EPA v. ARKEMA, INC. (ATOFINA CHEMICALS, INC.)

Case summary

Region 5 filed a combination Complaint/Consent Agreement and Final Order simultaneously initiating and resolving an administrative compliance action under Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act against Respondent Arkema, Inc. at its Riverview, Michigan facility, at which the company produced various chemical products which made the processing equipment subject to the requirements of Subpart H of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Equipment Leaks at 40 C.F.R. Part 63. Section 63.180(b) of the regulations requires that monitoring comply with EPA Reference Method 21. During an October 2004 Region 5 inspection at the facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted LDAR monitoring on some of the process equipment. EPA staff detected leaks which were then confirmed by the company’s regular LDAR contractor (a leak is defined as an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater). The Region found leaks that represent a significantly higher percentage of leaks than were detected in previous monitoring events by the Respondent. We issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) which alleged that the Company had failed to correctly monitor in accordance with Method 21 during previous LDAR monitoring events. The FOV alleges that: a) Respondent failed to monitor correctly in accordance with EPA Reference Method 21 for valves, connectors, and pumps; b) failed to equip nine open-ended valves or lines at the Facility with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve per § 63.167(a)(1); c) failed to make a first attempt at repair on certain valve and pump leaks at the Facility per § 63.168(f)(2) and § 63.163(c)(2) , respectively; and d) failed to a final attempt at repair on certain valve and pump leaks at the Facility per § 63.168(f)(1) and § 63.163(c)(1), respectively. Arkema agreed to take steps to ensure future compliance with Method 21, as well as to implement an enhanced monitoring program under which the facility would: perform more frequent monitoring than required under the regulations; utilize a monitoring device equipped with a data logger (which automatically records the emission levels detected at each component and the date and time that each sample is taken); implement a reduced leak repair action level standard (below the regulatory leak definition) for valves, connectors, and pumps; evaluate upgrading leaking components to utilize improved technology, or environmentally enhanced alternatives; evaluate upgrading leaking or even non-leaking pumps (to eliminate the need for monitoring these components and to reduce fugitive emissions from them); evaluate more aggressive repair alternatives; perform a root cause analysis on leaking components; develop a maintenance and corrective action program; and provide the Region with reports on the results of the enhanced monitoring program. However, before the enhanced program could be formalized, the company ceased operations at the facility in 2007. The Region obtained a waiver from the Department of Justice in order to resolve the case administratively. This CAFO provides for a civil penalty in the amount of $170,000 for the violations alleged.

Defendants (1)

• ARKEMA, INC. (ATOFINA CHEMICALS)Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• TAMINCO HIGHER AMINES, INC.

  17168 W JEFFERSON AVE, RIVERVIEW, MI, 48193

  Registry ID: 110000406436

Statutes cited

• CAA 112D — MACT Standards

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• ARKEMA, INC. (ATOFINA CHEMICALS, INC.)entered 2009-01-28

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $170,000

Timeline (3 milestones)

• 2009-01-26Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2009-01-28Final Order Issued
• 2009-04-02Enforcement Action Data Entered