On July 27, 2011, U.S. EPA conducted a compliance inspection at the facility to determine Respondent’s compliance with the Risk Management Program regulations. Based on the inspection, U.S. EPA alleges that Respondent has committed the following violations of the Risk Management Program regulations:
- Respondent failed to document other persons’ responsibilities for implementing individual requirements of the risk management program and define the lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
- Respondent failed to document information pertaining to the technology of the process that included maximum intended inventory, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii).
- Respondent failed to document information pertaining to the equipment 111 the process that included material of construction in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(i).
- Respondent failed to document information pertaining to the equipment 111 the process that included electrical classification, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii).
- Respondent failed to document information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included relief system design and design basis. in violation of 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
- Respondent failed to document information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included ventilation system design. in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v).
- Respondent failed to document information pertaining to the equipment 111 the process that included material and energy balances, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vii).
- Respondent failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65(d)(2).
- Respondent failed to perform a Process Hazard Analysis that addressed the identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences. in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(2).
- Respondent failed to perform a Process Hazard Analysis that addressed stationary source siting, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5).
- Respondent failed to perform a Process Hazard Analysis that addressed human factors, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(6).
- Respondent failed to ensure that procedures address consequences of deviation, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i).
- Respondent failed to ensure that procedures address steps required to correct or avoid deviation, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(ii).
- Respondent failed to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d).
- Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years, or more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
- Respondent failed to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process at the facility had received and understood the training required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71, and failed to prepare a record for each employee which contained the identity of the employee, the training date. and the means Respondent used to verify that the employee understood the training, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
- Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of the process equipment listed in 68.73(a), in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
- Respondent failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee’s job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner, in violation of40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c).
- Respondent failed to follow inspection and testing procedures that follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
- Respondent failed to ensure the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment is consistent with applicable manufacturers· recommendations. good engineering practices. and prior operating experience. in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
- Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. which identifies the date of the inspection or test. the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment 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 violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4).
- Respondent failed to perform appropriate checks and inspections to assure that equipment was installed properly and consistent with design specifications and manufacturer’s instructions. specifically for the facility expansion. in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(1)(2).
- Respondent failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with the provisions of the prevention program at least every three years to verify that the developed procedures and practices are adequate and being followed, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
- Respondent failed to periodically evaluate the performance of the contractor owner or operator in fulfilling its obligations. in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5).
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, other factors such as cooperation and prompt compliance, and Respondent’s agreement to perform three Supplemental Environmental Projects described below in this CAFO, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $49,000.
SUPPLEMENT ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS
Respondent must complete three supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) designed to protect the environment and public health. Within 120 days of the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent must complete the SEPs as follows:
- Purchase and donate four gas monitors for each of the sixteen fire departments in XXXXXXX County, Michigan. The monitors assist the fire departments in quickly identifying the presence of potentially dangerous releases to the atmosphere;
- Purchase, install and donate four additional public warning sirens for the public warning system in XXXXXX County, Michigan. The sirens are essential in notifying the public of potentially dangerous conditions; and
- Purchase, install and apply for Federal Communications Commission licensing of two new VHF 100 watt base stations (tower sites) that would fill in a current gap in signal coverage to facilitate communications in the event of an emergency. Respondent shall donate the base stations to Bay County.
Respondent must spend at least $285.000 to accomplish the projects described in the previous two paragraphs.
CLICK HERE for the full agreement.