The Washington Department of Ecology has ordered the Shell Puget Sound Refinery near Anacortes to take immediate action to demonstrate the company is fully prepared to respond to an oil spill at its facility.

Ecology issued the administrative order Aug. 11 after a July 1 inspection found the March Point refinery was not following the equipment readiness program detailed in its oil spill preparedness plan required by state law, it lacked maintenance records for its response equipment and it was unable to verify the location and condition of some of the equipment listed in its plan.

“We’re going to continue to work with the Department of Ecology on this issue and determine the best next steps to continue to work with them in the future,” said Shell spokesman Brian Sibley. “We’re really committed to continuing to operate in a safe and responsible manner.”

Ecology has been inspecting all oil handling facilities in Washington, including five refineries in the Northwest, said Ecology spokesman Curt Hart. Other facilities have had some problems but Ecology has not yet determined if any administrative orders will be issued other than to Shell, he said.

The violations stem from a 2006 state rule that requires oil handling facilities to have updated oil spill contingency plans in place. The rule was enacted after a maritime barge spilled 4,700 gallons of heavy fuel oil at a ChevronTexaco terminal at Point Wells in Snohomish County in December 2003.

Equipment problems and mechanical failures slowed the initial spill response efforts and affected the cleanup, Hart said. As a result, the Legislature wanted contingency plans updated.

Oil spill preparedness or contingency plans help ensure refineries, pipelines, vessel shipping companies and large oil-handling facilities operating in Washington can mount an effective and timely response if they spill oil, Ecology said.

Ecology had given conditional approval to Shell’s contingency plan with requirements for revisions in December, Hart said. Shell consistently missed the deadlines for those revisions.

In a broader effort, Ecology readiness inspectors have been inspecting all big oil handling facilities, Hart said.

What they found at Shell was no spill response equipment maintenance logs for the past five years, workers could not verify the location of equipment and what equipment the refinery had did not match the list submitted to Ecology in its contingency plan.

“We’re not picking on Shell,” Hart said. “They need to be in compliance with state laws and state rules.”

In February 2007, Ecology issued Shell a notice of violation and required the company to inspect its transfer lines after four small leaks occurred due to corrosion of the lines in July and September 2006, and January 2007.

However, on one occasion in September 2007 as the pipes were being inspected, the bolts on a pipe flange were not tightened securely and approximately three gallons of crude oil mixed with other petroleum products spilled off the dock and into Fidalgo Bay. Ecology issued the refinery another notice of violation for that incident.

In August 2007, Shell received notices of violation from the Northwest Clean Air Agency because of a series of small vapor leaks in the API separator or oil/water separator discovered during a routine plant inspection in September 2006.

In October 2007, the refinery had a fire in a diesel storage tank and another fire in a heater box in December.

This summer, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries cited Shell for 23 safety and health violations. The company has since appealed the violations.

“We’ve certainly had a handful of incidents over the last couple of years but they’ve all been minor and we haven’t any injuries to speak of,” Sibley said.

The last injury at the plant occurred with the tank fire, Sibley said. An employee cut his finger but the injury only required a Band-Aid.

“In terms of our ongoing performance, something that we are committed to every day, we’re doing everything we can to make sure that we’re a safe and responsible member of the community,” Sibley said.

The most recent violations do not mean Shell wouldn’t be ready to respond to an oil spill, Hart said.

Any time there is an oil transfer over water, the company is required to have oil containment booms in place and an agreement with contractors to respond to a spill, which Shell does have, Hart said. But the company also has to be compliant with the contingency rules.

Under the administrative order, Shell must submit the overdue plan revisions immediately, schedule a facilitated spill readiness drill by Aug. 20, update its oil spill contingency plan to accurately reflect its response equipment by Aug. 22, develop and put into place a preventative maintenance plan for equipment by Nov. 7 and conduct training for all personnel regarding the location, maintenance and use of response equipment and document all preventative maintenance actions by Jan. 30.

“Shell Puget Sound Refinery takes great pride in its oil spill response plan, team and equipment,” said refinery General Manager Sue Krienen in an Ecology press release. “We are committed to safety and environmental compliance and policies that help us operate as a good neighbor in Skagit County. Our community is extremely important to us, and we operate our business in a manner that reflects those values.”

Ecology can revoke its conditional approval of Shell’s oil spill contingency plan if the company fails to comply with conditions set by the department.

“We don’t want to get there. Shell doesn’t want to get there,” Hart said.

Shell has the option of appealing the order within 30 days of when it was issued. An appeal would probably extend the compliance deadlines, Hart said. But in the end, Shell would still have to comply by the rules.

“(Otherwise) they would have to suspend operations, which is why our order is not unreasonable to comply with state law,” Hart said.