On May 14, 2014, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Act. EPA found that Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the Act by failing to comply with the regulations as noted on the attached “Risk Management Program Inspection Findings, Alleged Violations And Proposed Penalty Form” (“Form”), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
SETTLEMENT
In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance history, its good faith effort to comply, and other factors as justice may require, and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into the ESA in order to settle the violations, described in the attached Form, for the total penalty amount of $9,300.
REASON FOR INSPECTION
This inspection is to determine compliance with the accidental release prevention requirements of Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7}, and the regulations set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The scope of this inspection may include, but is not limited to:
- reviewing and obtaining copies of documents and records;
- interviews and taking of statements;
- reviewing chemical storage, handling, processing, and use;
- taking samples and photographs; and
- any other inspection activities necessary to determine compliance with the Act.
DATE RMP INITIALLY FILED WITH EPA: 07/01/2011
DATE OF RMP UPDATE: 06/24/2016
PROCESS/NAICS CODE: 325211
PROGRAM LEVEL: 3
REGULATED SUBSTANCE: formaldehyde solution
MAX. QUANTITY IN PROCESS: 1,000,000 lbs.
Process Checklist (Findings) and Alleged Violations and Proposed Penalty Form:
Section B: Hazard Assessment 68.20 – 68.42;
Was the hazard assessment conducted and documented using appropriate surface roughness values for the release analysis? [68.22(e)]?
$300.00
The company had not correctly analyzed the off-site consequences of its worst-case and alternative release scenarios in its 2011 RMP, in that it used an “urban” instead of a “rural” topography parameter in the air dispersion model for both the worst-case and alternative release scenarios, even though the area surrounding the facility consists of a river and low-profile buildings.
$600.00
Has the owner or operator determined the worst-case release quantity to be…,[if] released from a vessel, the greatest amount held in a single vessel, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity [68.25(b)(1)]?
The company did not use the quantity of formalin contained in its largest vessel (using 36,221 pounds instead of the 720,560 pounds reported on its Tier 2 forms) in the off-site consequences analysis of its 2011 RMP worst-case release scenario, which dramatically reduced the estimated distance to the toxic endpoint.
Section C – Prevention Program – Safety Information [68.65]
$1500.00
Has the owner or operator documented that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices [68.65(d)(2)]?
At the time of the inspection, portions of the formalin process piping system (including in Buildings 94 and 81) and related lights and switches lacked adequate labeling. See, e.g., ASME A13.1-2007: Scheme for the Identification of Piping Systems § 3 (2007).
Section C – Prevention Program – Process Hazard Analysis [68.67]
$600.00
Did the PHA address identification of any incident that had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences [68.67(c)(2)]?
The 2009 PHA, which was in effect at the time of inspection and continued to be so until Respondent performed a new one (six months after the five-year due date) on February 1, 2015, failed to address tornadoes, hurricanes, and similar natural disasters.
$600.00
Did the PHA address stationary source siting [68.67(c)(5)]?
The PHA failed to address potential issues related to the siting of the stationary source, like floods and earthquakes.
$1500.00
Has the owner or operator established a system to promptly address the team’s [PHA] 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 [68.67(e)]?
At the time of the inspection, the company’s PHA lacked identified findings and had incomplete documentation indicating a schedule for or resolution of the action items.
Section C – Prevention Program – Operating Procedures [68.69]
$1200.00
Do the procedures address all of the elements listed in [68.69(a)] (Steps for each operating phase, Operating limits, Safety and health considerations, and Safety systems and their functions?
At the time of the inspection, the facility did not have adequate operating procedures in place, for example, Res.Op. 14-01.02 (“Electrical Failure to 6 Kettle”) and Res.Op. 14-02.08 (“Melamine Overcharge/Undercharge in 6 Kettle”) lacked most of the required elements except normal operations (and/or lacked adequate cross-reference to any other documents containing these required elements).
Section C – Prevention Program – Mechanical Integrity [68.73]
$ 1200.00
Has the owner or operator corrected deficiencies in equipment that were outside acceptable limits defined by the process safety information before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means were taken to assure safe operation [68.73(e)]?
At the time of the inspection, the facility had certain pipes and components with signs of corrosion (Building 81 ), including a broken and rusted condensate pipe (Blend Tank area) and a rusted manual switch (Blend Tank area), damaged insulation and piping on Blend Tank 7, a mismatch in types of joined piping, and stains on the floors indicating spills and leaks that had not been cleaned up (Building 81).
Section C – Prevention Program – Compliance Audits [68.79]
$300.00
Has the owner or operator promptly determined and documented an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and documented that deficiencies had been corrected [68.79(d))?
The documentation from the company’s 2013 PSM and RMP Compliance Audit included an “Attachment A: Summary of Findings and Opportunities for Improvement,” but it did not document any resolutions of findings or recommendations nor any further notations regarding follow-up actions.
Section E – Hot Work Permit 68.85
$1500.00
Has the owner or operator issued a hot work permit for each hot work operation conducted on or near a covered process [68.85(a)]?
At the time of the inspection, the company had issued incomplete hot work permits, as they only had “site-issued” hot work permits in place, but had failed to obtain and retain hot work permits from the Springfield Fire Department.
CLICK HERE for the ESA