According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA, the Facility fell within NAICS Code 48699, as “all other pipeline transportation”, used ethyl mercaptan and other flammable mixtures as process chemicals during its operations and held at least 10,000 lbs. of ethyl mercaptan and other flammable mixtures. Respondent was required to meet Program 3 eligibility requirements at the facility. On March 21, 2011, U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at the facility to determine its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the inspection and a review of additional information received by U.S. EPA subsequent to that date, U.S. EPA identified the following alleged violations by Respondent of the Risk Management Program Regulations:
- Failure to report in the RMP additional worst-case release scenarios for a hazard class if the worst-case release scenario from another covered process at the stationary source potentially affects public receptors different from those potentially affected by the worst-case release scenario developed under 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(a)(2)(ii), as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(a)(2)(iii);
- Failure to have process safety information contain the relief system design and design basis, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(iv);
- Failure to establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when actions are to be completed; and communicate these actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assigmnents are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
- Failure to certify annually that its operating procedures are current and accurate and that procedures have been reviewed as often as necessary, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
- Failure to ensure that the frequency of inspections and test of process equipment is consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations, good engineering practices, and prior operating experience, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3);
- Failure to document each inspection and test that had been performed on its process equipment, including identifying 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, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4);
- Failure to correct deficiencies in equipment that was outside acceptable limits defined by the process safety information before further use, or in a safe and timely manner, when necessary means were taken to assure safe operation, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e);
- Failure to initiate incident investigations not later than 48 hours following the incident, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(b); and
- Failure to include the date the incident investigations began in its report, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81 (d)(2).
Based on an analysis of the facts of this case and other factors such as cooperation and prompt compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $23,200.
Special Environmental Projects
Respondent has already contributed $87,000 to the local Fire Department, as a supplemental environmental project (SEP) designed to protect the environment and public health, which the Fire Department has used solely for the purchase of fire and emergency response equipment and supplies, including the purchase of 19 self contained breathing apparatus.
CLICK HERE for the agreement