Respondent owns and operates an agricultural feed, fertilizer, chemical, and grain storage and supply business with two different facilities in Iowa. On March 7, 2016, an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia occurred at one Facility while an employee was replacing a pump near a supply vessel and resulted in injuries to the employee. On or about May 22, 2019, EPA conducted an inspection of both Facilities to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
Respondent was subject to Program 2 prevention requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(g), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(f) and (h), respectively.
Allegations of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not 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) At both Facilities, Respondent failed to ensure that the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b), including incomplete information on emergency signage at both Facilities, inadequate clearance from the bottom of the vessel to the ground at the Bloomfield Facility, and inadequate bulkhead configuration, and nurse tanks located too close to occupied residences at the Blakesburg Facility.
(b) At the Bloomfield Facility, Respondent failed to implement procedures to maintain the ongoing mechanical integrity of the process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a), by not following procedures for replacing ammonia pumps on March 7, 2016, which resulted in an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia and injury to an employee.
(c) At the Bloomfield Facility, Respondent failed to certify appropriate compliance audits at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the rule are adequate and being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a).
Respondent’s failures to 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), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not update the RMP for the Facilities at least once every five years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1). An updated RMP for the Bloomfield and Blakesburg Facilities was due on or before March 4, 2018, but Respondent did not submit updated RMPs until April 26, 2019, and April 30, 2019, respectively.
Respondent’s failures to submit a revised and updated RMP for each Facility at least once every five years as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not correct the emergency contact listed in the RMP for the Bloomfield and Blakesburg Facilities for over one year prior to Respondent’s updated RMP submissions in April 2019.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not correct the RMP for the Bloomfield Facility to include new accident history information within six months of the March 7, 2016, accidental release of anhydrous ammonia described above.
Respondent’s failures to submit a corrected RMP within one month of changes to emergency contact information for covered processes and within six months of an accidental release as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195, violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 4
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent used an incorrect latitude and longitude for the location of the point of release for the Bloomfield Facility when determining offsite impacts to the population.
Respondent’s failure to define offsite impacts to the population by estimating in the RMP the population within a circle with its center at the point of release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(a), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 5
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not update the five-year history in the RMP for the Bloomfield Facility to include the March 7, 2016, accidental release of anhydrous ammonia that resulted in injury to an employee described above.
Respondent did not include the required information about the March 7, 2016, accidental release in the revised RMP or executive summary submitted on April 26, 2019.
Respondent’s failures to include in the RMP and executive summary a five-year accident history of all accidental releases from covered processes that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on-site, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.168 and 68.155(d), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
EPA has considered the appropriateness of the penalty pursuant to Section 113(e)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e)(1), and has determined that based on substantiated ability to pay information, the appropriate penalty for the violations is $37,063 to be paid in monthly installments.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO