Respondent owns and operates a cleaning and maintenance product manufacturing and supply facility where greater than 15,000 pounds of vinyl acetate monomer in a process at its facility. On or about April 4-5, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 15,000 pounds of vinyl acetate monomer in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 15,000 pounds of vinyl acetate monomer in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(c), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(b) and (d), respectively. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 15,000 pounds of vinyl acetate monomer in a process, Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 2 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c) and detailed in Subpart C.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, to submit a single RMP as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160, the owner or operator shall complete a single registration form that provides, inter alia, the Program level of each covered process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119. Additionally, pursuant 40 C.F.R. § 68.l 75(a), the owner or operator is required to provide the information identified at 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(b) through (p) for each Program 3 process.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15. The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1).
Respondent’s failure to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(2) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12( c)(3). Specifically,
(a) Respondent failed to conduct as offsite consequence analysis as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22;
(b) Respondent failed to conduct a worst-case release scenario analysis as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.25;
(c) Respondent failed to conduct an alternate release scenario analysis as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.28; and
(d) Respondent failed to define offsite impacts as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.30 and 68.33.
Respondent’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in § 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12{c)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, or alternatively, implement the Program 3 prevention requirements ofC.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3). Specifically,
Respondent failed to compile and maintain complete up-to-date process safety information related to the regulated substance, processes, and equipment, specifically the maximum intended inventory of equipment in which the regulated substance was stored and the safe upper and lower temperatures, pressures, flows, and composition, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48(a)(2) and (3).
Respondent also failed to document the review of the hazards associated with the regulated substance, process, and procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50.
Respondent also failed to prepare written operating procedures that provide clear instructions or steps for safely conducting activities associated with each covered process consistent with the safety information for that process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52.
Respondent also failed to prepare and implement procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of the process equipment, failed to train or cause to be trained each employee involved in maintaining the on-going mechanical integrity of the process, and failed to perform or cause to be performed inspections and tests on process equipment following recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56.
Respondent also failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart C, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58. 41. Accordingly, Respondent failed to implement all of the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as alternatively required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3).
Respondent’s failure to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, or Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Forty-Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($46,346), and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) as set forth in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The projected cost of the SEP is Seventy-Two Thousand SixtySeven Dollars ($72,067). The SEP is further described below. Respondent shall complete the following SEP which is designed to assist in preventing an accidental release of a toxic substance from Respondent’s facility, along with mitigating and minimizing the consequence of such accidental release, and the attendant benefits to emergency planning and preparedness: the addition of carbon beds to the monomer storage tanks vents and monomer mix tank vents to further reduce the emissions of these vessels when the mix tanks are being filled and storage tanks are breathing.
The proposal and description for the SEP is attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein in its entirety. Respondent in good faith estimates that the cost to implement is Seventy-Two Thousand Sixty-Seven Dollars ($72,067). The SEP shall cost at least Seventy-Two Thousand Sixty-Seven Dollars ($72,067).
Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within nine (9) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order. SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT- SCOPE OF WORK
INSTALLATION OF CARBON BEDS AND RELATED MATERIALS TO REDUCE AIR EMISSIONS
In satisfaction of its obligations under this Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), Respondent will complete the following Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). A SEP is a beneficial environmental project that Respondent has voluntarily agreed to undertake as part of the resolution and settlement of this matter, but one which the Respondent is not otherwise legally required to perform and that primarily benefits public health or the environment. EPA has approved the following SEP, in addition to the civil penalty set forth in this CAFO, for the settlement of this matter.
1. The SEP described in this Scope of Work is designed to assist in preventing an accidental release of vinyl acetate monomer from Respondent’s facility, along with mitigating and minimizing the consequence of such accidental release, and the attendant benefits to emergency planning and preparedness.
2. The SEP entails the addition of carbon beds to the monomer storage tanks vents and monomer mix tank vents to further reduce the emissions of these vessels when the mix tanks are being filled and storage tanks are breathing.
3. The SEP will include the following:
a. Installation of upgraded piping (304 SS grade), valves, and related materials to accommodate piping to the carbon drums, at an estimated cost of $13,494,38;
b. Installation of five new conservation vents, four new detonation arrestors, and related equipment for the vinyl acetate monomer storage and mixing tanks, at an estimated cost of $46,200;
c. Installation of nine drums of activated charcoal, at an estimated cost of$7,295.59; and
d. Preparation of revised piping and instrumentation diagram drawings, at an estimated cost of $5,000.
4. Through this SEP, Respondent estimates that it will improve air quality at the facility by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds, generated by the use of monomers onsite, by approximately 3,000 lbs annually (and mitigate additional emissions due to increased production) which thereby mitigates the potential for a release or explosion.
5. The SEP also includes all necessary initial and ongoing training to Respondent’s facility personnel.
6. Within two hundred and seventy (270) days from the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent agrees that it will have completed the installation of the SEP.
7. Within ten months from the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent agrees that it will submit to EPA a SEP Completion Report, which includes all elements required by the CAFO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO