Respondent is the owner and operator of the facility where anhydrous ammonia is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. On or about November 15, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with 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 on site greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to the Program 2 prevention requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.10(c), 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.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, to submit a single RMP as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.150(d), RMPs submitted pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.150, shall be updated and corrected in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.190 and 68.195.
Pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.190(b)(1), the owner or operator shall revise and update the RMP submitted under 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update, whichever is later.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1), Respondent was required to revise and update the 2012 RMP submitted under 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 by March 19, 2017.
Respondent failed to submit a revised and updated RMP for Respondent’s Facility by March 19, 2017. Respondent submitted a revised and updated RMP for Respondent’s Facility on January 8, 2018. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), within one month of any change in the emergency contact information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator shall submit a correction of that information.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator is required to include the name, title, telephone number, 24-hour telephone number, and e-mail address of the emergency contact in the RMP.
Information gathered during the EPA Inspection revealed that on or about October 23, 2017, the emergency contact information for Respondent’s facility changed from that included in the 2012 RMP.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), Respondent was required to submit a correction of the emergency contact information by November 23, 2017.
Respondent did not submit corrected emergency contact information by November 23, 2017. Respondent submitted a correction of the emergency contact information on January 8, 2018. Respondent’s late submission of a revised and updated RMP for Respondent’s Facility, and Respondent’s late submission of corrected emergency contact information, pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F .R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), are violations of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(l) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to develop and implement a management system as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 the owner or operator is required to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements.
The EPA Inspection revealed that MRM Ag Services had developed a management system, but Respondent had not updated the management system to reflect the October 2015 change in management and employees responsible to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements at Respondent’s Facility.
Respondent did not implement a management system to reflect the change in management and employees responsible to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements at Respondent’s Facility, pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1), which is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7). Count 3 40 C.F.R. 68.12(c)(2) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a) the owner or operator shall review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years.
The EPA Inspection revealed that the facility conducted offsite consequence analyses in March 2012.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a), Respondent was required to review and update the March 2012 offsite consequence analyses by March 2017.
Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not review and update the March 2012 off-site consequence analyses by March 2017.
Respondent reviewed and updated the March 2012 offsite consequence analyses on December 5, 2017.
Respondent’s late review and update of the offsite consequence analyses by March 2017, pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a), 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
40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60.
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 did not ensure that the process was designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices in that the storage site did not include emergency signage meeting the specifications set forth in 6.8 of the ANSI-CGA 2.1-2014 standard, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b);
(b) Respondent did not conduct an updated review of the hazards associated with the regulated process within five years of the hazard review conducted by MRM Ag Services on November 30, 2011, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(d);
(c) Respondent did not certify that it evaluated compliance with the Program 2 prevention requirements within three years of the compliance audit conducted in November 2014, and did not retain the compliance audit report from the November 2014 compliance audit, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58.
Respondent did not comply with 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), which are violations 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 One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($114,450)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO