Document ExjRbXoO59yXqMx5DrXEQx1v0

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202 - 2733 SEP 2 3 2014 CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 7014 0150 0000 2453 3948 Mr. Danny Looney, President Lapetco, Inc. 2745 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 455 Plano, Texas 75093 Re: In the Matter ofLapetco, Inc. Docket No. CAA-06-2014- 3322 Dear Mr. Looney: Enclosed is the final, executed Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in the matter referenced above. As provided in the CAFO, Lapetco, Inc. will have thirty (30) days from the effective date ofthe CAFO to pay the civil penalty of$1,000.00. If you have any questions regarding this CAFO, please contact Jeffrey Clay, Assistant Regional Counsel, at (214) 665-7297. Sincerely, . ~~~~Q~ ~John Blevins Director Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division Enclosures FILED In the Matter of: Lapetco, Inc.. Dallas, Texas Respondent . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY REGION6 DALLAS, TEXAS rc-";l"'' -, [\ l. l.J l..), " , L EP;\ ;.;_:. I ::"!'..':..: 1r-., ;:,._,.,, : . ' t "- ; , , l " ,) .J ..... , _ I \ ( \ r:Ec:c:~ 'il EPA Docket No. CAA-06-2014-3322 CONSENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL ORDER The Director ofthe Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), Region 6 ("Complainant") and, Lapetco, Inc., ("Respondent") in the above-referenced proceeding, hereby agree to resolve this matter through the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Final Order ("CAPO"). I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This proceeding for the assessment of civil penalties is brought by EPA pursuant to sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended ("Act" or "CAA"), 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(3) and 7413(d)(l)(B), and is simultaneously commenced and concluded through the issuance of this CAPO pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 22.13(b)(2) and (3), and 22.34. 2. For purposes of this proceeding, Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations contained herein; however, Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained .in this CAPO. Lapefco, Inc. -- - - ~ Docket No. CAA-06-2014-3322 3. Respondent explicitly waives any right to contest the allegations and its right to appeal the proposed Final Order set forth herein, and waives all defenses, which have been raised or could have been raised to the claims set forth in this CAPO. 4. Compliance with all the terms and conditions ofthis CAFO shall only resolve Respondent's liability for federal civil monetary penalties for the violations and facts alleged in this CAPO. 5. Respondent consents to the issuance of this CAPO and to the assessment and payment of the stated civil penalty in the amount and by the method set forth in this CAFO. II. ALLEGATIONS 6. Respondent is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Oklahoma. 7. Respondent owns the Drake #1, an oil well located near Bristow, Oklahoma ("Facility"). 8. The Drake #1 well site included a 100 barrel tank used for oil storage. 9. Early signs of a potential leak had been noted on the 100 barrel tank and Respondent determined the tank should be replaced. 10. Respondent hired Cromwell Dozer and Backhoe, L.L.P. ("Cromwell") to replace the leaking 100 barrel oil storage tank. 11. On September 4, 2013, Cromwell sent two employees to Respondent's facility to remove the leaking tank. 12. An explosion and fire occurred at the facility. 13. A neighbor reported an explosion at the facility and contacted first responders. Page 2 of 13 Lapetco, Inc. Docket No. CAA-06-2014-3322 14. When emergency responders arrived, they found one Cromwell employee dead and the other some distance away from the tank (with the appearance of having been blown backwards away from the tank by the force of the explosion). The tank and two vehicles were burned or still burning. 15. Inspections of the scene of the fire were conducted by the local fire department, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Cromwell employees Sean Clapp and D.W. Magness. 16. OSHA noted the existence of welding components at the facility including welding leads and a partially spent welding rod inside the burned tank. 17. OSHA also noted that one Cromwell employee (who had been blown backwards by the blast) was found wearing welding gloves and near a welding helmet. 18. OSHA also noted the appearance of fresh welds near the lifting eye on the top ofthe burned tank. 19. Mr. Magness inspected ~he scene the afternoon of the accident and stated that there was a reason to believe that welding was occurring on the tank at the time of the accident. 20. No hot work permit had been issued for the work on removing the leaking 100 barrel tank by either Respondent or Cromwell. 21. Neither employee was wearing fire resistant clothing or protective gear. 22. No air monitoring equipment was utilized by either employee to determine if explosive levels of flammable or explosive gas was present in the tank or at the facility at the time of the incident. 23. American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice for Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Operations (API RECOMMENDED Page 3 of 13 Lapetco, Inc. Docket No. CAA-06-2014-3322 PRACTICE 54, THIRD EDITION, AUGUST 1999), recommends the use of air/gas testing whenever flammable or explosive gases may be present during hot work. 24. The two employees were using a pump to transfer oil from the oil tank to a temporary tank. The transfer pump was not rated for hazardous environments. 25. Both welding and the proximal location of an internal combustion engine (i.e. the transfer pump) are possible sources of the accidental explosion of the Drake #1 tank. 26. The 100 barrel oil tank being replaced at Respondent's facility contained an unknown quantity of oil and residual hydrocarbon vapor. 27. Hydrocarbon vapor is an extremely hazardous substance due to its explosive and flammable properties, especially when heated or compressed. 28. The hazards associated with ignition sources around tanks containing flammable or explosive substances are well established as are. the standards for preventing or minimizing explosions and fires in such areas. 29. The Respondent did not have a written policy on the transfer of flammable or combustible liquids from tanks at the time of the incident. 30. The Respondent produced and disseminated a written policy manual to employees on February 1, 2014 that included, among other things, Policy #10 that stated ' ' in part, "Gasoline powered transfer pumps are not to be used for the transfer of flammable or combustible liquids." 31. ,The Respondent failed to safely design and maintain the site by failing to have a written policy manual that clearly communicated safety measures and activities to employees relating to hot work, monitoring for explosive vapors, controlling ignition sources, and wearing appropriate protective clothin~. Page 4 of13 Lapetco, Inc. Docket No. CAA-06-2014-3322 32. Pursuant to section 112(r)(1) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(l), an owner/operator of a stationary source producing, processing, handling or storing substances listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3), or any other extremely hazardous substance, has a general duty to: (1) identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques; (2) design at;~.d maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and (3) minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur. 33. Respondent is a "person" as that term is defined by section 302(e) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7602(e). 34. The Facility is a "stationary source" as that term is defined by section 112(r)(2)(C) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C). 35. Respondent is the "owner or operator" as those terms are defined by section 112(a)(9) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(9), of a stationary source. 36. At the Facility, Respondent produces, processes, handles, or stores substances listed in, or pursuant to, CAA 112(r)(3) or other extremely hazardous substances identified as such due to toxicity, reactivity, flammability, volatility, or corrosivity. 37. The release of flammable hydrocarbon vapors from the tank at the Facility on September 4, 2013, constituted an "accidental release" as that term is defined by section 112(r)(2)(A) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(A). 38. Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility and did not take such necessary steps to minimize the consequences of accidental releases by failing to have a written policy manual that clearly communicated safety measures and activities to Page 5 of 13