This Consent Agreement and Final Order serves as notice that the EPA has reason to believe that Respondent violated the General Duty Clause set forth in Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA and the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and that Respondent violated Section 112(r) of the CAA. Respondent’s Facility has ceased all operations. On or about May 15 -17, 2017, the EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
The following substances are extremely hazardous substances and/or regulated substances (herein the Extremely Hazardous Substances):
- Anhydrous Ammonia;
- Chlorine;
- Diborane;
- Dichlorosilane;
- Hydrofluoric Acid;
- Hydrogen;
- Hydrogen Chloride: Hydrochloric Acid and Anhydrous Hydrogen Chloride;
- Nitric Acid;
- Phosphine;
- Phosphorus Oxychloride;
- Silane; and
- Trichlorosilane
Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that the Respondent processed, handled, and/or stored the Extremely Hazardous Substances at the Facility. Anhydrous hydrogen chloride is a regulated substance with a threshold quantity of 5,000 pounds. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that in 2014 and 2015, Respondent had greater than 5,000 pounds of anhydrous hydrogen chloride in a process at the Facility.
From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 5,000 pounds of anhydrous hydrogen chloride in a process, Complainant alleges that Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 5,000 pounds of anhydrous hydrogen chloride in a process, Complainant alleges that Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent was subject to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, pursuant to Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, because it was an 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 any of the Extremely Hazardous Substances at the Facility, Complainant alleges that Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA because it was the operator of a stationary source that was producing, processing, handling or storing extremely hazardous substances listed pursuant to Section 112(r)(3).
Allegations of Violation: