Information collected during the September 14, 2016 inspection of Respondent’s Facility revealed that Respondent failed to develop and implement a risk management program that complied with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
EPA alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the CAA as follows:
Count 1
Respondent failed to update and revalidate its Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) once every five (5) years to assure that the PHA is consistent with the current process, as required by 40 C.F.R. §68.67(f).
Specifically:
- Respondent last performed a PHA in June of201 I, such that Respondent was required by 40 C.F.R. §68.67(f) to update and revalidate its PHA by June of 2016.
- The September 14, 2016 inspection revealed that Respondent had just begun updating and revalidating its PHA using “what if’ checklists dated September 13, 2016.
- Respondent updated and revalidated its PHA on October 26, 2016, which was approximately four (4) months late of the requirement contained in 40 C.F.R. §68.67(f).
Count 2
Respondent failed to test or replace relief valves on the north side, high-pressure receiver at a frequency consistent with manufacturer’s recommendations, as required by 40 C.F.R §68.73(d)(3).
Specifically:
- During the September 14, 2016 inspection, the inspector asked Respondent for documentation of tests and inspections of relief valves of the covered process.
- Respondent provided the inspector with a document that inventoried relief valves and their installation dates.
- The document revealed that one set of valves in the inventory, 502TK001 on the high-pressure receiver, was listed as “out of date.”
- The inspector then asked Respondent for documentation indicating when this set of valves has last been replaced or inspected.
- At the time of the inspection, Respondent could not locate documentation of an installation or inspection date.
- Respondent’s representative then advised the inspector that this set of valves was marked with a date of July 2011 and Respondent ordered them prior to the expiration date.
- During the inspection, the Respondent contacted ACE Refrigeration (ACE) to inquire about the status of the subject valves and received an email from ACE indicating that the valves were scheduled for replacement. According to Respondent, a delay in timely replacing the value occurred apparently due to:
- ACE mistakenly ordering the wrong valves; and
- the valves needed to be specifically manufactured for Respondent’s process.
- The subject valves were ultimately replaced on September 19, 2016, approximately two (2) months past the manufacturer’s recommendation.
Each of Respondent’s failures to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as set forth above, is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
For the purpose of this proceeding, Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent pay a civil penalty of twenty-three thousand thirty-one dollars ($23,031).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO