Respondent owns and operates a natural gas liquid extraction facility which consists of buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person (the natural gas liquid extraction facility). On March 18, 2009, under Section 112(r) of the Act, and implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA an RMP for the natural gas liquid extraction facility. According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA by Respondent, the natural gas liquid extraction facility: a. fell within NAICS Code 211112 as “natural gas liquid extraction,” and b. maintained flammable mixtures containing more than one percent of regulated substances in quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds. On June 2, 2011, authorized representatives of U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at the natural gas liquid extraction facility to determine its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Under the Risk Management Program Regulations, the facility is a “stationary source” as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. As of August 1, 2006, when Respondent acquired ownership and operational control of the natural gas liquid extraction facility, the natural gas liquid extraction facility held for use in its operations 10,000 lbs. or more of flammable mixtures.
At that time, the natural gas liquid extraction facility exceeded the applicability threshold established by 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, and the natural gas liquid extraction facility and Respondent were subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68. For purposes of compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68, in its RMP, Respondent has acknowledged that it was required to meet Program 2 eligibility requirements at the natural gas liquid extraction facility. Based on the inspection conducted on June 2, 2011, and a review of additional information received by U.S. EPA subsequent to that date, it has identified the following alleged violations by Respondent of the Risk Management Program Regulations: Failure to maintain documentation and records as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.39. Failure to comply with the hazard review requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.50. This includes the failure to conduct an adequate review of the hazards associated with the regulated substances, process, and procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(a), and to ensure that problems identified in the review are resolved in a timely manner, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(c). Failure to ensure that each employee presently operating a process and each employee newly assigned to a covered process have been trained or tested competent in the Operating procedures that pertain to their duties, or failure to timely certify in writing that employees already operating a process on June 23, 1999 have the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and responsibilities as provided in the operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.54(a). Failure to implement procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of the process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a); and to perform or cause to be performed inspections and tests on process equipment, failing to follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, failing to follow the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations, industry standards or codes, good engineering practices, and prior operating experience, as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.56(d).
Failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and to document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(d). Section 112(r)(7)(E) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E), provides that after the effective date of any regulation or requirement promulgated pursuant to Section 112(r) of theAct, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate any stationary source in violation of such regulation or requirement.
Accordingly, the above-described violations of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) of the Act are subject to the assessment of a civil penalty under Section l 13(d) of the Act, 42 u.s.c. § 7413(d).
Based on an analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and other factors such as cooperation and prompt compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $89,600.