Respondent owned and operated the a chemical manufacturing facility. On September 8-11, 2014, EPA Region 6 conducted an unannounced, onsite CAA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) Partial Compliance Evaluation of the Facility. The faility’s RMP lists three covered processes subject to Program 3 requirements. The regulated flammable substances that are held above the threshold quantities identified in 40 C.F.R. §68.130 are: acetylene, butene, “1, 3 butadiene,” ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, hydrogen, methane, and flammable mixture. The regulated toxic substance that is held above the threshold quantity identified in 40 C.F.R. §68.130 is cyclohexylamine.
Violation 1
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(c), an owner or operator may use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected. The latest update to the Facility’s RMP was submitted in 2014 and used Landview 6 population estimator, which used 2000 Census data rather than the most recent 2010 Census data. Through its failure to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, Respondent has violated 40 C.F.R. 68.30(c).
Violation 2
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5), a facility’s process hazard analysis of covered processes shall address the siting of stationary sources. Respondent’s facility is sited in an area prone to hurricane and flood events. Respondent’s planning for hurricane and floods at the facility was not specifically referenced in the facility’s process hazard analysis. Through its failure to specifically reference hurricane and flood planning in its process hazard analysis, Respondent has violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5).
Violation 3
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), requires operating procedures to be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice. The owner or operator shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate. Respondent did not certify that operating procedures were current and accurate for the period of January 1, 2012 through January 1, 2013. Through its failure to certify that operation procedures were current and accurate for the stated period, Respondent has violated 40 C.f.R. § 68 .69(c).
Violation 4
40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (b) requires that refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and 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 in the process. One of the training records reviewed from the onsite inspection showed that an operator received refresher training on January 6, 2012 when it was due to be completed on September 8, 2011. Through its failure to provide refresher training to an employee within three years, Respondent has violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (b).
Violation 5
40 C.F.R. § 68. 73( d)(3 ), in relevant part, requires that mechanical integrity inspections and tests be performed on process equipment. Inspection and testing shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The frequency of inspections and tests or process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and conducted more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. During the review of “monthly vibration records,” the inspection records for the P-3449 unit were missing from June- August 2014. Records indicated that inspection of the P-3449 resumed in September 2014. Through its failure to inspect the P-3449 unit on a monthly basis during the Period of June through August 2014, Respondent has violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
Violation 6
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a), requires, in relevant part, the owner or operator of a facility to establish and implement procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process. The management of change (MOC) procedure for the Facility required that operators receive annual MOC training. The records reviewed during the onsite inspection indicated that operators only received MOC training once, and some operators were not trained for over five years. Through its failure to train operators as outlined in the MOC procedure, Respondent violated the requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
Violation 7
40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b), in relevant part, requires that hot work permits document that the fire prevention and protection requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.252(a) (Occupational Safety and Health Standards regarding welding, cutting, and brazing) have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations; it shall indicate the date(s) authorized for hot work; and identify the object on which hot work is to be performed. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the hot work operations. During the review of records from the onsite inspection, one hot work permit was missing the date and time the job was completed and one hot work permit did not provide a thorough description of the work performed. By not adequately documenting the requirements of a hot work permit, Respondent has violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b).
CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s having taken measures to prevent a recurrence of the above-described incidents, and upon consideration of the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, specific facts and equities, litigation risks, and other factors as justice may require, the parties agree that ninety-one thousand and eight hundred dollars ($91,800) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO