Respondent owns and operates a cellophane manufacturing facility that uses Carbon disulfide in excess of the 20,000 pounds RMP TQ. On or about September 11 and 12,2019, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 20,000 pounds of carbon disulfide in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 20,000 pounds of carbon disulfide in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(i), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Allegations of Violations
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected by a release from the facility.
Respondent’s failure to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected by a release from the facility as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(c) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to assure that the recommendations from the process hazard analysis team’s finding were resolved in a timely manner.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to certify a compliance audit that was performed at the facility in 2018 and had not promptly documented an appropriate response and correction for each of the findings of the compliance audit.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.79(a) and (d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), violates Section 1l2(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4
The EPA inspection revealed that the emergency contact information for the facility had not been updated since May 2017, when the emergency contact for the facility was no longer accurate.
Respondent’s failure to update the emergency contact information in the RMP as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.195(b) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
EPA has considered the appropriateness of the penalty pursuant to Section 113(e)(1) of the CAA and has determined that the appropriate penalty for the violations is $97,984. However, pursuant to the statutory requirement that EPA consider the economic impact of the penalty on Respondent’s business, Respondent has demonstrated that it is unable to pay any penalty in this matter. Because of Respondent’s inability to pay the penalty, therefore, Complainant conditionally agrees to resolve the claims alleged herein.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Zero Dollars ($0.00), based on a substantiated ability to pay claim.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO