Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for its stationary source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source. Respondent operates polyhydric alcohol production process that uses ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, and ethylenediamine in the polyhydric alcohol production process. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, polyhydric alcohol production process, which otherwise uses toxic regulated substances (ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, and ethylenediamine) in amounts exceeding their applicable thresholds of 10,000 pounds. During calendar year 2014, EPA opened an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation to determine Respondent’s compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at its stationary source. As part of this investigation, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records on May 7, 2014.
The focus of the onsite inspection was to assess the Respondent’s compliance with RMProgram requirements for its covered processes operating at its stationary source. The inspection consisted of an examination of Respondent’s relevant accident prevention program documentation as well as a visual inspection of various aspects of facility operations. Respondent’s management, health and safety, engineering and maintenance personnel assisted the EPA during the inspection.
- At the time of the inspection, Respondent could not provide documentation that process piping complied with the American Institute/ American Society of Mechanical Engineers A13.1 Standard which requires that the contents of process pipes be identified.
- At the time of the inspection, the Respondent had not provided process operators with refresher training after their initial training.
- At the time of the inspection, the Respondent had not provided maintenance training for their employees who maintain the process equipment.
- At the time of the inspection, the Respondent could not provide information that the safety sensor had been inspected, based on the facility’s quarterly inspection schedule between June 28, 2013, and the date of the inspection, May 7, 2014.
- At the time of the inspection, the Respondent could not provide information that the Pump & Rotating Equipment inspections had been conducted after September 1, 2013, as required by the facility’s quarterly inspection schedule.
- At the time of the inspection, the Respondent provided copies of the most recent compliance audits, which were conducted on March 5, 2007, and June 30, 2012. The audits were performed more than 5 years apart.
- Respondent completed an updated Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) in December 2009 after it added the D11.01 reactor. Respondent did not update its RMP after it updated the PHA.
- Respondent completed an updated PHA in March 2013 for a new reactor D31.01, which was installed in February 2014. Respondent did not update its RMP after it updated the PHA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on EPA’ s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 when it:
- 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);
- Failed to provide refresher training at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process as required by 40 CFR § 68.71(b);
- Failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment as required by 40 CFR § 68. 73(c);
- Failed to have the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment be consistent with with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience as required by 40 CFR § 68.73(d)(3);
- Failed to evaluate compliance with the provisions of the prevention program at least every three years as required by 40 CFR § 68.79(a);
- Failed to review, update and submit the RMP within six months of a change requiring a revised PHA or hazard review as required by 40 CFR § 68.190(b)(5).
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of SIXTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($66,500) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
CLICK HERE for CAFO