On or about January 31, 2023, 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. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent stores, distributes, and sells agricultural products, including anhydrous ammonia, 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 Program 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(h), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to perform an updated hazard review at least once every five years. Specifically, Respondent had not performed a hazard review since October 14, 2013.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the hazard review requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed ensure that the operating procedures were updated at the time of a major change and prior to the startup of the changed process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(c).
Respondent’s failure to comply with the operating procedure requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a compliance audit at least every three years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a). Specifically, Respondent had not performed a compliance audit since May 29, 2013.
Respondent’s failure to conduct a compliance audit at least every three years as required by of 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically, Respondent failed to submit an RMP for the covered processes upon moving the facility to a new location in 2021.
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 5
The EPA inspection revealed that when Respondent moved its covered process to a new location in 2021, it failed to de-register the RMP for its previous facility location.
Respondent’s failure to de-register the RMP pursuant to the requirement of 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(c) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of eighty-two thousand six hundred seventy-seven dollars ($82,677).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO