EPA RMP citations @ agricultural chemical manufacturing facility (CH4S, C3H9N, C2H7N, NH3 & $72K )

Respondent owns and operates an agricultural chemical manufacturing facility. On or about August 18-19, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than

• 10,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan in a process at its facility
• 10,000 pounds of isopropylamine in a process at its facility
• 10,000 pounds of dimethylamine in a process at its facility
• 20,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia in a process at its facility

From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan, isopropylamine, and/or dimethylamine in a process, and/or greater than 20,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.

From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than greater than 10,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan, isopropylamine, and/or dimethylamine in a process, and/or greater than 20,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.10( d), one or more covered processes at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1, are in North American Industry Classification System code 325320, and are subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F .R. § 1910.119.

From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan, isopropylamine, and/or dimethylamine in a process, and/or greater than 20,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia in a process, Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d).

Allegations of Violation

Count 1

40 C.F .R. § 68.12( d)(2) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to implement the hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.22 through 68.42.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the following hazard assessment requirements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2):

1. Respondent failed to develop a worst-case release scenario that is estimated to create the greatest distance in any direction to an endpoint resulting from an accidental release of dimethylamine from covered processes under worst-case conditions, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(a)(2)(ii); and
2. Respondent failed to consider the five-year accident history provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.42, including the June 21, 2013 RMP reportable injury incident involving dimethylamine, in selecting the alternate release scenario, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.28(e).

Respondent’s failures to comply with the hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.25(a)(2)(ii) and 68.28(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).

Count 2

40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the following Program 3 prevention requirements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3). Specifically:

1. Respondent failed to compile written process safety information pertaining to any of the reactor vessels in the process for relief system design and design basis, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
2. Respondent failed to identify the June 21, 2013 injury incident involving dimethylamine and failed to fully include the October 28, 2015 release of methyl mercaptan, both of which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences, in the process hazard analysis, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.67(c)(2);
3. Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the team’s process hazard analysis findings and recommendations and document the resolutions for the June 2014 process hazard analysis, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
4. Respondent failed to fully complete the management of change form dated January 6, 2016 for the procedure for decommissioning of the synthesis process and removal of hazardous materials, methyl mercaptan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75;
5. Respondent failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with the provisions of Subpart D at least once every three years to verify that procedures and practice developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a); and
6. Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report findings and recommendations for the June 21, 2013 injury incident involving dimethylamine, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(e).

Respondent’s failures to comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87 stated above, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).

Count 3

40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, to submit a single RMP as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160, the owner or operator shall complete a single registration form that provides, inter alia, the Program level of each covered process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F .R. § 1910.119.

Additionally, pursuant 40 C.F.R. § 68.l 75(a), the owner or operator is required to provide the information identified at 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(b) through (p) for each Program 3 process.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically:

1. Respondent failed to include the five-year accident history and planned changes to improve safety in the executive summary of the RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.155(d) and (f);
2. Respondent failed to include the correct maximum quantity of dimethylamine in a process to two significant digits in the RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7);
3. Respondent failed to update the five-year accident information in the RMP within 6 months of the June 21, 2013dimethyl amine release or by the time the RMP is updated, whichever is earlier, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(a); and
4. Respondent failed to update the emergency contact in the RMP within one month of the change, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).

Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185 stated above, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).

CONSENT AGREEMENT

Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Seventy-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Six Dollars ($72,426.00).

CLICK HERE for the CAFO