At an Oregon facility storing more than a regulatory threshold of anhydrous hydrogen chloride, the EPA alleged gaps in hazard analysis and contractor safeguards. Rinchem neither admitted nor denied the allegations and certified that they had been corrected.
Risk Management ProgramTL;DR
- Rinchem’s Tualatin, Oregon, facility stores more than the regulatory threshold quantity of anhydrous hydrogen chloride, placing a covered process under the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program rules.
- The Environmental Protection Agency alleged one failure involving the facility’s 2019 hazard analysis and four involving contractor safety controls.
- The allegations followed a March 14, 2024, inspection at which the EPA said required documentation wasn’t provided.
- The settlement identifies no chemical release, worker exposure, injury or other accident.
- Rinchem neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations. Its operations manager certified that the alleged violations had been corrected by August 18, 2026.
- The company agreed to a $1,440 civil penalty. The final order became effective when it was filed on August 21, 2026.
The penalty was modest; the alleged gaps concerned the systems meant to identify what could happen if controls fail and to prepare contractors working around the covered process.
Transparency notice: This article relies on the EPA’s Expedited Settlement Agreement and Final Order. The document contains agency allegations and an enforceable settlement, not an adjudicated finding that Rinchem committed the alleged violations. Rinchem admitted the EPA’s jurisdiction but neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations.
The Facts
A hazard analysis prepared for Rinchem’s Tualatin facility in 2019 was supposed to evaluate the possible safety and health effects if process controls failed. According to the EPA, the analysis didn’t include that evaluation, and Rinchem supplied no documentation of it during a March 14, 2024, inspection.
The agency identified four additional alleged failures involving outside contractors who performed covered work on or near the chemical process. The EPA said Rinchem didn’t document contractor safety screening, communication of known hazards, explanation of emergency procedures or periodic evaluations of contractor performance.
These requirements come from the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program. Facilities with more than a listed threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process must maintain a Risk Management Plan and a broader prevention program. The settlement says Rinchem’s facility exceeded that threshold for anhydrous hydrogen chloride, but it doesn’t state the amount stored.
What the EPA Said Was Missing
The alleged deficiencies covered two layers of prevention: understanding the consequences of failed controls and managing contractors whose work could place them near a covered process.
| Required safeguard | EPA allegation | Why the rule exists |
|---|---|---|
| Process hazard analysis | The 2019 analysis didn’t evaluate the range of possible safety and health effects if controls failed. | Identify the consequences that prevention systems are supposed to stop. |
| Contractor safety screening | Rinchem didn’t obtain and evaluate information about contractors’ safety performance and programs. | Consider safety capability when selecting contractors for covered work. |
| Hazard communication | Contractors weren’t informed of known potential fire, explosion or toxic-release hazards related to their work and the process. | Give contractors information needed to work around process hazards. |
| Emergency procedures | Applicable provisions of the emergency response plan or emergency action program weren’t explained to contractors. | Clarify what contractors should do when an emergency occurs. |
| Performance review | Rinchem didn’t periodically evaluate whether contractors fulfilled their regulatory obligations. | Check whether contractor safety obligations are followed after selection. |
Why the Contractor Controls Matter
The cited contractor rules apply to maintenance, repair, turnaround, major renovation and specialty work performed on or adjacent to a covered process. They create a sequence: evaluate a contractor’s safety program before selection, explain hazards and emergency procedures before or during the work, then review performance.
Four of the EPA’s five allegations concerned breaks in that sequence. At the inspection, the agency said Rinchem didn’t provide documentation showing that the required steps had been completed.
The enforcement record concerns missing preventive controls and records. It does not describe an accident or establish that anyone was harmed.
From the 2019 Analysis to the Final Order
Rinchem completed its initial process hazard analysis. The EPA later alleged that it lacked the required evaluation of possible safety and health effects from failed controls.
An EPA inspection became the documentary basis identified throughout the settlement. The agency said Rinchem didn’t provide records for the hazard evaluation or four contractor requirements.
Rinchem operations manager Elias Diaz signed the agreement and certified that the alleged violations had been corrected.
The agreement and final order were filed with the EPA Region 10 hearing clerk. Filing made the order effective.
What Rinchem Agreed To—and What It Didn’t Admit
The settlement is carefully divided. Rinchem admitted the jurisdictional allegations, accepted the final order, waived its right to contest the allegations in this proceeding and waived an appeal. It also agreed to pay the assessed penalty within 30 days.
It did not admit the underlying factual allegations. The company’s substantive response in the supplied record is its certification that the alleged violations had been corrected by the signing date. The agreement doesn’t describe the corrections or attach revised hazard analyses, contractor briefings or performance evaluations.
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in this ESA.”
“As of the date of Respondent’s signature of this ESA, Respondent has corrected the violation(s) alleged in Part III.”
The Penalty and Its Limits
The EPA said the Clean Air Act allowed a civil penalty of up to $59,114 per day of violation. After considering the statutory penalty factors, the agency assessed $1,440, and Rinchem agreed to that amount.
The document doesn’t identify how many days the EPA counted, assign a value to each allegation or show the calculation that produced the settlement figure. The statutory maximum and the assessed penalty therefore aren’t a direct measure of the conduct’s duration or severity.
If the company failed to pay on time, the agreement provided for interest, collection costs and a quarterly nonpayment penalty. The supplied order establishes the payment obligation but doesn’t contain proof that payment was made.
What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like
Editorial analysisRinchem certified that the alleged violations were corrected. Because the settlement provides no supporting detail, the cited rules offer the clearest standard for judging what a durable correction would contain:
- a documented evaluation of the safety and health consequences if process controls fail;
- contractor-selection records showing that safety performance and programs were reviewed;
- records showing that contractors received relevant hazard and emergency information; and
- periodic, documented evaluations of contractor performance.
Those records wouldn’t prove that an incident can never happen. They would show that the prevention system the regulation requires exists in a form that can be checked.
What the Final Order Actually Decided
The final order ratified the settlement and made its terms enforceable. It resolved the EPA’s civil-penalty claims for the five alleged Clean Air Act violations. It wasn’t a factual judgment after a hearing, and it didn’t find that Rinchem caused a release, exposed workers or injured anyone.
The order also preserved Rinchem’s continuing duty to comply with the Clean Air Act and applicable regulations and permits. It did not eliminate the government’s ability to seek appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief, or criminal sanctions, for violations of law.
What Remains Unresolved
- The agreement doesn’t disclose how much anhydrous hydrogen chloride the facility stored beyond saying it exceeded the regulatory threshold.
- It doesn’t identify the number of contractors or workers potentially covered by the missing procedures.
- It doesn’t include the inspection report or records showing how the alleged deficiencies were corrected.
- It establishes a payment deadline but doesn’t document payment of the $1,440 penalty.
The final order closes the civil-penalty case. The source leaves the most practical evidence outside the record: the corrected hazard analysis and contractor-safety documentation that would show how Rinchem’s prevention system changed after the inspection.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
