Lesson’s learned: A WRONG CHEMICAL – WRONG TANK incident produced a chlorine release and brought EPA to the facility. The EPA inspection does not appear to have looked at the Cl2 incident, but rather stayed focused on the propylene oxide process – their “covered process”. As well, in March of this year both the facility and the trucking company involved in the WRONG CHEMICAL – WRONG TANK incident were indicted. If found guilty, the two companies could face fines totaling as much as $1.7 million.
Respondent owns and operates a gluten, starch, and alcohol production facility which processes propylene oxide which has a threshold quantity as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 of 10,000 pounds. On October 21, 2016, an accidental release of chlorine gas occurred at Respondent’s facility in connection with a chemical reaction when the delivery of sulfuric acid was unloaded into a tank of sodium hypochlorite. Approximately 140 people sought medical attention and seven people were hospitalized due to the release. On or about January 23, 2017, through January 26, 2017, representatives of the 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 confirmed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of propylene oxide in a process at the Facility. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of propylene oxide 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 10,000 pounds of propylene oxide in a process, Respondent was subject to the Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.1 O(h), the covered process at the 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 onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of propylene oxide in a process, 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) and detailed in Subpart D.
Allegations of Violations
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not fully implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of Subpart D at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3). Specifically:
Counts 1 – 6
- Respondent failed to compile written process safety information pertaining to the technology of the covered process, including process chemistry, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(ii);
- Respondent failed to compile written process safety information pertaining to the technology of the covered process, including the maximum intended inventory of propylene oxide piping, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii);
- Respondent failed to document that equipment in the covered process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Respondent failed to develop a written schedule of when recommended actions identified during the process hazard analysis are to be completed to ensure all actions are completed in a timely manner, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
- Respondent failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with the provisions of the Program 3 prevention requirements of Subpart D at least every three years to verify that developed practices and procedures are adequate and being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a); and
- Respondent failed to document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and correction of the deficiencies identified through the audit, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d);
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), are each a separate violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Counts 7 and 8
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not submit a complete 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:
- Respondent failed to complete a registration form pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(a) that included the telephone number of the emergency contact for the Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6); and
- Respondent failed to provide correct emergency response procedures in the emergency response plan, specifically actions to be taken in response to an accidental release as a non-responding Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.180(b).
Respondent’s failures to submit an RMP in accordance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), are each a separate violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $251,468
CLICK HERE for the CAFO