Respondent operates a silicon wafer manufacturing facility. Respondent has a HCL tube trailer and gas supply system process at the stationary source and has exceeded the threshold quantity for Hydrogen Chloride (anhydrous) [Hydrochloric Acid] at the HCL tube trailer and gas su11ply system. The covered process is subject to the Program 3 requirements of the RMP regulations. On or about March 11, 2014, an EPA representative conducted an inspection of the facility and found the following issues:
Count 1 – Failure to Establish System to promptly Address Process Hazard Analysis Teams findings and recommendations
40 CFR 68.67(e) provides that the owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations arc resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be impacted by the recommendations or actions.
As of the March 13, 2014 inspection the respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the 20l2 process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations.
Count 2 – Failure to Update Process Hazard Analysis every five years
40 CFR 68.67(f) provide that al least every five (S) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the process hazard analysis shall he updated and revalidated by-a team meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 68.67(d), to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process.
Respondent updated the process hazard analysis for the HCL tube trailer and gas supply system in 2003.
The respondent failed to update the process hazard analysis for the HCL tube trailer and gas supply system until 2012.
Count 3 — Failure to document training
40 CFR 68.71(c) provides that the owner or operator shall ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by 40 68.71 The owner or operator shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means to verify that the employee understood the training.
As of the March 13, 2014 EPA inspection, the respondent failed to prepare records which contains the means to verify that its employees understood the training they received.
The respondent violated 40 CFR 68.71(c) by failing to prepare records which contains the means to verify that its employees understood the training they received.
Count 4 – Failure to Conduct certain Mechanical integrity Inspections
40 CFR 68.73(a) provides that the requirements of 40 CFR 68.73(b)-(f) applies to controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks)
40 CFR 68.73(d) provides that inspections and tests shall be conducted on process equipment. Inspections and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The frequency of inspections and tests shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
As of the March 13, 2014 EPA inspection the respondent had failed to calibrate and test certain chemical detectors consistent with the applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices.
The respondent violated 40 CFR 68.71(d) by failing to timely calibrate and test certain chemical detectors consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices.
Count 5 – Failure to Conduct Compliance Audit every three years
40 CFR 68.79(a) provides that the owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions or 40 CFR Part 68 Subpart D at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under 40 CFR 68, Subpart D are adequate and are being followed.
Respondent conducted a compliance audit in 2006.
As of the March 13, 2014 EPA inspection, the respondent failed to conduct a Compliance audit since 2006.
The respondent violated 40 CFR 68.79(a) by failing to conduct two (2) compliance audits since 2006.
Count 6 – Failure to obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner’s or operator’s safety performance and programs
40 CFR 68.87(b)(1) provides that the owner or operator, when selecting a contractor, shall obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs.
As of the March 13, 2014 EPA inspection, the respondent failed to obtain and evaluate information regarding its Contractor’s safety performance and programs.
The respondent violated 40 CFR 68.87(b)(1) by failing to obtain and evaluate information regarding its contractors’ safety performance and programs.
PENALTY = $72,250
Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP)
Respondent shall implement a Hydrogen Chloride (HCL) Tube Trailer Storage Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), as set forth below:
Respondent shall construct a new building for the HCL tube trailers. The concrete pad for the trailers shall he sufficient to support three fully loaded HCL trailers. The building shall be equipped with gas detectors and sprinklers inside the building. The building shall be able to be monitored from inside the manufacturing facility.
Respondent shall complete installation and begin operation of the HCL Tube Trailer Storage building no later than August 15, 2015. The expenditure shall be no less than $340,000. Costs do not include inventory on hand, overhead, additional employee time and salary, administrative expenses, legal fees, and oversight of a contractor.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO