Respondent is the owner and operator of a paint facility. On August 7, 2023, an incident occurred at the Facility that EPA alleges resulted in an accidental release (the “Incident”) of byproducts from a temperature-sensitive organic peroxide, leading to an overpressure release event. EPA conducted an investigation of the Facility beginning September 12, 2023, to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA. EPA alleges that the root cause of the incident involved the storage of a raw material ingredient above the manufacturer’s recommended temperature. Manufacturer recommendations for the storage and handling of the raw material involved in the incident are below 50 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), use in a controlled climate area below 68°F, elimination of potential static electric discharges, and, avoiding container placement in direct sunlight. EPA alleges the raw material is an extremely hazardous substance subject to requirements of the GDC due to its unstable chemical composition. The material begins to decompose at temperatures exceeding 68°F and should not be stored in direct sunlight. This substance has a self-accelerating decomposition temperature of 108°F, under which the material will spontaneously react to generate flammable vapors. Spontaneous decomposition may lead to an overpressure release event.
From the time Respondent first produced, processed, handled, or stored the raw material at the Facility, EPA alleges Respondent was subject to the requirements of the General Duty Clause in Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA. Based upon the information gathered during the Investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count 1 – General Duty Clause
EPA alleges that Respondent failed to fully design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as necessary to prevent releases. EPA alleges Respondent failed to fully recognize, evaluate, and address the hazards and consequences of regularly occurring high ambient temperatures over 95 degrees Fahrenheit during mid to late summer (August), and which may persist for several consecutive days in the Garland, TX area where the Facility is located, as such conditions may directly affect the storage, transfer, and management of extremely hazardous substances used in the CAT-5/R5 Low Temperature Resin Production area.
EPA alleges that Respondent’s failure to sufficiently identify and address the ambient temperature hazards which may lead to overpressure release events and accidental releases involving organic peroxide using appropriate hazard assessment techniques is a violation of the GDC, at Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
Count 2 – General Duty Clause
EPA alleges that Respondent acquired the Facility from The Valspar Corporation (“Seller”) on June 1, 2017 and Seller failed to safely design the CAT-5/R5 Low Temperature Resin Production area by feasible means to ensure it eliminated or materially reduced the hazards posed by storage and handling of the organic peroxide chemicals under elevated ambient temperature weather conditions, which exceeded published manufacturer and supplier specifications and recommendations, and also failed to take the necessary steps to prevent a release of those substances under such conditions.
EPA alleges that Respondent’s failure to design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, is a violation of the GDC, at Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
Count 3 – General Duty Clause
EPA alleges that Respondent failed to minimize the consequences of the accidental release that occurred August 7, 2023, by not having appropriate emission control and other release mitigation, retention, and containment mechanisms in place to prevent or reduce the excess emissions released to atmosphere, and the volume of firefighting materials mixed with aqueous residues released to Duck Creek.
EPA alleges that Respondent’s failure to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur is a violation of the GDC, at Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND CIVIL PENALTY
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which are hereby adopted and made a part hereof, and upon consideration of the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violations, payment by the violator of any penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violations, and other factors as justice may require, EPA has assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $195,686.99 (the “EPA Penalty”).
CLICK HERE for CAFO