Respondent operated a facility (the “Facility”) that refines petroleum products using a hydrofluoric acid alkylation process. On June 2-3, 2022, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility to evaluate compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) Section 103, EPCRA Sections 304-312, and CAA Section 112(r). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA and EPCRA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count 1 – Failure to Comply with Offsite Consequence Analysis Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent failed to use an appropriate release quantity and release rate in modeling its worst-case toxic gas release scenario.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to use appropriate modeling parameters in modeling its worst-case release of a toxic gas, Respondent violated the offsite consequence analysis requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.25.
Count 2 – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent failed to maintain accurate P&IDs for process equipment depicted in two P&IDs.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to maintain accurate P&IDs, Respondent violated the process safety information requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.65.
Count 3 – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements – Consequences of Failure Analysis
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent did not adequately address the consequences of a loss of power to the entire unit on safety and mitigation systems and failed to analyze the safety and health effects from such power loss in its process hazard analysis.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately address the consequences of a complete power loss in its process hazard analysis, Respondent violated the process hazard analysis requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c).
Count 4 – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements – Prompt Resolution of Recommendations
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent failed to promptly address and resolve a recommendation from its 2009 Reduced Volatility Alkylation Process PHA revalidation, related to failure of the water drainage system to adequately handle acidic wastewater during an HF release.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to promptly address this recommendation from the 2009 PHA revalidation, Respondent violated the process hazard analysis requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Count 5 – Failure to Comply with Operating Procedures Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent failed to directly include information related to operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems in the operating procedures and “Job Aids” reviewed
by EPA inspectors.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to include required information in the Facility’s written operating procedures, Respondent violated the operating procedures requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
Count 6 – Failure to Comply with Incident Investigation Report Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent failed to include the dates on which incident investigations began in nineteen incident investigation reports between 2018 and 2021.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to include the dates on which incident investigations began in these reports Respondent violated the incident investigation report requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d).
Count 7 – Failure to Immediately Notify the SERC/LEPC of a Release of a RQ of Sulfur Dioxide
On June 11, 2018, Respondent’s Facility released a RQ of sulfur dioxide. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the sulfur dioxide release at 1:01am, but Respondent failed to notify the California Office of Emergency Services (“CalOES”) until 3:27am on June 11, 2018.
By failing to immediately notify CalOES as soon as it had knowledge of the release of a reportable quantity of sulfur dioxide on June 11, 2018, Respondent violated Section 304 of EPCRA.
Count 8 – Failure to Immediately Notify the SERC/LEPC of a Release of a RQ of Sulfur Dioxide
On June 1, 2020, Respondent released a RQ of sulfur dioxide from the Facility. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the sulfur dioxide release at 11:19pm, but Respondent failed to notify the California Office of Emergency Services (“CalOES”) until 12:17am on June 2, 2020
By failing to immediately notify CalOES as soon as it had knowledge of the release of a reportable quantity of sulfur dioxide on June 1, 2020, Respondent violated Section 304 of EPCRA.
Count 9 – Failure to Immediately Notify the SERC/LEPC of a Release of a RQ of Sulfur Dioxide
On May 28, 2021, Respondent released a RQ of sulfur dioxide from the Facility. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the sulfur dioxide release at 3:05pm on May 28, 2021, but Respondent failed to notify CalOES until 10:59am on June 10, 2021.
By failing to immediately notify CalOES as soon as it had knowledge of the release of a reportable quantity of sulfur dioxide on May 28, 2021, Respondent violated Section 304 of EPCRA.
CIVIL PENALTY
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($270,437) (“Assessed Penalty”) within ninety (90) calendar days of the Effective Date of this CA/FO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO