Respondent is the “owner or operator” of the Facility that uses, handles, and/or stores as much as 7,810 pounds of sulfur dioxide (anhydrous). Respondent’s RMP describes a covered process, furnace off-gas handling, that is subject to Program 3 requirements. On July 25, 2022, and July 26, 2022, authorized representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to assess compliance with section 112(r)(7) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. part 68 (Inspection).
During the Inspection, the EPA representatives observed alleged violations of section of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. part 68. The alleged violations identified by authorized representatives of the EPA during the Inspection are described in Section V of this Agreement, below.
The owner or operator shall list in the RMP environmental receptors within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in 68.22(a) of this part. 40 C.F.R. S 68.33(a). The term “environmental receptor” is defined as natural areas such as national or state parks, forests, or monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas, that could be exposed at any time to toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure greater than or equal to the endpoints provided in S 68.22(a), as a result of an accidental release and that can be identified on local U.S. Geological Survey maps. 40 C.F.R. 68.3. The Great Salt Lake State Park is located within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in 40 C.F.R. S 68.22(a).
EPA alleges that the Respondent’s failure to include the Great Salt Lake State Park in the October 29, 2020, RMP is a violation of 40 CFR 68.33(a).
The owner or operator of a stationary source shall revise and update the RMP submitted under 40 C.F.R. 68.150 as follows:
(1) At least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update required by paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this section, whichever is later. 40 CFR S 68.190(b)(1).
Following Respondent’s August 7, 2014 RMP submission, described above, Respondent’s revision and update of the RMP was due on or before August 7, 2019. Respondent did not submit an RMP revision and update until October 29, 2020. EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to update the Facility’s RMP on or before August 7, 2019, is in violation of 40 CFR S 68.190(b)(1).
The owner or operator shall provide in the RMP an executive summary that includes a brief description of the five-year accident history. 40 C.F.R. S 68.155(d). On October 29, 2020, Respondent submitted an RMP revision and update, but failed to include the October 8, 2017, sulfur dioxide gas incident in both the five-year accident history and executive summary. EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to include this gas incident in both the five-year accident history and executive summary of the October 29, 2020 RMP is a violation of 40 C.F.R. 68.155(d).
The owner or operator shall perform an initial process hazard analysis on processes covered by part 68, which shall be updated and revalidated by its process hazard analysis team, to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process. 40 C.F.R. S 68.67(f). The owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be 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 affected by the recommendations or actions. 40 C.F.R. 68.67(e)(1). In 2020, Respondent’s process hazard analysis team conducted the 2020 acid plant process hazard analysis. At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent failed to document the resolution of the following recommendations:
823616 (level switches to the mass flow interlocks of both furnaces),
824135 (equipment labeling in the acid plant), and
824136 (mock drill in the acid plant).
EPA alleges that the Respondent’s failure to document the resolution of these recommendations from the 2020 acid plant process hazard analysis is in violation of 40 C.F.R. ยง 68.67(e).
The owner or operator shall review operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources.
EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to certify the hot metals and byproducts operating procedures and the acid plant operating procedures in 2020 is in violation of 40 CFR 68.69(c).
The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. 40 CFR S68.73(d)(3).
EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to conduct 33 inspections and tests on temperature and pressure transmitters on or before July 22, 2022, is in violation of 40 CFR 68.73(d)(3).
The owner or operator shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test. 40 CFR 68.73(d)(4).
EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to include the dates of each inspection or test, the name of the person who performed each inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which each inspection or test was performed, a description of each inspection or test performed, and the results of each inspection or test for the acid plant drying tower inspection is in violation of 40 CFR S 68.73(d)(4).
The owner or operator shall develop and implement an emergency response program that includes procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance. 40 CFR 68.95(a). In 2021, Respondent failed to inspect and test its self-contained breathing apparatus equipment in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association 1852 section 7.5.1. standard.
EPA alleges Respondent’s failure to implement procedures for the annual inspection and testing of emergency response self-contained breathing apparatus equipment is in violation of 40 CFR 68.95(a).
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Based on the Alleged Violations of Law, and after consideration of the statutory factors in paragraph 36 above, the EPA has determined a civil penalty of $211,351 is appropriate to settle this matter.
CLICK HERE for CAFO