If you ever wondered if the “inventory” in your railcars or tank trucks that are NOT attached to their mode of transportation (i.e. locomotive or tractor) is part of your threshold calculation, here’s your answer, eight railcars of Chlorine sitting on the property was tallied by EPA to establish the amount of the EHS on site.
Respondent is the owner of a ferric chloride manufacturing facility. The regulations (40 C.F.R. 68.3) define “process” as “any activity involving a regulated substance including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such substances, or combination of these activities. For the purposes of this definition, any group of vessels that are interconnected, or separate vessels that are located such that a regulated substance could be involved in a potential release, shall be considered a single process.” The Respondent began operations at the Facility on or about September 6, 2010. The Respondent submitted to EPA its initial RMP for the Facility on or about October 17, 2011.
EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on February 26,2013, to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and the chemical accident prevention provisions at 40 C.F .R. Part 68. On February 28, 2013 Respondent provided EPA with a list indicating the number of railcars onsite at the Facility from on a monthly basis from September 2010 through February 2013. In the list, Respondent stated that eight chlorine railcars were onsite in September 2010. Chlorine is a “regulated substance” pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, and listed in 40 C.F.R § 68.130, with a threshold quantity of 2,500 pounds. Each chlorine railcar at the Facility holds up to 90 tons of chlorine, equivalent to 180,000 pounds. The chlorine quantity onsite in September 2010 was 1,428,100 pounds. Based on its inspection and documents subsequently obtained from the Respondent, EPA determined that the Respondent had present at Facility regulated substances in quantities that exceeded the threshold limits defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130.
Based on its inspection of the Facility and documents obtained from the Respondent, EPA determined that the Respondent violated the chemical accident prevention provisions by failing to submit an RMP at the time Respondent acquired the Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.150.
Respondent is subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 40 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, because it is the owner and/or operator of a stationary source that exceeded threshold quantities of a regulated substance.
Respondent has violated Section 112(r)(7) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), and its regulations at 40 C.F .R. Part 68, by failing to submit an RMP at the time Respondent acquired the Facility as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.150.
Respondent is, therefore, subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 113 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413.
In full and final settlement and resolution of all allegations referenced in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in full satisfaction of all civil penalty claims pursuant thereto, for the purpose of this proceeding, Respondent consents to the assessment of a civil penalty for the violations of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), as set forth above, in the amount of $54,750.
CLICK HERE for the agreement