On or about August 10, 2018, representatives of the EPA conducted an 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 had the capacity to store 650,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility, and regularly stored greater than 300,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at the 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 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.lO(g), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.l0(f) and (h), respectively.
On November 2, 2016, an onsite anhydrous ammonia release occurred which resulted in an injury to a worker at their site. The worker received an ammonia burn to his hand and received medical treatment.
On May 16, 2017, a release of ammonia occurred Respondent’s facility. Information reported in a local newspaper article stated that a citizen had smelled and observed an ammonia cloud, and the Webster County sheriffs department had responded and closed the road near the facility, and the local Badger volunteer fire department was dispatched as first responders. The cause of the release was determined to be leak from a fill valve on a nurse tank.
Allegations of Violations
Count 1 – Failure to update and maintain a management system
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that Respondent had failed to update and maintain a management system for oversight and implementation of the risk management program elements as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a)-(c). Specifically, the management system and organizational chart provided by Respondent listed an individual listed who was no longer responsible for the site, with no other designated lines of authority for any other individual.
Respondent’s failure to update and maintain a management system for oversight and implementation of the risk management program elements per 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.15(a).
Count 2 – Failure to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that the Facility’s process was not designed or maintained in conformance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.48(b ). Specifically, EPA found:
- an inoperable emergency shutoff cable on supply vessel (ANSI/CGA G-2.1, para 5 .10.8.1 ),
- inadequate emergency signage (para 6.8),
- a vessel needing corrosion protection (para 5.12), and
- an illegible data plate on a 26,000-gallon ammonia storage vessel (para 5.4.1).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that Respondent had failed to update the Facility’s hazard review document at least every five years as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(d): The update on file during the EPA’s inspection was dated February 13, 2018, and the prior update was November 16, 2012 (5 years and 3 months).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that Respondent had failed to prepare a report or conduct an investigation for the November 2016 ammonia release, as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.60(a)-(g). Because of the worker injury, the November 2016 accident met the requirements for a reportable accident for the RMP set forth at 40 C.F.R.§ 68.42(a).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that Respondent had failed to acknowledge or record the May 2017 incident in the Facility’s RMP. Because the May 2017 release resulted in a response by first-responders (sheriff, deputy and local fire department) and could have resulted in a catastrophic release, the May 2017 incident required investigation, as set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.60(a).
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as described above and as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3).
Count 3 – Failure to update RMP’s accident history and to correct RMP to reflect accidents
Respondent failed to include the accident that occurred on November 2, 2016 in the RMP’s five-year accident history and failed to document any of the required information as specified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.42.
Respondent failed to submit a correction to the Facility’s RMP, based on new accident history information. Specifically, the facility had an RMP-reportable accident on November 2, 2016 but did not update their RMP within six months of the accident, in violation of 40 C.F.R.§ 68.195(a).
Respondent’s failures to update the Facility’s RMP’s accident history and to correct the RMP to reflect accidents, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.42 and 68.195(a).
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent/Respondents shall pay a civil penalty of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), as set forth below, and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) as set forth in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The projected cost of the SEP is Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000). The SEP is further described below.
Supplemental Environmental Project
Respondent shall complete the following SEP, for installing electronic emergency shut off devices at a number (estimated at 13 facilities) of Respondent New Cooperative’s anhydrous ammonia facilities (See Appendix A to this Consent Agreement and Final Order). The SEP shall cost at least Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000). Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within Twelve (12) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO