Respondent operates a chemical manufacturing plant which has more than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process, making the process a RMProgram level 3 covered chemical manufacturing process, which stores or otherwise uses chlorine in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of2,500 pounds. On November 10, 2015, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered processes at its stationary source. The Respondent was unable to provide documentation of lines of authority defined through an organization chart or similar document, after such documentation was requested during the inspection.
At the time of the inspection, comparison of the design temperature for reaction vessel V- 101 and the listed maximum design temperature and pressure for V-101 posted on piping and instrument diagram (P&ID) No. MB-81-X-026-01-D-10 indicated the P&ID information was incorrect. According to the vessel design information, the maximum temperature should be 300°F, not 800°F posted on the P&ID.
In 2009 and 2014, a corrosion evaluation of the structural steel in the Area 100 unit was conducted by an Engineering contractor to determine if the braced framed structure can support both the live and dead loads created by the tin chloride processing equipment. The 2014 study concluded that 10 percent of the structural steel members supporting the tin chloride processing equipment were corroded by chlorine to an extent that they may not be able to support the anticipated live loads in their current condition. An additional 17 percent of the structural steel supporting the tin chloride processing equipment received a grade of “poor” and there are areas of heavy corrosion throughout. The study stated the structural steel rated poor is likely adequate to support the existing dead load and anticipated live loads. According to the Respondent’s production manager, none of the recommendations contained in the 2014 report for the Area 100 unit had been started at the time of EPA’s inspection.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 when it:
- Failed to document the names or positions of people and define the lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document, when responsibility for implementing individual requirements of the RMP is assigned to persons other than the persons identified under paragraph (b) of the section as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c);
- Failed to include piping and instrument diagrams pertaining to the equipment in the process in its process safety information as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(ii); and
- Failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in§ 68.65) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
PENALTY PAYMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO DOLLARS ($48,942).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO