Respondent’s facility contains a process that produces ethylene, propylene, benzene, butadiene, and toluene. Respondent’s facility has toxic and flammable regulated substances in a process in excess of the threshold quantities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. An EPA inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent’s facility on November 18-20, 2014. Following the inspection and a review of documents provided by Respondent, EPA discovered the violations discussed below.
VIOLATIONS
Count One – Failure to Review and Certify Operating Procedures
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) requires facilities to review operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice and the owner or operator to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate.
During the inspection of the facility, EPA requested five years of certification. Though Respondent provided some certifications, Respondent was unable to provide all of the annual certifications required for the process. Therefore, Respondent violated 40 CFR 68.69(c) by failing to certify annually in 2011 and 2012 that the operating procedures were current and accurate.
Count Two – Mechanical Integrity
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) requires the owner or operator to perform inspections and tests on process equipment at a frequency that is consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices.
During the inspection of the facility, EPA requested a list of overdue inspections and tests. Respondent provided EPA with a list showing several items in the covered process that were overdue for inspection or testing. Therefore, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) by failing to timely perform all necessary inspections and tests on covered process equipment.
Count Three – Compliance Audits
40 C.F.R. 68.79 requires the owner or operator of a covered facility to certify that they have evaluated compliance with the RMP program. When the audit finds deficiencies, the owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
During the inspection of the facility, EPA discovered that respondent’s 2010 internal audit of the covered process identified that not all operating procedures included information on consequences of deviation or health and safety hazards. Respondent’s 2013 internal audit showed that not all of the operating procedures had been updated as required by the 2010 audit. At the time of EPA’s inspection in November 2014, EPA observed that information regarding the consequences of deviation for a unit known as H-1000 was not available for review. Therefore, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79 by failing to promptly correct a deficiency identified in a compliance audit.
CIVIL PENALTY
Taking into consideration the size of the Respondent’s business, the economic impact of the penalty on the Respondent’s business, the Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, agreement to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), the economic benefit of noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation, as well as other factors which justice may require, EPA and Respondent agree that an appropriate penalty to settle this matter is seventy thousand dollar’s ($70,000).
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
Respondent shall perform a SEP consisting of providing the XXXXXXX Fire Department with eight (8) Argus Mi-TEC E thermal imagers, one (1) Argus Mi-TEC S thermal imager, and four (4) MSA GI SBCA units with spare cylinders and MSA PASS devices, which the parties agree is intended to implement or improve emergency planning and preparedness for the city of XXXXXXX, XX. Respondent must expend at least $84,000 for the implementation of this SEP.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO