On September 15, 2021, Respondent acquired ownership and commenced operation of the manufacturing facility. Isobutane is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for Isobutane, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, is 10,000 pounds. Propane is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for propane, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, is 10,000 pounds. On or about October 22-23, 2019, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of the 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 22,209 pounds of isobutane and 7,385 pounds of propane were on site at the time of inspection.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that GB FI GROUP did not use appropriate parameters to determine the distance to the endpoints, and specifically did not show how the distance to the endpoints was calculated for the alternate release scenario analyzed in the offsite consequence analysis, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.28(c).
The failure to show how the distance to the endpoints was calculated in the alternative release scenario is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility did not maintain records to support the offsite consequence analysis included in the most recent RMP. Specifically, it did not retain documentation of the estimated quantity released, release rate, and
duration of release; the methodology used to determine the distance to the endpoints; and the data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected.
The failure to maintain records to support the offsite consequence analysis, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(c)-(e), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility did not include all the required elements in the standard operating procedures under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a), including operating limits, temporary operations, emergency operations, emergency shutdown, normal shutdown, startup following a turnaround or after an emergency shutdown, and consequences of deviation.
The failure to include all the required elements in the standard operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 4
The EPA inspection revealed that GB FI GROUP did not establish mechanical integrity procedures that address the frequency of inspections and tests pertaining to two loops of buried piping, each consisting of a supply line and a return line, consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3). Specifically, applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices dictate an inspection be conducted every 5-15 years, depending upon soil corrosivity. The EPA inspection revealed that GB FI GROUP had never inspected the two loops of buried piping and that the piping was installed over 15 years ago.
The failure to establish mechanical integrity procedures that address the frequency of inspections and tests pertaining to the two loops of buried piping in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3) violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 5
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility did not implement procedures outlined in the pre-startup safety review policy document, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.77. Specifically, it did not conduct the pre-startup safety review that was required to manage the change of pressure relief valves and manifolds for isobutane and propane tanks in the storage area.
The failure to implement procedures outlined in the pre-startup safety review policy document, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.77, violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 6
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility did not retain and certify the two most recent compliance audits, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79. Specifically, at the time of inspection, GB FI GROUP could produce documentation of only one compliance audit, which was conducted in 2017 and was uncertified.
The failure to retain and certify the two most recent compliance audits, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79, violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 7
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility did not establish a management system for oversight of the implementation of all of the risk management program elements, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.
The failure to establish a management system in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 8
The EPA inspection revealed that the facility did not accurately report whether the Facility is a responding or non-responding facility in its 2016 Risk Management Plan, as is required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.180. Specifically, GB FI GROUP stated in its most recent RMP that the Facility is a responding facility, when in fact the Facility does not intend to actively respond to accidental releases and is therefore a non-responding facility.
The failure to accurately report the Facility’s status as a non-responding facility in the most recent RMP, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.180(b), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $144,924.
Conditions
As a condition of settlement, Respondent agrees to the following:
(a) Within 180 days of the effective date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order, Respondent shall perform non-destructive testing of the two loops of buried piping, each comprised of a supply line and a return line, located at the Facility. Respondent shall address any findings indicating compromised piping integrity and establish a schedule to promptly remedy these findings.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO