EPA v. SUNOCO, LLC

Case summary

9/8/2022 ? CONSENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL ORDER ISSUED ASSESSING A PENALTY OF $174,095. PENALTY DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: BASED ON EPA?S COMPLIANCE MONITORING INVESTIGATION, THE EPA ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED 40 C.F.R. PART 68, THE CODIFIED RULES GOVERNING THE ACT?S CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROVISIONS AND SECTION 112(R) OF THE ACT, 42 U.S.C. ? 7412(R), WHEN IT: A. OPERATED A PROCESS WITH MORE THAN A THRESHOLD QUANTITY OF A REGULATED SUBSTANCE, AS DETERMINED UNDER 40 C.F.R. ? 68.115, WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. PART 68 BY NO LATER THAN THE DATE ON WHICH THE REGULATED SUBSTANCE WAS FIRST PRESENT ABOVE A THRESHOLD QUANTITY IN THE PROCESS, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. ? 68.10(A)(3); B. FAILED TO DOCUMENT THAT EQUIPMENT COMPLIES WITH RAGAGEP, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. ? 68.65(D)(2); C. FAILED TO REVIEW THE OPERATING PROCEDURES AS OFTEN AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT THEY REFLECT CURRENT OPERATING PRACTICE, INCLUDING CHANGES THAT RESULT FROM CHANGES IN PROCESS CHEMICALS, TECHNOLOGY, AND EQUIPMENT, AND CHANGES TO STATIONARY SOURCES. RESPONDENT DID NOT CERTIFY ANNUALLY THAT THESE OPERATING PROCEDURES WERE CURRENT AND ACCURATE, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. ? 68.69(C); D. FAILED TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS AND TESTS ON PROCESS EQUIPMENT; INSPECTION AND TESTING PROCEDURES DID NOT FOLLOW RAGAGEP; AND THE FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS AND TESTS OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE MANUFACTURERS' RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. ? 68.73(D)(1)-(3); E. FAILED TO CONFIRM IN THE PSSR THAT PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF A REGULATED SUBSTANCE TO A PROCESS, SAFETY, OPERATING, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES WERE IN PLACE AND ARE ADEQUATE, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. ? 68.77(B)(2); F. FAILED TO CERTIFY THAT IT HAD EVALUATED COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 40 C.F.R. PART 68, SUBPART D AT LEAST EVERY THREE (3) YEARS TO VERIFY THAT PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES DEVELOPED UNDER THIS SUBPART WERE ADEQUATE AND BEING FOLLOWED, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. ? 68.79(A); AND G. FAILED TO PREPARE A REPORT AT THE CONCLUSION OF AN INCIDENT INVESTIGATION WHICH INCLUDED THE DATE THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN, AS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. 68.81(D)(2).

Defendants (1)

• SUNOCO, LLCNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• SUNOCO - BIRMINGHAM

  2700 ISHKOODA-WENONAH RD SW, BIRMINGHAM, AL, 35211

  Registry ID: 110001715261

Statutes cited

• CAA 112[R][7] — Prevention of Accidental Release/Risk Management Plans (RMPs)

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• SUNOCO, LLCentered 2022-09-08

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $174,095

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2022-09-08Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2022-09-08Final Order Issued
• 2022-09-12Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2022-10-03Enforcement Action Closed