Respondent owns and operates an anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system facility in Altoona, Iowa (Respondent’s Facility). On or about September 21, 2022, representatives of the EPA inspected 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 over 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its facility.
- Respondent stores and uses anhydrous ammonia for refrigeration at its facility and, therefore, is engaged in a process at its 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, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), 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.
- Subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
- required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d) and detailed in Subpart D.
Allegations of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(a) requires the owner or operator to maintain records of the offsite consequence analyses for worst-case scenarios that include a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as a worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for selection.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent’s offsite consequent analyses failed to include a description of the basis for the worst-case scenario, such as a vessel or pipeline associated with the release and the rationale for the selection. Specifically, page two of Section 4 of Respondent’s Hazard Assessment does not provide a description or basis for the worst-case scenario.
Respondent’s failure to document the description or basis for the worst-case scenario in its offsite consequence analysis per 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) requires the owner or operator to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to manage equipment and technology changes to the covered process. Specifically, Respondent’s Incident Investigation Tracking Log documents the actions it took in response to a July 11, 2019, release at the Facility. These actions included
- the addition of a hot gas soft start to fourteen (14) evaporators on July 18, 2019;
- the installation of safety interlocks for fan operation confirmation during pump out and Logix defrost diagnostics software on December 8, 2019; and
- the installation of remote access to the Logix control system on December 15, 2019.
Respondent did not have written procedures to manage these changes to the process.
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c) requires the owner or operator to document emergency response coordination with local authorities, including
- the names of individuals involved and their contact information (phone number, email address, and organizational affiliations);
- dates of coordination activities; and
- nature of coordination activities
During the EPA inspection, Respondent did not produce documentation demonstrating its annual emergency response coordination with local authorities. Following the inspection, on August 16, 2023, Respondent provided documentation demonstrating emergency coordination with local authorities on January 5, 2020, and December 1, 2022. Respondent did not provide any documentation demonstrating coordination for 2021.
Respondent’s failure to document its emergency response coordination with local authorities for 2021 per 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of one hundred seventy-two thousand five hundred ninety-one dollars ($172,591).
CLICK HERE for CAFO