Respondent operates a specialty chemical manufacturing facility that includes an aboveground storage tank, tanker truck, tanker car, tote and drum chemical storage areas. At its stationary source, the Respondent has 500,000 pounds of carbon disulfide in onsite storage and Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses carbon disulfide in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 20,000 pounds. On March 2, 2016, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for its covered process at its stationary source. At the time of the inspection, the EPA determined that Respondent had not inspected and tested process equipment consistent with applicable manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering practices. The Respondent conducts mechanical integrity inspections of equipment and piping per the American Petroleum Institute’s (API’s) Standard 653-Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction. Per API 653, a five-year external inspection and a ten-year internal inspection is required for storage tanks containing toxic materials.
The Respondent’s last inspection of the West CS2 Storage Tank was performed on October 20, 2010. Per API 653, the next subsequent external inspection should have been completed by October 20, 2015, but no such external inspection had been performed prior to EPA’s March 2, 2016, inspection.
At the time of the inspection, the EPA determined that the Respondent had not corrected deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits in a safe and timely manner.
(1) A pipe inspection completed on September 27, 2011, recommended that Respondent “monitor at a 30-day interval the mechanical gouge at TML # 10 to determine the corrosion rate; to monitor TML #12 frequently to establish a corrosion rate; and to resolve the concrete-to-air interface between TML’s #9 and # 10 by installing a pipe sleeve to avoid contact with concrete.” However, the respondent took no further action to resolve these recommendations.
(2) A November 22, 2013, Vessel Inspection Summary recommended discontinuing the use of the East CS2 Storage Tank. Respondent completed an external visual and ultrasonic thickness examination of the tank on November 21, 2013, that was limited to the top exposed area of the tank due to its location inside a water-filled dike. The Vessel Inspection Summary recommended “removing the vessel from service” due to “coating failure with heavy corrosion and pitting on the shell.” However, Respondent took no further action to resolve these recommendations, and the East Tank was still in service at the time of EPA’ s March 2, 2016, inspection.
At the time of the inspection, EPA determined that the Respondent’s RMPlan did not accurately indicate the maximum amount of carbon disulfide in process. The Respondent’s April 28, 2014, RMPlan of record at the time of EPA’s March 2, 2016, inspection represented the maximum amount of carbon disulfide in process as 105,000 pounds. However, during EPA’s inspection, Respondent representatives stated that up to 400,000 pounds of carbon disulfide could be in process. In its October 14, 2016, RMPlan five-year submittal, Respondent updated the maximum amount in process to 500,000 pounds of carbon disulfide.
At the time of the inspection, EPA determined that the Respondent had not previously updated its RMPlan emergency contact information within thirty days of prior emergency contact changes. While the Respondent did update its RMPlan emergency contact information on March 2, 2016, the day of the EPA inspection, prior to that update, the RMPlan listed a former Environmental Manager who retired in 2015, as the emergency contact.
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 inspect and test process equipment consistent with applicable manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3);
- Failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in §68.65) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e);
- Failed to complete a single registration form that includes the maximum quantity of each regulated substance or mixture in the process (in pounds) to two significant digits as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7); and
- Failed to submit a RMPlan correction, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), for its emergency contact information within one month of any change to the RMPlan emergency contact information specified by 40 C.F .R. § 68.160(b)(6).
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of SEVENTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($17,274) (“EPA Penalty”).
Supplemental Environmental Project a) Respondent shall undertake and complete the following Emergency Planning and Preparedness project within 45 days of the effective date of this CAFO. Respondent shall expend no less than SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX ($64,776) for the purchase of ten (10) complete self-contained breathing apparatus units for Calloway County Fire-Rescue, namely ten (10) SCOTT SAFETY-AIRPAK-AP75, ten (10) SCOTT SAFETY-201215-05; ten (10) SCOTT SAFETY-804840-01-D; and ten (10) SCOTT SAFETY- 201275-01.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO