Respondent’s facilities are located in Missouri. On or about March 30-April 1, 2010, EPA conducted an inspection of the Carthage, Missouri facility to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. On or about September 27-29, 2010, EPA conducted an inspection of the Louisiana, Missouri facility to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information collected during the EPA inspections showed that Respondent had exceeded the threshold quantities for anhydrous ammonia and nitric acid at both facilities. Information collected during the EPA inspection of the Carthage facility showed that Respondent had exceeded the threshold quantity for oleum at that facility.
Sulfuric acid is a hazardous substance as defined by Section 101(14) ofCERCLA, with a reportable quantity of 1,000 pounds as designated by 40 C.F.R. § 302.4. Sulfuric acid is an extremely hazardous substance as defined by Section 329 of EPCRA and as designated pursuant to Section 302(a) of EPCRA and listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Appendix A, with a reportable quantity of 1,000 pounds as listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Appendix A.
On or about May 9, 2012, there was a release of sulfuric acid from Respondent’s Carthage facility in excess of the reportable quantities. Respondent had knowledge of the release on May 9, 2012.
Violations
Risk Management Program
EPA alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the CAA, as follows:
Respondent is subject to Program 3 of the risk management program requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d), the covered processes at its Carthage and Louisiana facilities did not meet the requirements of Program 1 and were subject to the OSHA process safety management standard.
Respondent was required under 40 C.F.R. 68.12, to develop and implement a risk management program for each stationary source that includes a management system, a hazard assessment, a prevention program and an emergency response program, and to submit an RMP.
Information collected during the inspection of Respondent’s Carthage and Louisiana facilities revealed that Respondent failed to develop and implement risk management programs for each facility that complied with all the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Specifically:
COUNT I
Respondent failed to develop and implement a management system as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 for its Carthage facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1).
COUNT II
Respondent failed to implement various prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87 at its Carthage facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), as follows:
(a) Respondent failed to address administrative controls used in the process in its Process Hazard Analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3);
(b) Respondent failed to address the consequences of the failure of administrative controls used in the process in its Process Hazard Analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4);
(c) Respondent failed to document the resolution of the findings and recommendations produced by the Process Hazard Analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
(d) Respondent failed to update and revalidate each Process Hazard Analysis at least every five years after completion of the initial Process Hazard Analysis, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f);
(e) Respondent failed to perform inspections and tests on all process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1);
(f) Respondent failed to follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices when performing inspections and tests on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2);
(g) Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4);
(h) Respondent 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);
(i) Respondent failed to document first-aid for exposure to regulated substances in its emergency response plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(ii); and
(j) Respondent failed to include procedures for the use of emergency response equipment in its emergency response plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2).
COUNT III
Respondent failed to implement various prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R.
§§ 68.65 through 68.87 at its Louisiana facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), as follows:
(a) Respondent failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
(b) Respondent failed to resolve all Process Hazard Analysis findings and document a revised resolution date, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
(c) Respondent failed to document the consequences of deviation in the facility’s written operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i);
(d) Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d); and
Release Reporting
COUNT I
Respondent did not notify the National Response Center of the May 9, 2012, release of sulfuric acid at the Carthage facility as soon as it had knowledge of the release. Respondent’s failure to notify the National Response Center of the release as soon as it had knowledge of the release is a violation of Section 103(a) of CERCLA and of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 302.6.
COUNT II
Respondent did not immediately notify the State Emergency Response Commission or the Local Emergency Planning Committee of the May 9, 2012, release of sulfuric acid at the Carthage facility. Respondent’s failure to immediately notify the State Emergency Response Commission and the Local Emergency Planning Committee of the release is a violation of Section 304(a) of EPCRA and of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C.
Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand, One Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars ($257,167).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO