 |
CAA Section 112(r) Violators on EPA’s Hit List
Protecting communities from hazardous chemical releases is a priority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the requirements of the CAA Section 112(r) is at the center of many related violations. In announcements made in January and March, the EPA highlighted how several companies violated the GDC, RMP and other regulations designed to keep the public safe from chemical accidents.
In January, the EPA announced an enforcement action against a South Los Angeles oil production company located in a residential neighborhood. The company was found to have violated the GDC by not taking appropriate measures to prevent chemical releases to the air, such as when cleaning oil tanks, performing inspection and corrosion testing of pipes, and during activities related to equipment repair and replacement. At the same time, the company was also cited for several violations of the Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s) Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations.
There is a high likelihood that you’ll find flammable liquids at most facilities. Is your storage plan compliant? Join us for an in-depth webinar on 4/29 and make sure your existing program doesn’t “go up in smoke.”
Learn More
Two related companies located in Massachusetts were both found to be in violation of RMP program requirements: one that manufactures and distributes water treatment chemicals and stores hydrochloric acid and another that uses that hydrochloric acid. The chemical manufacturer was found by the EPA to have been in violation from at least February 2008 until April 2010 for failure to:
(1) develop and submit a “Program 2 RMP” for hydrochloric acid,
(2) develop a RMP management system,
(3) complete a hazard assessment,
(4) conduct a hazard review,
(5) comply with operating procedure requirements,
(6) comply with training requirements; and
(7) comply with maintenance requirements.
The company settled the alleged violations with the EPA and will pay a penalty of $85,166 and is now using a less concentrated hydrochloric acid that is safer and not subject to the RMP requirements. The second company was also alleged to have violated the RMP regulations and agreed to pay a penalty of $44,351.
In a 2011 EPA inspection, a metal finishing firm in Connecticut that was using chlorine gas, an extremely hazardous substance, was found to have 10 violations of 112(r) and was required to implement an RMP, which it failed to do properly. As a result, in a settlement with the EPA, the company will now significantly reduce risk by implementing a supplemental environmental project (SEP) that will eliminate the use of chlorine gas at the facility. The SEP will cost at least $54,000 and the company will also pay a $12,400 penalty.
Are you familiar with the recent OSHA revisions to the non-bulk flammable liquids standard? Join us for an in-depth webinar on 4/29: Flammable Liquids Standard: How to Prevent Explosions & Fire Hazards for Non-Bulk Flammables and Stay in Compliance. Register Now
Another Connecticut facility that manufactures shaped coil and wire was found to be in violation of the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) for failure to submit timely Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports for ammonia, chromium, nickel and copper for the previous year. The company was also issued an order on consent by the EPA for GDC requirements, and as a result, the company agreed to conduct a formal process hazard analysis to identify hazards arising from its use of anhydrous ammonia, and install a detection and alarm system to minimize and mitigate the potential for ammonia releases at the facility. The state-of-the art detection and alarm system will cost the company more than $26,000 and the company also agreed to a $5,626 penalty.
In New Hampshire, another chemical manufacturer and distributer allegedly violated the RMP regulations when it failed to adequately assess risks associated with storing and handling chlorine and sulfur dioxide in the same area as other incompatible chemicals and on-site traffic. The company was also alleged to have violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by failing to immediately notify the national Response Center following a release of hypochlorite from a ruptured tank that was both lacking secondary containment and close to the Merrimack River. The Company agreed to pay a $40,920 penalty to resolve the allegations.
If you look around most facilities, there is a high likelihood that you find flammable liquids. The amount of materials may vary but even in office environments, you will find some flammable materials that are used for cleaning, building maintenance, or equipment repair.
When used and stored properly the risks associated with flammable liquids are easily managed. However, if these liquids are used or stored improperly, it could present serious hazards resulting in injuries and even death.
Preparing in advance and implementing compliant storage and use for flammable liquids is a very straightforward process. But you have to take the time and develop a program using practical and accurate information that takes into account recent OSHA revisions to its non-bulk flammable liquids standard, which took place in 2012 following the revision to the Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard to incorporate the Globally Harmonized System (GHS).
The 2012 HazCom revisions changed the standards title from “Flammable and Combustible Liquids” to “Flammable Liquids.” Also, the revised regulation lists liquids as “categories” rather than “classes.”
It’s important to understand these changes and to make sure that you’re relying on proven, safe use and storage approaches for flammable liquids in your workplace.
Join us for an in-depth webinar on April 29 so you can take a closer look at your existing program to make sure it doesn’t “go up in smoke.” The presenter, a seasoned EHS professional, will provide a clear understanding of the applicable federal OSHA regulations that govern non-bulk flammable liquids, explain the key factors to consider when developing a flammable material storage and use program, and identify key components such as audits and inspections that will assure that the program is implemented in a compliant manner.