Respondent is the facility’s owner and operator. The EPA inspected the Facility from July 27 to July 29, 2021, to determine the Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAAmand 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (“the Inspection”). Operations at Respondent’s Facility include, among others, repackaging chlorine for utilization in sodium hypochlorite bleach manufacturing. The Facility also uses or produces several regulated flammables. The Respondent’s processes meet the definition of “process” and “covered process,” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The Respondent’s RMP program level 3 covered processes store or otherwise use a regulated substance in an amount exceeding the applicable threshold.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Operating Procedures
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent failed to implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions as to when employees should don a full-face respirator.
Respondent’s failure to implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 2 – Operating Procedures
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent could not locate the final version of its 2017 annual certification. Additionally, its 2019 certification was completed one month late.
Respondent’s failure to certify annually that its operating procedures are current and accurate, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 3 – Training
Until July 2023, Respondent’s refresher training program did not meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b)-(c).
Respondent’s failure to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b)-(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 4 – Management of Change (MOC)
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent failed to ensure employees involved in operating a process and maintenance whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process were informed of, and trained in, the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process.
In addition, Respondent failed to update process safety information when a change to the covered process resulted in a change in the process safety information.
Respondent’s failure to implement management of change procedures, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.75(c) & 68.75(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 5 – Pre-Startup Safety Review
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent failed to conduct PSSRs in accordance with its own procedure requiring it to conduct a PSSR for any new or existing covered process that has been modified by other than a “replacement in kind.”
In addition, Respondent’s MOC internal classification system affected its ability to comply with PSSR requirements.
Respondent’s failure to conduct pre-startup safety reviews in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(a) and (b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 6 – Compliance Audit
At the time of the Inspection, several Compliance Audit findings from 2018 and 2021 were completed late or past due.
Respondent’s failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that the deficiencies have been corrected, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(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 two-hundred sixty-one thousand dollars and nine hundred and six dollars ($261,906.00)
CLICK HERE for CAFO