Respondent has a synthetic rubber manufacturing process at the facility that processes two petrochemicals, butadiene and styrene, and the temperature of the reaction is controlled by anhydrous ammonia. Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of 1, 3-Butadiene and Ammonia (anhydrous) in a process at the Facility, meeting the “covered process” definition defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – Training
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c), the owner or operator shall ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (a) and (b). The owner or operator shall prepare a record that contains the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
Respondent failed to provide training documentation in some cases that verifies that the employees/contractors that completed their respective trainings understood the training being provided.
Respondent’s failure to provide training documentation that verifies that the employees understood the training pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) , is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Compliance Audit
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68 .79( d), the owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Respondent failed to promptly document an appropriate response and identify those deficiencies were corrected for some of the findings of the compliance audit. Specifically, Respondent’s 2017 compliance audit recommendations associated with process hazard analysis , operating procedures and training were found again in the 2020 compliance audit, demonstrating that these deficiencies were not corrected.
Respondent failed to document those deficiencies have been promptly corrected for each finding of their compliance audit. Respondent’s failure to promptly document an appropriate response and identify those deficiencies were corrected pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68. 12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Emergency Response Program
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2), the owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. Such program shall include procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance.
In some cases, Respondent failed to develop and/or centralize formal procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance. Specifically, Respondent’s emergency management plan, emergency action plan, emergency response training for plant personnel, and the emergency response site safety and health plan did not formally capture as procedures all of Respondent’s practices related to the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance.
Respondent’s failure to develop, implement, and/or centralize formal procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2) , as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d) (4), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of one hundred thousand, four hundred and thirty-nine dollars ($100,439.00)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO