Respondent has a semiconductor manufacturing process at the Facility. The Facility has three covered processes using silane, ammonium hydroxide (conc 20% or greater), and anhydrous hydrogen chloride, meeting the definition of “process.” Respondent has greater than threshold quantities of anhydrous hydrogen chloride, silane, and ammonia (concentration 20% or greater) in covered processes at the Facility.
EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of anhydrous hydrogen chloride, silane, and ammonia (concentration 20% or greater) 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.
From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of anhydrous hydrogen chloride in a process, Respondent was required to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68. l 2(a) and comply with the Program 3 prevention req requirements, because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i), the covered process at the Facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1, and is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Process Hazard Analysis
Respondent failed to consistently implement a tracking system to document follow-up action items and their completion. Specifically, four (4) outstanding PHA recommendations were still open at the time of the EPA inspection, the last of which was not completed until March 12, 2020.
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 – Management of Change (MOC)
Respondent failed to ensure that changes were implemented in consideration of the time period needed for completing each part of the management of change in proper sequence. Specifically, the Respondent made changes to operating procedures prior to the management of change being completed. Revisions to the operating procedures were dated August 30, 2017, but the MOC was not initiated until September 15, 2017, and was not completed until October 23, 2017.
Respondent’s failure to assure that the necessary time period was given to implement the changes to MOC, given that the changes to the operating procedures occurred prior to the MOC being completed, which did not allow for the completion of the revisions for the operating procedures as part of the management of change pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(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 – Compliance Audit
Respondent’s failure to consistently identify and document audit findings and corrective actions to completion pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), 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 ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), as set forth below, and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (” SEP”) as set forth herein. The projected cost of the SEP is eighteen thousand nine hundred red dollars ($18,900.00).
ATTACHMENT A: Supplemental Environmental Project
The facility is partnering with the Taylor Fire Department in the City of Taylor, Texas area to fulfill this Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). Each component of the listed project focuses on emergency planning and preparedness directed to assist the intended recipients in handling emergency responses at the facility. The intended recipient and related equipment purchases are provided below.
Emergency Equipment for TFD
The facility shall donate emergency response equipment to the City of Taylor Fire Department (“TFD”).
TFD supports the City of Taylor, where the business is building a new semiconductor manufacturing facility. TFD will respond to emergencies in the area of the facility. TFD has requested assistance with equipment that will secure significant improvement to protection of the environment and/or public health.
This donation covers traditional emergency equipment for the TFD, consisting of two (2) self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) harnesses, tanks, and masks.
The total estimated cost of the donation is $18,900. SAS shall purchase and donate this equipment to TFD within (9) months of the effective date of the Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO