training
Pursuant to 40 C.P.R. § 68.71(b), 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.
The owner or operator, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.
Respondent provided an Area 2 operator refresher training after the three-year due date.
Respondent’s failure to provide timely refresher training constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
Count 3 – Mechanical Integrity Inspections
40 C.P.R. § 68.73(d), requires that mechanical integrity inspections and tests be performed on process equipment.
40 C.P.R. § 68.73(d)(4), requires the owner or operator to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test.
It was discovered during the onsite inspection that the Facility failed to conduct numerous mechanical integrity inspections as required. Respondent’s documentation of the ESS and SIS offline tests were not consistent in documenting the name of the person who performed the test or the date of the inspection for each piece of equipment.
Therefore, this is a violation for failing Respondent’s failure to conduct and appropriately document required mechanical integrity inspections constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d) and 68.73(d)(4).
Count 4 – Mechanical Integrity Quality Assurance
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f)(3), in the construction of new plants and equipment, the owner or operator shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application for which they will be used and the owner or operator shall assure that maintenance materials, spare parts, and equipment are suitable for the process application for which they will be used.
On October 25, 2013, a release of crude oil occurred when a stopple failed on a Crude Unit heat exchanger. The root cause of the stopple failure was an undersized nose plate. A subcontractor performing maintenance on behalf of the refinery did not properly size the nose plate and did not verify that fabricated materials were suitable for the application in which it was used.
Respondent’s failure to assure that the nose plate was suitable for the process application constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f)(3).
Count 5 – Emergency Response Training
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a), the owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment.
Respondent had members of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) that were not current on following required training identified in the Emergency Response Plan:
- Fire brigade refresher training,
- Rescue refresher training,
- ERT member NIMS ICS training, and
- ERT leader NIMS ICS training
Therefore, this is a violation for failing to keep current members of the ERT up to date on required training based on Respondent’s Emergency Response Plan, which is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a).
CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s willingness to take 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 One Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Dollars ($182,000) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO