Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, and is thus a “person” according to section 302(e) of the CAA. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Respondent owned, operated, controlled and supervised a facility which includes buildings, structures, equipment, and installations belonging to the same industrial group, located on one or more contiguous properties and under the control of Respondent. The facility manufactures solid craft foam for the floral industry and others. Respondent uses butane, difluoroethane and pentane in its manufacturing processes. Respondent’s facility had butane, since November 2011, difluoroethane since November 2011, and pentane since May 2013, each in quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds through 2013. Respondent thus maintained certain regulated substances at its facility at certain times in quantities exceeding the thresholds under the Chemical Accident Pollution Prevention rule. Respondent’s processes at its facility subject it to Program 3 requirements because the distance to public receptors, as defined at 40 C.F .R. § 68.30, is less than the distance to the flammable or toxic endpoint for a worst-case release assessment under 40 C.F.R. § 68.25, and because the processes are subject to the process safety management standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
On July 24, 2013, Respondent’s Risk Management Program for the facility, prepared pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d), failed to implement certain mandatory elements required by those provisions. A listing of the deficiencies in Respondent’s Risk Management Program at its facility is attached as Table A. Respondent’s failure to develop and implement a complete Risk Management Program violates the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d).
Based on an analysis of the factors as specified in section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, Respondent’s cooperation in quickly resolving this matter and Respondent’s willingness to perform the supplemental environmental project described below, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $25,464.
Process Safety Information
68.65(c)(1)(iii) Failure to document information pertaining to the technology of the process that included maximum intended inventories.
68.65(c)(1)(iv) Failure to document information pertaining to technology of the process that includes safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions.
68.65(d)(1)(v) Failure to have information pertaining to the ventilation system.
68.65(d)(1)(vi) Failure to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included the design codes and standards employed.
68.65(d)(1)(vii) Failure to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included material and energy balances.
Process Hazard Analysis
68.67(c)(l) Failure to perform an initial process hazard analysis that addressed pentane.
68.67(c)(5) Failure to perform an initial process hazard analysis that addressed stationary source siting
68.67(c)(6) Failure to perform an initial process hazard analysis that addressed human factors.
68.67(c)(7) Failure to perform an initial process hazard analysis that addressed possible safety and health effects of failure of controls that directly relate to pentane.
Operating Procedures
68.69(a)(2) Failure to develop operating procedures that address operating limits including consequences of deviation and steps required to correct or avoid deviation.
68.69(a)(3) Failure to develop and implement written operating procedures that address safety and health considerations.
68.69(a)( 4) Failure to develop and implement written operating procedures that address safety systems and their functions.
68.69(b) Failure to have operating procedures readily accessible to employees who are involved in a process.
68.69(c) Failure to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate.
Training
68.71(a)(1) Failure to initially train employees involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, in an overview of theprocess and in the operating procedures.
68.71(c) Failure to document in record that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required and that the record contains the identity of the employee, the date of the training, and the means used to certify that the employee understood the training.
Mechanical Integrity
68.73(b) Failure to establish a written procedure to maintain the ongoing integrity of process eguipment.
Management of Change
68.75(a) Failure to establish and implement written procedure to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process.
68.75(c) Failure to inform and train employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks would be affected by a change prior to start-up of the process.
68.75(e) Failure to up date procedures and practices that resulted in a change.
Pre-Startup Safety Review
68.77(b) Failure to perform a pre-startup safety review prior to the introduction of a regulated substance to a process.
Contractors
68.87(b)(1) Failure to obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs.
Risk Management Plan
68.160(b)(7) Failure to complete a single registration form that include the correct name and CAS number of each regulated substance held above a threshold quantity in the process and the maximum quantity of each regulated substance or mixture in the process.
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
Respondent must complete a supplemental environmental project (SEP) designed to protect the environment and public health. Respondent proposes to triple the capacity of deluge fire-suppression systems at its facility, to limit any potential releases of regulated materials at the facility from fire or explosion. Respondent must spend at least $55,130 to purchase and install the improved deluge system. Respondent will complete work on the project by May 1, 2015.
CLICK HERE to see the full CAFO