The Facility is a “stationary source” within the meaning of Section 112(r)(2)(C) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The Facility has at least two “processes” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, including a chlorine repackaging process and a chlorine and sulfur dioxide warehousing process. Chlorine and sulfur dioxide are regulated substances under Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, with respective threshold quantities of 2,500 pounds and 5,000 pounds, according to 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, Table 1. In September 2005, an EPA inspection revealed that the facility had more than 2,500 pounds of chlorine and more than 5,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide in processes at the facility. The facility is subject to the Program 3 requirements detailed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d), because the facility’s processes are subject to the OSHA Process Safety Management standard at 29 C.F.R. 1910.119.
Facility #1 – RMP
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c) when it failed to define the lines of authority and document the names and positions of those responsible for implementing individual RMP requirements at the DPCE Facility.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.42 and 68.168 when it failed to include in its five-year history and RMP all accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage at the DPCE Facility, and the data required for each release.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d) when it failed to include the design codes and standards employed at the facility in a compilation of process safety information (PSI) before conducting any process hazard analysis (PHA).
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c) when it failed to address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls in the PHA, and failed to include a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls in the PHA.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) when it failed to establish a system to promptly address the PHA findings and recommendations; ensure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented; complete actions as soon as possible; and develop a written schedule of when these actions were to be completed.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) when it failed to document the serial numbers or other identifiers of process equipment subject to inspection or testing at the facility.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a) when it failed to develop and implement an emergency response plan (ERP) that includes procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases, and when it failed to review and update the ERP as required.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b) when it failed to complete a registration form with required and accurate data, including the county in which the DPCE Facility is located, the Dun and Bradstreet number of the DPCE Facility, and the telephone number of the emergency contact.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.175 when it failed to provide required information in its RMP, including the dates of the most recent reviews and revisions of multiple aspects of the Program 3 Prevention Program for the DPCE Facility’s processes.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b) when it failed to correct the RMP as required to reflect any change in emergency contact information.
Facility #1 – Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Violations
Pursuant to Section 312(b) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022(b) and 40 C.F.R. § 370.20, the minimum reporting threshold amount for all hazardous chemicals present at a facility at any one time during the preceding year is 10,000 pounds per chemical. Aluminum sulfate, calcium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate, and calcium hydroxide are hazardous chemicals under Section 312(c) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022(c). Aluminum sulfate, calcium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate, and calcium hydroxide were present at the Facility in quantities above the minimum reporting threshold for at least the years 2004 and 2005.
- The facility violated Section 312(a) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022(a), and 40 C.F.R. Part 370 when it failed to include the documented quantities of aluminum sulfate, calcium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate, and calcium hydroxide in the Inventory Forms the facility submitted to the LEPC, SERC, and local fire department for at least the years 2004 and 2005.
Facility #2 – RMP
At all times relevant to this Complaint, the facility has been, and continues to distribute and repackage inorganic chemicals and compressed gasses and manufactures sodium hypochlorite, commonly known as bleach. The facility has at least three “processes” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, including a chlorine repackaging process, a chlorine and sulfur dioxide warehousing process, and an anhydrous ammonia warehousing process. Chlorine, sulfur dioxide, and anhydrous ammonia are regulated substances under Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, with respective threshold quantities of 2,500 pounds, 5,000 pounds, and 10,000 pounds, according to 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, Table 1.
In January 2007, an EPA inspection revealed that the facility had more than 2,500 pounds of chlorine, more than 5,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in processes at the facility. The facility is subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as an operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. The facility is also subject to the Program 3 requirements detailed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d), because the facility’s processes are subject to the OSHA Process Safety Management standard at 29 C.F.R. 1910.119.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R § 68.67(a) when it failed to perform an initial PHA on covered processes at the DPCI Facility.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c) when it failed to address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls in the PHA, and failed to include a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls in the PHA.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) when it failed to promptly address, document the resolution of, and develop a written schedule for completing action items in the PHA.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) when it failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with the Program 3 provisions at least every three years.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) when it failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies had been corrected.
- The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b) when it failed to revise and update the RMP at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update.
Within 30 Days after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, Facility #1 shall pay the sum of $87,327 and Facility #2 shall pay the sum of $111,673.
CLICK HERE for the proposed agreement