Respondent is the owner and operator of the facility that produces, processes, stores, or handles more than 10,000 pounds of ethylene and more than 15,000 pounds of vinyl acetate monomer (Acetic acid ethenyl ester). The EPA inspected the Facility from January 16, 2020 to January 17, 2020, to determine the Respondent’s compliance with 40 C.F .R. Part 68. Ethylene and vinyl acetate monomer are “regulated substances” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantities for ethylene and vinyl acetate monomer, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, are 10,000 pounds and 15,000 pounds, respectively.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Mechanical Integrity
The regulation 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3) requires the owner or operator to ensure that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment are consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
The Respondent failed to ensure that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment are consistent with applicable manufacturer s’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
Respondent completed the external inspection for one tank outside the required frequency.
Respondent’s failure to perform the external inspection for the tank within the required frequency is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Emergency Response Program
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(ii) requires the owner or operator to develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(ii).
Respondent’s emergency response manual referenced but did not include safety data sheets documenting the first-aid or emergency medical treatment for the site’s regulated substances.
Respondent’s failure lo document the first-aid or emergency medical treatment necessary for exposures in the emergency response plan is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of seventeen thousand, two hundred fifty-eight dollars ($17,258).
Supplemental Environmental Project
Respondent shall implement a supplemental environmental project (“SEP”), which the parties agree is intended to secure significant environmental or public health protection and improvement. The SEP involves purchasing electronic and other equipment for the Office of Emergency Management and Local Emergency Planning Committee (“LEPC” for the City of XXXXXXX, Texas. The equipment to be purchased and the Respondent’s costs of performing the SEP are described in more detail in Attachment A to this CAFO. The equipment shall be purchased and in possession of the LEPC no later than twelve (12) months from the effective date of this CAFO.
The SEP advances at least one of the objectives of 112(r) of the CAA, by allowing the LEPC to be better prepared and respond more effectively to incidents involving chemicals and other hazardous materials. The SEP is not inconsistent with any provision of l l 2(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74 I 2(r). The SEP relates to the alleged violation(s) and is designed to reduce the adverse impact Lo public health and/or the environment to which the alleged violations contribute, as well as the overall risk to public health and/or the environment potentially affected by the alleged violations. Specifically, the upgraded technology in the SEP will replace aging computers, allow the LEPC team to relocate in the event of an emergency and more easily deploy in the field, and assist in offsite training of emergency management personnel, first responders, and industrial site representatives. Additionally, the HAZMAT radiological detection devices will be key equipment for the LEPC in responding to emergencies.
The Respondent is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the SEP described in the foregoing Paragraph 44 and Attachment A. The total expenditure for the SEP described in Paragraph 44 and Attachment A shall be no less than Sixty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen Dollars ($64,719). The Respondent hereby certifies that the approximate cost information provided to EPA in connection with EPA’s approval of the SEP is complete and accurate, and that the Respondent in good faith estimates that the cost to implement the SEP is $64,719. The Respondent shall include documentation of the expenditures made in connection with the SEP as part of the SEP Completion Report.
ATTACHMENT A – SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
The respondent will donate electronic and other equipment to the Office of Emergency Management and Local Emergency Planning Committee (“LEPC”) for the City of XXXXX, Texas.
The donated equipment will allow the LEPC to be better prepared and respond more effectively to incidents involving chemicals and other hazardous materials. The area covered by the LEPC is the same area where MCA’s La Porte facility is located.
The donation will include:
• Upgraded technology for the XXXXXXX Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”):
o Twenty (20) laptops, at an estimated cost of $2,000 each ($40,000);
o Twenty (20) dock stations, at an estimated cost of $300 each ($6,000); and
o Forty (40) computer monitors, at an estimated cost of $150 each ($6,000).
• Key HAZMAT radiological detection devices and emergency response equipment:
0 One (I) identiFINDER R425-GN Standard R425, at an estimated cost of$ I 4,000; and
0 One (I) LUDLUM Model 300 1-3RK2 Emergency Response Kit, at an estimated cost of $3,000.
SEP Category Emergency Planning and Preparedness
Timeline Within twelve months of the CAFO Effective Date
Estimated Value No less than $64,719
CLICK HERE for the CAFO