The Respondent owns and/or operates a chemical manufacturing facility that uses:
A. Oleum (fuming sulfuric acid) [sulfuric acid, mixture with sulfur trioxide] (“Oleum”);
B. Hydrogen fluoride/hydrofluoric acid (cone 50% or greater) [hydrofluoric acid] (“Hf “).
in a fluoroproducts process and a sulfuric acid process. From August 28 – 31, 2018, EPA conducted an inspection of the Respondent’s facility. In conference calls on May 5, 2020, June 8, 2020, July 21, 2020, and August 5, 2020, the EPA conferred with Respondent regarding the violations alleged herein and provided an opportunity for Respondent to submit additional information or materials, which the Respondent did. Based on Respondent’s submittal, the EPA identified the alleged violations:
Count One – Inadequate Operating Procedures
On February 16, 2016, a fire occurred in the hydrofluoric acid covered process, which resulted from an equipment temperature limit being exceeded.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) by failing to properly develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in the fluoroproducts process, including actions to take when the process deviates from acceptable limits.
Count Two – Failure to Establish and Implement Written Operating Procedures
On February 16, 2016, the fire that occurred in the hydrofluoric acid covered process involved an alarm that was set to not require action to be taken.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1) & (2) by failing to establish and implement written procedures to take action when the lower drop chute cozy air exit temperature is exceeded.
Count Three – Failure to Implement Written Procedures to Maintain the On-Going Integrity of Process Equipment
A key factor contributing to the February 16, 2016, fire which occurred in the hydrofluoric acid covered process was the lack of detail for performing visual inspection steps on the affected equipment.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) by failing to implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
Count Four – Failure to Timely Conduct Mechanical Integrity Inspections
Mechanical integrity inspections on piping in the hydrofluoric acid and sulfuric acid covered processes completed between June 2015 and October 2018 were not conducted in accordance with the specified inspection schedule.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) by failing to timely conduct certain mechanical integrity inspections.
Count Five – Failure to Assure that Equipment is Suitable for the Process
A leak occurred in a reactor mixing tee in the hydrofluoric acid covered process on February 20, 2018. The root cause of the incident was an incorrectly sized equipment component that contributed to accelerated corrosion at the mixing tee.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(£)(3) by failing to assure that certain equipment is suitable for the process.
Count Six – Failure to Timely Conduct Refresher Training
Training records for three individuals indicated that required refresher training between March 2015 and September 2018 was not completed within the specified deadlines.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b) by failing to timely provide refresher training to three individuals.
Count Seven – Failure to Timely Conduct Training Required by Management of Change
Four Management of Change (MOC) actions were initiated between March 2017 and May 2018, which required notification or training on the changes fo affected employees prior to implementing the changes. No records of notification or training were furnished for these MOC actions.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c) to properly implement its change of design procedure by failing to inform and/or train certain employees of changes prior to startup of a covered process or failed to document training.
Count Eight- Failure to Properly Identify Emergency Contact
The May 2015 and September 2018 RMP registration updates did not name specific individuals as emergency contacts, and instead referred to position titles.
The Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6) by failing to properly identify the specific individual who is the emergency contact in its RMP.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
For purposes of settlement, the Respondent has agreed to pay a civil penalty of TWO HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS ($205,539).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO