The Respondent is a wholesale gas supplier. Operations include the filling, storing, and transfer of industrial gases. The facility receives bulk gases in tanker trailers and then transfers them to storage tanks before transferring them to smaller containers or back into tanker trailers for wholesale. Additionally, the facility receives nearly empty bulk trailers and containers that must be emptied before refilling. Some containers are refurbished through welding, sandblasting, and painting before being put back into circulation. The facility’s two main operations are high-pressure and low-pressure operations. Each of these processes at the Facility meets the definition of “process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
Ethane, Methane, Ethylene, Propylene, Propane, I-Butene, Butane, 2-Methy 1propane, isobutane, and isopentane are each a ” regulated substance ” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for these flammable gases, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, is 10,000 pounds.
Hydrogen chloride (Anhydrous) is a toxic chemical with a threshold quantity, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, of 5,000 pounds.
Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of the flammables and Hydrogen chloride (Anhydrous) in a process at the Facility meets the “covered process” definition defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of the Regulated Substances in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of 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 the Regulated Substances in a process, Respondent was required to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Management
Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program; assign a qualified person with the responsibility of development, implementation , and integration of the risk management program; and document lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document.
Respondent’s failure to develop a management system for the risk management program; assign a qualified person to develop, implement , and integrate the risk management program; and document lines of authority pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a)(b)(c) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 2 – Process Safety Information
Respondent failed to document that covered process equipment located in the low pressure dock area and the high-pressure area, including the hydrogen chloride refilling area, complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).
Respondent’ s failure to document that covered process equipment complies with RAGAGEP in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(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 3 – Process Hazard Analysis
Respondent’ s failure to conduct an initial process hazard analysis and subsequently to perform any update or revalidation of the process hazard analysis in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a), 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 failed to certify annually, beginning with its startup of operations in 2003, that its operating procedures were current and accurate.
Respondent’s failure to annually certify its operating procedures in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 5-Training
Respondent failed to provide documentation of refresher training for two of its four covered process operators.
Respondent’s failure to provide documentation, and thus failure to certify the training for two of its employees on emergency operations prior to being involved in operating a process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of
Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 6 – Mechanical Integrity
Respondent provided general maintenance logs for seven (7) pressure vessels located in the low-pressure dock area from the years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, but failed to provide documentation of inspection or tests conducted on the seven (7) pressure vessels to include: date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the identification of the pressure vessel on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test in accordance with any RAGAGEP. The applicable RAGAGEP includes the American Petroleum Institute (API) 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, Edition, May 2014.
Respondent’ s failure to provide documentation of inspections and tests, and thus failure to certify that the inspections and tests occurred 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 7 – Pre-startup Review
Respondent failed to conduct a pre-startup safety review for any of its management of changes that affected a covered process.
Respondent’s failure to conduct a pre-startup safety review for the management of changes that affected its covered processes in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(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 – Compliance Audit
Respondent failed to conduct risk management program compliance audits.
Respondent had conducted internal audits in the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, and a process safety management audit was conducted in the year 2021, but not in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
Respondent’s failure to conduct risk management program compliance audits in accordance with 40 C.F .R. § 68.79(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 9 – Employee Participation
Respondent failed to provide a written employee participation plan on how consultation with its employees is conducted regarding the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and access to such documentation.
Respondent’ s failure to provide a written employee participation plan that meets the requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(6), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) , is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 10 – Emergency Response Coordination Activities
Respondent failed to provide documentation that it had coordinated with local authorities regarding its emergency response coordination activities.
Respondent’s failure to provide documentation that it coordinated with local authorities regarding its emergency response coordination activities pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Twenty-Four Thousand Seventy-Three Dollars ($24,073.00)
CLICK HERE for CAFO