Respondent owns a chemical supply outlet where chlorine was present in a process above the 2,500 pounds TQ, and sulfur dioxide was in a present in a process above the 5,000 pounds TQ from at least March 16, 2010. Respondent has two (2) program 3 processes: a chlorine cylinder storage process, and a sulfur dioxide cylinder storage process. Respondent submitted an RMP on March 16, 2010, February 6, 2015, and March 31, 2017.
Violation 1 – Process Safety Information
For at least the last five years, Respondent’s written process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process failed to address materials of construction such as specifications for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide cylinder storage processes equipment in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(i).
For at least the last five years, Respondent’s written process safety information failed to document whether the equipment in the sulfur dioxide and chlorine cylinder storage processes complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Violation 2 – Process Hazard Analysis
Between 2013 and 2017, Respondent failed to document that a process hazard analysis had been performed for the sulfur dioxide and chlorine cylinder storage processes in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a).
Between 2013 and 2017, Respondent failed to produce a process hazard analysis that addressed all hazards of the processes, identification of previous incidents, and engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c).
Between 2013 and 2017, Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations, and assurance that recommendations are resolved in a timely manner in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Violation 3 – Operating Procedures
For at least the last five years, Respondent’s written operating procedures failed to include all necessary information for emergency shutdowns and emergency operations in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv) and (v).
Violation 4 – Mechanical Integrity
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to establish inspection and testing procedures on process equipment that follow generally accepted and good engineering practices on the sulfur dioxide and chlorine cylinder storage process equipment in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
Violation 5 – Audits
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F .R. Part 68 of all covered processes at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices it developed are adequate and being followed in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to ensure that its compliance audits were conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(b).
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to develop a report on the findings of its compliance audit in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c).
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that the deficiencies had been corrected in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Respondent failed to retain copies of its two most recent compliance audit reports in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(e).
Violation 6 – Emergency Response Program
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to have appropriate mechanisms in place to notify emergency responders when there is a need for a response, in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(b)(3).
For at least the last five years, Respondent failed to develop an emergency response plan which included all necessary contact information to facilitate emergency response in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(i).
Violation 7 – Risk Management Plan Registration
From at least 2013 until March 2017, Respondent failed to correctly identify the program levels for its sulfur dioxide and chlorine cylinder storage processes as program level 3 processes in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7).
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
EPA has taken into account the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation as established by any credible evidence, payment by Respondent of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, and such other factors as justice may require. After considering these factors, EPA has determined and Respondent agrees that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $100,000 (the Assessed Penalty).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO