Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that stores and circulates anhydrous ammonia through two refrigeration systems at its facility and, therefore, is engaged in a process at its facility.
On or about September 13, 2023, a representative of the EPA conducted an inspection of 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 greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia 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 the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 68.10(1), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.119.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1 — Hazard Assessment
The EPA inspection revealed that the Respondent failed to conduct the Program 3 hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. 60.20 through 68.42. When the Respondent was asked during the inspection if it had undertaken a hazard assessment, facility representatives were unable to recall conducting one.
Respondent’s failures to comply with the hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. violate Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 74120.
Count 2 — Program 3 Prevention Requirements
The EPA inspection revealed that the Respondent failed to implement the prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. 68.65 through 68.87. Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to evaluate the consequences of deviation in its written process safety information, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.65(c)(1)(v). Respondent could not locate the consequences of the deviation documentation.
(b) Respondent failed to include material and energy balances for processes built after June 21, 1999, in its written process safety information, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.65(d)(1)(vii). Respondent could not locate the material and energy balance calculation documentation.
(c) Respondent failed to ensure and document that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.65(d)(2), as evidenced by:
(i) Numerous examples of excessive ice buildup on piping and equipment and/or frozen equipment.
(ii) Numerous examples of deterioration and/or corrosion of piping and equipment, including rust formation.
(iii) Numerous examples of deteriorating equipment labels.
(iv) Numerous examples of compromised insulation, some of which is held in place with tape.
(v) Missing National Fire Protection Association hazard (704) diamonds, which identify and rank the hazards of a material, on a machine room door.
(d) Respondent failed to perform an initial process hazard analysis (hazard evaluation) on processes, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.67(a). Facility representatives could not recall conducting a process hazard analysis.
(e) Respondent failed to address the consequences of deviation and the steps required to correct or avoid deviation in the development and implementation of written operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.69(a)(2). Respondent could not locate documentation conveying the consequences of deviating from safe upper and lower operating limits.
(f) Respondent failed to perform a pre-startup safety review (PSSR) for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.77(a). Respondent could not produce an initial PSSR for its 1999 system or a PSSR for the 2017/2018 additions to its 1999 refrigeration system.
Respondent failed to certify that it evaluated compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D, at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under Subpart D are adequate and are being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.79(a). Respondent stated no compliance audit had occurred.
Count 3 — Emergency Response
The EPA inspection revealed that the Respondent failed to implement the emergency response requirements of 40 C.F.R. 68.90 through 68.96. Specifically, the Respondent failed to document coordination with local authorities as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.93(c). The respondent indicated that it conducted an emergency notification exercise, but could not produce any documentation for the exercise, such as a sign-in sheet or an email inviting the local fire department.
Respondent’s failures to comply with the emergency response requirement of 40 C.F.R. 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.12(d)(5), violate Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 74126).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of eighty-five thousand, nine hundred fifty-six dollars ($85,956).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO