On or about September 14, 2016, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection (the inspection) of 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’s Facility had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia 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 2 prevention program requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(c), because the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(b) and (d), respectively. Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1
The inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit a single RMP that includes the information required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.155 through 68.185 for the covered process no later than the date on which anhydrous ammonia was first stored above the threshold quantity.
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)(E) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Count 2
The inspection revealed that Respondent failed to include information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(1). Specifically, Respondent submitted an RMP that failed to include the accurate street address of the stationary source.
Respondent’s failure to complete a registration form in the RMP that includes the accurate street address of the stationary source pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(1) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7)(E) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Count 3
The inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement all requirements of the Program 2 prevention steps provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60. Specifically, Respondent failed to ensure that the process was designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R § 68.48(b).
Respondent’s failure to implement all requirements of the Program 2 prevention steps as provided in 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)(E) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(E).
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Fifty-Five Thousand One Hundred Four Dollars ($55,104.00).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO