Respondent is the owner and operator of an ethanol manufacturing facility handling a mixture of hydrocarbon liquids, butane, isopentane, and pentane. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.115(b)(2)(i), the entire weight of the mixture shall be treated as the regulated substance when the concentration of each of the regulated substances is 1% or greater by weight of the total concentration of the flammable mixture. The threshold quantity for the flammable mixture of hydrocarbon liquids of butane, isopentane, and pentane, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, is 10,000 pounds.
On or about August 13-14, 2024, representatives of the 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, and with the hazardous chemical reporting requirements of EPCRA. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent stores flammable mixtures of hydrocarbon liquids in a tank and piping, including a flammable mixture of butane, isopentane, and pentane, and therefore is engaged in a process at its facility. Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of a flammable mixture containing Butane, Isopentane [Butane, 2-
methyl-], and Pentane in a process at its facility.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1 – Hazard Assessment
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42. Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to calculate the worst-case release quantity based on the greatest amount held in a single vessel, taking into account administrative
controls that limit the maximum quantity, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(b)(1).
(b) Respondent failed to identify and analyze at least one alternative release scenario to represent all flammable substances held in a covered process,
as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.28(a).
4Respondent’s failures to comply with the hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 to 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Program 3 Prevention Requirements
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3). Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to ensure and document that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2). Respondent did not have a hazard label on a denaturant tank containing flammable liquids, which is an industry standard identified by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 704.
(b) Respondent failed to update and revalidate its Process Hazard Analysis at least every five (5) years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f). Respondent’s most recent PHA was over ten (10) months late.
(c) Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process, including the steps for each operating phase, operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems and their functions, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)-(4). Respondent did not include each operating phase, operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems and functions in its written operating procedures.
(d) Respondent failed to certify annually that the operating procedures of the covered process are current and accurate, as required by 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.69(c). Respondent did not certify annually the following:
i. Denaturant truck offloading operating procedures in 2020, 2021, and 2023;
ii. Ethanol tank car loading checklists in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023;
iii. Railcar loading of ethanol operating procedures in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
(e) Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b). Respondent’s Mechanical Integrity Program requires annual inspection of Pressure Safety Valves (PSVs), but PSVs were not included in the most recent Mechanical Integrity inspection dated April 28, 2024.
(f) Respondent failed to perform and certify appropriate compliance audits at least every three years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a). Respondent failed to certify its 2022 compliance audit.
(g) Respondent failed to develop a report of the findings of the audit, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c). Respondent failed to develop a report of the findings of its 2022 compliance audit.
(h) Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d). Respondent failed to determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of its 2022 compliance audit.
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Failure to Submit SDS or List
The EPA inspection revealed the Respondent did not submit an SDS for the hazardous chemicals identified in Paragraph 49, above, for which an SDS is required under OSHA that was present at or above the threshold to the three response entities.
Respondent’s failures to submit an SDS for any hazardous chemicals to the SERC, community emergency coordinator for the LEPC, and fire department with jurisdiction over the facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 370.30(a), are violations of Section 311(a) of EPCRA.
Count 4 – Failure to Submit Tier II Form
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not include the chemicals as identified in Paragraph 53, above, in its 2021, 2022, or 2023 emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms to the three response entities.
Respondent’s failures to submit emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms to the SERC, community emergency coordinator for the LEPC, and fire department with jurisdiction over the facility for each of the chemicals identified in Paragraph 36, above, for calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023 at its Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 370.40(a), are violations of Section 312(a) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022(a).
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of One Hundred, Sixty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Thirty-Three dollars ($169,633).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO