Diamond-Koch, East - Executive Summary

| Accident History | Chemicals | Emergency Response | Registration | Source | Executive Summary |

1.0 Scope: 
This manual provides an overview of the Mont Belvieu Facility Risk Management Program {RMP}.  This management system is utilized to provide the necessary organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining compliance with the EPA's RMP rules.  This RMP will be utilized to: 
a) implement, maintain and improve our Process Safety Management System; 
b) assure itself of its compliance with the stated rules of the EPA's RMP; 
c) demonstrate such compliance to all affected employees and the surrounding community; 
d) make self-determinations and declarations of compliance with the RMP rules utilizing the existing internal audit system within the Process Safety Management System. 
All requirements of this rule are intended to be incorporated into this RMP.  The extent of application is dependent on such factors as the required hazard assessments, the worst-case release sc 
enarios, alternative case scenarios, and the 5-year Accident History as they relate to the Mont Belvieu Facility operations. 
1.1    Risk Management Plan Executive Summary 
The RMP rule requires an executive summary within the RMPlan.  This executive summary will address the following requirements: 
X Accidental release and response policies 
X Description of the stationary source and regulated substances 
X Offsite consequences analysis results 
X General accidental release prevention program and chemical-specific prevention steps 
X Five-year accident history 
X Emergency response program information 
X Planned changes to improve safety 
The level of detail within this summary will reflect site-specific needs as they pertain to the different operating areas of the Mont Belvieu Facility.  The following is a summation of how Diamond-Koch will meet the aforementioned requirements of the RMP Rule. 
1.2 Accidental Release Prevention and Response Policies 
The Diamond-Koch Mont Belvieu Facility has a lo 
ng-standing commitment to the worker and public safety.  This commitment is demonstrated by the resources invested in accident prevention, such as training personnel and considering safety in the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of our processes.  Our policy is to implement reasonable controls to prevent foreseeable releases of regulated substances.  However, if a release does occur, our trained Emergency Response Team personnel will respond to control and contain the release. 
1.3    Description of the Stationary Source and Regulated Substances 
At the Mont Belvieu Facilities {located 32 miles northeast of Houston, Texas}, Diamond-Koch stores and distributes natural gas liquids.  In addition, the company now owns and operates three Polymer Grade Propylene Splitter Units {Propylene Units} and the Bay Area Pipeline that distributes the finished product to downstream customers.  In addition to the Propylene Units, Diamond-Koch is also comprised of the East and West Storage Ope 
rations totaling thirty-one underground hydrocarbon storage wells.  These wells are used in conjunction with incoming and outgoing piping systems to supply storage and distribution of natural gas liquids for area petrochemical customers. 
Currently there are no toxic substances that are used, manufactured, or stored at this facility that meet the RMP threshold quantities of 10,000 lbs. 
The Mont Belvieu Facilities have several regulated flammables, such as ethane, propane, normal butane, iso-butane, refinery grade propylene and polymer grade propylene.  The Mont Belvieu Facility was evaluated to determine if any regulated flammable or toxic substances exceeded the threshold quantity.  Based on process knowledge, Diamond-Koch identified the regulated substances and quantities maintained on site.  The chemicals, maximum inventories on site, and their threshold quantities are presented in Table 1 below. 
TABLE 1 
Largest Quantity of Regulated Substances 
Regulated Substances or Mixtures Contai 
ning Regulated Substances:    Largest Quantity On Site 
(lbs.) (1)    Threshold Quantity 
(lbs.) 
Propane    1,935,780,000    10,000 
Refinery Grade Propylene    1,494,696,000    10,000 
Polymer Grade Propylene    83,848,800    10,000 
Normal Butane    408,240,000    10,000 
Isobutane    393,120,000    10,000 
Ethane    1,251,600,000    10,000 
E/P Mix    Ethane/Propane Mixture    1,483,020,000    10,000 
Ethylene    250,320,000    10,000 
Diesel    50,000 (2) (3)    10,000 
Natural Gasoline    10,000,000 (2) (3)    10,000 
 
(1) Quantity refers to the largest quantity in a single process 
(2) Represents quantity of total mixture 
(3) Exempt based on NFPA rating. 
Listed flammable substances which are stored above quantities at the Mont Belvieu Facility are propane, natural gasoline, normal butane, isobutane, ethane, refinery grade propylene, polymer grade propylene and ethylene.  However, Diamond-Koch has determined that natural gasoline has a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) flammability hazard rating of 3 which exempts this mixture from the threshold deter 
mination.  Based on worst-case analyses of the regulated substances, the distances to endpoints (i.e., an overpressure of 1 psi) exceed the distances to public receptors (i.e., off-site residences, institutions, industrial, commercial and office buildings, parks, or recreational areas, inhabited or occupied by the public).  In addition, the Diamond-Koch Facility is subject to Occupational Safety & Health Administration Process Safety Management (OSHA-PSM).  Therefore, the Diamond-Koch Mont Belvieu Facility is classified as a Program Level 3 process under the Accidental Release Prevention (ARP) Program. 
1.4    Hazard Assessment Results 
Toxic Substances:    N/A 
As stated above, no toxic substances were identified as meeting the criteria or threshold limits of the RMP Rule.  Hence there was no need to conduct a worst-case scenario (WCS) with respect to toxic substances. 
Flammable Substances: 
Worst-Case Release Scenarios: 
The endpoint for the worst-case release of flammable substances is 1 psi o 
verpressure (i.e., 14.7 psia), resulting from a vapor cloud explosion.  The ARP Program requirement for flammables assumes an instantaneous release and vapor cloud explosion.  A yield factor of 10 percent of the available energy released in the explosion shall be used to determine the distance to the explosion endpoint.  Since the worst-case scenario for a flammable substance is based on the assumption that the entire quantity of the substance forms a vapor cloud, passive mitigation systems were not applied. 
The distances to the endpoints of 1 psi overpressure for the worst-case releases of ethane and refinery grade propylene, using the EPA equations are presented in Table 2.  Ethane is the worst-case flammable release which will have an off-site impact.  Figure 1 reflects the distance to the endpoint for Ethane on a USGS Map. 
 
TABLE 2 
Distances to Endpoints for Worst-Case Scenarios 
Chemical 
Name:    Permitted 
Storage Capacity 
(gallons)    Ten Minute Release 
Weight 
(lbs.)    Pounds Per Sq. Inch 
:    Relative Density:    Heat of Combustion 
(Kilojoules/kg)    1 psi Overpressure Off-Site Impact 
Ethane Well 3 East Facility    420,000,000    3,000,516    1068    0.356    47,509    YES 
Ethane Well 5 West Facility    84,000,000    1,754,547    1420    0.356    47,509    YES 
Ethane Well 8 West Facility    100,800,000    3,993,439    1420    0.356    47,509    YES 
Refinery Grade Propylene    420,000    1,815,638    N/A    0.517    45,762    YES 
 
Propylene Units: 
The WCS associated with a release of flammable substances at the Propylene Units is a vapor cloud explosion (VCE) involving the full operating inventory of the largest storage tank containing refinery grade propylene.  The tank was overfilled causing a catastrophic failure of the vessel.  Although administrative controls are in place to limit the tank inventory, the tank inventory of 1,815,638 pounds is assumed to be released, completely vaporized, and ignited, resulting in a VCE.  This WCS will have off-site impacts to the 1-PSI endpoint.  Although there are numerous controls to prevent such releases and  
to manage their consequences, no credit for passive mitigation measures was not taken into account in evaluating this WCS. 
Storage Facilities: 
East Storage Facility: 
The WCS associated with a release of flammable substances at the East Storage Facilities is a vapor cloud explosion (VCE) involving a ten minute release of ethane.  Although the well is permitted for 462,000,000 gallons, a more credible worst case scenario has been used.  The well head was sheared and the case diameter calculation was based on a ten-minute release.  This volume was released, completely vaporized, and ignited, resulting in a VCE.  This WCS will have off-site impacts to the 1-PSI endpoint.  Although there are controls to prevent such releases and to manage their consequences, no credit for passive mitigation measures was taken into account in evaluating this WCS.  Refer to Table 2, Page #3 for Calculations. 
West Storage Facility: 
Note: 
Due to the configuration of the well heads at the West Facility {i.e., va 
rious well head casing diameters}, two different Worst Case Scenarios have been calculated and presented as follows. 
The WCS associated with a release of flammable substances at the West Storage Facilities is a vapor cloud explosion (VCE) involving a ten minute release of ethane.  The West Facility Well #8 is the most significant worst case scenario based on the size of the well casing {20"}.  Well #5 has the largest regulated capacity but has a smaller casing {13"}.  The well head was sheared and the case diameter calculation was based on a ten-minute release.  This volume was released, completely vaporized, and ignited, resulting in a VCE.  This WCS will have off-site impacts to the 1-PSI endpoint.  Although there are controls to prevent such releases and to manage their consequences, no credit for passive mitigation measures was taken into account in evaluating this WCS.  Refer to Table 2, Page #3 for Calculations. 
Alternative Release Scenarios: 
Alternative release scenarios are tho 
se that are more likely to occur than the worst-case release scenario.  Alternative release scenarios for toxic substances should be those that lead to concentrations above the toxic endpoint beyond the facility's fence line.  Alternative release scenarios for flammable substances should have the potential to cause substantial damage, including on-site damage.  The following conditions are considered for alternative release scenarios: 
X Release rate dependent upon scenario; 
X use of typical meteorological conditions at the stationary source; 
X actual release height; and 
X consideration of active and passive mitigation systems.  {Refer to Section 1.6} 
Flammable Substances: 
Propylene Units: 
A single alternative release scenario for all flammable substances is required under the APR Program.  A hypothetical, but likely to occur, release scenario has been identified for the Propylene Units.  This release addresses Refinery Grade Propylene {RGP} and the details are as follows.  A 6" line f 
ailure on the incoming feed line on the charge tank to the units causes a release from a 6" opening at 300 PSIG at 80 degrees F.  The release is assumed to continue for ten minutes and may ignite in a vapor cloud explosion with an endpoint of 1 psi overpressure or a vapor cloud fire with an endpoint of the lower flammability limit (LFL) for RGP. 
The distance to the 1-PSI overpressure endpoint for the alternative-case release of RGP using the EPA equations is presented in Table 3.  The alternative-case release of RGP resulted in a 0.380-mile distance to the 1 psi overpressure endpoint.  Figure 1 reflects the impact area for the 1psi overpressure endpoint. 
East Storage Facility: 
A single alternative release scenario for all flammable substances is required under the APR Program.  A hypothetical, but likely to occur, release scenario has been identified for the East Storage Facility.  This release scenario addresses Ethane and the details are as follows.  A 6" line failure down stream of  
the well ESD causing a vapor release from a 6" opening at 950 PSIG at 100 degrees F.  The release is assumed to continue for ten minutes and may ignite in a vapor cloud explosion with an endpoint of 1 psi overpressure or a vapor cloud fire with an endpoint of the lower flammability limit (LFL) for Ethane. 
The distance to the 1-PSI overpressure endpoint for the alternative-case release of the Ethane using the EPA equations is presented in Table 3.  The alternative-case release of RGP resulted in a 0.534-mile distance to the 1 psi overpressure endpoint.  Figure 1 reflects the impact area for the 1psi overpressure endpoint. 
West Storage Facility: 
A single alternative release scenario for all flammable substances is required under the APR Program.  A hypothetical, but likely to occur, release scenario has been identified for the West Storage Facility.  This release scenario addresses Ethane and the details are as follows.  A 6" line failure down stream of the well ESD causing a vapor relea 
se from a 6" opening at 1150 PSIG at 100 degrees F.  The release is assumed to continue for ten minutes and may ignite in a vapor cloud explosion with an endpoint of 1 psi overpressure or a vapor cloud fire with an endpoint of the lower flammability limit (LFL) for Ethane. 
The distance to the 1-PSI overpressure endpoint for the alternative-case release of the Ethane using the EPA equations is presented in Table 3.  The alternative-case release of RGP resulted in a 0.569-mile distance to the 1 psi overpressure endpoint.  Figure 1 reflects the impact area for the 1psi overpressure endpoint. 
TABLE 3 
Distances to Endpoint for Alternative-Case Scenario 
Chemical Name:    Ten Minute Release 
Weight: (lbs.)    Pounds Per Sq. Inch:    Relative Density:    Heat of Combustion: (Kilojoules/kg)    Distance to 1 psi Overpressure: (miles) 
Refinery Grade Propylene    103,207    300    0.517    45,762    0.380 
Ethane Well #3 East Facility    280,132    950    0.356    47,509    0.534 
Ethane 6" Piping West Fac.    339,108    1150    0.356    47,509    0.569 
 
 
1. 
5    Five-Year Accident History 
The Diamond-Koch Mont Belvieu Facility has an excellent record of accident prevention over the past 5-years; the frequency of accidental releases have decreased.  None of the incidents involving a release have had no adverse impacts to the plant or have had any off-site effects.  The Mont Belvieu Facility conducts comprehensive investigation on every incident to determine ways to prevent similar incidents from re-occurring.  The following table reflects a summary of the number of incidents that have occurred during the past five-years. 
 
   Number of RMP Releases: 
Location:    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999 to Date: 
Propylene Units    0    0    0    0    0 
East Facility    0    0    0    0    0 
West Facility    0    0    1    0    0 
 
 
 
 
1.6    General Accidental Release Prevention Program Steps 
The following is a summary of the general accident prevention program in place at the Diamond-Koch Mont Belvieu Facility.  Because processes at the Propylene Units and Storage Facilities are regulated by the EPA RMP regulati 
ons are also subject to the OSHA PSM standard, this summary addresses each of the OSHA PSM elements and provides a brief description of the management system in place to implement the accident prevention program. 
Employee Participation: 
All employees at the Mont Belvieu Facility are encouraged to participate in all facets of process safety management and accident prevention.  Examples of employee participation range from updating and compiling technical documents and chemical information to participating as a member of a process hazard analysis (PHA) team.  Employees have access to all information created as part of the facility Emergency Response Plan {ERP}.  Specific ways that employees can be involved in the ERP are documented within the respective ERP and PSM Manuals and addresses each task/step necessary in the event of an incident.  In addition, the Mont Belvieu Facility Safety and PSM Programs have a number of procedures and policies which ensures process safety and employee saf 
ety.  These programs typically involve all affected personnel from the newest employee up to the highest management level.  For more detailed information regarding Employee Participation, please refer to the Mont Belvieu Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Process Safety Information: 
The Mont Belvieu Facility maintains a variety of technical documents that are used to aid in maintaining safe operation of the processes.  These documents address chemical properties and associated hazards, limits for key process parameters and specific chemical inventories, and equipment design basis/configuration information.  Specific departments within the Mont Belvieu Facility are assigned responsibility for maintaining up-to-date process safety information.  All procedures governing the operating and maintenance activities are made available through PRiSM, an electronic training and document control database.  Some drawings and P&IDs have been populated into PRiSM, however, all drawings and P& 
IDs are accessible through the Engineering Department. 
Chemical-specific information, including exposure hazards and emergency response/exposure treatment considerations, is provided in material safety data sheets {MSDS}.  This information is supplemented by documents that specifically address known corrosion concerns and any known hazards associated with the in advertent mixing of chemicals.  For specific process areas, the Mont Belvieu Facility has documented safety-related limits for specific process parameters {i.e., temperature, level, pressure) which are noted throughout the respective Operating Procedure Manuals.  These procedures ensure that the processes are maintained within these limits using process controls and monitoring instruments, highly trained personnel, and protective instrument systems {i.e., automated shutdown systems}. 
The Mont Belvieu Facility also maintains numerous technical documents that provide information about the design and construction of process equipm 
ent.  This information includes materials of construction, design pressure and temperature ratings, electrical rating of equipment, etc.  This information, in combination with written procedures and trained personnel, provides a basis for establishing inspection and maintenance activities, as well as for evaluating proposed process and facility changes to ensure that safety features in the process are not compromised.  For more detailed information regarding Process Safety Information, please refer to the Mont Belvieu Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Process Hazard Analysis: 
The Diamond-Koch Mont Belvieu Facility has established and maintains a comprehensive program to help ensure that hazards associated with the various processes are identified and controlled.  Within this program, each process is systematically examined to identify hazards and ensure that adequate controls are in place to manage these hazards. 
The Mont Belvieu Facility utilizes the hazard and operability ( 
HazOp) analysis technique to perform these evaluations.  HazOp analysis is recognized as one of the most systematic and thorough hazard evaluation techniques.  The analyses are conducted using a team of employees who have operating and maintenance experience as well as engineering expertise.  This team identifies and evaluates hazards of the process as well as accident prevention and mitigation measures, and makes suggestions/recommendations for additional prevention and/or mitigation measures when the team believes such measures are necessary. 
The PHA team findings are communicated to local and corporate management for resolution.  Implementation of mitigation options in response to PHA findings is based on relative risk ranking assigned by the PHA team.  This ranking helps to ensure that potential accident scenarios assigned the highest risk receive immediate attention.  All approved mitigation options being implemented in response to PHA team findings are tracked until they are brou 
ght to full and official closure.  The final resolution of each finding is documented and retained within the Process Safety Management system data files. 
To ensure that the process controls and/or process hazards do not eventually deviate significantly from the original design safety features, the Mont Belvieu Facility will periodically update and revalidate the hazard analysis results.  These periodic reviews will be conducted at least every 5-years and will be conducted at this frequency until the process is no longer operational.  The results and findings from these updates are documented and retained.  Once again and in accordance with the revalidation procedures located in the facilities PSM Manual, the team findings are forwarded to management for consideration and the final resolution of the findings are documented, tracked and retained. 
For more in-depth detailed information regarding the conduct of Process Hazard Analysis, please refer to the Mont Belvieu Facility Process Saf 
ety Management Manual. 
Operating Procedures: 
The Mont Belvieu Facility maintains written procedures that address various modes of process operations, such as (1) Propylene Unit Startup, (2) normal operations, (3) temporary operations, (4) emergency shutdown, and (5) normal shutdown.  These procedures are used as a reference by experienced operators and provide a basis for consistent training of new operators.  These procedures are periodically reviewed and annually certified as current and accurate.  The procedures are maintained current and accurate by revising them as deemed necessary to reflect changes made through the Management of Change process. 
In addition, all operating procedures that are utilized at the Mont Belvieu Facility contain key process parameter information that provides guidance on how to respond to upper and lower limit exceedances for specific process or equipment parameters.  Operating procedures are made readily available to operators in the Propylene Units and  
Storage Facilities and for other personnel to use as necessary to safely perform their job tasks. 
Note: 
To go beyond the OSHA requirement for Operating Procedures, the Mont Belvieu Facility requires that all support functions {i.e., Maintenance, Measurement, Instrument & Electrical, Laboratory} maintain procedures in the same manner as the Operations personnel.  This includes the annual review and revalidation process. 
For more detailed information on how Operating Procedures are established, controlled and annually revalidated, please refer to the Mont Belvieu Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Training: 
To compliment the written procedures for process operations, the Diamond-Koch Facility has implemented a comprehensive training program for all employees involved in operating the Propylene Units and Storage Facilities.  New employees receive basic training in the respective areas of operations if they are not already familiar with such operations.  After successfully complet 
ing this training, a new operator is paired with a certified Operator to learn process-specific duties and tasks.  After operators demonstrate (i.e., through certification testing, skills demonstration} having adequate knowledge to perform the duties and tasks in a safe manner on their own, they can work independently.  In addition, all operators receive monthly refresher training on the operating procedures to ensure that their skills and knowledge are maintained at an acceptable level.  This procedure based training is administered utilizing the PRiSM Training and Information system.  Again, this training far exceeds the OSHA PSM requirement for refresher training to be conduced at least every three years.  All of this training is documented for each operator, including the means used to verify that the operator understood the training. 
For more detailed information regarding Training, please refer to the Mont Belvieu Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Contractors: 
The Diamon 
d-Koch Facility uses Contractors to supplement its workforce during periods of increased maintenance or construction activities.  Because some Contractors work on or near process equipment, the Facility has procedures in place to ensure that contractors (1) perform their work in a safe manner, (2) have the appropriate knowledge and skills, (3) are aware of the hazards in their workplace, (4) understand what they should do in the event of an emergency, (5) understand and follow site safety rules, and (6) inform facility personnel of any hazards that they find during their work.  This is accomplished by providing contractors with (1) an overview of the respective processes, (2) information pertaining to the safety and health hazards, (3) emergency response plan requirements, and (4) safe work practices prior to their beginning work.  In addition, the Facility evaluates contractor safety programs and performance during the selection of a contractor.  The Safety and PSM Departments periodi 
cally monitor contractor performance to ensure that contractors are fulfilling their safety obligations. 
For more detailed information regarding Contractors, please refer to the Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Pre-startup Safety Reviews (PSSRs) 
As part of the Diamond-Koch Facility Management of Change Procedures, a PSSR is conducted for any new facility or facility modification that requires a change in the process safety information.  The purpose of the PSSR is to ensure that safety features, procedures, personnel, and the equipment are appropriately prepared for startup prior to placing the equipment into service.  This review provides one additional check to insure that construction is in accordance with the design specifications and that all-supporting systems are operationally sound and ready.  The PSSR review team utilizes a checklist to verify all aspects of readiness.  A PSSR involves field verification of the construction and serves as a quality assurance function  
by requiring verification that accident prevention program requirements are properly implemented.  Again, to go above and beyond the OSHA PSM requirements, the Facility has developed a Pre-Commissioning Safety Checklist that is used by the operations personnel to perform their own final safety evaluation of the project prior to commissioning the equipment. 
For more detailed information regarding Management of Change and PSSRs, please refer to the respective sections of the Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Mechanical Integrity: 
As part of the PSM Mechanical Integrity/Quality Assurance Program, the Diamond-Koch Facility has well-established practices and procedures to maintain pressure vessels, piping systems, relief and vent systems, controls, pumps and compressors, and emergency shutdown systems in a safe operation condition.  The basic aspects of this program include: (1) conducting training, (2) developing written procedures, (3) performing inspections and tests, (4) correc 
ting identified deficiencies, and (5) applying quality assurance measures.  In combination, these activities form a system that maintains the mechanical integrity of the process equipment. 
Maintenance personnel receive training on (1) an overview of the process, (2) safety and health hazards, (3) applicable maintenance procedures, (4) emergency response plans, and (5) applicable safe work practices to help ensure that they can perform their job in a safe manner.  Written procedures also help to ensure that work is performed in a consistent manner and provide a basis for training.  Inspections and tests are performed to help ensure that equipment functions as intended, and to verify that equipment is within acceptable limits (i.e., adequate wall thickness for pressure vessels).  If a deficiency is identified, employees take immediate action to correct the deficiency before placing the equipment into service (if possible), or a team of individuals {Safety, Engineering, Operations, Inspec 
tion and Management personnel} will review the use of the equipment and determine what actions are necessary to ensure safe operation of the equipment. 
Another integral part of the Mechanical Integrity Program is quality assurance.  The Facility incorporates quality assurance measures into equipment purchases and repairs.  This helps ensure that new equipment is suitable for its intended use and that proper materials and spare parts are used when repairs are made. 
For more detailed information regarding the Diamond-Koch PSM Mechanical Integrity Program, please refer to the Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Safe Work Practices: 
The Diamond-Koch Facility has a long-standing safe work practices in place to help ensure worker and process safety.  Examples of these include (1) control of the entry/presence/exit of support personnel, (2) a lockout/tagout procedure to ensure isolation of energy sources for equipment undergoing maintenance, (3) a procedure for safe removal of hazardo 
us materials before process piping or equipment is opened, (4) a permit and procedure to control spark producing activities (i.e., hot work), and (5) a permit and procedure to ensure that adequate precautions are in place before entry in to a confined space.  These procedures (and others), along with a monthly Safety Training program involving a affected personnel, form a system to help ensure that operations and maintenance activities are performed safely. 
For more detailed information regarding the Diamond-Koch Safe Work Practices, please refer to the Facility Safety Manual and the Process Safety Management Manual. 
Management of Change: 
The Diamond-Koch Facility has a comprehensive system to manage changes to processes.  This system requires that changes {minor or major} to items such as process equipment, chemicals, technology (including process operating conditions), procedures, and other facility changes be properly reviewed, authorized and communicated prior to implementation.  C 
hanges are reviewed to (1) ensure that adequate controls are in place to manage any new hazards and (2) verify that existing controls have not been compromised by the change.  Affected chemical hazard information, process operating limits, and equipment information, as well as procedures, are updated to incorporate these changes.  In addition, operating, maintenance and contract personnel are provided any necessary training on the change prior to implementation as well. 
For more detailed information regarding the Diamond-Koch PSM Management of Change Program, please refer to the Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Incident Investigation: 
The Diamond-Koch Facility promptly investigates all incidents that resulted in, or reasonably could have resulted in, a fire/explosion, major property damage, environmental loss, or personal injury.  The goal of each investigation is to determine the facts and develop corrective actions to prevent a recurrence of the incident or a similar incide 
nt.  The investigation team documents its findings, develops recommendations to prevent a recurrence, and forwards these results to management for resolution.  The PSM and Safety Departments track corrective actions taken in response to the investigation team's findings or recommendations to closure.  The final resolution of each finding or recommendation is documented, and the investigation results are reviewed all employees (including contractors) who could be affected by the findings.  Incident investigation reports are retained for the life of the process so that reports can be reviewed during future PHAs and PHA revalidations.  These reports are made available to all Facility employees utilizing the PRiSM electronic information transfer system. 
For more detailed information regarding the Diamond-Koch PSM Incident Investigation Procedures, please refer to the Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Compliance Audits: 
To help ensure that the Diamond-Koch Facility accident preven 
tion (PSM) program is functioning properly, periodic audits are conducted to determine whether the procedures and practices required by the accident prevention program are being implemented according to plan.  Compliance audits are conducted at least every 3-years as required by the OSHA PSM Standard.  Corporate Health and Safety Management personnel in conjunction with selected consultants conduct the audits and both hourly and management personnel participate.  The audit team documents findings that are forwarded to facility management for resolution.  Corrective actions taken in response to the audit's findings are tracked to closure by the PSM and Safety Departments.  The final resolution of each finding is documented, and the two most recent audit reports are retained in the PSM files.  The corrective action tracking and closure documentation is accessible by all personnel via the PRiSM electronic information transfer system. 
For more detailed information regarding the Diamond-Koc 
h PSM Compliance Audit Program, please refer to the Facility Process Safety Management Manual. 
Chemical Specific Prevention Steps: 
The processes at the Diamond-Koch Facility have hazards that must be managed to ensure continued safe operation.  The accident prevention (PSM) program summarized previously is applied to all Program Level # 3 EPA RMP-covered processes at the Facility.  Collectively, these prevention program activities help prevent potential accident scenarios that could be caused by (1) equipment failures and (2) human errors. 
In addition to the accident prevention program activities, the Facility has safety features on the Propylene Units and throughout the Storage Facilities to help (1) contain/control a release, (2) quickly detect a release, and (3) reduce the consequences of (mitigate) a release.  The following types of safety features are used in various areas/processes: 
Release Detection: 
1. Hydrocarbon detectors with alarms connected to the respective control rooms. 
 
Release Containment/Control: 
1. Process relief valves that discharge to a flare to capture and incinerate episodic releases. 
2. Valves to permit isolation of the process (manual and/or automated) 
3. Automated emergency shutdown systems for specific process parameters (i.e., high level, high temperature, high pressure etc.) 
4. Vessel to permit partial removal of the process inventory in the event of a release (i.e., knockout drum) 
5. Curbing or diking to contain liquid releases 
6. Redundant equipment and instrumentation (i.e., un-interruptible power supply for process control system, backup firewater pump) 
7. Atmospheric relief devices 
Release Mitigation: 
1. Fire suppression and extinguishing systems 
2. Deluge system for specific equipment 
3. Trained emergency response and rescue personnel 
4. Personal protective equipment (i.e., protective clothing, self-contained breathing apparatus) 
Emergency Response Program Information: 
The Diamond-Koch Facility maintains a written Emergency Respo 
nse Program, which is in place to protect worker and public safety as well as the environment.  To assist in protecting the environment the Facility has also implemented an ISO-14001 Environmental Management System which dovetails with the Emergency Response Program to ensure public safety.  The Emergency Response program consists of procedures for responding to a release of a regulated substance, including the possibility of a fire or explosion if a flammable substance is accidentally released.  The procedures address all aspects of emergency response, including proper first-aid and medical treatment for exposures, evacuation plans and accounting for personnel after an evacuation, notification of local emergency response agencies and the public if a release occurs, and post-incident cleanup and (if necessary) decontamination requirements.  In addition, the Facility has procedures that address maintenance, inspection, and testing of emergency response equipment, as well as instructions 
that address the use of emergency response equipment.  Employees receive {HAZWOPER} training in these procedures as necessary to perform their specific emergency response duties.  The Emergency Response Program is updated when necessary based on modifications made to the Facility.  The Emergency Response Program changes are administered through the monthly Safety Training which is utilized to inform and train all affected personnel in the changes. 
The overall emergency response program for the Facility is coordinated with the Mutual Aid Group and the Local Emergency Response Planning Committee (LEPC).  This coordination includes periodic meetings of these committees, which includes local emergency response officials, local government officials, and industry representatives.  The Facility has 24-hour communications capability with the appropriate MAMB and LEPC officials and emergency response organizations (i.e., fire department).  This provides a means of notifying the public of an in 
cident, if necessary, as well as facilitating quick response to an incident.  In addition to periodic MAMB and LEPC meetings, the Facility conducts annual emergency response drills that involve the MAMB Group and LEPC organizations.  The Facility also provides annual refresher training to local emergency responders regarding the hazards of regulated substances in the Facilities. 
Planned Changes to Improve Safety: 
The Diamond-Koch Facility resolves all findings from PHAs, MOCs and Incident Investigations, some of which result in modifications to the various processes.  The following types of changes are planned: 
X Additional hydrocarbon release detection systems in the Propylene Units 
X Upgrade of the flare systems 
X Upgrade of the piping systems at the Storage Facilities 
X Constant review and revisions to the operating procedures and training programs leading to constant improvement process. 
Risk Management Plan Data Elements Checklist 
1.0    Registration 
1.1    Source Identification 
a.    Nam 
e:    Diamond-Koch L. P. 
b.    Street:    819 Main Street 
c.    City:    Mont Belvieu 
d.    County:    Chambers 
e.    State:    Texas 
f.    County:    Chambers 
g.    Latitude:    29051'00" 
h.    Longitude:    94053'30" 
1.2    Source Dun and Bradstreet Number:     
1.3    Parent Company Information 
a.    Name of Parent Company:    Diamond-Koch L. L. C. 
b.    Dun and Bradstreet Number:     
1.4    Owner/Operator 
a.    Name:    Stephen H. Mims 
b.    Phone:    (316) 828-6576 
c.    Mail Address:    P.O. Box 569 Mont Belvieu, Texas 77580 
1.5    Name of Title of Person Responsible for Part 68 Implementation 
a.    Name:    Terrel D. Williams  {Director of Operations} 
1.6    Emergency Contact 
a.    Name:    Gary Arredondo 
b.    Title:    Safety/Environmental Supervisor 
c.    Phone:    (281) 576-3240 
d.    24-Hour Phone:    Pager #(281) 963-0662 
1.7    For Each Covered Process: 
East Storage Facility 
a.    1. Chemical Name    b.    2. CAS Number:    c.    3. Quantity:    d.    4. SIC Code:    e.    5. Program Level: 
Propane    74-98-6    1,935,780,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Ethane    74-84-0    1,251,600,000 lbs.    4226    3 
E/P Mix    74-98-6    1,483,020,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Refinery 
Grade Propylene    115-07-1/74-98-6    1,494,696,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Polymer Grade Propylene        83,848,800 lbs.    4226    3 
Diesel        13,587,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Natural Gasoline        2,352,000,000 lbs.    4226    3 

 
West Storage Facility 
a.    1. Chemical Name    b.    2. CAS Number:    c.    3. Quantity:    d.    4. SIC Code:    e.    5. Program Level: 
Propane    74-98-6    1,055,880,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Normal Butane    106-97-8    408,240,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Iso-Butane    75-28-5    393,120,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Ethane    74-84-0    750,960,000 lbs.    4226    3 
E/P Mix    74-98-6/74-84-0    808,920,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Ethylene        500,640,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Y-Grade    Mixture    408,240,000 lbs.    4226    3 
Chemical Grade Propylene        364,560,000 lbs.    4226    3 

 
Propylene Units 
a.    1. Chemical Name    b.    2. CAS Number:    c.    3. Quantity:    d.    4. SIC Code:    e.    5. Program Level: 
Propane    74-98-6    1,470,141 lbs.    2869    3 
Ethane    74-84-0    383,866 lbs.    2869    3 
Refinery Grade Propylene    115-07-1/74-98-6    1,608,130 lbs.    2869    3 
Polymer Grade Propylene        4,027,962 lbs.    2869    3 

 
 
 
1.8    EPA Identifier:    Reserved 
1.9    Number of Full-Time Emplo 
yees:    100 
1.10    Covered By: 
a.    OSHA PSM    1.    V____ Yes    2.    ______ No 
b.    EPCRA Section 302    1.    V____ Yes    2.    ______ No 
c.    CAA Title V Operating Permit    1.    V____ Yes    2.    ______ No 
1.11    Last Safety Inspection: 
Date:    a.    June, 1998 
b. _____ OSHA 
c. _____ State OSHA 
d. _____ EPA 
e. _____ State EPA 
f. _____ Fire Department 
g. __V__Other (UDS Corporate Safety Audit & PSM Audit) 
(Insurance Inspection and Property and Boiler Inspections} 
h. Not Applicable 
2.    TOXICS:    WORST CASE (complete at least one)    NOT APPLICABLE 
2.1 Chemical Name: 
2.2 Physical state: 
a. _____ Gas    b. _____ Liquid 
2.3 Results based on 
a. _____ Reference table    b. _____ Modeling 
c. Model used: __________________________ 
2.4 Scenario 
a. _____ Explosion    c. _____ Toxic gas release 
b. _____ Fire    d. _____ Liquid spill and vaporization 
2.5 Quantity released ________ lbs. 
2.6 Release rate ____________ lb./min. 
2.7 Release duration (if modeled) _____ min. 
2.8 Wind speed ________ m/sec 
2.9 Stability class ______ 
2.10    Topography (check one)    a. __ 
___ Urban    b. _____ Rural 
2.11    Distance to endpoint ______ miles 
2.12 Residential population within distance (number) _________ 
2.13 Public receptors (check all that apply) 
a. _____ Schools    d. _____ Prisons 
b. _____ Residences    e. _____ Public recreational areas or arenas 
c. _____ Hospitals    f. _____ Major commercial, office, or industrial areas 
2.14 Environmental receptors within distance (check all that apply) 
a. _____ National or state parks, forests, or monuments 
b. _____ Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges 
c. _____ Federal wilderness areas 
2.15 Passive mitigation considered (check all that apply) 
a. _____ Dikes    d. _____ Drains 
b. _____ Enclosures    e. _____ Sumps 
c. _____ Berms    f. _____ Other (specify) 
3.    TOXICS:    ALTERNATE RELEASES (complete at least one)    NOT APPLICABLE 
3.1    Chemical: 
3.2    Physical state: 
a. _____ Gas    b. _____ Liquid 
3.3 Results based on 
a. _____ Reference table    b. _____ Modeling 
c. Model used: __________________________ 
3.4    Scenario 
a. ___ 
__ Explosion    c. _____ Toxic gas release 
b. _____ Fire    d. _____ Liquid spill and vaporization 
3.5    Quantity released ________ lbs. 
3.6    Release rate ____________ lb./min. 
3.7    Release duration (if modeled) _____ min. 
3.8    Wind speed ________ m/sec 
3.9    Stability class ______ 
3.10    Topography (check one)    a. _____ Urban    b. _____ Rural 
3.11 Distance to endpoint ______ miles 
3.12    Residential population within distance (number) _________ 
3.13    Public receptors (check all that apply) 
a. _____ Schools    d. _____ Prisons 
b. _____ Residences    e. _____ Public recreational areas or arenas 
c. _____ Hospitals    f. _____ Major commercial, office, or industrial areas 
3.14    Environmental receptors within distance (check all that apply) 
a.    _____ National or state parks, forests, or monuments 
b.    _____ Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges 
c.    _____ Federal wilderness areas 
3.15    Passive mitigation considered (check all that apply) 
a. _____ Dikes    d. _____ Drains 
b. _____ Enclosures    e. _____ S 
umps 
c. _____ Berms    f. _____ Other (specify) 
3.    TOXICS:    ALTERNATE RELEASES (complete at least one)    {Cont'd.}  NOT APPLICABLE 
3.16    Active mitigation considered (check all that apply) 
a. _____ Sprinkler systems    e. _____ Excess flow valve 
b. _____ Deluge systems    f. _____ Flares 
c. _____ Water curtain    g. _____ Scrubbers 
d. _____ Neutralization    h. _____ Emergency shutdown systems 
i. _____ Other (specify) 
4.    FLAMMABLES WORST CASE:    (complete at least one) 
4.1    Chemical:    Ethane 
4.2 Results Based On (check one) 
a. __V__ Reference Table    b. ____ Modeling    c. ____ Model Used _____________ 
4.3 Scenario (check one) 
a. __V__ Vapor Cloud Explosion    b. _____ Fireball 
4.4 Quantity Released    3,993,439 lbs. 
4.5 Endpoint Used    1 psi over pressure 
4.6 Distance to Endpoint    1.294 miles 
4.7 Residential Population Within Distance (number)    2500 
4.8 Public Receptors (check all that apply) 
a.    _____ Schools 
b.    _____ Residences 
c.    _____ Hospitals 
d. _____ Prisons 
e. _____ Public Recreational Areas or Arenas 
f. __V__ Maj 
or Commercial, Office, or Industrial Areas 
4.9 Environmental Receptors Within Distance (check all that apply) 
a.    N/A National or state parks, forests, or monuments 
b.    N/A Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges 
c.    N/A Federal wilderness areas 
4.10 Passive Mitigation Considered (check all that apply) 
a.    N/A Dikes 
b.    N/A Fire Walls 
c. N/A Blast Walls 
d. N/A Enclosures 
e. N/A Other (specify) 
5.    FLAMMABLES ALTERNATE RELEASES:    (complete at least one) 
5.1    Chemical:    Ethane 
5.2    Results Based On (check one) 
a. __V__ Reference Table    b. ____ Modeling    c. ____ Model Used _____________ 
5.3    Scenario (check one) 
a. __V__ Vapor Cloud Explosion    b. _____ Fireball 
5.4    Quantity Released    339,108 lbs. 
5.5    Endpoint Used    1 psi over pressure 
5.6    Distance to Endpoint    0.569 miles 
5.7    Residential Population Within Distance (number)    2500 
5.8    Public Receptors (check all that apply) 
a.    _____ Schools 
b.    _____ Residences 
c.    _____ Hospitals 
d.    _____ Prisons 
e.    _____ Public Recreational Areas o 
r Arenas 
f.    __V__ Major Commercial, Office, or Industrial Areas 
5.9    Environmental Receptors Within Distance (check all that apply) 
a.    N/A National or state parks, forests, or monuments 
b.    N/A Officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, or refuges 
c.    N/A Federal wilderness areas 
5.10    Passive Mitigation Considered (check all that apply) 
a.    N/A Dikes 
b.    N/A Fire Walls 
f. N/A Blast Walls 
g. N/A Enclosures 
h. N/A Other (specify) 
5.11 Alternate Mitigation Considered (check all that apply) 
a. __V__Sprinkler Systems 
b. __V__Deluge Systems 
c. N/A Water Curtain 
d. N/A Excess Flow Valve 
6.    FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY (complete the following for each release) 
6.1 Date July 6, 1997 
6.2 Time 5:10 P.M. 
6.3 Release Duration 10 Minutes 
6.4 Chemical(s) Ethane 
6.5 Quantity released (lb) 11,248 lbs. 
6.6 Release event 
a.    __V__ Gas Release 
b.    _____ Liquid spill/vaporization 
c.    __V__ Fire 
d.    _____ Explosion 
6.7 Release Source 
a. _____ Storage Vessel    e. _____ Transfer hose 
b. _____ Piping    f. __V__  
Valve 
c. _____ Process Vessel    g. _____ Pump 
6.8 Weather conditions at time of event (if known) 
a.    3-5 MPH/S Wind Speed/direction 
b.    _96 degrees F Temperature 
c. __A-B__ Stability class 
d. __NO__ Precipitation present 
e.    _________ Unknown 
6.9 On-site impacts 
a.    NONE Death(s) {number} 
b.    NONE Injuries {number} 
c.    $250,000 Property damage ($) 
6.10 Known offsite impacts 
a.    __0__ Deaths {number} 
b.    __0__  Hospitalizations {number} 
c.    __0__ Other Medical Treatment {number} 
d.    __0__ Evacuated {number} 
e. __0__ Sheltered {number} 
f. __0__ Property damage ($) 
g. __0__ Environmental damage {specify type} 
6.    FIVE-YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY (complete the following for each release) {cont'd.} 
6.11 Initiating event 
a.    _____ Equipment Failure 
b.    __V__ Human error 
c.    _____ Weather condition 
6.12    Contributing factors (check all that apply) 
a.    __V__ Equipment failure 
b.    _____ Human error 
c.    _____ Improper procedures 
d.    _____ Overpressurization 
h. _____ Upset condition 
i. _____ Bypass condition 
j. _____ Main 
tenance activity/Inactivity 
k. _____ Process design 
l. _____ Unsuitable equipment 
m. _____ Unusual weather condition 
n. _____ Management error 
6.13    Offsite responders notified 
a.    __V__ Yes 
b.    _____ No 
6.14 Changes introduced as a result of the accident 
a.    __V__ Improved/upgrade equipment 
b.    __V__ Revised maintenance 
c. _____ Revised training 
d. _____ Revised operating procedures 
e. _____ New process controls 
f. _____ New mitigation systems 
g. _____ Revised emergency response plan 
h. _____ Changed process 
i. _____ Reduced inventory 
j. __V__ Other 
k. _____ None 
 
7.    PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 (for each Program 3 process) 
7.1 SIC Code for process 2869 
7.2 Name of substance(s) covered 
a.    Propane    d.    Ethane 
b.    Normal Butane    d.    Refinery Grade Propylene 
c.    ISO-Butane    f.    Polymer Grade Propylene 
7.3 Date on which the safety information was last reviewed or revised 
a.    West Storage Facility    May 12, 1999 {reviewed} 
b.    East Storage Facility    May 12, 1999 {reviewed} 
c.    Splitter Unit #1    January 16, 1997  CLO 
SED 
d.    Splitter Unit #2    August 8, 1996  CLOSED 
e.    Splitter Unit #3    September 14, 1998  CLOSED 
7.4 PHA 
a. _5/12/99_ The date of completion of the most recent PHA or update 
b. The technique used 
1. ____ What-if 
2. ____ Checklist 
3. ____ What-if/Checklist 
4. __V__ HazOp 
5. ____ Failure Mode and Effects Analysis 
6. ____ Fault Tree Analysis 
7. ____ Other 
c. _2nd Quarter 1999_ The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the PHA 
d. Major hazards identified (check all that apply) 
1.    _____ Toxic Release    9.    __V__ Contamination 
2.    __V__ Fire    10.    __V__ Equipment failure 
3.    __V__ Explosion    11.    __V__ Loss of cooling, heating, electricity, instrument air 
4.    _____ Runaway reaction    12.    _____ Earthquake 
5.    _____ Polymerization    13.    __V__ Floods (flood plain) 
6.    __V__ Over-pressurization    14.    __V__ Tornado 
7.    __V__ Corrosion    15.    __V__ Hurricanes 
8.    __V__ Overfilling    16.    _____ Other 
7.    PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 (for each Program 3 process) {Cont'd.} 
e. Process Controls in use (check all that a 
pply) 
1.    __V__ Vents    11.    _____ Emergency Air Supply 
2.    __V__ Relief Valves    12.    __V__ Emergency Power 
3.    __V__ Check Valves    13.    __V__ Backup Pump 
4.    __V__ Scrubbers    14.    __V__ Grounding Equipment 
5.    __V__ Flares    15.    _____ Inhibitor Addition 
6.    __V__ Manual Shutoffs    16.    __V__ Rupture Disk 
7.    __V__ Automatic Shutoffs    17.    __V__ Excess Flow Device 
8.    __V__ Interlocks    18.    __V__ Quench System 
9.    __V__ Alarms and Procedures    19.    __V__ Purge System 
10.    _____ Keyed Bypass    20.    _____ Other 
f. Mitigation systems in use (check all that apply) 
1.    __V__ Sprinkler System    5.    __V__ Deluge System 
2.    _____ Dikes    6.    _____ Water Curtain 
3.    _____ Fire Walls    7.    _____ Enclosure 
4.    _____ Blast Walls    8.    _____ Neutralization 
g. Monitoring/detection systems in use (check all that applies) 
1. __V__ Process Area Detectors 
2. __V__ Perimeter Monitors 
3. _____ Other 
h. Changes since last PHA Update (check all that apply) 
1. _____ Reduction in chemical inventory 
2. _____ Increase in chemical inventory 
3. _____ Change in p 
rocess parameters 
4. __V__ Installation of process controls 
5. __V__ Installation of process detection systems 
6. _____ Installation of perimeter monitoring systems 
7. __V__ Installation of mitigation systems 
8. _____ Other 
9. _____ None required/recommended 
7.    PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 (for each Program 3 process) {Cont'd.} 
7.5 The date of the Most Recent Review of Revision of Operating Procedures:  December 1998 
7.6 Training 
a. The date of the most recent review of revision of training programs:  February 12, 1999 
b. The type of training provided: 
1. _____ Classroom 
2. __V__ Classroom plus on-the-job 
3. _____ On-the-job 
4. __V__ Other 
c. The type of competency testing used: 
1.    __V__ Written tests 
2.    __V__ Oral tests 
3.    __V__ Observations 
4.    _____ Other 
7.7 Maintenance 
a. Dec. 1998 & ongoing The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures 
b. Ongoing    The date of the most recent equipment inspection or test 
c. Ongoing    The equipment inspected or tested 
7.8 Management 
of Change {MOC} 
a. May 13, 1999  The date of the most recent change that triggered MOC procedures 
b. February 12, 1999  The date of the most recent review or revision of the MOC procedures 
7.9 Pre-Start Up Safety Review 
a. January 12, 1999  The date of the Most Recent Pre-Startup Review 
7.10 Compliance Audits 
a. June, 1998  The date of the most recent compliance audit 
b. On-going process expected closure by 4th Quarter 1999:  The date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit 
7.11 Incident Investigation 
a. April 23, 1999  The date of the most recent incident investigation 
b. May 10, 1999  The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the 
investigation 
7.12 The date of the most recent review or revision of employee participation plans:  February 12, 1999 
7.13 The date of the most recent review or revision of the hot work permit procedures:  April, 1998 
7.14 The date of the most recent review or revision of the contractor safety procedures: Februa 
ry 12, 1999 
7.15 The date of the most recent evaluation of contractor safety performance:  On-going process 
 
8.    PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 (for each Program 2 process)    NOT APPLICABLE 
8.1    SIC Code for Process:    ________________ 
8.2 Chemicals 
a. ________________________________ 
b. ________________________________ 
8.3 Safety Information 
a. The date of the most recent review or revision of the safety information 
b. A list of federal or state regulations or industry-specific design codes and standards used to demonstrate compliance with the safety information requirement. 
1. _____ NFPA 58 (or state law based on NFPA58) 
2. _____ OHSA 1910.111 
3. _____ ASTM 
4. _____ ANSI standards 
5. _____ ASME standards 
6. _____ Other (specify) 
7. _____ None 
8.4 Hazard review 
a. The date of completion of the most recent hazard review and update 
b. The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard review. 
c.    Major hazards identified (check all that apply) 
1.    _____ Toxic Release    9.    _____ Conta 
mination 
2.    _____ Fire    10.    _____ Equipment failure 
3.    _____ Explosion    11.    _____ Loss of cooling, heating, electricity, instrument air 
4.    _____ Runaway reaction    12.    _____ Earthquake 
5.    _____ Polymerization    13.    _____ Floods (flood plain) 
6.    _____ Over-pressurization    14.    _____ Tornado 
7.    _____ Corrosion    15.    _____ Hurricanes 
8.    _____ Overfilling    16.    _____ Other 
8.    PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 (for each Program 2 process) {Cont'd.} 
d.    Process Controls in use (check all that apply) 
1.    _____ Vents    11.    _____ Emergency Air Supply 
2.    _____ Relief Valves    12.    _____ Emergency Power 
3.    _____ Check Valves    13.    _____ Backup Pump 
4.    _____ Scrubbers    14.    _____ Grounding Equipment 
5.    _____ Flares    15.    _____ Inhibitor Addition 
6.    _____ Manual Shutoffs    16.    _____ Rupture Disk 
7.    _____ Automatic Shutoffs    17.    _____ Excess Flow Device 
8.    _____ Interlocks    18.    _____ Quench System 
9.    _____ Alarms and Procedures    19.    _____ Purge System 
10.    _____ Keyed Bypass    20.    _____ Other 
e.    Mitigation systems in use (check all that apply) 
 
1.    _____ Sprinkler System    5.    _____ Deluge System 
2.    _____ Dikes    6.    _____ Water Curtain 
3.    _____ Fire Walls    7.    _____ Enclosure 
4.    _____ Blast Walls    8.    _____ Neutralization 
f.    Monitoring/detection systems in use (check all that applies) 
1.    _____ Process Area Detectors 
2.    _____ Perimeter Monitors 
3.    _____ Other 
g.    Changes since last Hazard Review Update (check all that apply) 
1.    _____ Reduction in chemical inventory 
2.    _____ Increase in chemical inventory 
3.    _____ Change in process parameters 
4.    _____ Installation of process controls 
5.    _____ Installation of process detection systems 
6.    _____ Installation of perimeter monitoring systems 
7.    _____ Installation of mitigation systems 
8.    _____ Other 
9.    _____ None required/recommended 
8.    PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 (for each Program 2 process) {Cont'd.} 
8.5    The date of the Most Recent Review of Revision of Operating Procedures 
8.6    Training 
a.    The date of the most recent review of revision of training programs 
b.    The type of training provided: 
1.    ___ 
__ Classroom 
2.    _____ Classroom plus on-the-job 
3.    _____ On-the-job 
4.    _____ Other 
c.    The type of competency testing used: 
1.    _____ Written tests 
2.    _____ Oral tests 
3.    _____ Observations 
4.    _____ Other 
8.7    Maintenance 
a.    The date of the most recent review or revision of maintenance procedures 
b.    The date of the most recent equipment inspection or test 
c.    The equipment inspected or tested 
8.8    Compliance Audits 
a.    The date of the most recent compliance audit 
b.    The date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit 
8.9    Incident Investigation 
a.    The date of the most recent incident investigation 
b.    The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the investigation 
8.10 The date of the most recent change that triggered a review or revision of safety information, the 
hazard review, operating or maintenance procedures, or training. 
9.    Emergency Response 
9.1    Do you have a written emergency response plan? 
a.    __V__ Yes    b.    _____ No 
9.2 Does the plan include spec 
ific actions to be taken in response to an accidental releases of a regulated substances? 
a.    __V__ Yes    b.    _____ No 
9.3 Does the plan include procedures for informing the public and local agencies responsible for responding to accidental releases? 
a.    __V__ Yes    b.    _____ No 
9.4 Does the plan include information on emergency health care? 
a.    __V__ Yes    b.    _____ No 
9.5 The date of the most recent review or update of the emergency response plan: March, 1998 
9.6 The date of the most recent emergency response training for employees:    On-going 
9.7 The name and telephone number of the local agency with which the plan is coordinated: 
a.    Mont Belvieu Mutual Aid    b.    (281) 576-2417 
9.8 Subject to (check all that apply) 
a. __V__ OSHA 1910.38 (Emergency Action Plan) 
b. __V__ OSHA 1910.120 (HAZWOPER) 
c. __V__ Clean Water Act/SPCC 
d. __V__ RCRA 
e. __V__ OPA-90 
f. __V__ State EPCRA rules/law 
g. _____ Other (specify)
Click to return to beginning