The United States and ADEQ allege that a pulp/paper manufacturing and chemical manufacturing facilities owned by the same business violated or continues to violate the following statutory and regulatory requirements The Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions for Air Programs promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D, pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r). The Chemical Facility primarily manufactures resins and uses regulated substances in covered processes at threshold quantities, including epichlorohydrin, ammonia (greater than 20% concentration), and formaldehyde. EPA is proposing $600,000 as a civil penalty, together with interest accruing from the date on which the Consent Decree is lodged with the Court, at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 as of the date of lodging. Settling Defendants are jointly and severally liable for this civil penalty. This sum shall be paid in the following amounts:
a. $300,000 to the United States; and
b. $300,000 to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
EPA is also proposing $1.8 million in SEPs.
NOTE: these figures include a number of other EPA alleged violations and are NOT totally associated with the RMP issues as stated below.
The Chemical Facility operates as a Process Level 3 RMP facility. Its three primary operations are listed in its Risk Management Plan report: formaldehyde manufacturing,
resin manufacturing, and gum and wood chemical manufacturing.
Violation of Subpart D: Program 3 Prevention Program
Failure to Update Operating Procedures and Process Safety and Information
At the time of the Inspection, the pulp/paper manufacturing facility stored regulated substances above the threshold quantity for chlorine and chlorine dioxide.
At the time of the Inspection, the pulp/paper manufacturing facility included Program 3 process units in its current risk management plan, submitted on October 16, 2014. Toxic chemicals (chlorine and chlorine dioxide) are contained within the regulated process units operated on-site. Chlorine dioxide is generated, stored, and used on-site in the bleach plant; the covered process consists of the chlorine dioxide generator, two storage tanks, and the piping leading into the bleach plants.
Chlorine is used in the treatment of process water and drinking water, and the covered process consists of two chlorine storage areas: Saline River plant and the drinking water area.
Chlorine dioxide is generated, stored, and used on-site in the bleach plant; the covered process consists of the chlorine dioxide generator, two storage tanks, and the piping leading into the bleach plants.
The pulp/paper manufacturing facility’s operating procedures for the former chlorine storage areas were reviewed at the Inspection in February 2015. Specifically, the WC-225 Best Practice for Chlorination Station and the WC-503 Chlorination Station Emergency Shutdown procedures were reviewed. Both procedures reference a single chlorine monitor at the Saline River Plant storage area. However, two additional monitors were installed in Fall 2013—one at each of the chlorine storage areas.
Procedure WC-503 referenced a chlorine storage area at the Back-up Drinking Water Area. The Back-up Drinking Water Area had been taken out of service in April, 2012.
Procedure WC-503 referenced an obsolete emergency response plan, PSM-001-Chlorine Emergency Response Plan, and referenced a job safety analysis for the cemetery pond chlorination station that was no longer in use.
The pulp/paper manufacturing facility’s failure to update operating procedures WC-503 and WC-225 at the time of the NEIC inspection to accurately reflect process safety information constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
Violation of Subpart D: Program 3 Prevention Program
Failure of the pulp/paper manufacturing facility to Appropriately Address Audit Deficiencies
The pulp/paper manufacturing facility conducted compliance audits in 2010 and 2013.
Section 68.79(d) requires owners or operators to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected. 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Six deficiencies noted and purported to be corrected by the facility in the 2010 audit remained uncorrected in the 2013 audit. As of the time of the Inspection, the facility had no record of having corrected the deficiencies.
The facility’s failure to document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the 2010 compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected, constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Violation of Subpart H: Other Requirements
Chemical Facility’s Failure to Maintain Records of Repair
Section 68.200 requires the owner or operator to maintain records supporting the implementation of the Part 68 regulations for five years unless otherwise provided. This
includes the Mechanical Integrity program that requires the owner or operator to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use. 40 C.F.R. § 68.200.
In 2013, the Chemical Facility performed internal inspections on formaldehyde Tanks 2057 and 2060 pursuant to the American Petroleum Institute’s (“API”) above ground storage tank inspection procedure, API-653. Both inspection reports noted several deficiencies and that the tanks were not fit to be returned to service until defects were corrected.
On the date of the Inspection, the facility could not locate sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the recommended repairs had been completed prior to placing the tanks in service.
The failure to maintain the records of repairs of Tanks 2057 and 2060 to support the implementation of the Equipment Deficiencies portion of the Mechanical Integrity program constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.200.
Violation of Subpart D: Program 3 Prevention Program
Chemical Facility’s Failure to Manage Process Changes
Section 68.75(a) requires the owner or operator to establish and implement written 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. 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
The Chemical facility’s MOC Policy required revalidation of the health and safety impacts section of a MOC form if more than 60 days elapses after approval to proceed with the change is given. The revalidation process requires review of the MOC form to ensure all information is correct, and any changes made upon review must be documented on the MOC form and communicated to affected employees.
Inspectors reviewed MOC 13-371-ET for a Heat Trace Project in an RMP covered process area. Approval to proceed with the change was given on September 13, 2013, but more than 60 days later, the project was not completed. The facility did not document revalidation of the MOC form as required. At the time of the Inspection in February 2015, revalidation still had not taken place. This failure to revalidate and document the revalidation was in violation of the Chemical’s MOC Policy. The Chemical facility’s failure to implement its written MOC procedures constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
CLICK HERE to see the Complaint