According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA by the facility, it fell within North American Industry Classification System Code 32599 as “all other chemical product and preparation manufacturing” and used flammables including butane, difluoroethane, isobutane, methyl ether and propane as process chemicals and held at least 10,000 lbs. As of July 6, 2004, the facility exceeded the applicability threshold established by 40 C.F.R § 68. 130, and was subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68. For purposes of compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68, in its RMP, the facility has acknowledged that it was required to meet Program 3 eligibility requirements at the processes within the facility that are the subject of the violations alleged in this CAFO. On August 18, 2015, an authorized representative of U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at the facility to determine 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 alleged the following violations of the Risk Management Program Regulations at the facility:
- Respondent failed to document names or positions of people who have responsibility to implement individual requirements of the risk management program, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c);
- Respondent failed to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.36(a);
- Respondent failed to maintain records on the offsite consequence analyses that include data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.39(e);
- Respondent failed to compile information about the equipment in the process that included design codes and standards employed, as required under 40 C.F, R. §68.65(d)(1)(vi);
- Respondent failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.65(d)(2);
- Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
- Respondent failed to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process at least every five years, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f);
- Respondent failed to retain the documented resolution of recommendations, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(g);
- Respondent failed 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 and that addresses operating limits, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2);
- Respondent failed to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.69(c);
- Respondent failed to prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.71(c);
- Respondent failed to certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of Subpart D – Program 3 Prevention Program at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed are adequate and being followed, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a);
- Respondent failed to determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68. 79(d).
Civil Penalty
Based on an analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 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 $63,000.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO