Respondent operates a petrochemical manufacturing process at the Facility, utilizing regulated substances to produce vinyl chloride monomer, meeting the definition of ” process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, vinyl chloride and propylene (collectively, “regulated substances”) are each a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on February 27 through March 8, 2018, to determine Respondent’s compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
Count 1 – Mechanical Integrity Inspections and Tests
At the time of the inspection, Respondent failed to perform sufficient inspections and tests following recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices on the closed vent fiberglass wet vent piping line system located on the east side of the Facility, a piece of the process equipment at the Facility.
Respondent’s failure to perform sufficient inspections and tests on the fiberglass wet vent piping line following recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(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 2 – Mechanical Integrity Documentation
Respondent failed to include a description of the inspection or test performed and the results of the inspection or test on the inspection and test documentation for an inspection performed on vinyl transfer pump P-401B, which is a piece of process equipment at the Facility.
Respondent failed to identify the date of the inspection or test and the name of the person who performed the inspection or test on the inspection and test documentation for an inspection performed on the Safety System Check Procedure, which is process equipment at the Facility.
Respondent’s failure to identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test for each inspection and test performed on process equipment at the Facility, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4), as required by 40 C.F. R. §68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Process Safety Information
Respondent failed to update its compilation of written process safety information to include accurate P&IDs of the sulfur dioxide system before conducting a process hazard analysis. Specifically, a number of valves and pieces of equipment for the sulfur dioxide system were not included on the related P&ID prior to the process hazard analysis conducted during July-August 2017.
Respondent’s failure to include an accurate P&ID for the sulfur dioxide system for the compilation of written process safety information before conducting a hazard analysis pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(ii), as required by 40 C.F. R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4 – Operating Procedures
Respondent’s operating procedure titled “Loading VCM Tank Cars” did not have operating limits for safely conducting activities involved in that area of the covered process.
Respondent’s failure to develop a written operating procedure that addressed operating limits for safely conducting activities in the tank car area of the covered process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 5 – Operating Procedures
Respondent failed to ensure that the operating procedure titled “Loading VCM Tank Cars” was readily accessible to employees working in or maintaining the process. Specifically, at the time of the inspection, two versions of the operating procedure were provided. The version of the operating procedure provided by an employee working in and maintaining the process in the field was dated March 16, 2017; whereas, the version of the operating procedure provided by the environmental staff was dated November 29, 2017.
Respondent’s failure to ensure the updated operating procedure titled “Loading VCM Tank Cars” was readily accessible to the employee working in and maintaining the process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 6 – Management of Change
Respondent failed to implement its written procedures to manage a change to the stationary source that assured authorization requirements were addressed and training conducted for employees affected by the change prior to the start-up of the process. Specifically, authorization requirements for a temporary change made to the normal operation and startup procedures for certain process equipment were addressed after the change, and training for employees involved in operating and maintaining the process was completed after the start-up of the process affected by the change.
Respondent’s failure to implement its written procedures to manage a change to the stationary source that assured authorization requirements were addressed and training conducted for employees affected by the change prior to start-up of the process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 7 – Management of Change
Respondent failed to implement its written procedures for managing changes to the Facility when it did not complete the required changes to process equipment.
Respondent’s failure to implement written procedures to manage changes to process equipment affecting the covered process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a), 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
Respondent failed to develop and implement an emergency response program that included procedures for the use, inspection, and maintenance of all its emergency response equipment. Specifically, Respondent’s emergency response program did not include procedures for the use, inspection, and maintenance of emergency escape respirators located in mailboxes throughout the Facility.
Respondent’s failure develop and implement an emergency response program that included procedures for the use, inspection, testing, and maintenance of all emergency response equipment at the Facility, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 9 – RMP Required Corrections
On June 10, 2015, an accidental release occurred at the facility that resulted in a shelter-in-place, meeting the five-year accident history reporting criteria of 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(a).
Respondent failed to update the RMP within six months of the release pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(a).
Respondent’s failure to update the RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(a), to include the June 10, 2015, accidental release meeting the five-year accident history reporting criteria of 40 C.F.R. § 68.42(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(d)(a) and 68.150(d) is a 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 four hundred forty-seven thousand four hundred eight dollars ($447,408.00).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO