Respondent owns and operates a chemical facility which had Chlorine (Cl2) as its “regulated substance”. On or about January 23-24, 2018, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process at its facility. From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §68.10(c), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(b) and (d), respectively. From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process, Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 2 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c) and detailed in Subpart C.
EPA hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.36 and 68.39 require that the owner/operator review and update its off-site consequences analysis at least every 5 years; and to maintain documentation relating to its off-site consequences analysis.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to review and update its offsite consequences analysis at least every 5 years; and to maintain documentation relating to its off-site consequences analysis, as required by the regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.36 and 68.39.
Respondent’s failure to review and update its off-site consequences analysis at least every 5 years; and to maintain documentation relating to its off-site consequences analysis, as required by the regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.36 and 68.39, are violations of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
The regulation at 40 C.F .R. § 68.12( c )(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement certain Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3). Specifically:
- Respondent failed to compile and maintain up-to-date safety information related to the regulated substances, processes, and equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48(a)(2-5). Specifically, Respondent failed to compile and maintain up-to-date safety information concerning:
- the maximum intended inventory of the equipment in which the regulated substances are stored or processed;
- safe upper and lower temperatures, pressures, flows, and compositions; equipment specifications; and
- codes and standards used to design, build, and operate the process each of which is required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48(a)(2-5);
- Respondent failed to properly conduct and document the hazard review for the site as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50;
- Respondent failed to develop and maintain all required operating procedures that address all the elements required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(b), including procedures to address initial startup; temporary operations; emergency shutdown and operations; startup following a normal or emergency shutdown or a major change that requires a hazard review; consequences of deviations and steps required to correct or avoid deviations; and equipment inspections for all processes, each of which is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(b);
- Respondent failed to provide refresher training and employees involved with the covered processes understand and comply with current operating procedures at least every 3 years as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.54(b);
- Respondent failed to perform compliance audits for Subpart C, did not certify results, and did not have the latest 2 audits available as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58;
Respondent’s failures to comply with certain of the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, set forth above, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3
The regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 through 68.195 set forth certain requirements for developing, submitting and maintaining an RMP.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to meet certain of the requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 through 68.195 for developing, submitting and maintaining an RMP. Specifically:
- Respondent failed to properly document its status as a non-responding facility in its RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.180;
- Respondent failed to address its 5-year accident history in the Executive Summary of its RMP as required by 68.155(d); and
- Respondent failed to review and update the RMP at least every 5 years per 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1).
Respondent’s failures to meet the above requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 through 68.195 for developing, submitting and maintaining an RMP, violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Penalty Payment
EPA has considered the appropriateness of the penalty pursuant to Section 113(e)(1) of the CAA and has determined that the appropriate penalty for the violations is Seventy-Six Thousand and Eighty-Two Dollars ($76,082). However, pursuant to the statutory requirement that EPA considers the economic impact of the penalty on Respondent’s business, Respondent has demonstrated that it is unable to pay any penalty in this matter.
*Because of Respondent’s inability to pay the penalty, therefore, Complainant conditionally agrees to resolve the claims alleged herein.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO