NOTE: This was a facility that was found to be covered by EPA’s RMP rule but had not submitted a RMP and was found to not have a functioning process safety management program.
On or about July 7, 2011, U.S. EPA issued an Information Request to Respondent to determine whether the Facility was in operation and whether it continued to use regulated substances. On or about February 22, 2013, under Section 112(r) of the Act and the Program regulations, Respondent submitted to EPA an RMP for the Facility. On or about March 14, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection at the Facility to determine the Facility’s compliance with the Act and Program regulations. On or about January 17, 2014, under Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and the Program regulations, Respondent submitted to EPA an RMP for the Facility. According to the Facility’s January 17, 2014 RMP, the Facility:
- falls within NAICS Code 42471, as Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals;
- used “propane” CAS No. 74-98-6 as a process chemical during its operations;
- holds up to 79,965,900 lbs. of propane;
- used “flammable mixture” CAS No. 00-11-11 as a process during its operations; and
- holds up to 4,315,620 pounds of flammable mixture.
Based on information including but not limited to the March 14, 2013 inspection, EPA has identified the following alleged violations of the Act and Program regulations by Respondent:
- Failure to estimate the greatest distance-to-endpoint for the Facility’s worst-case scenario, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(a)(2)(ii).
- Failure to use an acceptable population data source when calculating the residential population affected by the worst-case scenario, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(c).
- Failure to maintain a description of the alternate release scenario, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(b).
- Failure to document the estimated release rate in an alternate scenario, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(c).
- Failure to document the methodology used to determine the distance-to-endpoint for the alternate release scenario, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(d).
- Failure to document the data source for population and environmental receptors for the worst-case and alternate release, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e).
- Failure to create a block flow diagram in the Process Safety Information (PSI), as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(ii).
- Failure to include an evaluation of the consequences of deviation from safe upper and lower limits in the PSI, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v).
- Failure to include electrical classification in the PSI, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii).
- Failure to include information pertaining to safety systems in the PSI, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(viii).
- Failure to resolve recommendations and findings from the Process Hazard Analysis in a timely manner, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
- Failure to develop and implement a procedure for the initial startup operating phase, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(i).
- Failure to develop and implement operating procedures for the recovery tank, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(ii).
- Failure to include conditions under which emergency shutdown is required in the emergency shutdown procedures, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv).
- Failure to certify operating procedures are current and accurate on an annual basis, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
- Failure to establish written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
- Failure to implement the written management of change procedures, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
- Failure to perform au audit of the prevention program, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
- Failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of a compliance audit, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
- Failure to obtain and evaluate information regarding a contractor’s safety performance and programs, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(1).
- Failure to identify the Facility’s correct program level in the Facility’s RMP registration information, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7).
- Failure to update the RMP at least 5 years after the most recent RMP submission, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1).
Failure to respond to an information request, as required by Section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414. 52. 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 the Act, 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 113(d) of the Act, 42 u.s.c. § 7413(d). Civil Penalty Based on 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 $275,400.00.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO