NOTE: I usually do not post RMP citations with this small of an amount, but this was a rare Program 1 citation, so I felt there was some learning to this.
Respondent operates a polyurethane manufacturing facility with over 10,000 pounds of methyl formate in a process at the Facility. Methyl formate is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for methyl formate, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, is 10,000 pounds. On June 10, 2021, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of the Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that the Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of methyl formate in a process at the Facility.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of methyl formate in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 1 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(g), the process had not had an accidental release in the five years prior to submission of an RMP that led to either death, injury, or response or
restoration activities; the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release is less than the distance to any public receptor, and emergency response procedures have been coordinated between the stationary source and local emergency planning and response organizations.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically, Respondent failed to complete a registration form pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(a) that includes the information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b), including the Program level of the process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not implement the Program 1 requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(b)(1). Specifically, Respondent did not analyze the worst-case release scenario for the process, as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.25; document that the nearest public receptor is beyond the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint defined in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.22(a); and submit in the RMP the worst-case release scenario as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.165.
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 1 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(b) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $7,398, as set forth below and complete the following SEP:
Respondent has selected the Pattonville, Missouri Fire Protection District to be the recipient of emergency response equipment. Respondent shall purchase three (3) RKI GX-6000 gas detectors, including a two-year service agreement for each device; five (5) sections of 5-inch diameter fire response hose; and four (4) RESQTech NT2 hybrid air lifting bags and shall donate this equipment to the Pattonville, Missouri Fire Protection District.
Respondent shall spend no less than $35,513 on implementing the SEP. Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within three (3) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO