On May 24,2012, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine 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 the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the Act by failing to comply with the regulations. The Alleged Violations And Proposed Penalties are:
Program Level 3 Alleged Violations and Unadjusted Penalties
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $1,500
Process Safety Information
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, the pipes on the bulk formaldehyde storage tank and the pipes to and from the formaldehyde pump house and the recirculation pump were not adequately labeled. See, e.g., ANSI/ASME Al3.l – 2007.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $1,500
Process Safety Information
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, there was no infrastructure for grounding the tanker truck that delivers formaldehyde to the bulk storage tank. See, e.g., NFPA 30 (2008) § 6.5.4; and NFPA 400 (2010) 6.1.10.2.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $1,500
Process Safety Information
Has the owner or operator determined and documented that existing equipment, designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner? [68.65(d)(3)]
- At the time of the inspection, there was no determination or documentation in the company’s Process Safety Information materials that older pieces of equipment, such as tanks, were designed, maintained, inspected, tested and operated in a safe manner.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $1,500
Process Hazard Analysis:
Has the owner or operator established a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; assured that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is 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 or actions [68.67(e)]?
- At the time of the inspection, the action items from the most recent process hazard analysis were not responded to promptly. Examples include testing and maintaining hoses and labeling pipes and valves.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $900
Operating Procedures:
Has the owner or operator developed and implemented safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during specific operations, such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source … [68.69(d)]?
- At the time of the inspection, the hatchway on the bulk formaldehyde storage tank had no confined space warning.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87)
Operating Procedures: Has the owner or operator developed and implemented safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during specific operations, such as lockout/tagout confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source .. . [68.69(d)]?
- At the time of the inspection, there was no process or procedure to make sure that a spill from the tanker truck that delivers formaldehyde to the bulk storage tank does not enter the adjacent storm drain grate. E.g., NFPA 30 (2008) § 22.11
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $900
Mechanical Integrity:
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 level sensor for the formaldehyde tank was broken. This issue was also identified in the 2010 process hazard analysis.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $900
Mechanical Integrity:
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 grounding strap on the bulk formaldehyde storage tank was frayed and may not be functioning as designed.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $900
Mechanical Integrity:
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 integrity of the bulk formaldehyde storage secondary containment area had not been well maintained (e.g., peeling coating, cracks). There was an apparent gap between the concrete pad and the dike walls, and the area needed to be refurbished. A vertical open pipe penetrating the concrete pad may also have compromised the integrity of the secondary containment area.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87); $900
Mechanical Integrity:
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, a hose used in the formaldehyde delivery process appeared faded from environmental exposure, and the attached metal pipe was corroded. Facility personnel could not provide the inspectors with a preventative maintenance schedule for this equipment.
Prevention Program (68.65 – 68.87]; $300
Compliance Audits:
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)]
- At the time of the 20 12 inspection, several items that had been identified in the most recent compliance audit (2011) had not been corrected: Examples include marking piping, testing hoses, and resurfacing the secondary containment area.
Risk Management Plan [68.150 – 68.195); $2,000
Has the owner or operator reviewed and updated the RMP and submitted it to EPA at least once every five years [68.190(b)(1)]?
- Facility was required to submit a five-year update to its RMP by June 1, 2009, but the updated plan was not submitted until February 25, 2010, approximately 9 months late.
CLICK HERECLICK HERE for the CAFO