Respondent owns and operates a refrigerated juice facility. On July 10, 2000, under Section 112(r) of the Act and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA an RMP for the Facility. According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA, the Facility is “frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing”. They use anhydrous ammonia as a process chemical during its operations and held at least 10,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia. On September 6, 2011, U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at the facility to determine its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. For purposes of compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68 in its RMP, Respondent has acknowledged that it was required to meet Program 3 eligibility requirements. Based on the inspection conducted on September 6, 2011 and a review of additional information received by U.S. EPA subsequent to that date, it has identified the following alleged violations:
- Failure to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.15(a).
- Failure to document other persons responsible for implementing individual requirements of the risk management program and define the lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.15(c).
- Failure to review and update the off-site consequence analyses at least once every five years, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.36(a).
- Failure to maintain records on the offsite consequence analysis for
- the worst-case scenario that includes a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for selection;
- assumptions shall include use of any administrative controls and any passive mitigation that were assumed to limit the quantity that could be released.
- Documentation shall include the anticipated effect of the controls and mitigation on the release quantity and rate, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.39(a).
- Failure to maintain records on the offsite consequence analysis for
- the alternative release scenarios that includes a description of the scenarios identified, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios;
- assumptions shall include any administrative controls and any mitigation that were assumed to limit the quantity that could be released.
- Documentation shall include the effect of the controls and mitigation on the release quantity and rate, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(b).
- Failure to maintain records on the offsite consequence analyses that includes the data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e).
- Failure to compile written process safety information pertaining to the technology of the process that includes maximum intended inventory, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.65(c)(1)(iii).
- Failure to compile written process safety information for the equipment in the process that contains the ventilation system design, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.65(d)(l)(v).
- Failure to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.65(d)(2).
- Failure to
- establish a system to promptly address the Process Hazard Analysis team’s findings and recommendations,
- assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented;
- document what actions are to be taken;
- complete actions as soon as possible;
- develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and
- communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
- Failure to retain Process Hazard Analysis and updated or revalidations for each process covered, as well as the resolution of recommendations for the life of the process, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.67(g).
- Failure to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide instructions or steps for conducting activities associated with each covered process consistent with safety information and that address safety systems and their functions, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.69(a)(4).
- Failure to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate and that procedures have been reviewed as often as necessary, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.69(c).
- Failure to
- provide refresher training 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, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.71(b).
- Failure to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required and to prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of the training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.71(c).
- Failure to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.73(b).
- Failure to ensure that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment is consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations, good engineering practices, and prior operating experience, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.73(d)(3).
- Failure to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment, which identifies the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.73(d)(4).
- Failure to certify that the stationary source has evaluated compliance with the provisions of the prevention program at least every three years to verify that the developed procedures and practices are adequate and being followed, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.79(a).
- Failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.79(e).
- Failure to document training for all employees in relevant emergency response procedures, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.95(a)(3).
- Failure to submit correct emergency contact information within one month of a change, as required under40 C.F.R. §68.195(b).
Based on an analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and other factors such as cooperation and prompt compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $ 96,000.00.
CLICK HERE to download the agreement.