Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility. Respondent operates a bulk liquid storage facility and offers a full range of heating, blending, and product services. Various products, such as vegetable oil, chemicals, and petroleum products, are received in tanks for storage and transferred out of the facility to customers. Some of the petroleum products may be considered flammable, so Respondent processes, handles, stores, and transfers out flammable materials at the Facility.
EPA inspected the Facility from July 10-13, 2023, to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA, and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (the “Inspection”). During the inspection, EPA determined that IMTT did not have an RMP-listed / regulated chemical on site at the Facility and the inspection was focused on compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA.
The flammable materials found in tanks at the facility may, as a result of short-term exposures associated with releases to the air, cause death, injury, or property damage due to their flammability or volatility. Accordingly, the flammable material is an “extremely hazardous substance,” within the meaning of the General Duty Clause of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
EPA Findings of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – General Duty Clause (identify hazards)
Respondent failed to identify hazards which may result from accidental releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, in the following respects:
- Respondent did not conduct appropriate hazard assessments such as internal, external, or ultrasonic testing (UT) to detect any deficiencies/abnormalities on several pieces of equipment;
- Respondent failed to fully develop and maintain safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations, such as lockout/tagout, confined space entry, and opening process equipment;
- Hot work was not performed in accordance with the facility’s “Hot Work Policy (30003)” and
- Respondent did not identify and control residual flammable material in one of its tanks by identifying the content of the tanks accurately.
Respondent’s failure to identify and control hazards that may result from such releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques is a violation of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA
Count 2 – General Duty Clause (minimize consequences)
Respondent failed to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur due to a lack of comprehensive emergency response planning, in the following respects:
- Respondent’s emergency response plan did not anticipate the type of release that occurred at Tank N-22;
- Respondent’s fire suppression system malfunctioned due to a value failure; and
- contractors were required to self-rescue due to the explosion and fire and were injured/hospitalized in the process.
Respondent’s failure to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur, by failing to prepare a comprehensive emergency response plan, resulted in the injury and hospitalization of contractors and is a violation of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of Twenty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Eight Dollars and Fifty-Four Cents ($23,568.54)
Supplemental Environmental Project
Respondent shall complete a Pollution Prevention SEP consisting of the installation of 15 Varec Model 221 Emergency Pressure Relief Manway Covers (Model 221) on 8 – 15 fixed roof storage tanks. The SEP is more specifically described in Appendix A and incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent shall spend no less than One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) on implementing the SEP.
Respondent will identify the tanks, purchase the Modell 221s, and install them on the selected tanks.
Respondent shall complete the SEP within three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the effective date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO