Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for its Stationary Source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the Stationary Source. At its Stationary Source, the Respondent operates a river barge terminal. The facility stores anhydrous ammonia and blends fertilizers for sale to farmers and cooperatives. Anhydrous ammonia is received via barge and rail, stored, and distributed for both direct application and for blending into mixed-grade fertilizers for crop production nutrients. Approximately, a maximum of 18,940,000 pounds of ammonia are on-site at any given time. At its Stationary Source, the Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process which stores or otherwise uses anhydrous ammonia in amounts exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. During calendar year 2014, EPA opened an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation to determine Respondent’s compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at its Stationary Source. As part of this investigation, EPA conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records and equipment on July 24, 2014. The focus of the onsite inspection was to assess the Respondent’s compliance with RMProgram requirements for its covered process.
At the time of the inspection or thereafter, the Respondent could not provide records on the off-site consequence analysis. At the time of the inspection, the Respondent’s process safety information did not contain an evaluation of the consequences of deviation, or the relief system design and design basis.
At the time of the inspection, the Respondent’s ammonia piping did not have labels indicating the pipe contents or direction of flow as required by the American National Standards Institute. Also, some sections of ammonia piping exhibited damaged insulation (i.e., vapor barrier). The Respondent’s piping insulation was not suitably supported or maintained to protect against vapor intrusion and associated moisture induced corrosion.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent’s written operating procedures did not contain procedures that addressed the consequences of deviation, nor procedures that addressed the steps required to avoid deviation.
At the time of the inspection or thereafter, the Respondent could not produce evidence indicating that it provided refresher training every three years to each employee involved in operating the process.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on the facts stipulated above, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions when it:
- Failed to maintain records on the offsite consequence analyses as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39; Failed to include an evaluation of the consequences of deviations in the process safety information as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v);
- Failed to include relief system design and design basis in the process safety information as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
- Failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Failed to address the consequences of deviation in the written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i); Failed to address steps required to correct or avoid deviation in the written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(ii); and
- Failed to provide refresher training at least every three years 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 by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($72,800).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO