Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that has five inorganic chemical manufacturing processes, meeting the definition of “process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Bromine, ammonia (anhydrous), chlorine, sulfur trioxide, propylene oxide, oleum (fuming sulfuric acid), and sulfur dioxide (anhydrous) are each a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of bromine, ammonia (anhydrous), chlorine, sulfur trioxide, propylene oxide, oleum (fuming sulfuric acid), and sulfur dioxide (anhydrous), in a process at the Facility. From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of bromine, ammonia (anhydrous), chlorine, sulfur trioxide, propylene oxide, oleum (fuming sulfuric acid), and sulfur dioxide (anhydrous) in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was the owner or operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – Process Hazard Analysis
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), the owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analyses team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions.
Respondent did not effectively implement a system to address the team’s findings and recommendations on all the process hazards analyses (PHAs). Consequently, some due dates were not assigned for action items and items remained incomplete.
Respondent’s failure to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations, assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner, and complete actions as soon as possible pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Refresher Training
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had not provided refresher training to an employee involved in operating a process for a greater than three-year period.
Respondent’s failure to provide each employee involved in operating a process refresher training at least every three years pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Mechanical Integrity
Respondent did not adequately document some preventative maintenance inspections, some inspections were overdue, and two tanks missed annual inspections in 2016 and 2017.
Respondent’s failure to timely complete inspections and tests on some process equipment and maintain documentation of some preventative maintenance inspections pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4 – Management of Change (MOC)
Respondent did not update a process and instrumentation drawing (P&ID) after MOC 20181055-003 was closed.
Respondent’s failure to update this P&ID after MOC 20181055-003 was closed pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) and (d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 5 – Compliance Audits
Respondent did not include a certification statement for their 2016 compliance audit and some the due dates for the action items on the 2016 audit passed before the item was completed. At the time of the inspection, two items from the 2016 audit were listed as incomplete.
Respondent’s failure to include a certification statement for their 2016 compliance audit and promptly determine and document m appropriate response to each of the findings of the 2016 compliance audit pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) and (d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 6 – Incident Investigation
Respondent did not include the date the investigation began on an investigation report reviewed during the Inspection.
Respondent’s failure to include the date the investigation began on an investigation report pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)(2), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 7 – Contractors
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent did not have procedures in place that expressly provided for the need to periodically evaluate the performance of contractors, nor did Respondent document that the periodic evaluation of the performance of the contractors had occurred.
Respondent’s failure to periodically evaluate the performance of contractors, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 8 – Emergency Response Program
At the time of the Inspection, the emergency response plan did not include documentation of proper first-aid and medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposure, some inspections of safety equipment did not align with the inspection procedures for fire extinguishers and respirators (no documented inspections between July 08, 2018 and March 26, 2019), and training for approximately sixty-four (64) first responders had not been completed.
Respondent’s failure to document first-aid, follow safety equipment inspection requirements, and train first responders pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.90, is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 9 – Registration
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to complete a single registration form and include in in the RMP. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6), the registration shall include the name, title, telephone number, and 24- hour telephone number of the emergency contact.
Respondent did not include a manned 24-hour telephone number listed in the RMP at the time of the inspection.
Respondent’s failure to include a manned 24-hour telephone number listed in the RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § §68.160(b)(6) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of three hundred fifty-six thousand and ten dollars ($356,010).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO