Respondent operates a an unmanned gas processing plant that has on-site for storage, 154,110 pounds of flammable mixture. The process is a RMProgram level 2 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses a flammable mixture in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. On April 23, 2014, the EPA contractor conducted an on-site inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered process at its stationary source.
At the time of the inspection…
- the Respondent could not provide any documentation demonstrating that the facility had a formal RMProgram management system or documentation identifying the employees’ responsible for implementing the program at this facility.
- the Respondent could not provide facility-specific documentation of equipment specifications.
- the Respondent could not provide documentation listing codes and standards used to design and build the process.
- the Respondent provided a copy of the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama Operator’s Certificate of Compliance for Operations Involving Hydrogen Sulfide which was issued as part of the facility’s change in ownership but did
not have any information to demonstrate that the process was designed in compliance with RAGAGEP. - there was no documentation demonstrating that the facility had procedures to address initial startup, normal operations, temporary operations, emergency shut down and operations, normal shutdown, or startup following a normal or emergency shutdown for the RMProgram process at this facility.
- the Respondent did not provide documentation to certify that each employee operating the process had been trained or tested competent in the operating procedures that pertain to their duties. These operators for the facility are onsite approximately 1 to 1.5 hours per day to check on the system ( as this is an unmanned facility).
- the Respondent could not provide documentation to demonstrate that employees involved in maintaining the on-going mechanical integrity of the process were trained in the hazards of the process.
- the Respondent did not provide information that documented testing or the replacement of pressure relief valves and testing on storage tank thickness to ensure mechanical integrity.
- the Respondent indicated that they had no knowledge about whether the previous owner had coordinated response actions with the local fire department or whether the facility was included in the community emergency response
plan. - the Respondent had no information to demonstrate that they had coordinated a response action at the facility with the local fire department.
- the Respondent had not updated the facility’s RMPlan with the new emergency contact information within 30 days of the date (January 4, 2014) that the Respondent became the new owner of the facility.
Based on EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F .R. Pait 68 when it:
- Failed to document other persons responsible for implementing individual requirements of the risk management program and define the lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.lS(c);
- Failed to compile and maintain up-to-date equipment specifications in the safety information, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(4);
- Failed to compile and maintain up-to-date codes and standards used to design, build, and operate the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(5);
- Failed to ensure the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.48(b);
- Failed to prepare written operating procedures that provide clear instructions or steps for safely conducting activities associated with each covered process consistent with the safety information for that process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(a);
- Failed to certify that each employee presently operating a process is trained in the operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.54(a);
- Failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the ongoing mechanical integrity of the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(b);
- Failed to perform inspections and tests on process equipment that follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.56(d);
- Failed to coordinate response actions with the local fire department, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(b)(2); and
- Failed to submit correct emergency contact information within thirty days of the change in ownership, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
- Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of TWENTY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TIDRTEEN DOLLARS ($29,813) (“EPA Penalty”)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO