The Respondent’s July 23, 2019, RMP submission outlines a maximum inventory of the regulated flammable substance butane and LPG at the Facility that exceeds the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds of butane and LPG as outlined in Table 3 at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130.
Respondent’s aerosol-propelled adhesive process at the Facility was, at the time of the Inspection, and is, a “covered process,” as that term is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, because it has regulated substances (i.e., butane and propane) present in more than threshold quantities as determined under 40 C.F.R. § 68.115. Respondent’s covered process at the Facility has had regulated substances present in more than threshold quantities as determined under § 68.115 since at least 2017.
The covered process at the Facility is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard because it contains greater than the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds of butane and propane, which are highly hazardous chemicals as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(b). Respondent’s adhesive manufacturing process at the Facility does not meet the Program 1 eligibility requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(j) because Respondent’s hazard assessment identified public receptors within the flammable endpoint. Respondent is subject to Program 3 because Respondent’s covered process is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(l), and does not meet the Program 1 eligibility requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(j) or the Program 2 eligibility requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(k).
Facility Inspection
On August 31, 2022, the EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility (the “Inspection”). During the Inspection, the EPA inspectors reviewed documents provided by the Respondent (“RMP Documents”). The RMP Documents included aspects of the Facility’s RMP involving the management system, hazard assessment, process safety information, process hazard analysis, operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, management of change, pre-startup safety review, compliance audits, hot work permits, employee participation, and contractors.
The hazard assessment in the RMP Documents demonstrated that a public receptor was within the flammable endpoint. From December 2022 to September 25, 2023, Respondent provided documents to EPA that demonstrated that the Respondent had completed the following actions:
a. Inspected the fire suppression system and annually thereafter;
b. Rearranged storage in the Facility to ensure egress points are visible and clear of obstructions;
c. Designated an electrical classification to the process and compiled the documentation with the PSI;
d. Compiled design codes and standards applied to the process into the PSI documentation;
e. Established a system to ensure that PHA findings are promptly addressed by implementing a PHA tracking spreadsheet;
f. Rewrote operating procedures to include safety and health considerations.
g. Created a procedure for delivery of AB80; and
h. Trained all necessary employees in initial training and documented those actions, including a confirmation that employees understood the training.
Allegations
While touring the Facility during the Inspection, the EPA inspectors made the following observations:
a. The fire suppression system inspection tag denoted that the fire suppression system inspection was last completed in 2018.
b. Only the Facility’s main egress point had panic hardware on the doors.
c. Finished product was staged in front of the main egress point and reduced visibility of the exit.
d. The main production area of the Facility that contains the covered process is greater than 200 square feet.
PSI
The observations described in Subparagraphs 63.b and 63.c demonstrate that the Respondent did not correctly certify that the process equipment complies with RAGAGEP. By not documenting that process equipment complies with RAGAGEP, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Respondent did not include electrical classification information for process equipment as part of the PSI. By not including electrical classification information in the information pertaining to the equipment in the process, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii).
Respondent did not include design codes, and the standards employed for process equipment as part of the PSI. By not including design codes and the standards employed in the information pertaining to the equipment in the process, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii)–(vi) and (d)(2), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
PHA
The 2018 PHA included five recommendations, but had no documentation at the time of the Inspection of a proposed schedule to resolve and implement recommendations from the PHA in a timely manner. By not documenting a proposed schedule to resolve and implement recommendations from the PHA in a timely manner, Respondent did not establish a system to promptly address PHA findings and recommendations, assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner, and complete actions as soon as possible as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
OP
Written operating procedures for the covered process, reviewed by the inspectors during the Inspection, did not include safety and health considerations. By not including safety and health considerations in the written operating procedures, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Training
Respondent did not provide any documentation of initial training for employees involved in operating a process either during or following the Inspection. By not training each employee presently involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified in § 68.69, including an emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Respondent did not provide any documentation of refresher training provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process either during or following the Inspection. By not providing refresher training at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
By not ascertaining that each employee involved in operating a process had received and understood the required training by preparing a record containing the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
MI
Respondent did not provide any documentation showing the required training for all employees involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment. By not training 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, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Respondent did not inspect the fire suppression system that services the covered process at the Facility at the required interval and according to RAGAGEP. By not inspecting the fire suppression system that services the covered process at the Facility at the required interval and according to RAGAGEP, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1)–(2). By failing to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c) and (d)(1)–(2), Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Terms of Consent Agreement
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and Respondent’s cooperation, the EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $100,000.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO