Respondent operated a facility that utilizes chlorine for its aluminum smelting process for use primarily in the automotive and aerospace industries. On June 6, 2023, EPA performed an inspection ofthe Facility to evaluate compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Section 103, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPCRA Sections 304-312, and CAA Section 112(r). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent produced, used, or stored more than 2,500 pounds of chlorine at the Facility. At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent was subject to Program 3 requirements because there are public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for the worst-case release from its Facility and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
COUNT I – Failure to Comply with Hazard Assessment Requirements
Based on the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to use the most recent Census data to estimate the population affected by either the worst-case or alternative release scenarios when defining its offsite impacts.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately define its offsite impacts for its hazard assessment, Respondent violated the hazard analysis requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.30(c) and 68.36(a).
COUNT II – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to complete the compilation of process safety information in the following instances:
a. The Respondent failed to develop consequences of deviation for its chlorine system detection and monitoring devices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.GS(c)(l)(v).
b. The Respondent’s P&IDs did not match the field conditions for its chlorine storage systems, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.GS(d)(l)(ii).
c. The Respondent lacked documentation that the equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) and (3), such as a lack of consistent labeling and signage, a missing U1A form for a vessel, inadequate ventilation system documentation, missing panic hardware on doors, and equipment corrosion.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to include accurate information concerning the technology and equipment of a process, and by failing to comply with RAGAGEP or document that its existing equipment was safe, Respondent violated the process safety information requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(c)(1), 68.65(d)(1), 68.65(d)(2) and 68.65(d)(3).
COUNT III – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to adequately track its PHA recommendations to completion.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately track its PHA recommendations to completion, Respondent violated the process hazard analysis requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
COUNT IV – Failure to Comply with Training Requirements
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to adequately train its chlorine delivery truck drivers to operate the chlorine storage tank filling valves.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to properly train its chlorine delivery truck drivers, Respondent violated the training requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
Count V – Failure to Ensure Mechanical Integrity
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that the chlorine piping had missing paint in multiple locations.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to correct deficient equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use, or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, Respondent violated the mechanical integrity requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
Count VI – Failure to Comply with Management of Change Requirements
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to properly implement its management of change program.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to properly implement a management of change program, respondent violated the management of change requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.7S(a), (c), (d), and (e).
CIVIL PENALT Y
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS($ 75,000).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO