Respondent owns and operates a facility that wholesales animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, seeds, and farm supplies, including agricultural anhydrous ammonia. On or about August 9, 2023, EPA inspected the Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had over 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its facility. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent stores and distributes agricultural products, including anhydrous ammonia, at its facility and is engaged in a process at its facility.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(k), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(j) and (l), respectively.
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically:
a. Respondent deregistered its RMP on March 25, 2015.
b. At the time of inspection, Respondent had around 46,200 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at Respondent’s Facility.
c. Respondent resubmitted its RMP on September 11, 2023.
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to develop and implement a management system consistent with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1). Specifically, Respondent failed to document persons responsible for implementing its RMP, as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
Respondent’s failure to develop and implement a management system as provided in provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment consistent with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(2). Specifically:
a. Respondent failed to maintain records of offsite consequence analyses for alternative release scenarios, including a description of the scenarios identified, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(b); and
b. Respondent failed to maintain records of the offsite consequences analyses, including data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e).
Respondent’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment consistent with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 4
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3). Specifically:
a. Respondent failed to conduct a hazard review, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50;
b. Respondent failed to have written operating procedures for its covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52; and
c. Respondent failed to complete a compliance audit within the past three years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58.
Respondent’s failure to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 5
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to coordinate response actions with local emergency planning and response agencies consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 68.93.
Specifically:
a. Respondent failed to provide its Emergency Action Plan to first responders, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(b); and
b. Respondent failed to document annual emergency response coordination activities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c).
Respondent’s failure to coordinate response actions with local emergency planning and response agencies as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.93, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(4), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of thirty-three thousand five hundred nineteen dollars ($33,519).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO