Respondent owns and operates an agricultural chemical manufacturing facility. On November 2, 2017, Respondent had an accidental release of chlorine at the Facility. Respondent determined the amount of chlorine released to be 0.014 pounds and reported that the release occurred when hooking up a rail car containing chlorine in which an unloading valve was inadvertently opened when Respondent’s employees were positioning flanges to ensure proper alignment for a good seal during unloading operations. The release resulted in injury to two employees.
From November 13, 2018, through November 14, 2018, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection confirmed that Respondent had greater than 20,000 lbs of carbon disulfide, 2,500 lbs of chlorine, 5,000 lbs of hydrogen chloride, and 15,000 lbs of hydrazine in a process or processes at the Facility.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than the threshold quantity of each of the substances listed in Paragraph 23, above, in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than the threshold quantity of each of the substances listed in Paragraph 23, above, in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and is in North American Industry Classification System code 32532 is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than the threshold quantity of each of the substances listed in Paragraph 23, above, in a process, Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d) and detailed in Subpart D.
Allegations of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to implement the prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87. 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1) requires the owner or operator to implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities in each covered process consistent with the process safety information.
The EPA inspection revealed that on November 2, 2017, Respondent did not follow its written operating procedures during the activities described above. Respondent’s failure to satisfy all the operating procedures provisions of the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, in particular 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $31,991 as set forth below.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO