Respondent has a P-Tank Farm Vinyl Acetate Monomer {VAM), D-Tank Farm Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI), and the Isopentane and Isopentane/n-Pentane blend Intermodal Transfer processes at the Facility, meeting the definition of “process,” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
Isopentane, pentane, acrylonitrile, toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), and vinyl acetate monomer are each a “regulated substance” of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(B), and the regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for both isopentane and pentane, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 10,000 pounds. The threshold for acrylonitrile, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 20,000 pounds. The threshold for toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), as list ed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 10,000 pounds. The threshold for vinyl acetate monomer, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 15,000 pounds.
Respondent has at times maintained greater than a threshold quantity of isopentane, pentane, acrylonitrile, toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), and vinyl acetate monomer in a process at the Facility, meeting the definition of “covered process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of isopentane, pentane, toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), and vinyl acetate monomer in a process, Respondent was required to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(i), the covered process at the Facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1, is subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for Process Safety Management pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1910.119, and is in North American Industry Classification System code 49311.
Respondent’s storage of acrylonitrile on-site greater than a threshold quantity triggered Program 2 prevention requirements for the respective process.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1- Process Hazard Analysis
Respondent failed to have a written schedule of when actions are to be completed.
In addition, at the time of the Inspection, there were several open recommendations from the Site-Wide Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) from September 2020 and the Acrylonitrile Handling PHA from December 2020 that were not promptly addressed.
Respondent’s failure to have a written schedule of when actions are to be completed and promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations and assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner pursuant to 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 2 – Compliance Audits
Respondent failed to document that deficiencies have been corrected promptly. In addition, there was one repeat finding from Respondent’s 2016 compliance audit in Respondent’s 2019 compliance audit.
Respondent’s failure to document that deficiencies have been corrected promptly 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 – Hot Work Permit
Respondent failed to document that a fire watch was assigned for hot work. Some of the permits that were reviewed did not indicate that a fire watch was present via signature. In addition, some of the hot work permits indicated that a fire watch was required; however, a fire watch was not assigned. The Respondent believes that each of the 18 permits selected for additional review by EPA were either 1) non-flame work that did not require a dedicated fire watch or 2) planned hot work that was canceled, rescheduled, or otherwise did not occur on the day permit was written.
Respondent’s failure to document that a fire watch was assigned pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), 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 Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Eight Dollars ($10,608) and shall perform a SEP as set forth herein. The projected cost of the SEP is Forty-One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars ($41,377).
Respondent shall complete an emergency response and preparedness SEP, consisting of donation of emergency response equipment to the XXXXXXX Fire Department. The SEP is more specifically described in Attachment A and incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent shall spend no less than $41,377 on implementing the SEP.
The donation will include the following:
- One Zoll X Series Advanced Monitor/Defibrillator at an expected cost of $37,841.36.
- One Zoll AED Pro Semi-Auto/Manual Defibrillator at an expected cost of $3,536.00. The Zoll X Series Advanced Monitor/Defibrillator is an advanced device that provides visual and audio prompts for CPR, real-time ventilation feedback, and trending information on critical recovery parameters. The AED Pro is a highly portable AED designed to support field-administration of defibrillation and provide real-time CPR feedback.
This donation will help improve CFD’s emergency response capabilities and reduce the overall risk to public health associated with industrial incidents.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO