UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Steven C. Schlang 

Enforcement Counsel 

617-918-1773 (phone) 

617-918-1809 (fax) 

September 30, 2013 

Wanda I. Santiago 

Regional Hearing Clerk 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 1 

5 Post Office Square 

Mail Code.:... ORA18-1 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912 

REGION I 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912 

Re: In the Matter of: Metal Finishing Technologies, LLC 

Docket Number: CAA-01-2013-0073 

Dear Ms. Santiago, 

Please find enclosed for filing an original and one copy of an Administrative Complaint 

regarding the above-matter. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the enclosed. 

Steven C. Schlang 

cc: Jim Gaffey 

Peter Mirabella. 
In the Matter of: Metal Finishing Technologies, LLC 

Docket Number CAA-01-2013-0073 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Administrative Complaint has been sent to the 

following persons on the date noted below: 

Original and one copy 

hand delivered: 

Copy by Certified MailReturn Receipt Requested 

Date: September 30, 2013 

Wanda Santiago 

Regional Hearing Clerk (RAA) 

U.S. EPA, Region I 

One Congress Street, Suite 11 00 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Peter Mirabelle 

Metal Finishing Technologies, LLC. 

60 Wooster Court 

Forestville, CT 0601 0 · 

1'--Office 

Steven 

ofEnvironmental 

C. Schlang =~ Stewardship U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region I 

Five Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Mail Code OES04-4 

Boston, MA 02109-3219 

tel: (617) 918-1773 

fax: (617) 918-0773 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 1 

IN THE MATTER OF I 

Metal Finishing Technologies, LLC. 

60 Wooster Court 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~ () 

~ /~ Forestville (Bristol), CT 

Respondent 

Proceeding under Section 113(d) ofthe Clean 

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) _______________________________ ) 

1;'., '-.)0 () 'v~ 0, ,<- •,.',(', 1 -<1 

Docket Nos. CAA-01-2013-009',3, >{·?-'"~ -%. "<;,~:. £ S) '"<..'~ <0 

COMPLAINT AND NOTI~E OF (<fr'O 

OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING 

I. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 

· 1. The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 ("EPA") issues this 

administrative Complaint and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing ("Complaint") pursuant to 

Section 113(d) ofthe Clean Air Act ("CAA''), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d). This action is subject to the 

Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and 

the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits ("Consolidated Rules of Practice"), 40 

C.P.R. Part 22. The authority to issue this Complaint has been delegated to the Director of the 

Office of Environmental Stewardship, Region 1 ("Complainant"). 

2. This Complaint alleges that Metal Finishing Technologies, LLC., ("MFT" or 

"Respondent") violated Section 112(r) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and its implementing 

regulations set forth at 40 C.P.R. Part 68. 

. 3. The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing describes Respondent's option to file an 

Answer to the Complaint and to request a formal hearing. 
II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY 

4. Section 112(r) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), authorizes EPA to promulgate 

regulations and programs to prevent and minimize the consequences of the accidental release of 

certain regulated substances. In particular, Section 112(r)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3), requires 

EPA to promulgate a list of substances that are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated 

to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the environment if 

accidentally released, and Section 112(r)(5), 42 U.S.C § 7412(r)(5), requires EPA to establish for 

each regulated substance a threshold quantity over which an accidental release is known to cause 

or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human 

health. Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), requires EPA to promulgate 

requirements for the prevention, detection, and correction of accidental releases of regulated 

substances, including a requirement that owners or operators of certain stationary sources 

prepare and implement a Risk Management Plan ("RMP"). 

5. Pursuant to Section 112(r)(7) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), EPA 

promulgated RMP regulations, found at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 ("Part 68"). Section 68.130 of 40 

C.F.R. lists the substances regulated under Part 68 ("RMP chemicals" or "regulated substances") 

and their associated threshold quantities. 

6. Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.1 0, an owner or operator of a stationary source that has 

more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process must comply with the 

requirements of Part 68 by no later than the latest ofthe following dates: (a) June 21, 1999; 

(b) three years after the date on which a regulated substance is first listed under 40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.130; or (c) the date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold 

quantity in a process. 

2 
7. A "process" is defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 as any activity involving a regulated 

substance, including any use, storage, m~ufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such 

substances, or combination of these activities. 

8. A "public receptor" is defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 to include offsite residences, 

institutions (including schools and hospitals), industrial, commercial, and office buildings, parks, 

or recreational areas inhabited or occupied by the public at any time where members of the 

public could be exposed to toxic concentrations, radiant heat', or overexposure, as a result of an 

accidental release. 

9. Each process in which a regulated substance is present in more than a threshold 

quantity (a "covered process") is subject to one of three risk management programs, for which 

the eligibility requirements are set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.1 0. Program 1 is the least 

comprehensive, and Program 3 is the most comprehensive. Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(b), a 

covered process is subject to Program 1 if, among other things, the distance to a toxic or 

flammable endpoint for a worst-case release assessment is less than the distance to any public 

receptor. Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d), a covered process is subject to Program 3 ifthe process 

does not meet the eligibility requirements for Program 1 and is either in certain specified NAICS 

codes or subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") process safety 

management ("PSM") standard set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119. Under40 C.F.R. § 68.10(c), a 

covered process meeting neither Program 1 nor Program 3 eligibility requirements is subject to 

Program 2. 

10. Forty C.F.R. § 68.12 mandates that the owner or operator of a stationary source 

implement the chemical accident prevention provisions of Part 68 to which it is subject and 

submit an RMP. The RMP documents compliance with Part 68. For example, the RM~ for a 

3 
Program 3 process documents compliance with the elements of a Program 3 Risk Management 

Program, including 40 C.F.R. § 68.12 (General Requirements); 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 (Management 

System to Oversee Implementation ofRMP); 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart B (Hazard Assessment 

to Determine Off-Site Consequences of a Release); 40 C.F.R Part 68, Subpart D (Program 3 

Prevention Program); and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart E (Emergency Response Program). 

11. Additionally, 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b) dictates that the owner or operator ofa 

stationary source must revise and update the RMP submitted to EPA at least once every five 

years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update. 

12. Under Section 112(r)(7)(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(e), it is unlawful 

for any person to operate any stationary source subject to regulations promulgated pursuant to 

Section 112(r) in violation of such regulation or requirement. 

13 . Sections 113(a) and(d) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(a) and (d), as amended by 

EPA's 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 19, promulgated 

in accordance with the DCIA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3701 et seq., provide for the assessment of civil 

penalties for violations of Section 112(r) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), in amounts up to 

$32,500 per day for violations of the CAA occurring between March 16, 2004 and January 12, 

2009, and up to $37,500 per day for violations of the CAA occurring after January 12, 2009. 

14. Pursuant to Section 113(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d), EPA obtained from 

the Department of Justice a waiver of the twelve-month limitation on EPA's authority to initiate 

administrative cases. 

IIJ. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

15. Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connectic"ut 

with its principal office and metal finishing facility located at 60 Wooster Court, Forestville, 

Connecticut ("Facility"). 

4 
16. Respondent is a "person" within the meaning of Section 302(e) ofthe CAA, 42 

U.S.C. § 7602(e). 

17. The Facility is a building or structure from which an accidental release may occur 

and is therefore a "stationary source" as that term is defined at Section 112(r)(2)(C) of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C § 7412(r)(2)(C), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. 

18. Respondent is the "owner or operator," as that term is defined at Section 112(a)(9) 

ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C .. § 7412(a)(9), of a stationary source. 

19. Chlorine is an RMP chemical listed under 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. Chlorine is a toxic 

· substance that is normally shipped and stored as a liquefied compressed gas. Chlorine is a 

heavier-than-air gas, is non-flammable, and is a strong oxidizer. Chlorine causes respiratory 

distress and may bum skin, eyes, and lungs. Effects of inhalation range from headaches, nausea, 

and lung irritation to severe eye, nose, and respiratory distress. Inhaling high concentrations of 

chlorine gas can be lethal. The substance is highly reactive and will readily mix with other 

substances causing further hazards. In the presence of moisture, chlorine becomes highly 

corrosive. 

20. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.10(a) and 68.130, any facility storing more than 

2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process is subject to the RMP regulations of 40 C.F.R. Part 68. 

21 . The use, storage, manufacturing, handling or on-site movement of an IU\1P 

chemical at the Facility (in any vessel, group of interconnected vessels, or separate vessels that 

are located such that a regulated substance could be involved in a potential release) is a 

"process," as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 . 

22. On December 6, 2011 , two authorized representatives of EPA ("EPA Inspectors") 

inspected the Facility (the "EPA Inspection"). The purpose ofthe EPA Inspection was, in part, 

5 
to determine the Facility's compliance with Section 112(r) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 741:i(r), and 

its implementing regulations. 

23. The EPA Inspection included discussions with facility representatives concerning 

Respondent's chlorine usage and RMP. The EPA inspectors also reviewed documents pertaining 

to the RMP and toured the facility in the presence of Respondent's representatives. 

24. The Respondent's facility holds up to 8,000 pounds of chlorine gas on site, an 

amount in excess of the regulatory threshold quantity of 2,500 pounds. During the EPA 

Inspection, Facility personnel told the inspectors that Respondent uses approximately two 1-ton 

cylinders of chlorine a week. Each cylinder contains 2,000 pounds of chlorine. The cylinders 

are stored in a room called the Chorine Tank Room. At the time of EPA's inspection, there were 

four cylinders in the Chlorine Tank Room. 

25. The Facility uses chlorine to assist in its waste treatment process. Specifi~ally, 

the chlorine is used as part of the facility's cyanide destruction process. Chlorine is piped from 

one-ton cylinders in Chlorine Tank Room through a chlorinator and then to the Waste Treatment 

Area, where it is added to cyanide reactor tanks. The one-ton cylinders of chlorine are delivered 

to the Facility by truck. They are unloaded outside the Chlorine Tank Room using a hydraulic 

boom, which lifts the containers from the truck and enters the chlorine storage room through an 

overhead door. The transfer activities, storage, and use of chlorine in the Chlorine Tank Room 

and Waste Treatment Area is a "process" as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Due to the amount of 

chlorine stored and used by Respondent, the Facility's process is subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and 

requires an RMP. 

26. Respondent's facility is a RMP Program Level 3 facility as that term is defined by 

40 C.F.R. § 68.1 O(d)(2) because the Facility's chlorine process is subject to OSHA's Process 

6 
Safety Management standards found at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119. Also, Respondent's RMP 

indicates that the end point for a worst-case release of chlorine from one cylinder would reach 

off-site public receptors, including industrial developments, surrounding residences, schools, 

recreation areas, and the Pequabuck River. 

27. Based on the EPA Inspection and other documents and information provided by 

Respondent prior to, during, and following the Inspection, EPA has identified the following 

alleged violations. 

IV. VIOLATIONS 

Count 1: Failure to Correct Submitted RMP and Management System Documentation 

After Change in Emergency Contact 

28. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

29. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.15(b) and (c), the owner or operator of a stat~onary 

source with processes subject to an RMP shall assign a qualified person or position that has the 

overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the RMP 

elements. When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of the RMP is assigned 

to persons other than the person in the aforesaid sentence, the names or positions of these people 

shall be documented and the lines of authority defined through an organization chart or similar 

document. 

30. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), the owner or operator of a stationary source for 

which a RMP was submitted shall correct an RMP to address changes in the emergency ·contact 

information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6). 

7 
31 . According to the documents reviewed by EPA inspectors during the EPA· 

Inspection, Respondent's RMP listed Claudia Bechard as Respondent's current individual 

responsible for Respondent's RMP program as well as the facility's emergency contact. During 

the EPA Inspection, Facility personnel told the EPA inspectors that Ms. Bechard left 

Respondent's employ first in 2010 and, after a brief return to employment with Respondent, left 

permanently in June 2011 and was, therefore, no longer the current individual responsible for 

implementing the facility's RMP or acting as the emergency coordinator. Accordingly, 

Respondent should have updated the emergency contact information in its RMP and 

management system documentation in 2011. 

32. During the EPA Inspection, the Respondent informed EPA inspectors that Niko 

Giannopoulos was the current individual responsible for implementing the facility's RMP 

program as well as the facility's emergency contact. However, Respondent failed to upqate and 

correct the RMP by listing Mr. Giannopoulos as the current emergency contact, and his 

responsibilities regarding the RMP were not documented in the RMP or any ancillary document. 

The requirement to make such a correction to the RMP was referenced in Respondent's own 

RMP. 

33 . The Facility's RMP initially submitted to EPA on June 22, 1999, was last updated 

and resubmitted on June 9, 2009. As of September 2013, Respondent had not updated its RMP 

in the EPA Central Data Exchange (CDX) database. 

34. By failing to correct and update its RMP and management system docum.entation 

to accurately list the current emergency contact person, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 68.15(b) and (c); 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b); and Section 112(r)(7)(E) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 74l (r) 7)(E) . 

8 
Count 2: Failure to Comply with All Required Process Safety Information 

Requirements 

35. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 34 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

36. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a), the owner or operator of a stationary source for 

which a RMP was submitted shall complete a compilation of written process safety information 

before conducting any process hazard analysis required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67. This compilation 

of process safety information shall include information pertaining to: (a) the hazards of the 

regulated substances used or produced by the process; (b) the technology of the process; and 

(c) the equipment utilized in the process. The specific information required is set out in ~0 

C.F.R. § 68.65(b), (c), and (d). 

37. During the EPA Inspection, the EPA inspectors requested to see Respondent's 

compilation of written process safety information ("PSI"). Although Respondent maintained an 

RMP, based on documents submitted, the EPA inspectors observed that the RMP failed to 

maintain a compilation of written process safety information pertaining to the following items: 

Information about the Technology of the Process 

a. process chemistry, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(l)(ii); 

b. an evaluation of the consequences of deviations, as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.65(c)(l)(v); 

Information about the Equipment 

c. information about the 1- ton cylinder hoist in the Chlorine Tank Room and 

the 1.5 horsepower pumps used in the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.65(d); 

9 
d. accurate piping and instrumentation diagrams ("P&ID"), as required by 40 

C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(ii) (Facility plans show that the chlorine process utilizes y; 

inch pipe, but the actual pipe size is 1 y; inches); 

e. electrical classi?cation, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(iii); and 

f. safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection or suppression systems), as 

required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(viii) (chlorine detectors were not included in 

the PSI); 

38. Also, 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d) requires documentation that equipment complies with 

recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices ("RAGAGEP") (40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.65(d)(2)), and a determination, with supporting documentation, that existing equipment, 

designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in 

general use, is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner (40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.65(d)(3)). A review of relevant RAGAGEP from The Chlorine Institute indicates the 

following deficiencies in Respondent's compliance with RAGAGEP: 

a. There were no chlorine sensors/detectors in the loading dock area (near the vent 

line) or in the Waste Treatment Area, although The Chlorine Institute's Pamphlet 

73, Atmospheric Monitoring Equipment for Chlorine , Section 5.4 (June 2003) 

recommends that sensors be placed close to potential sources of gas. 

b. Chlorine sensors were not calibrated or maintained, although The Chlorine 

Institute's Pamphlet 73, at Sections 6 and 7, states that periodic calibrations are 

very important to overall system performance and that preventative maintenance 

should be performed to ensure the reliability of the sensors. Likewise, the 

Chlorine Institute's Pamphlet 85, Recommendations for Prevention of Personnel 

10 
Injuries for Chlorine Production and Use Facilities, Section 10 (July 2005) 

stresses the importance of implementing maintenance procedures for equipment 

such as monitors and sensors. 

c. Due to the holes in the wall, the Chlorine Tank Room could not be isolated from 

the rest ofthe Facility in the event of a release although the Chlorine Institute's 

Pamphlet 5, Bulk Storage of Liquid Chlorine, Section 3 (October 2005), 

recommends storing tanks in areas that can be isolated in emergencies. 

d. An outside chlorine relief vent was uncovered and .open to the elements, including 

rain, although the Chlorine Institute's Pamphlet 1, Chlorine Basics, at Section 

2. 7.3 (October 2008) stresses the importance of maintaining piping so that it is not 

exposed to conditions that could cause corrosion. "Precautions should be taken to 

keep chlorine and chlorine equipment dry. Piping, valves, arid containers should 

be kept.capped when not in use to keep out atmospheric moisture such as 

precipitation or humidity." Likewise Appendix A of Pamphlet 6, Piping Systems 

for Dry Chlorine (May 2005) stresses the need to keep chlorine and chlorine 

equipment dry. 

e. Some chlorine pipes were not labeled, although the Chlorine Institute's Pamphlet 

6 at Section 10 recommends that chlorine lines should be readily identifiable. A 

common way of identifying piping that contains hazardous materials is set forth in 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Publication A13.1-2007, Scheme for 

the Identification of Piping Systems. Among other things, that publication 

recommends labeling the piping with information on the content and direction of 

flow. 

11 
39. By failing to complete an accurate compilation of written process safety 

information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67 and by 

failing to comply with relevant RAGAGEP, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65 and Section 

112(r)(7)(E) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E). 

Count 3: Failure to Perform a Complete and Accurate Process Hazard Analysis 

40. ·The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 39 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

41. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67, an operator and/or owner of an RMP facility is 

required to perform an initial process hazard analysis ("PHA") pertaining to processes covered 

by 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The PHA shall identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the 

process. 

42. At the time of the EPA Inspection, EPA inspectors requested to see Respondent's 

PHA pertaining to processes covered by 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent produced an incomplete 

and undated PHA ("incomplete PHA") for Respondent's Facility. Mr. Giannopoulos, the 

individual responsible for overseeing and implementing the facility's RMP program, told EPA 

inspectors that he did not know if ~y other PHA had been conducted at the facility. 

43. The incomplete PHA referred to in paragraph 42 above failed to address and/or 

contain the following information despite requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67: 

a. The incomplete PHA fails to address, among other things, the need for 

chlorine sensors within the Waste Treatment Area or loading dock (associated 

with chlorine vent line), although these are areas where a chlorine release could 

occur. Nor does the PHA consider whether the location of the alarm panel is 

hazardous for facility personnel. Thus the PHA fails to meet the requirements of 

40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c) which provides, in part, that a PHA must address, among 

12 
other things: (1) the hazards ofthe process; (2) identification of previous 

incidents which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences; (3) 

engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their 

interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to 

provide early warning of releases, such as alarms, monitoring instrumentation, 

and sensors (emphasis added); (4) consequences of failure of engineering and 

administrative controls; (5) stationary source siting; (6) human factors; and (7) a 

qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure 

of controls; 

b. If the holes in the wall between Chorine Tank Room and the room 

in which the operator of the process sits were present at the time the last PHA was 

conducted, the PHA failed to address the hazards to safety and health from such 

holes. The EPA Inspectors noticed that these holes created a vacuum effect, 

drawing air into the operator room, which had no chlorine detectors. The person 

sitting in that operator room would be at serious risk of being overcome by 

chlorine gas should a release occur in the Chlorine Tank Room. Respondent's 

only available PHA recognized the need to be able to isolate the tank room from 

the plant and outside world in the case of release. By failing to consider the 

hazards presented by these holes, Respondent failed to meet the requirements of 

40 C.P.R. § 68.67(c)(l) and (7) to address the hazards ofthe process and evaluate 

the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls. 

c. Respondent failed to document that the incomplete PHA was performed 

by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations, with at least one 

13 
team member being an employee with experience and knowledge specific to the 

process being evaluated and one member who is knowledgeable in the specific 

process hazard analysis methodology being used, as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.67(d). 

d. Respondent failed to retain previous PHAs and updates or revalidations 

for each process for the life of this process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(g) 

(only this one undated PHA was on file despite the fact that Respondent bas been 

operating the process since at least 1999); 

44. By failing to address certain safety issues in the PHA; maintain documentation of 

a complete initial PHA and/or revisions, updates and revalidations of the initial PHA; and 

documel!t that the PHA was performed by an appropriate team, Respondent violated 40 C.F .R. 

§ 68.67 and Section 112(r)(7)(E) ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E). 

Count 4: Failure to Create or Maintain Complete Written Operating Procedures 

45. The allegations.in paragraphs 1 through 44 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

46. Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69, the owner or operator of a stationary source with 

processes subject to RMP Program 3 requirements must compile written operating procedures 

that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process 

consistent with the process safety information. The operating procedures are required to address 

at the least the following elements: (a) steps of each operating phase; (b) operating limits; (c) 

safety and health considerations; and (d) safety systems and their functions. 

47. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), the owner or operator shall certify ann~ally that 

these operating procedures are current and accurate. 

14 
48. During the EPA Inspection and review of documents, Mr. Ryan Hines, a facility 

· consultant from Turnkey Compliance Solutions, LLC, told one ofthe EPA inspectors that while 

the Facility maintained written operating procedures, Respondent had never certified the 

standard operating procedures. 

49. In addition, during the EPA Inspection, the EPA inspectors learned that the 

written operating procedures contained further deficiencies, including, but not limited to: 

a. The properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the 

process (i.e., chlorine) were not included in the written operating procedures, as 

required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(i); 

b. Precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, 

administrative controls, and personal protective equipment were not included in 

the written operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(i1); 

c. Control measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure 

occurs were not included in the written operating procedures, as required by 40 

C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(iii); and 

d. Safety systems· and their functions were not included in the written 

operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69,(a)(4). 

50. Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69 and Section 112(r)(7)(E) of the Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E), by failing to compile written operating procedures that provide clear 

instruction for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process. 

Count 5: Failure to Adequately Train Employees in Operating Procedures 

51. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 50 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

15 
52. Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.71, each employee involved in operating a.covered process 

subject to RMP Program 3 requirements must be trained in an overview of the process and in the 

operating procedures for that process, including an emphasis on the specific safety and health 

hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the 

employee's job tasks. Refresher training must be provided at least every three years, and more 

often if necessary. The owner or operator must maintain documentation of meeting these 

training requirements. 

53. During the EPA Inspection, Mr. Kenneth Prior, an employee involved in the 

chlorine process as a "waste treatment operator" at the facility, told the EPA inspectors that he 

had been "grandfathered" on the operating procedures in 1999, but that he had not had any 

refresher training on the proper operation of the covered process since that time. Under 40 

-C.F .R. § 68.71 (b), refresher training must be provided at least every three years, or more often if 

necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee 

understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process. Accordingly, Mr. 

Prior needed refresher training in 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011. 

54. In addition, during the EPA Inspection, the EPA inspectors reviewed training 

records and learned that Respondent's records fail to include any indication pertaining to how the 

Respondent verified that its employees understood the training, as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§ 68.71(c). 

55. Accordingly, Respondent failed to properly train each employee involved in 

operating a covered process at the Facility and document that each employee understood the 

· training, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71 and Section 112(r)(7)(E) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7412(r)(7)(E). 

16 
Count 6: Failure to Comply with Mechanical Integrity Requirements for All Pro~esses 

56. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 55 are here.by realleged and incorporated 

hereir.1 by reference. 

57. Under 40 C.P.R. § 68.73, the owner or operator of a stationary source with 

processes subject to RMP Program 3 requirements must establish and implement written 

procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment, ensure that inspections and 

testing procedures in accordance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering 

practices are performed on all process equipment, document each inspection and test performed 

on process equipment, and correct any deficiencies in equipment that are outside. acceptable 

limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner. 

58. During the EPA Inspection, EPA inspectors requested to see Respondent's written 

procedures pertaining to the maintenance of the on-going integrity of process equipment: Based 

on the responses made by Respondent's employees and its consultant, as well as the EPA 

inspectors' review of documents, the EPA inspectors determined that several unsafe conditions . . 

observed at the Facility during the EPA Inspection could have been addressed had Respondent 

conducted a proper mechanical integrity assessment, The conditions include but are not-limited 

to: 

a. Respondent failed to perform and/or document the calibration and maintenance 

of the chlorine detectors in the Chlorine Tank Room, in violation of the requirements of 40 

C.P.R. § 68. 73( d), which requires inspections and tests to be performed on all process 

equipment, including monitoring devices and sensors. Nor were written procedures 

established to perform the inspection and testing of the chloririe detectors in accordance 

with the manufacturers' recommendations despite the requirements of 40 C.P.R. §§ 

68.73(b) (which requires written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of 

17 
process equipment) and 68.73(d)(3) (which specifies that such testing must be 

consistent with manufacturing recommendations and RAGAGEP); 

b . A broken chlorine vent line located inside the Chlorine Tank Room was. taped 

together rather than correctly repaired, in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F .R. 

§ 68.73(e), which requires correction of deficiencies in equipment, including 

piping systems, that are outside acceptable limits. Facility personnel explained 

that the vent line had been cut by a contractor eight months prior to the EPA 

inspection. 

c. At the time of the EPA Inspection, EPA inspectors were informed that 

Respondent had installed an incorrect chlorine pump on Tank 1 of the cyanide 

waste water treatment process, which caused the pump to fail. The failure forced 

the facility into using bleach as a temporary fix. This pump went out of service in 

October 2011. The use of an unsuitable replacement pump violates the quality 

assurance requirements of 40 C.F.R § 68.73(f)(3), which requires owners.and 

operators to ensure that maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment are 

suitable for the process application for which they will be used. 

59. Accordingly, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73 and Section 112(r)(7)(E) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E), by failing to: (1 ) establish and implement written · 

procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment; (2) ensure that inspections 

and testing procedures follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices are 

performed on all process equipment; (3) document each inspection and test performed on process 

equipment; (4) correct any deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before 

18 
further use or in a safe and timely manner; and (5) ensure that replacement equipment m.et 

quality assurance requirements. 

Count 7: Failure to Implement a Management of Change Program 

60. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 59 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

61. Forty C.F.R. § 68.75 provides that the owner or operator shall establish and 

implement written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process 

chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to stationary sources that affect 

a covered process. The procedures shall assure that owner or operator has considered the 

technical basis for the proposed change, the impact of the change on health and safety, 

modifications to operating procedures, necessary time period for the change, and authorization 

requirements for the proposed change. The change may result in revisions to training, p_rocess 

safety information, or operating procedures. If the change is significant enough to require a 

change in the process safety information, the owner or operator must also comply with the prestart-up review procedures of 40 C.F.R. § 68.77. 

62. The EPA Inspectors discovered that Respondent had made the following changes 

to the stationary source (i.e., the Facility) and equipment without implementing or documenting 

management of change procedures: 

a. As referenced in paragraph 38(c) and 43(b) above, there were holes in the wall 

between the Chlorine Tank Room and a room in which the operator oftlie process 

sits ("operator room"). The inspectors noticed that these holes created a vacuum 

effect, drawing air into the operator room, which had no chlorine detectors. The 

person sitting in that operator room would be at serious risk of being overcome by 

chlorine gas should a release occur in the Chlorine Tank Room. Respondent's 

19 
own Process Hazard Analysis recognized the need to be able to isolate the tank 

room from the plant and outside world in the case of release. 

b. As referenced in paragraph 58( c) above, in 2011, Respondent ch~ged out a 

chorine pump with a replacement that was not a "replacement in kind." The new 

pump was problematic and failed. Moreover, as a result of that failure, 

Respondent temporarily used bleach instead of chlorine gas in the process without 

documenting any management of change procedures. Additionally, the P&IDs 

identify a 2.0 horsepower ("HP") pump for cyanide reactor #1 and a 3.0 HP pump 

for cyanide reactor #2, with a handwritten change in which the 2.0 and 3.0 are 

lined out and 1 Y2 is added to the figures. Although the pen-and-ink change is not 

dated or signed, the facility's executive summary for its RMP references the 2.0 

and 3.0 HP pumps. A change in HP would represent an equipment change 

. warranting implementation of the management of change procedures. 

63. Accordingly, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75 and CAA Section 

112(r)(7)(E), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E), by failing to implement management of change 

procedures. 

Count 8: Failure to Establish a Contractor Program 

64. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 63 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

65. Under 40 C.F.R.§_ 68.87(b)~ the owner or operator of a stationary source· with 

processes subject to RMP Program 3, is required to obtain and evaluate information regarding 

the contract owner and operator's safety performance and programs when selecting contractors 

who perform maintenance, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a 

covered process. In addition, this regulation requires the owner or operator to: (a) inform the 

20 
contractor of known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's 

work and the process; (b) explain to the contractor the applicable provisions of 40 C.F.R., Part 68 . 

Subpart E (Emergency Response); (c) develop and implement safe work practices consistent 

with 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d) (Operating Procedures), to control the entrance, presence, and·exit of 

the contract owner or operator and contract employees in covered process areas; and (d) 

periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their 

obligations as specified in 40 C.F.R. § 69.87(b)(5). 

66. During EPA's Inspection and document review, Respondent was unable to 

produce records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.87. Mr. 

Ryan Hines, a representative from TurnKey Compliance Solutions, .LLC and consultant for 

Respondent, stated that Respondent has not developed the "required contractor program despite 

retaining numerous contractors to work on, and in proximity to, the covered process. 

67. Accordingly, Respondent failed to comply with the contractor requirements, in 

violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.87 and CAA Section 112(r)(7)(E). 

Count 9: Failure to Comply with Emergency Response Plan Requirements 

68. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 67 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

69. Under 40 C.F.R § 68.90, the owner or operator of stationary source with Program 

3 processes shall comply with the emergency response program requirements of 40 C.F_.R § 

68.95 unless such owner or operator's employees will not be responding to accidental releases 

and various other requirements are met. Forty C.F.R. § 68.95 requires, in part, the development 

and implementation of an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public 

health and the environment. The emergency response program must set forth procedures for the 

use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance. 

21 
Additionally, the owner or operator must provide training for all employees in relevant 

emergency procedures. 

70. Respondent's RMP indicates that its employees will respond to minor accidental 

releases at the Facility, so 40 C.F.R. § 68.95 applies to Respondent. , 

71 . D~ing the EPA Inspection and document review, EPA inspectors learned· that 

while Respondent developed an emergency response plan ("ERP"), the facility's ERP was 

insufficient in several respects, including but not limited to: 

a. Respondent has failed to maintain emergency response equipment. 

Specifically, Mr. Hines stated that the facility's portable chlorine detectors have 

never been calibrated or maintained. Also, fixed chlorine detectors and an alarm 

had not been tested, maintained, or calibrated. Therefore, the facility is not in 

compliance with 40 C.F.R § 68.95(a)(2), which requires that Respondent develop 

and implement procedures for the use of emergency response equipment an~ for 

its inspection, testing, and maintenance. 

b. The facility emergency responders have not had required annual 

HAZWOPER training since 2009, and, therefore, Respondent fails to comply 

with 40 C.F.R § 68.95(a)(3), which requires development and implementation of 

training for all employees in relevant emergency response procedures. 

Respondent's employee training reports from its training book recognizes that 

employees responding to chlorine releases need eight hours of annual 

HAZWOPER refresher training. 

22 
72. Accordingly, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R § 68.90, C.F.R. § 68.95, and CAA 

Section 112(r)(7)(E), 42 U.S.C. § 112(r)(7)(E), by failing to develop and implement an adequate 

and complete emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the 

environment. 

Count 10: Failure to Adequately Conduct an Off-site Consequence Analysis 

73. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72 are hereby realleged and incorporated 

herein by reference. 

74. Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.20, an owner or operator of a stationary source with 

processes subject to RMP Program 3 is required to perform a hazard assessment, including a 

worst-case release scenario analysis, as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.25, and an alternative release 

scenario analysis, as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.28. Both 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.25 and 68.28 require 

use of the offsite consequence analysis parameters designated in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22. To 

determine whether a toxic plume might be impeded in its spread, 40 C.F.R. § 68.22(e) requires 

consideration of surface roughness in conducting such release scenario analyses, including the 

designation of either urban or rural topography, as appropriate. The term "urban" means that 

there are many obstacles, such as buildings or trees, in the immediate area, whereas "rural" 

means that there are no buildings in the immediate area, and the terrain is generally flat and 

unobstructed. 

75. Respondent failed to comply with 40 C.F.R §§ 68.22, 68.25, and 68.28, as 

follows: 

a. Respondent failed to use the proper parameter in its worst-case and 

alternative release scenario analyses and substantially underestimated the actual 

potential harm and scope of a release of chlorine gas (a toxic gas); 

23 
b. When developing the scenarios included in the facility's 2009 RMP 

submittal to the EPA CDX system, the facility used an "urban" setting instead of 

a "rural" setting. Respondent's use of the "urban" setting reduces the extent of a 

release as compared to a "rural" setting. The "urban" setting postulates that the 

surrounding terrain includes many obstacles in the immediate area of the release 

that would reduce the overall plume. The value in the facility's RMP submittal 

was 0.9 miles, but with a "rural" setting, the plume distance would have been 

represented as 2.2 miles. Respondent identified the overall residential population 

at risk as 6,900 people, whereas the population at risk should be approximately 

38,700. The actual population at risk includes people in a neighboring town. 

c. There are no obstacles near or around the "Chlorine Tank Room" which 

contains the chlorine 1-ton cylinders. The "urban" setting was also incorr-ectly 

used for the alternative release scenario analysis. Therefore, a parameter used in 

the worst-case and alternative release scenario analyses does not represent the 

facility's actual setting and underestimates the off-site consequences ofa release. 

76. By failing to designate the correct choice for "surface area roughness" (also 

known as "surrounding terrain type"), Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§§ 68.22, 68.25, and 

68.28, and CAA Section 112(r)(7)(E), 42 U.S.C. § 112(r)(7)(E). 

V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY 

77. In determining the amount of any penalty to be assessed for the CAA violations 

alleged above, pursuant to Section 113(e)ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), EPA will take into 

account the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, 

Respondent's prior compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the 

24 
violation, payment by Respondent of any penalties previously assessed for the same violation, 

any economic benefit or savings accrued to Respondent resulting from the violation, and.the 

seriousness of the violation. In assessing this penalty sought in this Complaint, Complainant has 

taken into account the particular facts and circumstances of this matter, in accordance with 

EPA's Combined Enforcement Policy for Clean Air Act Sections 112(r)(l), 112(r)(7), and 40 

C.F.R. Part 68, dated June 2012 (the "CAA Penalty Policy"). A copy ofthe CAA Penalty Policy 

is enclosed with this Complaint. This policy provides a rational, consistent and equitable 

calculation methodology for applying the statutory penalty factors identified above to a particular 

case. 

78. Based on the foregoing allegations and pursuant to the authority of Section 

113(a)(3) and (d) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3) and (d), as amended, the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2461 et seq., the DCIA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3701 et seq. , 

and the rule for Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4, 

Complainant seeks to assess a civil penalty of $233,600 against Respondent, as follows. 

Subparagraphs (a) through G) reflect the "seriousness" component associated with each 

violation, and subpar~graph (k) reflects the remaining adjustments: 

a. Count 1: Failure to Correct Submitted RMP and Management System 

Documentation After Change in Emergency Contact. Respondent failed to update 

RMP by changing the person responsible for the RMP from Claudia Bechard to 

Niko Giannopoulos. Ms. Bechard left employment in June, 2011 and the . 

Respondent had failed to reflect this change at the time of the EPA InspeGtion. 

This violation is significant because an RMP helps facility personnel and · 

emergency responders to assess and manage the hazards that are posed by 

25 
chemicals at a facility so that the threat and impacts of releases are minimized, 

and their ability to manage those hazards is hampered when emergency contact 

information in the RMP is not regularly updated. Respondent's violation_is 

considered to represent a minor potential for harm and a moderate extent of 

deviation. EPA is requesting a penalty of $7,500 for this violation. 

b. Count 2: Failure to Comply with All Required Process Safety Information 

Requirements. At the time ofthe EPA Inspection,.Respondent failed to include 

certain required information concerning its process into the PSI documentation; 

including but not limited to its failure to document safety information pertaining 

to the chlorine hoist and have accurate P&ID diagrams. Also, Respondent failed 

to document and demonstrate that certain equipment was operating in accordance 

with RAGAGEP, including, but not limited to its chlorin~ detectors. Compiling 

proper process safety information allows a facility to understand the hazards of its 

process and develop good operating procedures, training, and mechanical 

integrity programs. Furthermore, compliance with RAGAGEP promotes safe 

operation of the process. The violations comprising this count are considered to 

be a moderate potential for harm a moderate extent of deviation. EPA is 

requesting a penalty of $12,500 for this violation. 

c. Count 3: Failure to Perform a Complete and Accurate Process Hazard 

Analysis. During the EPA Inspection, Respondent was only able to produce one 

incomplete and undated PHA. The PHA is required to be updated and revalidated 

every five years, and every PHA must be maintained for the life of the process. 

Among other things, Respondent's PHA failed to evaluate the need for chlorine 

26 
sensors within the waste treatment and loading dock areas, failed to address the 

human health risk from the holes in the wall of the Chlorine Tank Room, and 

failed to document that the PHA was performed by a team with expertise in 

engineering and process operations. This violation is significant due to the 

extremely hazardous nature of chlorine gas and because without proper hazard 

analyses for the chlorine process at the Facility, Respondent was unable to design 

and maintain the Facility in a way that considers those potential hazards and 

minimizes the consequences of any accidental releases that do occur. This 

violation represents a major potential for harm and a major extent of deviation. 

EPA requests a penalty of$33,750. 

d. Count 4: Failure to Create or Maintain Complete Written Operating 

Procedures. The written operating procedures for the chlorine process failed to 

include several pieces ofrequired information, such as the properties of the 

chemicals used in the process; precautions necessary to prevent exposure (such as 

personal protective equipment); control measures to be taken if exposure occurs; 

and information on safety systems to include safety and health concerns. 

Moreover, the facility has failed to certify their operating procedures. This 

violation is significant because failing to have complete operating procedures in 

place increases the risk that dangerous chemicals will be mishandled. This 

violation represents a moderate potential for harm and a minor extent of 

deviation. EPA requests a penalty of $2,000. 

e. Count 5: Failure to Adequately Train Employees in Operating 

Procedures. Refresher training in operating procedures is required every three 

27 
years. The waste treatment operator was allegedly trained in 1999 but 

Respondent failed to provide refresher training. Additionally, Respondent failed 

to document how Respondent verified that employees understood the training. 

This violation is significant because chlorine gas is extremely hazardous and 

because providing refresher training every three years to employees who work 

with RMP chemicals and covered processes decreases the risk of an accidental 

release or incident involving the chemical. This violation represents a moderate 

potential for harm and a moderate extent of deviation. EPA requests a penalty of 

$12,500. 

f. Count 6: Failure to Comply with Mechanical Integrity Requirements for 

All Processes. This violation includes but is not limited to, Respondent's failures 

to: (a) perform and document calibration and maintenance of chlorine detectors; 

(b) correctly repair a broken chlorine vent line; and (c) ensure that a replacement 

pump was suitable for the process. This violation is significant because ensuring 

the mechanical integrity of equipment used in the chlorine process decreases the 

risk of an accidental release or other emergency involving the chlorine gas. This 

represents a major potential for harm and a moderate extent of deviation. EPA 

requests a penalty of $17,500. 

g. Count 7: Failure to Implement a Management of Change Program. A 

properly implemented management of change program ensures that no changes 

are made to the Facility, equipment, or process technology without full 

consideration of the consequences of such changes. Respondent's failure to 

implement or document management of change procedures before leaving holes 

28 
in the wall of the Chlorine Tank Room put the process operator at risk of being 

exposed to any release of chlorine gas occurring in the Chlorine Tank Room. 

Failure to consider the implications of replacing a chlorine pump with one that 

was not appropriate for the process likewise could have put employees at risk. 

This violation represents a major potential for harm and a moderate extent of 

deviation. EPA requests a penalty of $17,500. 

h. Count 8: Failure to Establish a Contractor Program. At the time of the 

EPA Inspection, Respondent failed to produce records documenting that it had: . 

(a) informed each contractor of known hazards related to the contractor's work 

and the chlorine process at the Facility; (b) explained emergency response 

procedures to the contractor; (c) developed and implemented safe work practices 

for the contractor and its employees in the chlorine process areas of the Facility; 

and (d) periodically evaluated the performance of the contractor. This violation is 

significant because failure to act in compliance with the regulatory requirements 

could result in safety issues for the contractor and its employees and could result 

in unsafe conditions should the contractor not act in conformance with the 

regulations. This violation represents a moderate potential for harm and a major 

extent ofdeviation. EPA requests a penalty of $27,500. 

1. Count 9: Failure to Comply with Emergency Response Plan 

Requirements . Respondent has a written emergency ERP in place but has failed 

to complete the training required for the ERP. Additionally, Respondent has 

failed to maintain and calibrate chlorine detectors that are intrinsic to 

Respondent's ERP. Additionally, Respondent failed to update its emergency 

29 
contact change and has not listed Niko Giannopoulos as the current emergency 

contact. This violation is significant because the failure to implement the ERP 

correctly can result in Respondent's failure to respond effectively and safely to a 

release of an extremely hazardous substance. This violation represents a major 

potential for harm and a major extent of deviation. EPA requests a penalt.y of 

$33,750. 

J. Count 10: Failure to Adequately Conduct an Off-site Consequence 

Analysis. The Facility's worse-case and alternative release scenario offsite 

consequence analysis is a major component of its hazard assessment, which is 

used by both the facility and emergency planners to estimate potential impacts 

associated with a release of chlorine. Respondent's risk analysis identified the 

facility's setting as "urban" (i.e., having numerous obstacles to impede the spread 

of a toxic gas plume). The correct setting is "rural." The worse-case off-site 

consequence is 2.2 miles, had the analysis been performed correctly, versus the 

0.9 miles as stated in Respondent's RMP. As a result, the correct analysis should · 

have shown that approximately 38,700 people wou_ld have been affected rather 

than 6,630. This is significant because Respondent's response to a release could 

have been inadequate as a result of its incorrect assessment. This violation 

represents a moderate potential for harm and a minor extent of deviation. EPA 

requests a penalty of $2,000. 

k. Other Penalty Policy Factors: The subtotal from above is $166,500. 

Other penalty policy factors include the duration of the violation, the size of 

violator, history of non-compliance, good-faith efforts to c-omply, degree of 

30 
culpability and the economic impact of the penalty. Of these, EPA proposes the 

following upward adjustments to the "seriousness" component: 

' 

1. Duration of Violations: The duration of violations is least 26 months, for 

an upward adjustment of $31 ,500. 

11. Size of Violator: The upward adjustment proposed is $20,000. 

Ill. Economic Benefit of Non-compliance: The upward adjustment proposed 

to account for Respondent's economic benefit of non-compliance is 

$15,600. 

No further adjustments to the proposed penalty were deemed appropriate at this 

time. However, EPA will consider whether other adjustments, especially a 

downward adjustment for economic impact of the penalty and ability to continue 

inbusiness ("Ability to Pay"), are appropriate if Respondent raises them in its 

Answer or during the course of settlement negotiations. If Respondent claims that 

the penalty should be reduced due to Ability to Pay, Respondent should provide 

supporting documentation to EPA for its consideration. See page 20 of the CAA 

Penalty Policy for a list of such documentation. 

VI. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A HEARING 

79. Pursuant to Section 113(d)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d)(2)(A); and 40 

C.F.R. § 22.14, notice is hereby given that Respondent has the right to request a ·hearing to 

contest the issues raised in this Complaint. Any such hearing would be conducted in accordance 

with the Consolidated Rules of Practice, 40 C.F.R. Part 22, a copy of which is enclosed. Any 

request for a hearing must be included in Respondent's written Answer to this Complaint and 

31 
filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk at the address listed below within thirty (30) days of 

receipt of this Complaint. 

80. In its Answer, a Respondent may also: (1) dispute any material fact in the 

Complaint; (2) contend that the proposed penalty is inappropriate or that it has an inability to pay 

the penalty; or (3) contend that it is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. The Answer must 

clearly and directly admit, deny, or explain each of the factual allegations contained in this 

Complaint of which the Respondent has any knowledge. If Respondent has no knowledge of a 

particular factual allegation and so states, the allegation is considered denied. The failure to 

deny an allegation constitutes an admission of that allegation. The Answer must also include the 

grounds for any defense and the facts the Respondent intends to place at issue. 

81 . The original and one copy of any motions or other pleadings filed or made before 

an Answer to the Complaint is filed, the Answer to the Complaint, and any Consent Agreement 

and Final Order to settle the case filed in this action must be sent to: 

Wanda I. Santiago 

Regional Hearing Clerk 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: ORA 18-1) 

Boston, Massachusetts 021 09-3 912 

82. After an Answer has been filed, except for a Consent Agreement and Final Order 

settling the case, a copy of all other documents Respondent files in this action must be sent to the 

Headquarters Hearing Clerk, in the following manner: 

For U.S. Postal Service mailingsHeadquarters Hearing Clerk 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

.Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Mail Code l900R 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

32 
For UPS, FedEx, DHL or other courier, or personal deliveryHeadquarters Hearing Clerk 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Ronald Reagan Building, Rm. M1200 

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

83. The original and one copy of the Answer, as well as a copy of all other documents 

which Respondent files in this action, must be sent to: 

Wanda Santiago 

Regional Hearing Clerk 

U.S. EPA, Region 1 

5 Post Office Square 

Suite 100 (ORA18-1) 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Respondent should also send a copy of the Answer, as well as a copy of all other documents 

which Respondent files in this action, to Steven Schlang, the attorney assigned to represent EPA. 

and who is designated to receive service in this matter at: 

Steven Schlang 

Senior Enforcement Counsel 

U.S. EPA, Region 1 

5 Post Office Square 

Suite 100 (OES04-4) 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Tel: (617)918-1773 

84. If Respondent fails to file a timely Answer to this Complaint, it may be found to 

be in default, pursuant to 40 C.P.R. § 22.17, which constitutes an admission of all the facts 

alleged in the Complaint and a waiver of the right to a hearing. 

85 . Pursuant to 40 C.P.R.§ 22.17(d), the penalty assessed in any default order shall 

become due and payable by Respondent without further proceedings thirty (30) days aft~r the 

default order becomes final. 

33 ,. 
VII. INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

86. Whether or not a hearing is requested upon the filing of an Answer, Respondent 

may confer informally with EPA concerning the alleged violations, the amount of any penalty, 

and/or the possibility of settlement. Such a conference provides Respondent with an opportunity 

to respond informally to the charges, and to provide any additional information that may be 

relevant to this matter. EPA has the authority to adjust penalties, where appropriate, to reflect 

any settlement reached in an informal conference. The terms of such an agreement would be 

embodied in a binding Consent Agreement and Final Order. . 

87. Please note that a request for an informal settlement conference does not extend 

the thirty (30) day period within which a written answer must be submitted in order to avoid a 

default. To request an informal settlement conference, Respondent or its representative should 

contact Steven Schlang, Enforcement Counsel, at ( 617) 918-1773. . 

88. Quick Resolution: Respondent may also resolve the proceeding at any time by 

paying the specific penalty proposed in the Complaint, as more fully explained in 40 C.F.R. 

§ 22.18. If Respondent pays the proposed penalty in full within 30 days of after receiving the 

Complaint then no Answer need be filed. 

VIII. CONTINUED COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION 

89. Neither assessment nor payment of an administrative penalty shall affect 

Respondent's continuing obligation to comply with 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r}(7)(E) 

ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E). 

Susan Studlien, Director Date I . 1 

Office of Environmental Stewardship 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1-New England 

34