EPA RMP Citations @ explosives facility (NH3, H2SO4 (and SO3), HNO3, )

By /

On or about March 30-April 1, 2010, EPA conducted an inspection at one facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. On or about September 27-29, 2010, EPA conducted another inspection of the business but at another facility in a different location to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.  EPA alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the CAA.  Respondent is subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it is an owner and operator of stationary sources that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. Respondent is subject to Program 3 of the risk management program requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d), the covered processes at the two facilities did not meet the requirements of Program 1 and were subject to the OSHA process safety management standard. Respondent was required under Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. 68.12, to develop and implement a risk management program for each stationary source that includes a management system, a hazard assessment, a prevention program and an emergency response program, and to submit an RMP.  Information collected during the inspection of Respondent’s two facilities revealed that Respondent failed to develop and implement risk management programs for each facility that complied with all the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68.  Specifically:

Facility #1

  • Respondent failed to develop and implement a management system as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 for a facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(l).
  • Respondent failed to implement various prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87 at a facility, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.12( d)(3), as follows:
    1. Respondent failed to address administrative controls used in the process in its Process Hazard Analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3);
    2. Respondent failed to address the consequences of the failure of administrative controls used in the process in its Process Hazard Analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4); 
    3. Respondent failed to document the resolution of the findings and recommendations produced by the Process Hazard Analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e); 
    4. Respondent failed to update and revalidate each Process Hazard Analysis at least every five years after completion of the initial Process Hazard Analysis, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f); 
    5. Respondent failed to perform inspections and tests on all process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d){l); 
    6. Respondent failed to follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices when performing inspections and tests on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2); 
    7. Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4); 
    8. Respondent failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65( d)(2); 
    9. Respondent failed to document first-aid for exposure to regulated substances in its emergency response plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(l)(ii); and 
    10. Respondent failed to include procedures for the use of emergency response equipment in its emergency response plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2).

Facility #2 

  • Respondent failed to implement various prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87 at its Louisiana facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), as follows:
    1. Respondent failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2); 
    2. Respondent failed to resolve all Process Hazard Analysis findings and document a revised resolution date, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e); 
    3. Respondent failed to document the consequences of deviation in the facility’s written operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i); 
    4. Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d); and 

Release Reporting

Respondent did not notify the National Response Center of the May 9, 2012, release of sulfuric acid at facility #1 as soon as it had knowledge of the release. Respondent’s failure to notify the National Response Center of the release as soon as it had knowledge of the release is a violation of Section 103(a) ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a), and of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 302.6.

Respondent did not immediately notify the State Emergency Response Commission or the Local Emergency Planning Committee of the May 9, 2012, release of sulfuric acid at facility #1.  Respondent’s failure to immediately notify the State Emergency Response Commission and the Local Emergency Planning Committee of the release is a violation of Section 304(a) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11 004(a), and of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C.

 

Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand, One Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars ($257,167) within thirty days of entry of this Final Order.

CLICK HERE to see the agreement

Related Posts

Scroll to Top