The Facility includes storage tanks, pumps, and transfer piping, and other buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance-emitting stationary activities from which an accidental release of a regulated substance may occur; which belong to the same industrial group; which are located on one or more contiguous properties; and which are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control). The Facility has a formaldehyde storage system that, since February 2017 and all subsequent relevant times, has contained more than the 15,000-pound TQ for formaldehyde and constitutes a single “covered process” under 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 (“the Facility Process”).
Count 1: Failure to Submit Risk Management Plan
The Facility stored more than the TQ of formaldehyde since at least February 2017 and at all subsequent relevant times. Respondent prepared, but did not submit, an RMP for the Facility Process to EPA on or before February 2017.
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.150(b)(3).
Count 2: Failure to Provide an Emergency Response Program and Exercises in the RMP
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent incorrectly identified the local emergency planning and response organization, did not provide the date of the most recent notification exercise, and did not include what mechanisms are in place to notify the public and
emergency responders when there is a need for emergency response.
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a) and 68.180.
Count 3: Failure to Comply with Management System Requirements
Since 2017, Respondent failed to assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements at the Facility and the organization chart did not clearly indicate
responsibility for the risk management program elements.
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.
Count 4: Failure to Comply with Hazard Assessment Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent’s hazard assessment did not meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.25, 68.28, 68.30, and 68.33. Respondent did not prepare a worst-case release scenario analysis meeting the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(a)(2)(i), per 40 C.F.R. § 68.20.
Respondent did not determine the offsite impacts to the population and the environment within the release radius, per 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.30(a) and 68.33(a).
Respondent’s alternative release scenario did not pose an alternative scenario that was more likely to occur than the worst-case release scenario, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.28(b)(i).
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.39.
Count 5: Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent did not fully complete a compilation of all specified written process safety information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65 for the Facility Process. Although Respondent reviewed, analyzed and collected certain safety information applicable to the Facility Process, certain required information pertaining to the technology of the process was missing:
(1) safe upper and lower limits, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iv);
(2) consequences of deviation, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v);
(3) design codes and standards employed, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi); and
(4) safety systems, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(viii).
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65.
Count 6: Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, the Process Hazard Analysis conducted by Respondent did not include a system to promptly address and document the team’s findings and recommendations, or documentation to demonstrate compliance.
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Count 7: Failure to Comply with Operating Procedures Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent’s written operating procedures for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69, were incomplete. Required information pertaining to the following procedures was missing:
(1) non-routine operations, including temporary operations, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iii);
(2) emergency shutdown, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv);
(3) emergency operations, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(v); and
(4) operating limits, including consequences of deviation and steps required to correct or avoid deviation, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2).
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69.
Count 8: Failure to Comply with Training Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent failed to document that operators involved in a covered process were provided refresher training every three years.
Thus, for at least the last three years, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71.
Count 9: Failure to Comply with Mechanical Integrity Requirements
Respondent failed to document inspections and testing of process equipment consistent with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d). Respondent failed to establish acceptable limits, defined by the process safety information in 40 C.F.R. § 68.65, in order to correct equipment deficiencies to assure safe operation within those limits, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73.
Count 10: Failure to Comply with Compliance Audit Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent failed to certify that it had evaluated compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 for the Facility Process at least three years after the regulated substance, formaldehyde, was first present onsite above the TQ of
15,000 pounds, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
Respondent failed to develop a report on the findings of its compliance audits, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(c).
Respondent 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, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79.
Count 11: Failure to Comply with Employee Participation Requirements
Since 2021, the Respondent has failed to document:
(1) annual notice to employees of the employee participation plan;
(2) training to ensure employees, employees’ representatives, and management involved in the Facility Process are informed of the employee participation plan; and
(3) consultation with its employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and other elements of process safety management in 40 C.F.R, Part 68, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(a)-(c).
Thus, for at least the last five years, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.83.
Count 12: Failure to Comply with Emergency Response Program Requirements
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent’s emergency response program did not meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95 as the Respondent failed to list the Facility in the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. § 11003, as required by 40
C.F.R. § 68.90(b)(1). Respondent did not file an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form until March 1, 2024.
Thus, between at least February 2017 and March 1, 2024, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.90 and 68.95.
Count 13: Failure to Provide an Emergency Response Program and Exercises in the RMP
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent did not provide in the RMP:
(1) the correct local emergency planning and response organization; and
(2) the date of the most recent coordination exercise.
Thus, since at least February 2017, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a) and 68.180.
EPCRA Hazardous Chemical Reporting
Count 1
At all times relevant to this Consent Agreement, Respondent produced, used or stored formalin, sulfuric acid, anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate at the Facility in an amount equal to or greater than the TPQs.
During calendar year 2021, Respondent stored greater than 500 pounds of formalin and sulfuric acid at the Facility.
During calendar year 2021, Respondent stored greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate at the Facility.
Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 11022 and 40 C.F.R. § 370.45 by failing to timely submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form for formalin, sulfuric acid, anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate to the SERC, the LEPC, and the fire department for calendar year 2021 by March 1, 2022.
Counts 2-4: Failure to timely file the EPCRA § 312 Tier II Inventory Report withthe SERC, the LEPC, and the Fire Department for Calendar Year 2022
During calendar year 2022, Respondent stored greater than 500 pounds of formalin and sulfuric acid at the Facility.
During calendar year 2022, Respondent stored greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate at the Facility.
Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 370.45 by failing to timely submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form for formalin, sulfuric
acid, anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate to the SERC for calendar year 2022 by March 1, 2023.
Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 370.45 by failing to timely submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form for formalin, sulfuric
acid, anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate to the LEPC for calendar year 2022 by March 1, 2023.
Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 370.45 by failing to timely submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form for formalin, sulfuric
acid, anhydrous citric acid, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and zinc sulfate to the fire department for calendar year 2022 by March 1, 2023.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
After considering these factors, EPA has determined and Respondent agrees that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $382,398 (the “Assessed Penalty”), $295,149 of which reflects violations of the CAA, and $87,249 of which reflects violations of EPCRA.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO