The respondent owns and operates a single-site aerosol can manufacturing facility that uses, stores, and handles Isobutane (CAS# 85-28-5), a regulated substance, at the Facility in amounts over the threshold quantity for Isobutane of 10,000 lbs. The facility used, stored, and handled Butane (CAS# 106-97-8), a regulated substance, at the Facility in amounts over the threshold quantity for Butane of 10,000 lbs. The facility used, stored, and handled Methyl ether (CAS# 115-10-6), a regulated substance, at the Facility in amounts over the threshold quantity for Methyl ether of 10,000 lbs. The facility used, stored, and handled Propane (CAS#74-98-6), a regulated substance, at the Facility in amounts over the threshold quantity for Propane of 10,000 lbs.
The facility contains Line 1 Propellant Gas House, Line 6 Propellant Gas House, Line 9 Propellant Gas House, Line 10 Propellant Gas House, and a Tank Farm containing Propellant Tanks P-09, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18, P-19, P- 20, P-21, P-22, P-23, P-24, and P-25.
On February 19, 2020, authorized representatives of EPA conducted a compliance inspection at the Facility to determine compliance with the RMP regulations. On September 29, 2021, EPA issued a Finding of Violation.
The facility submitted to EPA documentation of actions taken to address the alleged violations in the September 29, 2021, Finding of Violation.
b. Process safety information
The facility did not complete a compilation of written process safety information regarding the material of construction for the solvent tanks.
- The relief system design and design basis for the solvent tanks were not documented.
- The ventilation system design for the gas houses 9 and 10 was not documented.
- It was discovered while assessing the gashouse 9/10 ventilation design basis that gashouse 9/10 meets the general ventilation requirements of NFPA Section 30B. Specifically, 9/10 gashouse meets the required air changes per hour for general
ventilation and the emergency ventilation system is automatically triggered at not more than 20% of the LEL with a designed flow rate >150% of the calculated air flow rate using the equation referenced in NFPA Section 30B. However, the facility is not able to confirm a minimum of two air changes per minute, as required for emergency ventilation under chapter 6 of NFPA Section 30B. - Failure to document information pertaining to materials of construction for the solvent tanks
- Failure to document the relief system design and design basis for the solvent tanks, and
- Failure to keep the ventilation system design basis for Propellant Gas Houses 9 and 10 are violations of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1).The facility’s failure to document that Gashouses 9/10 emergency ventilation system complies with the recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as under NFPA Section 30B is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
c. Operating procedures
Propellant Truck Unloading Procedures (Procedures) at Section 1.6 state that the level of the tank must be no more than 85% of the tank fill capacity. Additional Procedures note that tanks will be filled at 85% but not to exceed over 90% capacity.
Procedures did not include the operating limits in the work instructions.
Annual reviews of operating procedures were most recently documented as completed in 2016 or 2018, depending on the procedures.
EPA personnel observed that the Tank #21 was filled to 91.97% during the February 19, 2020 inspection.
The facility’s failure to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
Failure to certify operating procedures are current and accurate annually is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69 (c).
d. Mechanical integrity
The facility performed an API 510 inspection for Tank P-10 in July 2014, and the report identified coating failure, lack of proper labeling, grounding issues, improper discharge vent piping, lack of U-1A data reports, and location issues. The facility was required to perform a five-year mechanical integrity inspection using APl 510 procedures on Tank P-10 by July 2019. The facility did not perform an APl 510 inspection for Tank P-10 in or around July 2019 to maintain its integrity.
The facility performed an API 510 inspection for Tank P-21 in August 2014. The inspection report identified a lack of proper labeling, the non-availability of inspection/replacement schedules for Pressure Release Valves, improper sizing of the vent piping, and a lack of U-1A data reports. Sherwin-Williams was required to perform an API 510 inspection on Tank P-21 by August 2019.
The facility did not perform an API 510 inspection for Tank P-21 in or around August 2019 to maintain its integrity.
The facility’s failure to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment (Tanks 10 and 21) is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
The facility’s failure to perform inspections and tests on process equipment (Tanks 10 and 21) at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices or more frequently, if necessary, is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
The facility’s failure to correct deficiencies in equipment (Tanks 10 and 21) in a safe and timely manner when necessary measures were taken to assure safe operation is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
e. Compliance audits
The facility completed compliance audits in 2014, 2017, and September 2020. It did not address findings in the 2014 audit until the 2017 compliance audit was completed. The 2017 compliance audit identified that P&IDs needed to be updated with a due date of October 31, 2020.
The facility’s failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the audit’s findings and document that deficiencies had been corrected is a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
f. Incident Investigation
An employee was injured in or around July 2019. The facility completed an Incident Investigation Report form dated July 11, 2019. However, the form was missing the “Date Investigation Began.”
The facility’s failure to indicate the “Date Investigation Began” on the Incident Investigation Report violates 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)(2).
Civil Penalty
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, and prompt return to compliance, the Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $154,000.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO