EPA has determined that Respondent violated the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Plan Inspection Findings and Alleged Violations Summary (“Summary”), which is hereby incorporated by reference. In consideration of the penalty assessment factors and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into the ESA in order to settle the violations described in the enclosed Summary for the total penalty amount of $14,700.
PROCESS/NAICS CODE: 325211
PROGRAM LEVEL: 3
REGULATED SUBSTANCE: Vinyl acetate monomer
MAX. QUANTITY IN PROCESS (lbs.): 280,000
Four EPA representatives and an EPA contractor inspected the Specialty Polymers, Inc. facility on March 22, 2018. Based upon this inspection the Specialty Polymers, Inc. facility Is In violation of the following risk management program elements:
1. Process Hazard Analysis (PHA): Respondent has not established a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; assured that the recommendations are resolved In a timely manner and documented; documented what actions are to be taken; completed actions as soon as possible; developed a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicated the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations as required In 40 C.F .R. § 68.67(e). During the Inspection, Respondent’s 2013 PHA did not assign target dates of completion of the findings and the dates that the recommendations were resolved.
2. Operating Procedures: Respondent has not developed and implemented written operating procedures that address consequences of deviations under the operating limits, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(1). Respondent was unable to produce documentation during the Inspection.
3. Operating Procedures: Respondent has not developed and implemented written operating procedures that address steps required to correct or avoid deviation under the operating limits, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(11). Respondent was unable to produce documentation during the inspection.
4. Operating Procedures: Respondent has not developed and implemented written operating procedures that address safety systems and their functions, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(8)(4). Respondent was unable to produce documentation during the Inspection. On April 5, 2018, Respondent provided a written &-mall narrative on their safety systems.
5. Operating Procedures: Respondent has not certified annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate and that procedures have been reviewed as often as necessary, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), Respondent provided an annual SOP certification dated 4/16/2014. On April 5, 2018, Respondent provided an annual SOP certification dated 4/31/2018.
6. Training: Respondent has not demonstrated that each employee involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, has been initially trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1). Respondent was unable to produce operator training documentation during the inspection and as a follow-up after the Inspection.
7. Training: Respondent has not demonstrated that initial training included an emphasis on safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s Job tasks, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1 ). Respondent was unable to produce operator training documentation during the inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection.
8. Training: In lieu of Initial training for those employees already involved in operating a process on June 21, 1999, Respondent has not certified in writing that the employee has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(2). Respondent was unable to produce written Initial certification training for XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX that have been involved in the process prior to 1999.
9. Training: Respondent has not demonstrated that refresher training has been provided at least every three years, or more often if necessary, to each employee Involved In operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b). Respondent was unable to produce operator refresher training documentation during the Inspection and as a follow-up after the Inspection.
10. Training: Respondent has not ascertained and documented in a record that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required, as per in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c). Respondent was unable to produce operator training documentation during the inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection. Respondents’ RMP dated May 20, 2015, shows that classroom and on the job training is used and the operator’s competency is verified using written tests, observation and demonstration.
11. Training: Respondent has not documented in the prepared record that the identity of the employee, the date of the training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c). Respondent was unable to produce operator training documentation during the inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection. Respondents’ RMP dated May 20, 2015, shows that their operator’s competency is verified using written tests, observation and demonstration as a means used to verify the operator understood the training.
12. Mechanical Integrity: Respondent has not documented training for each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of the process equipment listed In 68.73(a), as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c). Respondent was unable to produce maintenance training documentation during the inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection. Respondents’ Mechanical Integrity of Equipment procedure dated 1/29/2008, states “Training Is provided for authorized Maintenance and Process employees on the requirements to maintain the Integrity of the vinyl acetate system.
13. Mechanical Integrity: Respondent has not followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for inspections and testing procedures, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). Respondent was unable to produce documentation on the RAGAGEP being followed for inspection and testing during the inspection. On April 5, 2018, Respondent provided a Mechanical Integrity of Equipment procedure dated 1/29/2008, stating they follow manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices for the vinyl acetate system equipment.
14. Mechanical Integrity: Respondent has not documented and ensured that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment has been consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations, good engineering practices, and prior operating experience, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3). Respondent was unable to produce documentation on the frequency of inspection and testing of vinyl acetate system equipment during the inspection Including the reactor vessels, storage tank, replacement of transfer hoses and the flame arrester. On April 5, 2018, Respondent provided a Mechanical Integrity of Equipment procedure dated 1/29/2008, stating their maintenance employee is required to do monthly visual inspections of vinyl acetate system equipment (hoses, ball valves, check valves, piping flanges, etc.).
15. Mechanical Integrity: Respondent has not documented each inspection and test performed on process equipment, identifying the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the Inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4). Respondent was unable to produce inspection and test documentation on the vinyl acetate system equipment during the Inspection. On April 5, 2018, Respondent provided a Mechanical Integrity of Equipment procedure dated 1/29/2008 and Vinyl Acetate Equipment Inspection Reports (3/5/18, 2/12/18, 1/15/18, 12/8/17, 11/20/17, 10/10/18, 9/28/17, 8/30/17, 7/21/17, 6/27/17, 5/12/17, 4/18/17, 3/16/17, 2/20/17, and 1/24/17). The equipment visual Inspections are done monthly according to the MI Equipment procedure. The equipment inspection report identifies
the date, person (Initials only), the name of equipment and comments when maintenance is done. The equipment inspection report does not provide the description of the Inspection or test performed and the results of the inspection or test.
16. Compliance Audits: Respondent has not certified that the stationary source has evaluated compliance with the provisions of the prevention program at least every three years to verify that the developed procedures and practices are adequate and being followed, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.79{a). The Process Safety Management/RMP audit report dated 4/15/15 was not found during the RMP inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection. On April 5, 2018, Respondent provided their 2018 RMP Audit Report dated 4/3/2018 performed by the EHS Manager.
17. Compliance Audits: Respondent has not documented that the audit was conducted by at least one person knowledgeable In the process, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(b). The Process Safety Management/AMP audit report dated 4/15/15 was not found during the RMP Inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection.
18. Compliance Audits: Respondent has not documented the audit findings in a report, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c). The Process Safety Management/RMP audit report dated 4/15/15 was not found during the RMP inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection.
19. Compliance Audits: Respondent has not promptly determined and documented an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and documented that deficiencies had been corrected, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d). The Process Safety Management/RMP audit report dated 4/15/15 was not found during the RMP inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection.
20. Compliance Audits: Respondent has not retained the two most recent compliance reports, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(e). Specialty Polymers, Inc. did not have the Process Safety Management/RMP audit report dated 4/15/15 and 2012 RMP Audit report on file.
21. Employee Participation: Respondent has not developed a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this Employee Participation section, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(a). Respondent was unable to produce a written employee participation plan during the inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection. Respondents’ RMP dated May 20, 2015, shows that the most recent review or revision of the employee participation plan was December 12, 2014.
22. Employee Participation: Respondent has not consulted with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazards analysis and on the development of the other elements of process safety management in chemical accident prevention provisions, as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(b). Respondent was unable to produce a written employee participation plan during the inspection and as a follow-up after the inspection on how they consult with their employees. Respondents’ RMP dated May 20, 2015, shows that the most recent review or revision of the employee participation plan was December 12, 2014.
23. Employee Participation: Respondent has not provided to employees and their representative’s access to process hazards analysis and to all other information required to be developed under the chemical accident prevention provisions, as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(c). Respondent was unable to produce a written employee participation plan during the inspection and as a follow-up after the Inspection on how they provide employees access to documents. Respondents’ RMP dated May 20, 2015 shows that the most recent review or revision of the employee participation plan was December 12, 2014.
CLICK HERE for the report