Respondent owned and operated a facility that stored and used sulfur dioxide, a “regulated substance” under 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, at the facility when it brined cherries. At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent’s brining process contained more than the threshold quantity (5,000 pounds) of sulfur dioxide. Respondent’s brining process did not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1 under 40 C.F.R. § 68.10b) and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard since the process involved sulfur dioxide above the threshold quantity in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, App. A. Respondent’s brining process was therefore subject to Program 3 under 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d).
On January 20, 2017, a representative from EPA sent a Request for Information to determine whether the Respondent was complying at the facility with Section 112(r) of the Act and the Risk Management Program regulations. Based on Respondent’s response to the request, from June 21, 1999 to December 28, 2017, Respondent failed to comply with the Risk Management Program regulations at the facility for Program 3 requirements as set forth below:
a. Respondent failed to submit a single Risk Management Plan that includes the information required by§§ 68.150 through 68.158 for all covered processes, and as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
b. Respondent failed to develop a management system as provided in§ 68.15 and as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1).
c. Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in §§ 68.20 through 68.42 and as required under 40 C.F.R.§ 68.12(d)(2).
d. Respondent failed to implement the prevention requirements of§§ 68.65 through 68.87 and as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3).
Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $125,000. In determining the penalty amount, Complainant has considered the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts and circumstances of this case, and other factors such as cooperation and prompt return to compliance. Complainant has also considered U.S. EPA’s Combined Enforcement Policy for Clean Air Act Sections 112(r)(1), 112(r)(7), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (June 2012).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO