Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a manufacturing facility located in New York. The Facility uses phosgene in a process for the manufacture of organic chemicals. Respondent filed an RMP for the Facility with EPA on or about May 14, 2009, that, among other things, identified a covered phosgene process at the Facility subject to Program 3 requirements, with a specified quantity of 32,000 pounds of phosgene. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on or about June 6 – 7, 2012 to assess compliance with Section 112(r) of the Act and the applicable regulations, including those listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The Inspection Report identified violations of the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at the Facility, including failures to fully comply with:
- hazard assessment requirements at 40 C.F .R. Section 68 Subpart B;
- process safety information requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.65;
- process hazard analysis requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.67;
- operating procedures requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.69;
- mechanical integrity requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.73;
- compliance audit requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.79;
- contractor safety requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.87; and
- emergency response requirements at 40 C.F.R. Subpart E.
Respondent worked to address the violations identified by EPA and submitted information to EPA describing the actions taken to address each violation. In addition to addressing the violations, Respondent also undertook additional measures to reduce the risks of accidental releases of regulated substances at the Facility. Respondent installed an automatically activated scrubber system at the Facility. Respondent implemented inherently safer technology by installing new process equipment allowing for
- Respondent installed an automatically activated scrubber system at the Facility.
- Respondent implemented inherently safer technology by installing new process equipment allowing for reduction in phosgene usage.
- Respondent invested in security improvements for the Facility, including installation of a new security camera system.
- Respondent has worked with the local fire department regarding emergency response and had the entire fire department visit the Facility.
- Respondent hired an independent third party to verify the effectiveness of its mechanical integrity testing program for its phosgene pipelines, and modified its testing procedure in accordance with the third party’s recommendations.
EPA CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the total amount of $40,262.00, as described below.
Supplemental Environmental Project Respondent agrees to, and shall in accordance with the terms and conditions of this CAFO, implement and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) that consists of the purchase of the equipment described below and Attachment 1 for the Lockport Fire Department. To implement this SEP, Respondent agrees that its total expenditure shall not be less than $99,672.
Respondent agrees to purchase the equipment listed in Attachment 1 and provide it to the Lockport Fire Department pursuant to the following schedule:
- Respondent agrees to expend at least $50,000 toward the purchase of this equipment on or before November 30, 2016, and
- Respondent agrees to purchase the remainder of the equipment listed in Attachment 1 on or before April 30, 2017.
After purchase, such equipment will be promptly provided to the Lockport Fire Department. If the SEP is not undertaken, Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty of $99,672. If EPA determines that the SEP is satisfactorily completed, and Respondent has spent at least 90 percent of the total amount of money that it was required to expend for the SEP on expenditures that EPA determines are creditable toward the SEP (i.e. Respondent has spent $89,705, provided EPA has determined said amount is creditable toward the SEP), Respondent shall not pay stipulated penalty for not having spent the full amount specified herein for the SEP.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO